I beg to move a new Standing Order, giving to the Councils the right to appear and oppose Private Bills. At the present moment Town Councils and Local Boards have a locus standi to oppose any Private Bill which, in their opinion, injuriously affects their locality, and my proposition is that, subject to the decision of the Court of Referees, the County Councils should have the same privilege.

I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Standing Order, nor the Standing Order which is to follow, but I think it is right the House should understand exactly what is proposed to be done. It is quite true that this Motion follows very much the lines of the Standing Order which applies to municipal towns, but there is a substantial difference to which I think attention ought to be called. Under the Local Government Act the County Councils are invested with many of the privileges of municipal towns, but they have no authority in respect to the water of a town, except to prevent the pollution of a river. The only question at issue is whether a County Council should have a right to appear in opposition to a Bill which may affect a particular district of a county, and it is proposed to leave it to the Court of Referees to say whether the County Council has a locus standi. At present the locus standi must depend upon the possession of a right or interest, and the Local Government Act does not give to the County Councils a right or interest in respect of the water of a county. Early this Session the question arose as to the right of County Councils to appear in opposition to a Water Bill which affected the interests of the county, and the Court of Referees, after considerable argument and not without some difference of opinion, came to the conclusion that the Councils had no locus standi. The locus standi must depend upon a right, and a County Council has no general right of supervision, control, and management of the water supply of the county. Therefore, to admit them to a locus standi would be to give them a right and interest which Parliament has not given. I am not prepared to deny that there may be cases in which it is not only convenient, but proper, that a County Council should be able to appear for the county beyond the interest of an Urban and Local Authority. But if we are to give this right, it should be understood that we are deliberately giving, by a Standing Order, what Parliament itself has refrained from giving. As to the second Standing Order which the hon. Member proposes to move, and which alleges that the administrative county may be injuriously affected by the provisions of a Bill relating to the water supply of any town or district, I think they ought to be entitled to be heard against the Bill.

As Chairman of the Court of Referees on ordinary occasions, I have very little to add to what has been stated by the Chairman of Committees, but I think it is only right to remind the House that the proposed Standing Order would apply not only to Water Bills, to which he has specially referred, but to Railway and all other Private Bills alleged injuriously to affect the county. It would be a new function for County Councils, but I see no reason why they should not be admitted to be heard against any such Bill, subject to the judgment of the Court of Referees, as to whether the alleged injury is of such a nature and degree as to justify the intervention.

, who was imperfectly heard in the Gallery, was understood to support the proposed Standing Order.

I understood when the Local Government Bill was passing through the House that the President of the Local Government Board promised to consider this question. I should be glad to learn what the result of that consideration has been.

I do not remember having given any undertaking of the kind referred to by the hon. Member, but as far as the Government are concerned they have no objection to offer to the proposed Standing Order.

I beg now to move a new Standing Order entitling County Councils to be heard against Bills dealing with water supply. In so important a matter as the pollution of water, I think that any County Council whose district is likely to be injuriously affected should have the right to be heard. I am aware that the proposed Standing Order differs in some degree from the existing Standing Order in regard to the rights of Local Boards, but I think it docs so rightly, inasmuch as the area of a county is much larger. A stream may have its source in one county and flow through another. I hope the House will agree to the proposal.

The difference between this and the previous Standing Order is that this relates to water only, and is not permissive but imperative, taking the question altogether out of the jurisdiction of the Court of Referees. Urban Local Authorities have such a right to be heard, and what this Standing Order does, is to place County Councils in as good a position. They are certainly the natural defenders of the interests of the county as a whole, and where there are matters that require joint action, such as the interests of small towns and villages, the county may well protect them. Therefore, if it is to remain imperative upon the Court of Referees to admit Urban Authorities to be heard as regards water supply, I think the same privilege may well be enjoyed by the County Councils.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to read a Petition to the House, upon which is founded the opposition that I shall endeavour to lead to-morrow against these Bills. It is from the timber importers of Hull. It is as follows. [The hon. Member was proceeding to read the Petition, but was interrupted by loud cries of "Order."]

Order, order! The usual practice is for an hon. Member to state the substance of a Petition he presents, unless he desires it to be read by the Clerk at the Table.

I am sorry, Sir, but I asked you whether I should read the Petition, and you said "Yes."

Order, order! I called upon the hon. Member to present the Petition, not to read it.

Well, I would rather the Clerk should read it, than read it myself.

Order, order!

I had given notice of my intention to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India has had under his consideration the advisability of taking some steps to accelerate the present slow rate of promotion of officers of the Indian Staff Corps; if not, whether he will give early consideration to the subject; and whether he is in a position to make any communication to the House as to the views of the Government of India on this matter? As I do not see the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary in his place, may I ask whether any other Member of the Government is prepared to answer the question?

Then, as there is no Minister present who is instructed to answer the question, I will defer it until to-morrow.

In the absence of the Under Secretary of State for India I beg to postpone the question of which I have given notice—To ask whether the Secretary of State is aware that Mr. Slater, a junior barrister, has been appointed by the Bombay Government to act as Chief Residency Magistrate at Bombay; and whether Mr. Slater is duly qualified, according to the regulations, to hold this appointment?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the sum of money to be devoted to the old Crimean and Indian soldiers will also be applicable to the Land Transport Corps who served before the fall of Sebastopol?

The Land Transport Corps who served in the Crimean and Indian Campaigns would have a claim to generous treatment as other soldiers who served in the same campaign.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any Reports made to the Board by County Councils in England and Wales on the subject of the alterations in county boundaries proposed by the Boundary Commissioners?

Nearly all the County Councils of counties in England and Wales which would be affected by the alterations in county boundaries proposed by the Boundary Commissioners have made Reports to the Local Government Board on the subject. The representations affecting each county have already, almost without exception, been communicated to the County Councils interested, and the proposals as regards the parishes comprised in different Unions have also in almost every instance been communicated to the Boards of Guardians, and have been considered by them. Publicity has, therefore, been given to the representations, and the Board have no reason to doubt that those interested in the question have full information on the subject. As the Return would be a voluminous and costly one, my hon. Friend will not, I trust, under the circumstances which I have mentioned, think it necessary that a Return should be presented.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in the Return ordered to be printed on the 7th July, 1891, showing the number of electors on the register in each Parliamentary constituency, in the cases of upwards of 200 county divisions in England and Wales the numbers of electors returned include not only such duplicates as were usual before the passing of the Local Government Act in 1888, but also duplicates of voters on the ownership lists whose names are also included for County Council purposes on the occupation lists, and are marked §; and that these duplicate names so marked are in many cases 10 per cent. or more of the total number of voters given in the Return; and whether, inasmuch as it would be easy for the Returning Officers to count the names so marked and to deduct them from the total number, he will give such instructions as will remedy this alleged inaccuracy in making out future Returns?

I cannot answer for the accuracy of the figures and proportions cited by the hon. Member, but I have given instructions that in future Returns of this kind names against which an asterisk or mark is placed in pursuance of Section 7, Subsection 5, of the County Electors Act, 1888, shall, if possible, be excluded.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will be good enough to state the conclusions of the authorities with respect to admission to Holyrood Palace?

The question of the fees charged for admission to Holyrood Palace has been considered, as I promised, in conjunction with the permanent officers of the Office of Works in London and Edinburgh. On the whole, up to the present, the information furnished to me leads me to think that the abolition of the fee would be of very little advantage to any individuals, and might give rise to a system of touts and touting, which would be much more objectionable than the small charge involved in the present system. A proposal for adding another free day would present fewer objections, and is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received communications from the proprietor of the Island of North Uist and others, complaining of the inefficiency of the local and internal postal services; and whether he can state the annual postal revenue from the island, and the cost of these internal services?

I have received communications on this subject from the proprietor of the island, and I have caused replies to be sent explaining in much detail the reasons against altering the existing internal postal service. There has not been time to ascertain exactly how the revenue from the corre- spondence of the island compares with the expenditure, but the information shall be obtained and furnished to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Bushmills Old Distillery Company made an application to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to store whisky temporarily in a warehouse situated in the Market Place, Bushmills; whether he is aware that the warehouses in the distillery are already filled to their utmost capacity; and whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have acceded to this request; and, if not, will he explain why?

I am informed that the Board of Inland Revenue has acceded to the request of the company for an additional warehouse which they require for a limited period until other warehouses are completed.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has taken, or intends to take, any steps to bring about an arrangement with the Porte for the commutation of the annual payment of £92,800 now due from Cyprus to the creditors of the Porte, and an arrange-with France to pay off the Guaranteed Pour Per Cent. Loan of 1855, and to raise the money on cheaper terms?

The question of the hon. Member describes the tribute of Cyprus as duo to the creditors of the Porte. So far as the Government is concerned, their obligation is to the Porte, and not to its creditors. I mention this lest some misapprehension should arise from my taking no notice of this suggestion in the question. With regard to the substance of the question, the times have not been propitious for either of the two operations specified by the hon. Member, and I can make no declaration at all as to what I might ultimately be able to do.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Secretary of State has considered the statement made in Colonial Report No. 108 (Trinidad and Tobago), page 35, by Mr. Commissioner Hay, on the subject of heliographic and telegraphic communication between the two islands; and, seeing that the former system has failed on trial, he will now sanction and advise that telegraphic communication be forthwith established between them, and thus facilitate the proper carrying on of the government of the two islands under one administration, as directed by Order in Council, 17th November, 1888?

The importance of establishing telegraphic communication with Tobago has not been overlooked, and it is hoped that the Revenue of that island may, before long, be able to bear the cost.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the 6-inch gun, which recently burst with such disastrous results on board H.M.S. Cordelia, was of same pattern as the 6-inch gun which burst on board H.M.S. Active, in 1882 or 1883, during her gun trials at Spithead; whether any steps were afterwards taken to strengthen the remaining guns of same pattern; whether the Cordelia's gun had been so strengthened; whether the naval experts made any representation on the subject, or expressed themselves as satisfied with the guns when so strengthened; and whether, in view of the naval feeling on the subject outside the Admiralty, their Lordships will direct that a certain percentage of the remaining guns of this pattern be tested to bursting point, in order to restore confidence in those remaining, or else that they may be withdrawn from service afloat?

