Committee report Progress; to sit tem of Education as compared with that again upon Thursday 2nd May.

sury, Whether Mr. Lynam, Civil Engineer, has made his Report upon the state of the river Shannon; and, if not, when it may be expected?

MR. HUNT said, in reply, that the Report had only been received that morning; but in a few days he hoped it would be laid upon the table of the House.

LUXEMBOURG.-QUESTION.

MR. HORSMAN: I wish, Sir, to put a Question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of which I have given him private notice. I wish to ask, Whether the noble Lord has any objection to inform the House what is the present state of the negotiations respecting Luxembourg; whether it is true that those negotiations have resulted in an arrangement for a Conference in London; and, whether he is prepared to lay upon the table of the House Papers which will show the part the English Government have taken in this

transaction?

from the first and throughout the language I have held to all parties concerned has been this-that if, unfortunately, matters took a different turn from that which they now seem likely to take, and if hostilities were to break out, the position of England in this quarrel would be one of strict and impartial neutrality.

PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS

MR. DILLWYN'S MEMORANDUM.

EXPLANATIONS.

forward on that occasion. The note was dated April 28, 1867," from "Newmarket, near Cambridge," and was to this

Motion on the Paper of his intention to MR. DILLWYN said, he had placed a put a question to the hon. Member for read to the House on the 12th April, purNottingham, as to certain Papers which he porting to be the Copy of a Memorandum made by the Member for Swansea ; and to ask that Gentleman by what means he obtained such Papers. He would beg to ask leave of the House to make a personal explanation with reference to this subject. He had that morning received a note from LORD STANLEY: In reply, Sir, to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I the hon. Member (Mr. Osborne), and, as have to state that I have reason to believe he had found that in dealing with matters in which the hon. Gentleman was concerned that the propositions made for a Conference it would be better not to trust to memory, -propositions which were not solely made by England, but by all the Powers neutral he would read the communication he had in this dispute will be accepted by both received from the hon. Gentleman in France and Prussia. More than that, answer to a private notice he had given although it is too early to speak with ab-him of his intention to bring this matter solute confidence on the matter, yet I have every reason to hope, and even to believe, that this question of Luxembourg, which for the last fortnight has disturbed all Europe, is in a fair way to be speedily and amicably arranged. I fear I have no right to state to the House any details as to the present state of the negotiations; because however willing I might be, and I am always willing to explain and to vindicate the course pursued by this Government, it is obvious that I have no right to disclose the proceedings of other Governments, which have been communicated to me more or less confidentially, without the consent of those Governments. I may, however, take this opportunity of contradicting a report which I find has been current that Her Majesty's Government has expressed decided views upon the merits of the question now in dispute between France and Prussia. No such opinion has been expressed. We certainly did express a very strong opinion in favour of settling this question by peaceable means. I may also say that

effect

"Sir,-In case you still wish to address to me the question that stands in the Notice Paper in that it will not suit my arrangements to be in your name for to-morrow, I beg to inform you London before Thursday next. I have the honour to be, your most obedient servant,

"R. OSBORNE."

He should make no comment in the absence of the hon. Gentleman upon the occurrence of the other evening, further than to remark upon the want of courtesy shown by the hon. Gentleman in not giving him notice of his intention to bring the memorandum of which he (Mr. Dillwyn) was the author before the House. Owing to the abrupt manner in which the hon. Gentleman had thought fit to bring the matter forward, he (Mr. Dillwyn) had been taken very much by surprise, and had felt himself in a very awkward position in having to explain at a minute's notice, and in the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel

Taylor), transactions in which he and that hon. and galant Member were concerned. The question he had put upon the Paper was intended to elicit from the hon. Member for Nottingham the means by which he had become possessed of the paper he had read to the House on the 12th of April, which purported to be a copy of the memorandum he (Mr. Dillwyn) had made of the conversation he had had with the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin. The original memorandum made by him was not strictly of either a public or a private character, as it was well known in the lobby that such a memorandum had been drawn up. The right hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand), in a letter of the 15th of April, explaining how the paper came into the possession of the hon. Member for Nottingham, said

"It struck me that this statement was of the

greatest importance as affecting the question before the House, and I accordingly asked Mr. Stanley if he would give me the terms of the memorandum. He thereupon dictated the memorandum, which was afterwards read, and assured me that it was strictly correct."

He thought, however, that in order to prevent such misunderstandings and the necessity for such explanation in future, it would be better if hon. Gentlemen of the experience of the right hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand) and the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Owen Stanley), when they next made a memorandum from recollection, would act a little more cautiously and with a better sense of fair play, and show the memorandum to the hon. Member concerned. They ought, in his opinion, to have shown him the memorandum, and to have ascertained that it was substantially correct. In this case, however, he had nothing further to say than that the memorandum brought forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) was incorrect, both in form and in sub

stance.

