MR. GRAVES said he had moved the adjournment of the debate because the question was one of great importance, and ought not to be discussed after midnight. Besides, there were several Amendments on it to be debated. subject before the House. The question | hon. Friend the Member for Galway, behad been thoroughly investigated, and cause I believe that it proposes to mix up hon. Members on that side of the House two subjects which are essentially distinct. were anxious to come to a vote upon it that Still, if the House should think otherwise, night. If any hon. Gentleman was de- I shall not regard their decision as a sirous of speaking upon the Bill, he would ground for abandoning the Bill. On the have full opportunity of doing so. contrary, I shall then be glad to see how my hon. Friend proposes to carry out his project, and to see the nature of the clauses which he will doubtless bring forward to give effect to his Motion, which, if carried, I shall esteem simply in the light of an Instruction to the Committee. My own opinion is that these two subjects should be dealt with separately, and in opposing the Motion of my hon. Friend, I only do so for the purpose of proving that in my opinion it is not for the advancement of this question that the two subjects should be joined together. I will only repeat that I shall be curious to see the clauses which my hon. Friend proposes to add to the Bill, and can only hope that they may be such as will commend themselves to the majority of the House. LORD HENRY THYNNE hoped the House would not consent to the adjourn ment of the debate. After the statement made last year by the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth, he did not think that the present Bill could hold water. LORD NAAS: I can only say that it is the intention of the Government to go on with this Bill, and to endeavour to ascertain at the earliest possible moment the opinion of the House upon it. Had it been the desire of many hon. Members to address the House upon the question, I should certainly have been prepared to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool for the adjournment of the debate; but as there appears to be a general opinion that the division should be taken to-night upon this question, I do not see how I can consent to that Motion. And now, as to the course I propose to take with regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway. I do not understand that that Motion is intended to upset and to destroy the Bill; but I think that it is a very great mistake on the part of the House to mix up these two questions together. The Bill I have proposed deals solely and entirely with the question of compensation to the tenant, and I believe that if it passes into law it will be of the greatest possible advantage to the country, and that it will go a long way towards settling the tenant question; although, perhaps, not in the sense in which many hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to-night would wish, seeing that it will not in any way give fixity of tenure or long leases under legislative sanction to the tenant. Still, in my opinion, it will prove most beneficial to the industrious tenant and a great boon to the Irish tenantry. It would be impossible at this hour of the night (a quarter past twelve o'clock) to go fully into the principle of the Bill; but I may say that I shall oppose the Motion of my MR. NEWDEGATE supported the Motion for Adjournment, considering that the proper time for moving the Resolution was in Committee, and not on the second reading of the Bill. MR. CONOLLY apprehended that according to the forms of the House the Speaker would have put the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out should stand part of the Question," and that if that had been decided in the negative the Bill of the noble Lord would have been lost. He thought this Bill intrinsically bad, and he believed a large party in the House thought so too; and he thought that the decision ought to be taken "Aye" or "No" on the second reading. MR. GREGORY said, that his Amendment simply advocated the encouragement of leases, and did not mention anything about fixity of tenure or the establishment of long leases. He declined to bring up any clauses as suggested by the noble Lord, reserving that honour until be sat upon the Bench occupied by the noble Lord and his Colleagues. SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEY was anxious to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford), and desired to learn from the Speaker how he was to vote in order to give effect to his intention. Was he to vote "Aye" or "No?" MR. SPEAKER: I believe that the hon. Baronet might have ascertained from the hon. Member for Maldon, who sits to both Amendments. He had been charged at his side, what course he should pur- with inconsistency in respect of the course sue. The first Question that I shall have he had pursued last year, and this with to put is "That the words proposed to be reference to this question. The principle left out stand part of the Question." If contained in his Motion of last year was that is decided by a majority of the "Ayes," perfectly sound, as contrasted with the Bill the Question "That this Bill be now read of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chichester