Yes; the gun was of the same pattern, but the Active's gun burst in the chase, and not near the breech as in this case. These guns were ordered, in 1882, to be chase-hooped as they came in for repair, and pending such strengthening they were only to be fired with a reduced charge. The Cordelia's guns had not been so strengthened, but the recent accident could not have been prevented by this means, as the gun went near the breech. I am not aware that any representation was made by naval experts upon the structure or strength of this particular mark of gun, but the Ordnance Committee (which included naval officers), in April, 1882, recommended that no more guns of this mark should be manufactured. The experiment of testing the endurance of this design of gun was tried in 1882, and a gun was continuously fired with 400 battering charges, and the firing was only ceased when the gun failed to rotate the projectiles. Looking to the fact that this gun is of an inferior design to that of the guns subsequently made of the same calibre, I have made arrangements by which the guns of this mark will be immediately replaced by those of a later date in all ships except those about to be relieved. This change can be effected without in any way interfering with the supply of guns for ships now building or coming on for commission.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State has considered the recommendation of the Acting Governor of St. Helena, in No. 118, Colonial Reports, page 17, as to receiving Imperial assistance towards meeting the expenses of the Government, especially in the matter of the salary of the Governor, in view of the fact that the inhabitants are suffering from the general depression caused by the diversion of ship traffic to the East, from the Cape route to the Suez Canal, whereby the number of vessels calling at the island has fallen from 853 in 1869, to 288 in 1889; and, seeing that the island is held solely for Imperial purposes, and that the revenue is insufficient for local requirements, will the Secretary of State be prepared to ask Parliament for a grant in aid as formerly?

The recommendation has been considered, and Lord Knutsford has been in communication with the Treasury upon the subject; but he is not prepared to recommend that Parliament should be asked at present for any assistance.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the larger steamer that has been put on the Strome-Stornoway route by the mail contractor takes on an average a longer time than the smaller one previously used; whether, of late, the time used on the voyage has been weekly increasing; whether she is an old boat with defective boilers that cannot stand sufficient steam pressure; whether she frequently misses the 5.45. a.m. train from Strome, and so causes serious loss to fish curers and merchants in having their fish forwarded to the southern markets; why the time of departure for Stornoway has been altered from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. which causes the 5.45. a.m. train to be missed; whether he knows that her being allowed to call at Portree means a loss of three hours for passengers to or from Stornoway; and whether he will put sufficient pressure on the mail contractor to induce him to give an efficient and suitable service on this line?

The mail steamer now serving Stornoway is not a new one, but I have no reason to believe that she is inefficient either from age or imperfect condition. She is a much larger steamer than the one formerly employed, and affords improved passenger accommodation. When the time for the voyage is exceeded, I am informed that the delay arises in a great measure from causes not within the contractor's control. The Harbour Commissioners of Stornoway offer no adequate facilities for landing the mails, though requested to do so, and during the fishing season there has been much difficulty in this respect. It is true that the steamer, on the inward voyage from Stornoway to Strome, has frequently missed the 5.45 a.m. train at Strome. This has arisen from her being detained on the outward journey from Strome to Stornoway by the late arrival of the mail train, and this delay again is occasioned by the late working of the train in the opposite direction, the line of railway being single and the fish traffic heavy. It was hoped that by altering the hour of departure—not from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m., but from 10 a.m. to 11 p.m.—the connection with the early morning train from Strome would be secured; but so far, for the reasons given, this expectation has not been realised. It is on rare occasions that this steamer calls at Portree, and then only by special permission, which is not granted unless it appears necessary on public grounds. No doubt passengers are delayed on such occasions; but, so far as the arrival of the mails at Stornoway is concerned, no public inconvenience has arisen. The hon. Member may rest assured that no opportunity will be lost of securing as efficient a performance as possible of this Service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will obtain from the Committee of Head Masters permission to publish their confidential Memorandum on the subject of examinations for the Army; and whether he will in, future, decline to correspond with this Committee on public matters except upon the understanding that the correspondence may, if it is thought necessary, be published?

The War Department benefits by receiving in confidence a free expression of the views of the Head Masters; and it would militate seriously against that freedom if the idea gained ground that such Reports might subsequently be made public. It follows that I am not prepared to comply with the suggestion in the second paragraph of the question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that an examination of the last Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India shows the total number of places licensed for the sale of opium in the Indian Empire to be 11,244; and whether that number is correct, or the statement he made on 25th June, when he gave the total number of licences as 8,834?

The Secretary of State considers this question is based upon some error of computation. The moral and material progress Report shows no such total as that which is indicated in the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a single person has yet been proceeded against by the police for any riotous or illegal conduct on the occasion of the Silksworth baton charge on 25th February last, although numerous persons wounded in that charge have commenced civil actions for damages against Superintendent Oliver and other policemen; whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on 7th April, Mr. Brewis laid informations against Police Constables Reed and Hodgson for perjury alleged to have been committed on 21st March, Mr. Storey, M.P., being one of the witnesses; and that thereupon, on 10th April, Police Constable Snaith, who was not present at Newport Farm, laid an information against Mr. Storey for perjury alleged to have been committed on 7th, March, 34 days before; that the summons against Mr. Storey was granted by Mr. C. J. Briggs, a County Magistrate, in the absence of the Magistrates' clerk, and made returnable to the County Bench in opposition to the unbroken practice since Sunderland obtained a Borough Bench 50 years ago; whether he is aware that Mr. Storey, having been committed by the County Justices, a Divisional Court quashed the committal with costs against the said Justices; after which a second summons against Mr. Storey was granted by two Borough Magistrates, and that on that occasion Mr. Strachan, the counsel for the prosecutors, stated that the prosecution was retaliatory; whether he is aware that, on 9th July, a Borough Bench, consisting of the usual rota, unanimously dismissed the summons without calling on Mr. Storey's counsel; that Snaith demanded to be bound over under the Vexatious Indictments Act, and was so bound, the Magistrates having no option; and that, on 17th, July, Mr. Strachan, the counsel for the prosecution, offered, in open Court, to withdraw the charge against Mr. Storey if the civil actions against the police were abandoned, and although, this was declined, Mr. Strachan nevertheless withdrew the charge; and whether the Home Secretary will grant an open inquiry into the conduct of the Magistrates and the police, and all the circumstances of the case?

I am informed by the Chief Constable that no person has been proceeded against by the police in connection with the proceedings at Sunderland of February 25 last. Civil actions for damages are pending, as I am informed, against members of the police force. The informations for perjury were laid on the dates mentioned in the question. The summons against the hon. Member for Sunderland was granted by Mr. Briggs, a County Magistrate, the deputy clerk, who is a solicitor, being present. The Magistrate's clerk informs me that the summons was made returnable to the County Bench because it was a charge arising out of a case heard by County Magistrates, and was therefore considered a county case, and, as such, returnable to the County Bench according to the usual practice. The Divisional Court quashed the committal, with costs against the Justices, on the ground that they had refused to allow the Borough Magistrates to sit with them in the adjudication. A second summons was then granted against the hon. Member by the Borough Bench. I am informed by the clerk to the Borough Justices that the counsel for the prosecution expressed his own opinion that it was to be regretted that all such proceedings had not been allowed to drop when the strike was finished, but, as proceedings were commenced by other parties, his client was bound to proceed. The Borough Bench unanimously "dismissed the summons, and Snaith demanded to be bound over, a similar course having been pursued in the charge of perjury against Inspector Dobson, which had also been dismissed by the Borough Bench. I have seen a newspaper account of the proceedings before the Judge of Assize, from which I infer (and this is confirmed by the Chief Constable, who was present in Court) that both charges, that against the police and that of the police against the hon. Member for Sunderland, were withdrawn in deference to a suggestion of the learned Judge himself, and with the entire concurrence of counsel engaged on both sides. The initiative did not proceed from Mr. Strachan, as suggested in the question. I do not see any ground for inquiry into the conduct of the Magistrates. The County Magistrates were no doubt wrong, in point of law, in the decision they came to as to this exclusive jurisdiction. But when they had had the opportunity of obtaining better legal advice, they did, by their counsel, before the Divisional Court, explain that they had acted upon the advice of their clerk on a point which was new to them, and expressed their regret at the mistake they had made. I see no reason to doubt their good faith. With regard to the Durham police, actions are pending against them which would be prejudiced by any inquiry at this time, and the proper persons to inquire, if inquiry be ultimately thought desirable with regard to the public advantage and to the good of the neighbourhood, are the Standing Joint Committee of the county.

I wish to draw attention to one point which the right hon. Gentleman has omitted to answer. Is it not the fact that, when the case came before the Assizes, counsel appearing for the police, in the first instance, offered to withdraw the charge against Mr. Storey on condition of the civil action being abandoned, and that it was only on the counsel for the accused declining to do so that the charge was entirely withdrawn?

I can only judge by the newspaper report, which states that after a suggestion had been made by the Judge, and after the hon. Member for the Brigg Division (Mr. Waddy), who appeared for Mr. Storey, had acceded to it, the counsel who represented the police offered also to withdraw the charge against Mr. Storey. Mr. Strachan said he withdrew it unreservedly, and urged that byegones should be byegones. That, no doubt, involved a proposition that everything should cease, but afterwards the charge against Mr. Storey was unreservedly withdrawn.

I wish to be permitted to suggest that something else followed, namely—

"Mr. Strachan said: I shall call no evidence against Mr. Storey, on the understanding that all the other proceedings will also be stayed.

Mr. Waddy: You mean the civil proceedings?—Certainly not. We are prepared to go on with this case.

Whereupon Mr. Strachan said: Very well, I will withdraw the charge unreservedly. I offer no evidence."

It would be extremely improper to use the Criminal Law in order to secure a withdrawal of civil actions; but I may point out that the newspaper report with which I have been furnished is not in accordance with what the hon. Member has just read.

What is the newspaper the right hon. Gentleman has been furnished with?

The Durham County Advertiser. It has been furnished to me by the Chief Inspector. The report contains the passage which I have read.

I was present in Court, and heard what was said.