MR. OWEN STANLEY said, he was very sorry to be obliged again to address the House upon this subject; but, after the statement made by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he felt that it was incumbent on him to say one or two words. As to giving the hon. Member for Swansea notice, it was not the hon. Member for Swansea who had asked him to read the document; it was another hon. Member - the hon. Member for Lincoln. He was not on terms of private intimacy with the hon. Member for Swansea, and he did not regard the document as in any way a private one. He mentioned it to the right hou. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand) because he had had communications with the right hon. Member with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). When he found that the document was being shown to hon. Members at eleven o'clock at night

This, therefore, gave the required explanation as to the means by which the hon. Member for Nottingham had obtained the paper he read to the House. The statement it contained that the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin had said that the Earl of Derby and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) upon the Reform Bill was incorrect, inasmuch as the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Dublin did not allude to the opinions of the noble Earl in any way. That document did not refer to the question at issue before the House in any way, but related exclusively to the propriety of -for that was an important fact-he menadjourning the debate until after the recess, tioned it to the right hon. Member for so as to allow time for the consideration of Lewes. The hon. Member for Swansea Mr. Hibbert's Amendment by the Cabinet, had said that it was drawn up at five that consideration being for the time pre- o'clock, previous to the Motion for the Advented by the illness of Lord Derby. That journment being made by the noble Lord the was the whole purport of the memorandum, Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor). It and in justice to the hon. and gallant was, however, eleven o'clock when the Gentleman the Member for the county of document was being shown to hon. MemDublin, he (Mr. Dillwyn) felt bound to ex-bers, certainly with a view to induce those plain most explicitly that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hint in any manner whatever that Lord Derby was favourable to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). The memorandum was one merely affecting the adjournment; it was no secret, and he showed it freely to several hon. Members.

Members favourable to the Amendment to
support the Government.
It was, of
course, difficult, after the perusal of a do-
cument, to remember the exact words.
The right hon. Member for Lewes, wishing
to speak to the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Glad
stone), asked him (Mr. Owen Stanley) for

ever, that time had arrived all the documents should be laid upon the table of the House.

FACTORY ACTS EXTENSION BILL.

QUESTION.

MR. POWELL said, he rose to ask, Whether it is likely that progress will be made with the Factory Bill that night?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, in reply, that it must depend on the progress which might be made with other Bills.

the substance. He accordingly dictated the memorandum read by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne), which he still believed to be substantially correct. ["Oh!"] That, at all events, was his impression, and was the impression which remained on the minds of other hon. Members who had seen the document. He hoped that he had now convinced the House that he had only acted in this matter in the way that any other hon. Member in his position would have acted. The document was not a private one. It would have influenced the votes of hon. Members on an important question, and might have probably influenced his own. The only inaccuracy might, perhaps, have been the statement professing to be made on the authority of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the county of Dublin (Colonel Taylor) that Lord Derby was personally in favour of the Amendment. He (Mr. Owen Stanley), however, certainly thought that the document was so worded, and after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea the House could easily to that effect. believe that it was a little involved. At any rate the matter could be easily cleared up. If the hon. Member would only produce the document, it would speak for itself.

IRELAND-THE TYRONE MAGISTRACY.

QUESTION.

COLONEL STUART KNOX said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has any objection to place on the table copies of the following documents connected with the charges made by Mr. Justice Keogh at the late Assizes for Tyrone against certain Magistrates of that county-namely, statement of the Judge from the Bench; his Report to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; the correspondence that has ensued between the Lord Chancellor and the Magistrates in question; also Copy of the Evidence of the Constables at the Petty Sessions at Dungannon on the 1st of October, 1866, upon whose statements the Judge founded his remarks?

MR. BRIGHT said, he wished to ask, if the right hon. Gentleman would consult with the Home Secretary as to the propriety of referring the Factory Bill to a Select Committee. He believed that all persons concerned in the operation of the Bill thought it might be made more satisfactory if it were referred to a Select Committee. He had understood that the Home Secretary was not much indisposed to such a course, and he (Mr. Bright) had received requisitions from Birmingham

TENANTS IMPROVEMENTS (IRELAND)
BILL-[BILL 29.]

(Lord Naas, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Order read, for resuming Adjourned
Debate on Question [4th April], That
the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.