a second time" will stand. If it is nega-Fortescue); but the Government were of tived, then will come the Question what opinion that such a slight deviation from words shall be supplied, and it will then the principle laid down last year as was be open to the hon. Member for Maldon proposed by the present Bill might with to propose the Amendment which he has propriety be acceded to. The difference placed on the paper. between the two descriptions of improvement was this :-The Government believed that everything which was done on the land ought to be done only in conformity with the consent of the landlord; because considerable differences of opinion might arise between the landlord and the tenant as to the beneficial effect of such improvements. Everything, on the contrary, that was done in the soil could occasion no MR. GRAVES said, he would withdraw his Motion for the Adjournment. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived. Question proposed, "That the words without prejudging the Second Reading of this Bill, this House is of opinion that no enactment for the settlement of the Landlord and Tenant question in Ireland can be deemed satisfactory which does not provide for the encouragement of leases in that Country,' be there added." similar differences of opinion, and therefore, as no injury to the landlord could arise, the Government thought they were safe in permitting such improvements to be made without absolutely requiring his consent. It must be borne in mind that in every case notice of these improvements must be given to the landlord, who would have the opportunity before the Commissioner of consulting with his tenant, and if he could show that the proposed improvements would be otherwise than beneficial to the soil, or would be such as would not Amendment proposed to the said pro-add a proportionate amount of value to the posed Amendment, by leaving out all the soil, then, beyond all question, it would be words after the word "opinion," in order in his power to prevent the improvements to add the words, from being made. If it were possible that "No property should be charged with the re-injury could result to the landlord, then he payment of loans advanced for the purpose of admitted that the principle of the Bill making improvements except such improvements be made with the consent of the landlord,"--(Mr. would be a bad one; but being framed so Sandford,) as to bring about an amicable consultation between the landlord and tenant before any it would tend greatly to facilitate tenants improvements were made, he believed that -instead thereof. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said pro-anxious to improve bond fide in coming posed Amendment." The House divided:-Ayes 104; Noes 108 Majority 4. forward for that purpose. The whole object of the Bill was to endeavour to get landlords and tenants to combine for the purpose of effecting these improvements, and, as framed, he believed that it was eminently conducive to this object. As to saying that under this Bill improvements could be made that would be otherwise than beneficial to landlords, he maintained that it was a perfect absurdity. He believed that not a single landlord in Ireland, which unless he were a lunatic or an idiot, would attempt to object to the class of improve MR. FITZWILLIAM DICK moved the adjournment of the House. ments proposed by this Bill. The House, I discussed. Merely uttering his individual therefore, would do well, in his opinion, opinion, he thought the debate had better to go into Committee on the Bill and con- be adjourned. sider its details, for in such matters the really important points were questions of detail. Whether the absolute consent of the landlord were insisted upon or struck out of the Bill, in practice he believed that it would make little difference; but as one course was less restrictive than the other he should vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Maldon. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, that at that time of night, he would not give any detailed reasons for the opinion which he entertained that his noble Friend had failed altogether to vindicate his own consistency in introducing a Bill this Session, the principle of which directly contradicted his Motion of last year, and the Resolution which he had proposed in the Select Committee only two years ago. The Bill now before the House involved a more serious and vital departure from the ordinary principles of legislation than anything contained in the Bill of the late Government, and yet was not calculated to attain for the mass of the people any one of those benefits which could alone justify such a departure. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), and those who supported him, had reason to complain of the way in which the Government had manipulated the divisions. The result of those somewhat complicated manoeuvres, which, till a few moments ago, he confessed he did not thoroughly understand, was that it had been made impossible for the House to pronounce any opinion upon the Resolution of the Member for Galway. The Government, consequently, would succeed in getting rid both of the Motion of the hon. Member for Maldon and of the original Resolution, which, if properly submitted to the House, would have been carried by a large majority. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the right hon. Gentleman gave Her Majesty's Government credit for an amount of dexterity to which they could fairly lay no claim. What had happened was the result of good fortune, not of any arrangement on their part. He must complain, however, that the House having spent the evening in discussing a particular question was now about to be hurried into a division on the Bill itself, the general merits of which had never been MR. NEWDEGATE said, the effect of rejecting the Motion of the hon. Member for Maldon would be to affirm that improvements in Ireland, unlike England, should be made without the consent of the land. lord. That would be a novel and startling proposition. He accordingly supported the Motion for Adjournment. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE believed that, according to the forms of the House, the Bill could not be read & second time that evening, but hoped the Motion of the hon. Member for Maldon would be at once disposed of. the Debate be now adjourned. The House divided:-Ayes 115; Noes 97: Majority 18. Debate adjourned till Monday 13th May. TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. On Motion of Mr. MONSELL, Bill to amend Tramways (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1861," or "The Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860," and " The dered to be brought in by Mr. MONSELL and Mr. SHERRIFF. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 125.] HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, April 30, 1867. MINUTES.]-SUPPLY-considered in Committee PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSIONERS. QUESTION. COLONEL FRENCH said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the Report of the Public Works Commissioners for the last year has not been laid upon the table of the House? MR. HUNT replied, that the accounts | beg to ask the Secretary of State for which were embodied in the Report of the Foreign Affairs, Whether any suggestion Commissioners were now made up to the that this country should enter into any end of the financial year, and it was ob- guarantee for securing the future political viously impossible that the Report could neutrality of Luxembourg has been made be laid on the table so early as the present to, or entertained by, Her Majesty's Gomoment; but he hoped it would be ready vernment during the late Communications in the course of a few days. on the subject? IRISH AND SCOTCH REFORM BILLS. QUESTIONS. MR. STACPOOLE said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the Irish Reform Bill will be introduced? [Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER had placed upon the paper a similar question with regard to the Scotch Reform Bill, and Mr. OLIPHANT also had given notice of his intention to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, there being no compound-householders in Scotland, he proposed in the Scotch Reform Bill to give the franchise to every ratepaying householder in Scotch burghs ?] THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I will answer the Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Stacpoole) with great pleasure, and I will, at the same time, take this opportunity of answering the two other Questions bearing upon this matter which stand on the Paper. We think that the Scotch Reform Bill is rather more pressing than the Irish, seeing that there was an Irish Reform Bill passed at a comparatively recent date. I may, however, say that the Irish Reform Bill is in preparation. With regard to the Scotch Reform Bill, I hope very soon to produce it; but it is necessary before I do so that some progress should be made with the English Reform Bill. With regard to the Question of another hon. Gentleman (Mr. Oliphant), which comes next upon the Paper, I think it would be more convenient that the provisions of the Scotch Bill should be known when I make the general statement, rather than I should answer interrogatories of this kind with reference to some single provisions. I am quite aware that there are no compound-householders in Scotland; but I scarcely think that Scotland is a country that ought to be condoled with on account of that circumstance. NEUTRALITY OF LUXEMBOURG. QUESTION. LORD STANLEY: Sir, a great many communications, practicable and impracticable, wise and foolish, have been addressed to me by various persons upon the subject of Luxembourg in the course of the last few weeks; but all arrangements which will regulate the political future of that State must be made in the Conference. And I may now say that I have every at a very early date. I do not think it reason to hope that Conference will meet would be my duty to anticipate what will be there discussed; but I think my hon. Friend has forgotten one fact of which he is, of course, aware-namely, that during the last twenty-eight years, since the Treaty of 1839, Luxembourg has been under a European guarantee, to which the character of signitary to the Treaty of England is one of the parties. It is in 1839 that we are now invited to discuss the future arrangements connected with Luxembourg. IRELAND ANTICIPATED DISTRESS IN MR. GREGORY said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether any Report has reached him as to the probability of serious distress in the western part of Galway during the summer; and whether he has ordered any inquiry on this* subject? LORD NAAS said, in reply, that the only information which had reached him on the subject had been received from a gentleman of considerable importance in the district referred to. He had referred that letter to the Poor Law Commissioners, who would immediately institute an inquiry into the accuracy of the statements it contained. IRELAND-COURT OF EXCHEQUER. LORD DUNKELLIN said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, with regard to the vacant Mastership of the Court of Exchequer, it be intended to adopt the recommendation of the MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, he would Royal Commission on the Courts of Com THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHATTERTON) said, in reply, that the subject was under the consideration of the Government, but no definite conclusion had been finally arrived at; he hoped, however, in a short time to be better prepared to answer the question. mon Law and Equity, who in their Second | Parliament must draw in their own minds Report stated that one Master was suffi- a very unfavourable comparison between cient for the three Law Courts? myself and that most distinguished and popular officer to whom this question used as of right to belong. Sir De Lacy Evans was then approaching the close of an exceptionally brilliant and prolonged military service, while his unworthy successor is at the commencement of a sufficiently obscure civil career. But, Sir, the most necessary qualification for any one who aspires to enlist in this crusade against purchase is that he should be young, because the service partakes of the nature of a forlorn hope which promises to last many years. Any one who has passed middle life must be a very sanguine man if he looks forward to seeing the promotion in the English Army administered on a mixed system of selection and seniority. It is true, indeed, that the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) in the Session of 1862 closed a most able protest against the purchase system with these words NATIONAL DEBT BILL.-QUESTION. MR. H. B. SHERIDAN said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What day he proposes to bring on this Bill, as it would be utterly impossible that the discussion upon the Amendment he (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) had proposed upon that Bill with reference to the further reduction of Fire Insurance Duty could take place on Thursday next? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think, Sir, it would be impossible to take this Bill on Thursday. I wish to bring it forward as early as possible, and I will endeavour to give as ample notice as I can, and, indeed, private notice to the hon. Gentleman. "I venture to say that in less than a quarter of a century not one rag of the system of appointments by purchase will remain in the English Army." I can only hope, in my case for my own sake, in his for the sake of his country, FACTORY BILL.-QUESTION. that both myself and the noble Lord will MR. BRIGHT: Sir, last night I made live to see that wished-for result. Army a suggestion to the Chancellor of the Ex-purchase has already survived many of its chequer in the absence of the Home Secretary with regard to referring the Factory Bill to a Select Committee. I now see the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) in his place, so perhaps. he will state what determination has been arrived at on the subject. I understood that probably the Government would be willing to consent to adopt that course, and if they did so I think it would be satisfactory to all concerned? MR. WALPOLE: On Thursday I will state what course I intend to pursue in connection with this matter. Probably I shall go into Committee pro forma in order to insert certain Amendments, but by Thursday I shall be able to definitely state what I propose to do. ARMY-PURCHASE OF COMMISSIONS. RESOLUTION. MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, in rising to bring before the notice of the House the question of purchase in the army, I cannot but be conscious that those Gentlemen who were Members of the last earliest, ablest, and most zealous op. ponents. It has seen out Lord Clyde, who was one of its most uncompromising enemies. It has seen out, I fear, the public life of Sir De Lacy Evans. Sir, there is no subject which at present occupies the public imagination more strongly than the question of national defence. Few Gentlemen, on whichever side of the House they may sit, will deny that in the present alarming condition of the Continent, we, like others, should be prepared for the worst; and that we should aim at providing ourselves with such a fighting equipment, both by land and sea, as will discourage attack, and give a sense of security and independence. Hon. Gentlemen opposite hold that opinion in obedience to what I may describe, in no carping spirit, as the traditional instinct of their party. We, on this side, have been taught by experience that in military organization efficiency is only another name for the truest economy. Now, Sir, in our defensive arrangements, the main point is the efficiency of our re |