I am prepared to raise this question in the House either by moving the adjournment or by making a personal explanation, but I am extremely unwilling that there should be any heat or controversy in the House on a matter personal to myself, as there would be if I were to move the adjournment. I prefer, therefore, after consulting with Mr. Speaker, to make a brief personal statement on a matter sufficiently notorious and which recently affected not only my personal liberty but the character which I had won by 30 years of public life. I do not at all assume that a Member of Parliament ought to be treated with more favour than another man, but, on the other hand, neither do I think the Criminal Law ought to be used as an engine of oppression against a Member of Parliament. The charge brought against me was that I had been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury. I will not enter into the circumstances. I will not take the trouble to deny on the floor of this House that that charge was true, or that it had any truth in it. What I want is to enlist the sense of fairness, which has always distinguished this House, while I state the exact circumstances of the charge. It was brought in respect of an action of mine which took place 34 days before, and it was not brought until actions had been commenced against the police by persons who thought they were aggrieved. The Chief Superintendent did not make the charge; the Superintendents of Police had not the manliness to make it, but they put forward an ordinary policeman who was not present during the circumstances at all; he knew nothing about them; and yet this man was put up to go to the Court and swear that he knew I had been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury. It was a police prosecution, but they did not venture to take the money out of the county funds. They went to private persons—the owner of the colliery, the Marquess of Londonderry—for the money wherewith to prosecute me; and, finally, they insisted, instead of taking it to the Borough Bench, on sending it to the County Bench, which had no jurisdiction whatever in the matter except in conjunction with the Borough Magistrates. I shall say nothing about the proceedings before the County Bench. The whole world is aware of them. They committed me for trial, and the Court of Queen's Bench held that it was illegal. When the second summons was issued against me the counsel for the prosecution distinctly stated that it was applied for because civil actions had been brought by me as the defendant in the case against the police. That is the point to which I desire particularly to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman exactly what was said, because fortunately I have a shorthand note of it. Before the second hearing the Chief Constable had offered to compound the charge against me and to withdraw any reflection upon my character if the civil actions against the police were withdrawn. The Chief Constable made that offer in a letter to an hon. Member of this House. [An hon. MEMBER: What name?] I do not want to give names. I, of course, indignantly rejected the idea of any compromise, and I think the Home Secretary ought to take cognizance of such a suggestion on the part of the police as that. If it was a bonâ fide criminal charge against me, the police were not doing their duty in trying to compound it. The matter came in due course before the Borough Magistrates, and I must say, in justification of the Borough Magistrates, that it was not a packed Bench, but there was this remarkable fact—that while on the first occasion there were 13 witnesses against me, on the second hearing there were only seven, the other six being witnesses who had on the first hearing given evidence more or less in support of my view. Therefore the prosecution did not again produce them. When the matter came before an unprejudiced tribunal it was speedily dismissed, without any one being called upon to say a word on my behalf. And then what happened? It only shows the hardship of the case. As soon as the case was dismissed, this ordinary policeman applied to be and was bound over to prosecute under the Vexatious Indictments Act. I, as the defendant, had no power to prevent the policeman from doing so; the Magistrates had no option in the matter, and therefore I was subjected to the indignity of being compelled to attend the Assizes in order to meet the charge that was brought against me. Well, the case came on at the Assizes, and what happened there? The learned Judge expressed his opinion, after reading the depositions, that the case had better be stopped. The counsel for the prosecution—Mr. Strachan—thereupon in open Court suggested a compromise, which appears to have been in his mind from the first, and offered to withdraw from the prosecution if the civil actions against the police were withdrawn. That proposal I declined to accept, and the case against me was then unreservedly withdrawn. The Home Secretary told the House that the newspaper reports did not contain this statement. Now, I know what newspaper reports are, and, fortunately for myself, I had taken means to supply myself with a verbatim shorthand note. The charge, I say, was unreservedly withdrawn; but I have been subjected for three or four months to intense annoyance, to much pain of mind and body, and to much discredit in the eyes of people who did not know the facts. What is my remedy? I could commence an action for damages against the policeman Snaith. That is to say that Colonel White, the two Inspectors, and Lord Londonderry, who combined in the matter or found the money for the criminal proceedings, will escape scot free. I have no power over them, and if I want a remedy I can only go against the policeman. I think the House will agree with me that the whole proceeding is monstrously mean and most unfair. I have nothing more to say in regard to the matter. I thank you, Sir, for having allowed me to make these remarks, and I thank the House for having listened to them. I have never condescended to deny these charges, and I will not do so now. If any hon. Member can conceive that I would commit wilful perjury or say what I knew to be untrue, even if I were not on oath, he is welcome to his opinion. I have been a Member of the House for more than 11 years, and I hope, please God, to be a Member of it for some years to come. However much hon. Members may differ from me politically, I hope that they believe me to be a man who would stand to his opinion and who would stick to the truth, and would not commit wilful perjury. I think that I have stated some things which call for the interference of the Home Secretary, because, although the police are not under his control, if the right hon. Gentleman would give me the opportunity I will prove up to the hilt that the police in the County of Durham have used the law as an instrument of oppression against me in order to get civil actions against themselves abated.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any, and if so what, steps have been taken to provide a new school in place of the National School, at Kineton (Warwickshire), which was condemned by Her Majesty's Inspector in July, 1890; whether the Department has received satisfactory assurances that the necessary funds for building will be provided by voluntary subscriptions; and, if so, when the new school will be ready for use; and whether, if such assurances have not been given, the Department will adopt the procedure laid down in the Education Acts for the compulsory supply of schools?

Plans for a new school were finally approved on the 5th of June, and the Department have no reason to doubt that the necessary funds will be forthcoming, particularly as, upon a recent poll of the parish, the ratepayers rejected a resolution in favour of a School Board by more than two to one.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the scheme of the charity known as the Wesleyan Day School in the Borough of Scarborough, and more particularly to Clause 3 of the scheme, which provides that the balance of the net proceeds of the sale of the school

"Shall be invested, and the income thereof applied in granting rewards or prizes to deserving children resident in Scarborough who attend a public elementary school, and who are also regular attendants at some Wesleyan Sunday school;"

The Department have not advised the Home Secretary to attach such a condition to the sale in question, seeing that the proceeds are to be dealt with, as near as possible, within the terms of the original trust, under a scheme which has been approved by the Charity Commissioners.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of giving instructions that, in future Returns of the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom, galvanised sheets, which constitute a trade by themselves, shall be entered as a separate item instead of being included, as at present, under the heading of "hoops, sheets, and boiler and armour plates"?

The exports of galvanised sheets are already shown separately in the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom; but I will refer to the Revising Committee, which meets in the Autumn, the question whether galvanised sheets can be separately entered in the monthly accounts of trade without unduly adding to the bulk of that publication.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the Daily News of Tuesday:—

"The new Chilian cruiser Presidente Errazuriz, which arrived at Falmouth several days ago from Havre, is still in Falmouth Harbour, and her captain seems to have had considerable difficulty in obtaining a crew. On Saturday about 30 men who had been engaged at Plymouth by one of the officers, arrived at Falmouth. They included engineers, stokers, and ordinary seamen, and one of the men stated yesterday that after the engineers went on board, they refused to sign articles on the ground that part of the agreement, which was that the whole of the men should receive a month's pay in advance, had not been fulfilled. They also stated that, with the exception of the chief engineer, all the engineers on board had been put in irons, and, on hearing this, the other men refused to join the ship";

I have seen the statement. Her Majesty's Government have not interfered, as the Foreign Enlistment Act does not apply to the case, and Her Majesty's Government have no power in the matter. In reply to a further question by Dr. CAMERON,

I do not suppose that anybody in this country requires to be told that a state of war exists in Chili; but a vessel belonging to a Foreign Power has a right to engage British subjects, so long as no belligerent rights have been recognised on the other side.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies on what ground the Government of Malta has postponed the meeting of the Legislative Council, which should have taken place on the 15th instant, until the 31st of October; and whether their action in doing so has been sanctioned by the Secretary of State for the Colonies?

As none of the unofficial members were disposed to accept seats in the Executive Council, and as there was no pressing business requiring that the Council of Government should sit later into the summer, the Governor, in accordance with the usual practice, has prorogued the Council until 31st October. This step does not require the sanction of the Secretary of State, but has his approval.

I understand that the prorogation was in accordance with the usual practice?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a report in the South Wales Daily News, of the 29th June, in which it is stated that a certain Magistrate residing near Pontypridd is in the habit of granting occasional licences for the sale of intoxicants, though applications for such licences have been refused when applied for in open Court; and whether it is lawful for him to grant licences under those conditions?

I have not seen the newspaper referred to by the hon. Member. I have no information that the Magistrate in question is in the habit of granting occasional licences. He did, I believe, on two occasions grant such a licence, not being aware that on one of those occasions it had been previously refused at Petty Sessions. I am advised that his action was lawful under the provisions of the 26 & 27 Vic., c. 33.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give the House the text of the Bill passed by the Newfoundland Legislature for the enforcement of the modus vivendi and the arbitrator's awards, and also any further information as to the negotiations respecting a permanent Act for the enforcement of Treaties and other obligations on the Newfoundland shore?

I will lay on the Table a copy of the Act passed by the Newfoundland Legislature. The permanent measure which is in contemplation is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the language used by Judge Metcalfe in delivering Judgment in the case of "Kilby and Coleman v. Baker," in the Bristol County Court, on 7th July, and reported in the Western Daily Mail; and whether he will bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor?

I have seen a newspaper report of the case I have no control over County Court Judges. I would suggest that if the hon. Member wishes to make any representation on the subject he should address himself directly to the Lord Chancellor.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man goes out of his way to denounce in a wholesale and indiscriminate manner the officials connected with Trades Unions, and that he declared in reference to certain actions for compensation, under the Employers' Liability Act of 1886, that if the Union Secretary appeared in them in future he would disallow the costs, and that he was strongly tempted to do so then, although the facts of the case were clear, and showed that the accident occurred in consequence of the negligence of the employer? Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the conduct of this man, who repeatedly goes out of his way to denounce persons whose probity can in no way be called in question?

I am wholly unaware of the facts mentioned by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Report has been received from our Consul or representative at Buenos Ayres relative to distressed British subjects anxious to return to this country owing to inability to obtain employment; whether he has read the accounts published in the Buenos Ayres Standard of 13th June, forwarded for his information; whether he is aware that the French Legislature has voted £40,000 to assist unemployed French people in River Plate to return home, and that the Spanish Government have taken similar action in respect of Spanish subjects; and whether the British Consul can be authorised to provide passages for a certain number of our distressed countrymen, to enable them to migrate to Canada or the United States or to return home.