MR. GREGORY said, in moving the Amendment of which he had given notice, he had no intention of preventing the Bill from going into Committee. There were two principles in the Bill of which he cordially approved-the first, that which enabled tenants to borrow money from the Government for the improvement of their farms; the second, that which permitted tenants to remove fixtures erected by themselves in case of their failing to come to an understanding with their landlord, or the incoming tenant, to remunerate them for the outlay. These were LORD NAAS, in reply, said, he believed two important principles, and to assert it would be necessary to institute an in- them it was well worth while to read the quiry into the whole of the circumstances Bill a second time. He (Mr. Gregory) connected with the case to which the hon. must, however, assert his conviction that and gallant Gentleman referred. Under if the object of the noble Lord was to those circumstances, it would clearly be come to a settlement of what was called improper to produce any documents until the land question in Ireland, this Bill that inquiry was completed. When, how-would have no effect whatever. The noble

as

Lord might say that his Bill is not intended | would be required a swarm of men of skill, a settlement; but as Her Majesty's experience and integrity, and where were gracious Speech at the opening of Parlia- they to be found? And if such men were ment had dwelt at such length on this sub- not to be found, was it to be sanctioned ject, and as the Bill of the late Chief Se- that the owners of land in Ireland were cretary was accepted as a settlement, al- to have charges scattered broadcast over though he (Mr. Gregory) could not look on their properties at the arbitrary decree of it as such, he could hardly imagine why some ignorant or venal man, and the only the subject should be introduced at all, way in which the infliction could be avoided and why provisions which certainly did in- would be by a notice to quit, which would fringe on the rights of property should be be denounced as an act of inconceivable sanctioned by a Conservative Government, tyranny. Let them also conceive, apart except on the overwhelming plea of with- from this extremely mischievous invasion drawing this question finally and completely on property, the discontents that might be so far as politics admitted of finality produced by a dishonest, or reckless, or and completeness- from the list of Irish even incompetent inspector. He sancdiscontents. The Bill appeared to him to tions; indeed, he encourages loans right have three cardinal defects. It was inap- and left. The peasants are delighted to plicable to a great portion of the Irish touch the cash-the improvements are tenancies; it utterly ignored and passed badly done or turn out to be no improveby the real cause of discontent among the ment at all-land might be drained which peasantry of Ireland, and it needlessly vio- from its intrinsic badness could never related the rights of property. As regards pay the outlay. But the evil day ap the first objection, there were 307,098 proaches-instalments become due-distenancies in Ireland under fifteen acres, satisfaction ensues. The peasant declares representing in round numbers over a he borrowed at the instigation of his in1,500,000 souls. How was it possible to spector, that he was misled by him, and apply the principle of this Bill to these thus there might be a whole district resist small holdings? It was clear, however, ing the payment of what would be con that the attempt to do so was contem-sidered an unjust debt, contracted by the plated. The noble Lord, in his introductory speech, informed the House that inspectors were to be stationed in various localities to encourage the peasantry to take loans from the Government to improve their holdings, and these inspectors were to be urged to greater zeal, because they were to derive their salaries from fees on the money expended. [Lord NAAS: I did not say so.] The noble Lord denied that such was his statement. He (Mr. Gregory) had certainly so understood him; but, whether it were so or not, what possible reliance could there be that the money would be well spent? Could they not picture to themselves the scamper there would be to get a pull at the public funds; and could they not also fancy the clamour when re-payment was demanded? No doubt in many cases the inspector would only recommend improvements which would really increase the value of the farm. But there would be others not so competent nor so scrupulous. He (Mr. Gregory) doubted from his knowledge of Ireland whether it would be possible to get the number of competent men. If the Bill was meant to be inoperative, it would be easy enough; but if the Bill were really to do what it proposes to do, there

advice of Government officials, and the Members of the county would be called on at their peril to batter and assail the Treasury for remission, an office which they would perform, doubtless, with vigour and pertinacity. This was a matter which a Government lending public money would do well to consider. In his (Mr. Gregory's opinion money might safely be lent on land held on lease, and any Scotch or English tenant farmer would inform the House, as the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Read), the very best authority, being himself a tenant farmer, had already informed the House, that the principal and interest might be re-paid within twenty-one years with ample remuneration to the borrower. Should, however, a longer period for repayment be considered desirable, there was the proposal of Mr. Caird, a gentleman known for his able letters in The Times on the agricultural condition of Ireland, and lately a distinguished Member of Parliament. He recommends that the State should lend on a thirty-four years' lease, and he is not of opinion that public money should be lent on a tenancy-at-will. This reference to leases led him to the second objection, that the Bill ignored and passed by the real cause of discontent among the peasant

well