As regards paragraphs 1 and 2, we have received Reports lately relative to the failure of the Naposta Colony, which Mr. Herbert, of Her Majesty's Legation, visited. Many of the colonists had arrived in the capital; some had found work, but many had not. We have not heard of any such grants by France and Spain. There are no funds at the disposal of the Foreign Office for the purpose indicated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will allow the poor women and men of the Salvation Army, who are sentenced to prison at Eastbourne, to be visited on Saturday next by a Justice of the Peace of Hull, Middlesex, Westminster, and Sussex, of 27 years' standing, whose object is to see if complaints made to him of the bad treatment of the Salvation Army by other Justices of Sussex are correctly made?

If my hon. Friend is a Justice of the Peace for the County of Sussex he requires no authority from me to visit and inquire into the treat- ment of the Salvationists recently convicted at Eastbourne. He has this authority under Section 15 of the Prison Act of 1877.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the charge for a telegram from England to Russia in Europe is 5½d. per word, and the charge for a telegram from St. Petersburg to any part of Russia in Asia is about 4d. per word, whilst according to the Post Office Guide the charge for a telegram from England to Russia in Asia is for the first region 1s. 8d. per word, and for the second region 2s. 7d. per word, whereas the sum of the two separate charges from England to Russia in Asia is but 9½d.; and whether he can account for the discrepancy between the British charge for a telegram to Russia in Asia, and the sum of the above-mentioned two separate charges?

The charge for telegrams from England to Russia are correctly stated by the hon. Member. From St. Petersburg to Russia in Asia the charge is, I believe, 4d. per word plus 6d. per telegram. The discrepancy is mainly due to the fact that for an international telegram under the extra-European régime, Russia, like other countries, requires a higher rate than for a telegram circulating exclusively within her own dominions. The terminal rate for the first region of Russia in Asia is 150 centimes, and the terminal rate for the second region is 262½ centimes.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that representations have been, or will be, made to Russia on this subject?

That is not a matter which comes within my province.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether enumerators for the Census of 1891, i.e., William Baxter, Alex. Alexander, and James Christie, Old Meldrum Parish, Aberdeenshire, have yet been paid; and, if not, will he explain why?

The enumerators referred to in the question have not yet been paid, because certain questions have arisen in other parts of the county which necessitated a reference to the Sheriff for investigation. These questions have now been adjusted, and the money has been remitted to the Sheriff clerk to carry out the payments.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the outrages recently reported upon European residents at Wusueh and other places in China, whether he will state what measures have been taken for the protection of British residents on the Chinese coast; and what is the present situation in that region?

In a letter from the British Admiral on the China Station, dated Shanghai, May 23, he stated that he had strengthened the force of British vessels in the River Yangtze Kiang, and that four would be stationed there; in addition, there was a German gunboat at Hankow, and three ships of war in the river. Sir John Walsham reported on the 21st ult. that there were nine foreign men-of-war in the river and also a strong naval force at Shanghai on the day following the outbreak of the riot. The Chinese Government appear to be fully alive to the gravity of the situation, and on the first outbreak at Wuhu telegraphed to the Viceroy to take immediate action. In reply to the representations made to them on the part of Her Majesty's Government, they have given assurances that a rigorous investigation would be made into the circumstances attending these anti-foreign riots, and that none of the guilty parties should go unpunished. Two men have been executed at Wuhu, two condemned to death at Wusueh, and several mandarins degraded. Correspondence on the subject will be laid before Parliament as soon as it can be prepared.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a report telegraphed to the French paper, the Estafette, of Paris, that the British Mediterranean Fleet would shortly proceed to the Piræus to enforce the demands recently made by the British Minister at Athens on the Greek Government, for satisfaction of certain claims by British subjects against the Syra Steamship Company and in regard to the Lake Copaïs Company; and whether Her Majesty's Government will communicate to Parliament what is the nature of those claims, and how long they have been in existence?

The movements of the Mediterranean Squadron have no connection with the cases referred to. It will be considered whether the Papers can be presented just now with a due regard to the interests concerned.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Presbyterian and other missionaries in Morocco believe that they are at present in a position of great danger owing to the threats of the natives; and whether he can take any steps to secure the safety of the missionaries, or give any assurance which may allay the fears which the friends of the missionaries in this country entertain; whether he knows of any conduct on the part of the missionaries in any sense calculated to provoke hostility; and if he can point out any methods by which mission work could be carried on with greater safety in Morocco than at present?

It is unfortunately the case that the injudicious proceedings of certain missionaries have aroused the fanatical feelings of the native population in Morocco City and elsewhere and given rise to complaints from the Moorish Government. Her Majesty's Acting Charge d'Affaires has taken steps to warn them of the danger to which they are exposing themselves and others. It would be well if the societies with which these gentlemen and ladies are connected would support the action of Her Majesty's Representative, as he reports that—

"That it is much to be regretted that the want of tact of a few of the Protestant missionaries in this country should in a great measure counteract and undo the really good work that is being done in a quiet and unostentatious manner by others, who, by their tender ministration to the poor and sick have been steadily gaining the respect and esteem of all."

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state when the Scottish University Commissioners propose to present to Her Majesty their Special Report upon the questions affecting the theological faculties in the Scottish Universities; and whether, as soon as the Report has been presented, it, and the evidence taken upon the subject by the Commissioners, will be issued as a Parliamentary Paper?

The Commissioners have not yet settled the terms of their Report on this subject, but hope to do so on their re-assembling in the month of October. The hon. and learned Member will readily understand that until Her Majesty's commands have been received I am unable to answer the latter part of the question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Committee on Colour Vision, appointed by the Royal Society at his suggestion, is about to issue a Report before the end of the present Session?

I am informed that the Committee have prepared a Draft Report, but the subject has been found so difficult that the Committee consider it still necessary to make further inquiries and practical experiments, and it is not probable that the Report will be presented until next year.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, in order to remove some misapprehension which seems to exist as to a recent case at Wolverhampton, he can state what is the existing law as to licensed victuallers supplying alcoholic liquors after the legal hours in cases of illness; and whether it is legal to supply them in such cases upon a Magistrate's order or upon a medical certificate?

In reply to the question of the hon. Member, I have no knowledge whatever of the fact "of the case to which he refers, nor can I state the existing law with regard to licensed victuallers otherwise than by referring the hon. Member to the provisions of the Statutes of 1872 and 1874. If the hon. Member will communicate with me as to the circumstances of any particular case I shall be happy to give him any assistance in my power.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the following facts recorded in the Preliminary Report upon the Census of England and Wales for 1891, namely, that the number of Members of the House of Commons for England and Wales, irrespective of the Universities, being 490, and the enumerated population being 29,001,018, an equal numerical distribution would give one Member to 59,186 persons (p. xii.); and that the present population of the Cardiff District of Boroughs exceeds 132,000, and is represented in the House of Commons by one Member only, while the aggregate populations of Durham City, Pontefract, Bury St. Edmunds, Grantham, Penryn and Falmouth, King's Lynn, and Boston, which amount only to 120,239, are represented in this House by seven Members (Table III.), and whether he will undertake to submit to Parliament, in its next Session, a measure for giving to the Cardiff District of Boroughs more adequate representation?

I am not prepared, on behalf of the First Lord of the Treasury, to give the pledge suggested by the hon. Member. If the question of proportional representation is to be dealt with, it would have to be considered generally and would raise some extremely interesting issues. I do not think it could be dealt with in the piecemeal manner proposed.

Is it a fact that many of the London divisions have over 100,000 population with only one Member?

I think that if this question were opened and considered generally it would give rise to some extremely interesting issues.

May I ask whether there cannot be some automatic arrangement for a periodical revision of representation such as is the practice in the United States?

The hon. Gentleman asks me a question of great political scope, and I do not feel that I am able to deal with such a wide issue on this occasion.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government will give facilities to enable me to pass the London County Council (Water Supply, &c.) Bill in the form recommended by the Select Committee?

No, Sir. I understand that the Bill is highly contentious, and it would be contrary to our pledges to give such facilities.

Will any steps be taken to allow the London County Council to expend money?

It would require to be introduced in a General Powers Bill.

May I ask whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to ask the House to sit on Saturday?

I will state later in the evening whether there will be a Saturday sitting or not. The Government are anxious to consult the general convenience of all hon. Members, but the question is whether hon. Members would prefer to sit on Saturday, or, by not sitting on Saturday, sit a day longer at the close of the Session.

I wish to ask Mr. Speaker whether he has received any communication from any elector or electors in the East Division of Belfast.

Order, order!

Under the circumstances I shall reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member. A communication was made to me this morning by letter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask, as this is a matter affecting the constitutional rights and privileges of this House, whether it is proper for persons out of doors to address certain representations to you, Sir; and whether, if there should be founded upon that for electoral purposes a question by a Member of this House, that would not be a gross irregularity?

It is because the constitutional rights of the House are affected that I propose to answer the question. A Memorial was sent to me both in my personal and official capacity from certain electors of Belfast. I do not think it right to lay it before the House. It is, of course, a very different matter indeed from the subject I com- municated to the House the other day, and which directly affected the investigation of the case by the House. This is a communication on behalf of a certain number of electors complaining of the suspense under which the electorate are placed in the present circumstances, but it is a matter entirely for the House. If there is any suspense, that is caused by the action of the House, and I am not the proper medium of communication for information of that sort. If the electors desire any representation of that kind to be made, it should be made in the form of a Petition presented by a Member of the House and laid before the House in the ordinary way. That is the only reason why I have gone out of the ordinary course, in answering a question on the subject.

I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the practical disenfranchisement of East Belfast, by the course of events which has occurred, he will take that fact into account in considering the course which the Government will pursue?

I was about to move that the Order on the Paper for the attendance of Mr. de Cobain be discharged. I have carefully considered what passed in the House a few days ago, and I have certainly come to the conclusion—and nothing I have heard has tended to weaken it—that I shall be meeting the wishes of the House if, in view of the medical certificate, I move that the Order for the attendance of Mr. de Cobain be discharged. I am bound to add in this matter that it appears to me that we have simply to look to the impartial duty of this House, and that we have to take care that there shall be no assumption of guilt, notwithstanding whatever appearances there may be, one way or the other, and that we cannot allow political considerations, even when connected with so important a constituency, to induce us to move one step in setting a precedent which may be of considerable scope in the future. My hon. Friend (Mr. T. W. Russell) asks me whether I have taken the political convenience of the electors into consideration.

I have not considered their political convenience at all. It simply amounts to disfranchisement.

I did not say Party considerations, and I do not for one moment suggest that my hon. Friend meant Party considerations; he meant the political consideration whether the constituency should remain without its Member or not. That is, no doubt, a very important consideration, but I am bound to say I look also to the fact that we are close to the end of the Session, and I think we are bound not to deviate from the course we consider right, namely, that, in the face of the declarations made, we should not proceed to expulsion. I venture to think that that will be the general sense of the House, and I therefore beg to move that the Order for the attendance of Mr. de Cobain be discharged.

I desire to say a word with reference to the political or party considerations said to be involved. I have never known Party considerations to be imported into such a matter in the way they have been by a letter in this morning's papers and by the remarks of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). Mr. do Cobain's seat is filled as much as is the seat of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. Is it to be suggested that a Member shall be expelled the House because there are a number of ambitious candidates who desire to have his seat? It is the coolest assumption I ever heard of. With regard to the disfranchisement, which now weighs so much with the hon. Member for South Tyrone, there are two Members in Galway Gaol; and has the hon. Member troubled himself about the disfranchisement of Mayo or Cork? The late Member for Aston Manor was in South Africa for two years, and no complaint was made of disfranchisement. I never heard anything more indecent than the suggestion that this House, which is a High Court of Justice, should intervene for the sake of the convenience of certain candidates for a seat which is not vacant.

The hon. Member has attributed to me a motive which it never occurred to me to entertain, namely, consideration for the candidates for East Belfast. What I had in my mind was this—that for months a great constituency has been disfranchised by Mr. de Cobain's absence from the House, and he now refuses to come to the House to perform his duties as a Member. It is quite true that there are some Irish constituencies that take the non-attendance of their Members very easily. Irish Members who are not in gaol have disappeared almost entirely, and have hardly been seen during the present Session. It does not follow because those constituencies do not care whether they are represented or not that the constituency of East Belfast takes the same view. It never occurred to me to think of the convenience of Sir W. Charley or Mr. James Henderson, who are candidates. I was thinking of the constituency itself. Part of the City of Belfast has been disfranchised during this Session, and it objects to that disfranchisement existing any longer. I quite concur, however, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is better in the circumstances to give Mr. de Cobain the further chance that time may give him, and so far as I am concerned, I do not raise any objection to the Motion. Mr. de Cobain might be prejudiced if the House proceeded to his expulsion, but assuredly he has done more to prejudice himself than any one else has.

I do not wish to intervene in the controversy between the hon. Gentleman opposite, but rather to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what course he intends to pursue with regard to this matter in the future Session. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of postponing the matter on the ground of the late period of the Session. That may be a means of saving time and of promoting the convenience of the House; but has the right hon. Gentleman considered what expectation he has of dealing with this matter at any future time? There is much to be said in favour of the House allowing its Members to be dealt with according to law, and not interfering in their favour or against them when they are charged with offences which have no relation to their position as Members of the House. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer bases the Motion for discharging the order on the late period of the Session, I must enter a protest against its withdrawal on any such ground. The certificate before the House discloses no ground for our waiving for a moment the proceeding on which we have embarked. The certificate does not state that Mr. de Cobain was precluded from obeying the order of the House and that he would be injured by complying with that order; on the other hand, it refers to the possible consequences of Mr. de Cobain appearing before another tribunal with which this House has nothing to do. If an application is to be made for postponement of trial on any such ground as is set forth in the certificate, it ought to be made, not to this House, but to the tribunal before which the case will come. With the exception of the case of Mr. Sadleir, precedents have to be looked for a long way back, and in almost all the cases in which the House has taken action the offences had a direct bearing on the position of the accused as Members of the House. If the House makes an order and allows it to be evaded by such a transparent device as the excuse now put forward, the proceeding will not tend to the dignity of the House. We have not had even a personal assurance from Mr. de Cobain that he intends at any time to return and submit himself to the order of the House or to place himself within the jurisdiction of the tribunals of the land. On the contrary, there is published in the newspapers an announcement purporting to be signed by him in precisely the opposite sense. We shall probably be told next Session that climatic or other considerations precluded him from obeying the order of the House; and then the lateness of the Session or the antiquity of the Parliament may be assigned as a reason for allowing the proposed proceedings to fall into abeyance. We have made an order which has been ostentatiously set at defiance. Whether we were wise in making it is a point on which I myself have great doubt. I hope the House will not make a further order without intending that it shall be obeyed, or, if it be not, that action shall not be delayed except for far more substantial reasons than those now advanced.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that there is no evidence of the intention of the hon. Member for East Belfast to appear in his place in the House. The certificate entered on the Votes is to the effect that he will not be well enough to appear on July 23, which, by implication, is a declaration that he intends to appear when he is able. Further, his solicitor says Mr. de Cobain states that the charges are wholly without foundation, that they are the result of conspiracy, and that it is and always has been Mr. de Cobain's intention to return to Ireland and meet them. With these declarations before us the best course is to wait and see whether he does meet the charges in the course of the present year.

I think it would be convenient if the Chief Secretary would state to the House generally the course which the Government intend to pursue with regard to the Lords' Amendments. There are some of the Lords' Amendments to which I and my hon. Friends have no strong objection, but there are others to which we are entirely opposed. One of the latter is the long Amendment moved by Lord Waterford, the object of which is already sufficiently met in the Act of 1888. The Amendment moved by Lord Arran is also of a highly contentious character. It would be absurd to enact that a fee-simple owner should be subject to all the conditions of one who is not an owner. How would Lord Arran like to hold his own estates on the terms he suggests for the purchaser? Undoubtedly the title of the tenants will be as indefensible as that of Lord Arran. Lord Londonderry, an ex-Lord Lieutenant, has introduced a very remarkable Amendment on the question of the composition of the staff of the Land Commission. If the Gevernment desired this alteration in the Bill, it would have been more frank on their part to have asked the present Lord Lieutenant to introduce the Amendment. Will the House believe that the entire body of the Land Commissioners reported in favour of the Bill as it left the House of Commons, and the entire body of the Fair Rent Commissioners reported in favour of Lord Londonderry's Amendment. All the Fair Rent Commissioners are new to their work, every one of them having been appointed within the last two years, Whilst those who have reported in favour of the original clause have been in office since the coming into force of the Act of 1875. To deny to the Commissioners responsible for the working of the Act any voice in the selection of the staff which is to assist them, is a very extraordinary position to assume. The further Amendment moved by Lord Londonderry with respect to the £50 limit I do not regard as of much importance; but I do most strongly object to the Amendment respecting the tenants' interest. The Bill as passed by the House of Commons contained a distinct recognition that the tenant was only buying the landlord's interest, and had an interest of his own. On the question of the annual value, I prefer the measure as it left the House of Commons. On the whole I would advise the Government not to persist in the great bulk of the Lords' Amendments.

I think the Government would do well to accept the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend. One Amendment which will provoke opposition is the Amendment which provides that the tenant who asks for an award of three-fourths of the purchase-money shall pay interest at a lower rate. Such a tenant already has a great advantage in not paying anything to the Insurance Fund, and he least requires any additional advantage. The adoption of the Amendment will reduce the fund intended by the Act for the advantage of the labourers. In my opinion it is detrimental to the public interest. As to the Amendment of the Marquess of Waterford, it does more than it professes to do, and makes various changes in the law which will necessitate very detailed attention. Then the Lords provide that the tenant shall buy the holding, although since 1870 he has been a joint owner of the land. I do not know why this change has been made, unless it be because the Lords dislike any reference to the fact that the tenant has already any interest in the holding. I, therefore, ask the Government to consider whether they will not restore this part of the Bill to its original form. The next Amendment is that proposed by Lord Londonderry respecting the proportion between the two classes of tenants. I declined to consider the £30,000,000 as a final amount, and I was, therefore, opposed to the introduction of a limit. As the Amendment of Lord Londonderry tends rather to diminish the action of the limit, I am not disposed to find fault with it, but may I point out to the Attorney General that the language of the first sub-section of Lord Londonderry's clause may be open to serious misinterpretation, for in it Lord Londonderry speaks of the annual share of the county in the guarantee fund, as the amount which is to be deemed to be allocated. But the clause does not propose to limit the amount that may be advanced at any time, and despite the wording of the clause, the county share may all be advanced in any year, or even in any month. But this sentence, "the annual share of the county in the guarantee fund is to be deemed to be allocated," may be held to mean that no more than 1–25th of the share of the county may be allocated in any one year. I would suggest that the clause be rendered less open to misinterpretation by striking out Sub-sections 2 and 3, and somewhat altering the wording of Sub-section 1. The next Amendment, which empowers the Land Commission under certain circumstances to order the Sheriff into possession of the holding, is also open to objection. I say that, as the Land Commission will stand in the position of litigants, they ought not to have the power of ordering the Sheriff to take possession, but it should be vested in some other Court. There is another clause on which I hope we shall get a satisfactory declaration from the right hon. Gentleman. The purchase system has now been in operation for some years, and under the Ashbourne Act the tenants have bought under certain conditions, such as that they shall not sublet, &c. Lord Arran, however, by his new clause, proposes to place tenants buying under this Act under less favourable conditions as to rights of ownership. We know that the law of waste rests upon the Act of 1860, which was passed before the tenants had any interest in the soil, and the Irish Law Courts have so interpreted it that if a tenant alters an outhouse so as to give shelter to an evicted tenant, the alteration, although it may actually improve the holding, is to be deemed to be waste. Can it be seriously contended that if a man who purchases a farm under this Act after 20 or 30 years, when he has paid the bulk of his debt to the estate, gives shelter in an outhouse on the farm to an evicted tenant, and makes the out-office more suitable as a habitation, he should be evicted from his freehold? If so, then I say that the purchase system is being reduced to a farce, and the right hon. Gentleman will have placed such an obstacle in the way of transactions that the Act will have no effectual operation. There are only one or two other Amendments to which I wish to allude. One is the power given to the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary to make appointments in the office of the Land Commission. The two Purchase Commissioners hold that their names should be included in the Bill with a view to their being consulted in regard to these appointments. The three Land Commissioners do not hold that view. You have already prevented the Land Department interfering with the Purchase Department for one or two years. It may be said that the Commissioners will be consulted in this matter, but unless their names are inserted in the Bill they will not be consulted as of right. I think there should be some reference as of right by the Lord Lieutenant to the Land Commissioners. It can do no harm. I hold that for the efficiency of the Department every opportunity should be afforded the Purchase Commissioners to express an opinion on these matters, and I fear unless the clause is amended as I suggest there will be considerable friction. I further object to the provision giving an appeal to two Commissioners. If it so happened that the two Purchase Commissioners sat in any particular case the appeal would be from them to the three Land Commissioners, and that is really by a side wind restoring to the Bill one of the most objectionable provisions it formerly contained—a provision against which we had a prolonged fight in Committee. We object to any control by the three Land Commissioners over the two Purchase Commissioners. The Government virtually conceded that point to us in Committee. I hope that we shall not be deprived of the concession by a side wind, and that the right hon. Gentleman will restore the clause to the condition in which it left this House. The last Amendment to which I shall refer is that dealing with the average amount of abatements of rent by the landlord. Any arrears of rent cancelled at the time of purchase may, under the Act, be treated as abatements of rent. I do not think that that should be the case, for abatements are reductions of rent granted at the time of payment. I believe the effect of this Amendment will be to lower the number of years' purchase in every case, and operate as an impediment to purchase. For that reason I would suggest the propriety of disagreeing with it.

I do not know how far it is desirable to deal with the Amendments in detail. I rather agree with the remarks of the hon. Member on the clause as to waste. It is a matter of considerable difficulty, and I hope the Government will save the House the trouble of further considering it. I also agree with what he said as to the £50 limit. I do not agree with the hon. Member, however, in regard to the appointment of the Land Commission. If the two sets of Commissioners have disagreed upon this point already it will be a bone of contention in the future, and, therefore, I am of opinion that the Government had better keep the matter in its own hands. I always understood that appointments of this nature were made on the responsibility of the Government of the day, and it seems to me that while, of course, they will consider the wishes of the Commissioners, they had better retain the power in their own hands. I hope, too, the right hon. Gentleman will clearly express his opinion as to the Amendment in regard to the power of delegation, because I think it would be very unwise to minimise the effect of that clause.

I think the House has already recognised the extreme inconvenience of acting on the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Longford in asking: for a statement of the views of the Go- vernment relative to the Amendments at this particular stage. I am unable to perceive how the deliberations of the House can be assisted by the right hon. Gentleman's declaring without further debate which of the Amendments he will accept and which he will object to. I think it would be much better to proceed with the Amendments at once, one by one, than to continue a general discussion.

I am not sure that the course which has been pursued by the House is a convenient one, though I believe it is not without precedent. In the circumstances, however, I cannot remain altogether silent, but I fear the brief statement I have to make will not be fully satisfactory to some of the Irish Members. I cannot say what course the House will take in the matter; I can only indicate what the Government will respectfully invite the House to do. Points have been raised with regard to six or seven Amendments, and in the majority I am afraid I cannot meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite. With respect to the office of the Land Commission, I should be sorry to make myself responsible for any Amendment which would have the effect of preventing individual members of the Commission from expressing their opinion to the Lord Lieutenant and giving him material upon which to form a judgment as to the proper men to be appointed. I am not disposed, however, to introduce anything into the Act which would deprive the Lord Lieutenant of the authority given him. I cannot conceive that the Lord Lieutenant would feel it part of his duty to exclude from his consideration any representation made to him either by the Land or by the Purchase Commissioners. Another point raised is with regard to the phrase "the interest which the tenant purchases in his holding." I think it will be admitted that the modification introduced by the Lords into the measure will have no operative or administrative effect. It is a matter, no doubt, for discussion whether the wording which they have adopted or the wording of the Bill is the most appropriate; but I think it can hardly be maintained that any difference at all will be made in the administration of the Act. I do not think it will be advisable on that point to raise a Debate. As to the Tenants' Insurance Fund, it appears to me that the solution arrived at by the other House is a convenient solution. Another question raised has reference to the tenants who are to be excused, not only from providing for the Insurance Fund, but also from the county percentage—that is to say, those who pay down a fourth of the purchase money. I think it will be admitted that, both in the interests of the Treasury and everybody concerned, it is extremely desirable to encourage tenants to make these substantial advances towards the purchase of their holdings. That was essentially the principle of all former Purchase Acts. While this proposal deprives the county of the half percentage, it relieves the county of all risk. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast seems to think that in the other House they have departed from the compromise arrived at in this House as to the Court of Appeal which is to sit on a question of value, but I think the hon. Gentleman will see that he is mistaken on that point. The Government only contemplated the case of an appeal from a Commissioner sitting alone, and they decided that in such a case the appeal should always be to two Lay Commissioners and a Judicial Commissioner, one of the Lay Commissioners being a Commissioner appointed under the Act of 1881, and the other a Commissioner appointed under the Act of 1885. They did not contemplate the case of an appeal which, as a matter of fact, has never arisen, in which two Commissioners should sit together as a Court of First Instance. If the Bill had been left in its original shape there would be no appeal at all from two Commissioners sitting together, and the intention of the House that in all cases there should be an appeal in cases of value would have been defeated. I may say at once that if a proviso is introduced to prevent two Commissioners sitting as a Court of First Instance I shall not have the slightest objection to leaving the clause in its original shape. It is only to provide against a possibility which has never occurred that that change has been made. It only remains for me to notice the two long and elaborate clauses which are described in the Amendment Paper, B and G—one relates to the "liability of the tenant after agreement for sale," and the other to "provisions as to holdings subject to purchase annuity." I have a natural leaning towards the clauses. Clause B has been adopted, I believe, with very little modification from the Land Department Bill for which I was responsible, but it will be quite impossible to accept it in its present shape, as it provides no machinery for dealing with the 1 per cent. which will accumulate in the interval between the agreement and the final vesting order. It would at this stage be very difficult to provide the necessary machinery for dealing with the 1 per cent. I am afraid that if you put into the Bill a large rate of interest which the landlord is to get, which he is not to have the trouble of collecting, and which he is to enjoy during the whole period that proceedings are pending, a great inducement to hurry on proceedings will be removed from him. I should much regret that. In regard to Clause G (provisions as to holdings subject to purchase annuity), which I believe is taken almost without a change from our Bill, I have to admit that there are various objections to it. I am one of those who have been constantly striving to find some method of dealing with an undoubted evil of land purchase, namely, the destruction of timber, and it really is largely with a view to that that I introduced in the Land Purchase Bill what now appears as Sub-section (b) in this clause. But further consideration has convinced me that that object, with which the whole House will sympathise, will not be attained by that sub-section, which would prevent the destruction of hedgerow trees, but not of woods and plantations, and therefore I cannot ask the House to accept it upon that ground. As to the provisions about main drainage and watercourses, if a tenant chooses to neglect drains and watercourses, there is ample power to compel him to make them right without asking the Land Commission to step in; and if, in addition, regard is had to the undoubted fact that every restriction placed on the full enjoyment of ownership is so far a check on land purchase, I think we shall probably not be long in coming to the conclusion that if any- thing is to be done in this direction in the Land Department Bill it will have to be in a modified form, and after a more prolonged consideration than is possible in the course of the present Session.

I wish to move an Amendment providing that a tenant who advances one-fourth of the purchase money himself shall not have the whole of the advantage which the Lords propose to give him. I think the House might agree that the tenant who receives three-fourths only should get as good terms as the tenant who receives the whole, and to that extent I think the Lords' Amendment is beneficial; but when it goes further and says that those tenants who are generally large and wealthy tenants are to pay nothing in order to provide better housing for the labourers, I cannot see why the House should assent to that. The smallest tenant who buys under this Bill will pay 5s. on every £100 advanced for the better housing of the labourers. As it is, there will be a great temptation for men to borrow at higher rates in order to enable them, as it were, to pay the one-fourth out of their own pockets. It will be unfortunate if they do this, from the point of view of the State, and of the man himself. I, therefore, propose the Amendment of which I have given notice.

The hon. and learned Member's argument is skilful, but the tenant will have to pay 5s. more if his proposal is agreed to. I protest against any class of tenants having to pay a shilling more to the British taxpayer than is absolutely necessary. I shall certainly vote against the tenant having to pay £4 when the Government are willing to let him off with £3 15s. I have always had great hopes that ultimately when the instalments have been well paid up the House of Commons will lower the percentage, which I think has been fixed higher than is absolutely necessary. If you had one section of the tenants paying £3 15s. and another £4, you would have an irresistible argument in favour of reducing the amount paid by the other tenants. The hon. and learned Member said his Amendment would increase the amount that would be given to the labourers. I think that is a mistake. I quite acknowledge that it is extremely proper that the overflow of the Guarantee Fund, if any, should go into the hands of the labourers. I must say I would sooner help the labourers by a more direct contribution from the State, and I think it would be a very great evil if we assented to the hon. and learned Member's Amendment.

I think it will be accepted on all sides that the House ought to encourage these tenants to pay part themselves. It diminishes the risk to the taxpayer and the localities, but it does more than that, because, if you get a very large body of tenants to pay one-fourth of the purchase money themselves, a much larger total amount becomes available for land purchase than would otherwise be the case. The question is whether the encouragement we give is too much. I do not think it is. I think we may well ask the locality to give up the 5s. per cent. However, I do not wish to prolong discussion, and I will accept the hon. and learned Member's proposal if he will agree to alter £3 15s. to £3 17s. 6d.

The hon. and gallant gentleman below me (Colonel Nolan) says he wants the Irish tenants to pay as little as possible to the British Treasury. I do not yield to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the desire to secure the best terms for the tenant. That has been the object of the arduous labours we have undertaken on this Bill—labours in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given us no material assistance. I object to seeing the tenants treated unequally. I object to seeing the poorer tenants paying £4 per cent., whilst a small class of wealthy tenants escape at £3 15s. per cent., and are thus relieved of the obligation to contribute towards improving the wretched position of the agricultural labourers in Ireland. I doubt very much whether the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is a sound one. He says it is desirable to encourage the tenants to find part of the purchase money. You may tempt the tenants to their own injury. Tenants may be so eager to make a bargain with the landlords on favourable terms that they may, not having the one-fourth, borrow it upon comparatively oppressive terms, and find themselves, after a short period, unable to repay it. Under these circumstances, the tenant who provides the one-fourth will be as likely as, if not more likely than, any other man to fall into such a condition as will necessitate the sale of his holding and the placing of the burden on the county. However, I am willing to recognise any disposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to make a concession, and to recommend my hon. and learned Friend to adopt the homely plan of "splitting the difference."

I withdraw the Amendment.

As the clause left this House it read to the effect that "where an advance for the purchase of a holding is less than twenty times the annual value as in this Act defined of the interest which the tenant agrees to buy in the holding," &c. This is the only place in the whole expanse of this Act in which reference is made to what the tenant buys; it is the only spot in which it is defined. In Committee on the Bill of last year we convinced the Government that they ought to define what is bought as "the interest which the tenant agrees to buy." That corresponds with the fact. It is not the annual value of the holding, but the annual value of the landlord's interest which is bought. If it were the annual value of the holding the tenant would have to buy the landlord's interest and his own interest as well. With all the respect I have for the House of Lords, I cannot be induced to consent to the insertion of these words. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is not the holding, but the landlord's interest which the tenant buys. What reason can he put forward for inserting these fanciful words, which do not correspond with the facts of the case?

The hon. Gentleman apparently forgets the argument which I addressed to the House earlier in the evening, to the effect that these words would not make any substantial alteration in the working of the Bill, and that it was merely a question of drafting. I still adhere to that view. It is true that the tenants in Ireland are part owners of the holding as a productive machine. Every lawyer will admit that the owner of the holding is in effect the landlord, and the landlord only. If it is technically inaccurate to say that the landlord is the owner of the holding, it is, equally, technically inaccurate to say that the tenant is part owner.

The State is the real owner; the landlord is only a tenant after all.

The hon. and learned Member will admit that I am using the word not inaccurately when I say that a Court of Law would regard the landlord as the owner and not the tenant.

No.

I think that is so. No doubt the landlord and tenant, regarding them as part of a productive machine, are part of one concern. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have forgotten that this is not the first Land Purchase Bill passed by the House of Commons. The whole of this Bill is drafted on the two preceding Acts, and I do not think it would be wise or expedient as a matter of drafting to insert in the middle of a new Act fresh distinctions.

You did it in the Bill of last year.

The Bill of last Session was not passed. Considering that the measure is based on two preceding Acts, it would be an unfortunate and an inexpedient thing to introduce new language. The Land Purchase Act has been in operation for six years, and nearly £10,000,000 have been applied, and to say now that the tenant buys only the landlord's share of the holding is surely most superfluous. I think it is not a point on which it is worth while to engage in controversy with the other House. It is not a substantial point, so far as I can make out; it is a question of drafting, and I would, therefore, ask the House in this case to agree with the Amendment made in the Bill by the other House.

If the right hon. Gentleman gets up to say that this is a light matter, let him give in on the point and restore the Bill to its original form. He says that this Amendment does not do anybody any harm, and therefore, let us do violence to the solemn judgment of this House, and let us agree with the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman says that the landlord is the owner of the holding, but I would refer him to the language of the Attorney General, who declared that the tenants of Ireland were the owners of half the value of the estates.

What I stated was that in many instances the interest of the tenant had sold for a larger sum than the interest of the landlord.

It would certainly be a remarkable thing if anything could be gained from the correction now made. The Irish Secretary is taking an unreasonable and inopportune course at present. These words have a high declaratory value, just as had the words in the Act of 1881, defining that the tenant was not to be rented on his own improvements. A great controversy centred round those words; and I regard the words now under discussion as having a similar and as high a declaratory value. The Government attach no value to them, and they set up the judgment of the House of Lords against the judgment of the House of Commons. For my part, until we get a Parliament of our own, I prefer the judgment of the House of Commons. If it is a mere matter of drafting I would like to know something about the paternity of these words. I am really surprised that the Government should put the House to the trouble of a Debate and a Division on this matter, and I would point out that concession on small matters might affect our attitude on matters of greater importance.

I think the clause ought to stand as it left this House. The House of Lords' Amendment takes away the recognition of the tenant's interest, and I am not disposed that such recognition should be blotted out. I do not think any great fuss need be made about it; I do not think it will affect purchase one way or the other; still I cannot be expected to support the proposal to blot out the recognition of the tenant's interest.

I beg to differ altogether from the Chief Secretary in regard to the use of the word "owner" by lawyers.

I said the word was used in Acts of 1885 and 1888, and that we had better adhere to it as a matter of drafting.

But earlier in his observations the right hon. Gentleman said that undoubtedly the word owner was used in the Courts of Law. In that respect he is inaccurate. The term is utterly unknown in real property, and when it occurs in an Act of Parliament the Courts have to do the best to put an interpretation upon it. So far as the Amendment is defended as being accurate, I venture to think that my hon. and learned Friend is right, and that the Chief Secretary is wrong.

This is a matter of greater importance than it appears. It is a question of whether or not you are going to meet the sentiment of the Irish people, who in all their struggles have never acknowledged that their interest in the land had any right to be taken away from them. It is unfortunate that you should put language into this Bill which will tend to defeat the object of the Bill. But it is of a piece with all ameliorative legislation for Ireland—something is done to make it unpleasant. It was so with Catholic Emancipation, the Catholic communities being then treated in a way to make that measure hateful. If you take away this acknowledgment of the tenant's interest you will make a great mistake.

I really hope the Chief Secretary will not insist upon the Amendment. I gather from him that he did not himself consider the words to be of any importance, his argument being that they are only necessary from a drafting point of view. He has also stated that the landlord is owner of the property. That may be so in strict law, but the Act of 1881 has recognised the interest of the tenant, and I say the very object of this Bill is to do away with dual ownership. Of course the landlord may still be the owner in a certain sense, but in point of fact the tenant is the co-owner, and the words in the Bill as it left this House recognised the interest of the tenant. I hope the Chief Secretary will not insist on the Amendment.

I have no doubt whatever that the words as they left this House were logically correct, and expressed the exact situation of the tenant. If you insert these words you create some confusion.

All our agitation has been for the recognition of tenant right, and it would be a great pity to insert words which would obliterate that recognition. If they do not alter the matter one way or the other, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should stick so tenaciously to them. The House of Lords know very little of the matter further than the collection of rents is concerned. I hope the feeling of the tenants will be consulted; and while I mean no disrespect to that august Assembly the House of Lords, I prefer to stick to the words of the House of Commons as they passed them. I advise the Chief Secretary to forego this Amendment.

The condition which we contend for is adopted already by the Act of 1885, Section 8, which makes it clear that the distinction is already drawn in the previous Act. I fail to see now why we should be asked to accept what is really a change in the law—a change of the terminology to be employed. I venture to think that if this alteration be carried it will be necessary to have a consequential Amendment to the effect that the tenant has a certain interest in the holding. I hope the Chief Secretary will not force us to continue this discussion, especially as we are supported, not only by Members on these Benches, but also by the Member for South Tyrone.

I fail to understand why this Amendment is made at all. Supposing the Lord Lieutenant should be at liberty to revoke not only the first declaration which he made, but also any subsequent declaration. Now, if you take out the words "from time to time," it would rather appear that it refers to only one declaration. The words "from time to time" leave the Lord Lieutenant at liberty to revoke any declaration imposed on the county.

These words are superfluous, and unnecessary words in an Act of Parliament are mischievous.

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I pointed out to him it might be possible to relieve individual purchasers by giving relief in advance. These words "or likely to arise," will give the Lord Lieutenant power to advance an instalment not quite due, but soon to be due, before the legal title comes into operation.

I think the Amendment would act as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out.

It will be convenient now to deal with the question as to the proportions in which the divisions of the money should be made. It was arranged that the county share of the money should be divided into two parts, and that the question of further arrangement should not arise until the large and small farms had taken their full share. Lord Londonderry proposed that instead of waiting for this, 1–25th of the fund should yearly be proportionately divided between the large and small farms. There has been a good deal of misapprehension as to the effect of this proposal, but I think the small tenants need not be apprehensive that they will be damnified, because their interests can be guarded. Now, in the Lords Amendment, page 11, it is provided that,

"One twenty-fifth of the total amount available for advances under this Act in each county shall in each financial year be deemed to be allocated according to the proportion above mentioned."

I would suggest that it would be better to introduce after the word "the," in the third line, the words, "for the purposes of this subsection." Those words would, I think, carry out the object of the hon. Member.

I am inclined to think that the Amendment before the House would be an improvement, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will stand by the words he has now suggested.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that after the word "the," the words, "for the purposes of this sub-section" should be inserted. It is difficult to see precisely what the sub-section would direct the Land Commission to do. I venture to think that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for West Belfast is the only one that will carry out his object.

I agree with the hon. Member for Cavan, and would urge the right hon. Gentleman to make the alteration suggested by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and send it up to the House of Lords. The Lords will then see it on the paper, and having considered it, they can send it back to us, and we can consider it a second time. The matter is of great importance, and I do not think it should be hurriedly dealt with.

What is the hon. Member's suggestion?

I suggest the omission of the 1st Sub-section, because so long as you say there is a certain sum to be allocated there will always be a danger of misapprehension, for it may be held that no more can be spent.

If the 1st sub-section is omitted the whole meaning of the clause will be obscure.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. It appears to me the hon. Member's words will carry out the object he and the Government have in view, namely, that we should only consider the 25th part of the total amount allocated to the county under this clause.

If the 1st subsection is omitted the 25th part disappears altogether.

No, no.

There are two ways of describing the same thing. One is calling it the "1–25th part of the total amount available for advances," and the other is calling it "the annual share of the Guarantee Fund." If you multiply the annual share of the Guarantee Fund by 25, you have the total value of the Guaranteed Stock.

The Lords Amendment Sub-section (d) runs as follows:—

"Returns shall be published by the Land Commission at the end of each financial year in at least one newpaper circulating in each county setting out the amount (if any) carried to the common fund under the provisions of this sub-section in the preceding year and the class of holdings in respect of which such amount has been so carried."

I beg to move to add at the end of Subsection (d)—

"And such Returns shall be laid before Parliament. No advance shall be sanctioned from the common fund till such Return has lain not less than thirty days before both Houses of Parliament. And if within such period of thirty days either House of Parliament passes a resolution objecting to advances from such fund, no advances therefrom shall be sanctioned."

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this. He appears to think that if either House of Parliament express an opinion adverse to the proposed allocation by the Land Commission then the old proportion would remain, but he will observe that the only effect would be that if objection were taken nobody would get the advances, and that is not our desire

The Amendment I propose by adding another sub-section will, I think, be accepted. Its object is evident: to give direction to the Land Commissioners to give a preference to applications which were previously barred by the fixed proportion of advances. It is not an absolutely binding proviso; it allows a discretion to the Commissioners.

May we have some explanation of this?

The effect of the Amendment is to provide that in such cases where there has been a redemption of certain charges such as is contemplated in the clause antecedent to the passing of this Act, then such transactions shall not be deemed invalid.

There is something crooked under this which we have not got at. The right hon. Gentleman has given an explanation I cannot understand, and there must be some meaning behind for this ex poste facto legislation. It covers, probably, one of those little jobs the Government are ready to undertake for their friends the landlords.

I think we cannot assent to this without some better explanation. It has relation to a matter upon which a noble Lord in another place proposed a clause so outrageous that the House of Lords would give no countenance to it, and it would seem that the Lord Chancellor for Ireland has drawn up words to effect the object desired in a manner not so likely to excite the ire of the House of Commons. What in effect this will do, this ex poste facto legislation, will be to pass an amnesty for an act which, when done, was illegal—

I confess I do not in the least understand the proposal and its retrospective action, and, therefore, propose to disagree with the Amendment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word upon this?

Without going into the technical details, the object, shortly stated, is to enable landlords who sell out to invest in something besides Consols. The main object is to encourage sales.

It is, I think, a reasonable proposition, and might even be extended.

I am not sure that I understand this. If a holding is sold in default, a person having a beneficial interest in the guarantee deposit may allow this to go towards making good the default in the annuity. That seems reasonable, but that may prejudice the security in the future.

I am inclined to think the locality will gain rather than lose by the Amendment.

I should like to know what is to become of the liability to the guarantee deposit during the period the Land Commission hold the farm. If the tenant or purchaser continues to hold the farm and makes any profit, he can pay the annuity, and there would be no liability to the Guarantee Fund. Suppose the Land Commission make some profit, would it not be equitable to provide that that profit should go towards a reduction of the annuity? I propose to add—

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to ask what is meant by the words "such sale"? It seems to me this is a clause to provide that the Land Commission may employ the dismissed servants of the Land Corporation. The hon. Member for South Tyrone intends to get rid of part of his ragged regiment, and the Land Commission, apparently, are going to take them on.

This is a regular emergency clause. In some cases the Land Commission have made mistakes; they have lent too much money. If they are to have power to go on in an emergency way, they will put the State to an enormous amount of expense for the purpose of stocking farms. I do not know who brought in this clause, but if it is the Government I agree they are in a difficulty. Suppose the Government make a loss, is the country to suffer? Suppose there is an outrage on a farm—that the tail of a cow is cut off—are the Land Commission to appear before the Grand Jury and claim compensation? If the Land Commission make a bad bargain, in the name of Heaven let them open their eyes to the fact and sell the farm for the best price they can get!

I do not know what "such sale" means. Perhaps the At- torney General for Ireland will introduce words defining the phrase.

Drop the clause.

Perhaps the simplest plan would be to omit the first paragraph.

But the second paragraph is worse, for it proposes that when the Land Commission consider they have a right to a holding, they may issue an order declaring the holding to be vested in them. The Land Commission, being in the position of litigants, are to constitute themselves the Court. Surely it is an unalterable principle of law that any person or body having a claim on what is primâ facie another man's, must go in some recognised Court to make good the claim.

This seems to be a most despotic clause; and if it is to be introduced at all, it should have been introduced in the Bill as brought in.

I hope the Government will not abandon the clause. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, I will give my reasons. The hon. and learned Member for Longford said the Land Commission may make a loss. Yes, but if a farm is left derelict the loss will remain, and it is better to try to make something out of it than nothing at all. We have had farms boycotted, and I suppose we shall have farms boycotted in future. If this clause is struck out the Land Commission will have no power to endeavour to make such farms useful and profitable.

From the point of view of a lawyer this is the most amazing proposition I have ever heard. The Sheriff, the most ancient functionary in existence, is to have an order directed to him by whom? By the Land Commission, without legal process of any sort or description, and in a case in which they themselves are litigants. Was there ever since the world began such a proposition? Why is a slur to be thrown on the Court of Queen's Bench, for instance? Have you not got every Court in the land open to you? Is it suggested that the ordinary Courts of Law will not do their duty? If there is any class of litigation offering nice points of technicality it is the law of the Sheriff. Have the Government considered the A B C of Sheriff law? Suppose a Sheriff goes to a farm, can he plead the order of the Land Commission? Is that to be pleaded as a bar to any action? Again, in ordinary cases a Sheriff is entitled to notice of action. Is the Sheriff to have the right of notice if an action is brought against him in these cases? If this clause is to be adopted the Government will have to prescribe forms of writs. You must define the offence, and the powers of the Sheriff and—

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to speak, I think I may make a suggestion which will shorten the discussion. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is great objection to allowing the Land Purchase Commissioners to be Judges in their own case, and, without going to a Court at all, putting themselves in possession of someone else's holding. In its present shape, therefore, the clause is inadmissible. I will now move that the House disagree with the Amendment, on the understanding that I may consider whether it will not be possible to bring up some Amendment to carry out the object which I think we ought all to regard as good. In face of the overwhelming objections urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman I cannot proceed with the clause.

I think we ought clearly to understand that some provision will be inserted in the Bill subsequently, in pursuance of which a defaulting tenant may be legally ejected from his holding.

The Government are quite willing to consider the suggestion, and no doubt it would be an advantage if, for the purpose of sale, the Land Commission were in a position to give clear possession.

I regret that the House cannot agree to the clause, because I think that everyone will suffer if some clause of this sort is not adopted. I fear there are a certain class of tenants who will, in respect to timber and drainage, use their rights as freehold proprietors very detrimentally. But I presume it is out of the power of this House, or of anyone else, to draft a clause which will safeguard the interests of the holding, and, at the same time, preserve to the freeholder that reasonable power over his holding which he ought to possess.

Of course, the objects the hon. Member has in view are useful objects; but if you are going to put these purchasers on a different footing to others, they cease to be proprietors at all.

I look upon this as the expiring kick of the Irish landlords. I would suggest to the Government, in regard to the future, that as they have said they would endeavour to bring up words to effect this same purpose, they should do so. Let them bring up some Amendment which will have the effect of preserving the timber on the holdings of the peasantry; they will not find us opposing it. Ireland is almost soaked with water, and the necessity of doing something to keep the trees on the land is very great. The Government should have Inspectors going all over the country and preventing the destruction of timber save where the tenant wants it for firewood, or for "mending his plough or gates," as, I think, an old Statute phrases it. I do not think trees should be allowed to be cut down for the purpose of sale, except with the consent of the land Commission. No doubt it is a strong thing to interfere with a man's liberty, but I think the circumstances would justify us in compelling the tenant—during the 49 years, at any rate—to consult the Land Commission before cutting down timber for the purpose of sale. When these Amendments go back to the Lords I think the Government might well insert some words dealing with this forestry question.

I think the opportunity should not be lost of doing all that may be possible to preserve the shelter of trees in Ireland. From my own experience it is deplorable to see the disappear- of shelter absolutely necessary for the welfare of the stock on the farms. Therefore, I join with the hon. and learned Member opposite in begging the Chief Secretary and the Government to endeavour in another place to do all that is possible with regard to the preservation of timber. I know one district in Ireland where the tenants not only cut down trees and have got out of the habit of digging turf, but have actually got into the habit of cutting down the furze and hedges. The result is that the agricultural value of the district is seriously declining.

I greatly regret that the Government did not deal with this when the Bill was before the House. It is a matter of the greatest importance in Ireland. I admit that the old landlords cut down the timber very considerably. In my own constituency at the present time they are cutting down the timber and selling it. We are creating a new race of proprietors, and, as a matter of fact, already under the Ashbourne Acts the damage they have done is immense. The new purchasers are cutting down the trees for the purpose of sale in every direction, and I think it a great pity that the Government did not deal with the question in the Bill.

It is an easy matter for hon. Gentlemen to say that we ought to bring in an Amendment in the House of Lords dealing with this question, but as a matter of fact, I have puzzled over this question as over the other numerous and complicated questions raised by the Bill. The real difficulty, as far as plantations are concerned, is that they are not parts of the holdings, and it is not possible to advance money upon them. The State might be asked to buy woods as well as turbary. Investments in turbary the Treasury expect to be recouped, whether it is or not; but woods are an investment of doubtful value. They do not come to maturity for many years, and during all the time they require careful supervision. I do not feel that I could go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say, "Advance the British taxpayers' money in order to preserve timber." I have thought whether something might be done through the County Councils. It would hardly be fair to landlords to stop them from cutting down trees in woods on the ground that by so doing they diminish the security for the money advanced on their holdings; and a provision of that kind, even if it were equitable, would not meet the whole case. I will consider whether anything can be done in the future, but I can assure the House the Government have often thought of the matter and have not been able to arrive at any conclusion.

This question is an important and difficult one, and I may remind the House and the Chief Secretary that in most countries in Europe, especially in France, where small ownerships prevail, the local authorities have power to prevent the cutting down of woods and plantations where they are necessary for the cultivation of the land and for shelter.

I think some means should be devised by which both landlords and tenants may be prevented from cutting down timber in the country. I know cases where landlords have cut down timber and where tenants the moment they have bought out the landlords cut down every tree in the place. Something should be done to prevent these people from cutting down all the timber, and to require them to re-plant wherever they cut down. That system is in practice in Westmoreland. There they cut down the timber every 15 years; but they replant as they cut down, so that they have always timber to cut, and have always timber growing. It is the greatest possible pity that some scheme cannot be devised for the re-afforesting of Ireland. We have mountains that are fit for little—that are nude and bare—and it would be a great advantage to the country if some steps would be taken to plant them with trees.

I should like to ask the Government the meaning of this Amendment. Is it intended to modify the wording of Sub-section 2, Clause 1, in regard to the sinking fund payments?

The insertion of these words was the result of a discussion which took place upon the subject. They were intended to meet the case of what would happen in regard to the sinking fund dividends. If you purchase stock and cancel it before the end of the term for which the annuity is payable, you must pay into the sinking fund the sum that would otherwise have had to be paid in dividends on the stock.