livering himself twice of his sentiments, concludes by saying that he will proceed no further at present, but that he will reserve to himself the right of raising the question again. I am also asked for an assurance as to the relative importance I attach to the different portions of the Bill. [Mr. CHAPLIN: I made no such request.] No, it was the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but we were told by the hon. Gentleman that no Member of the Government has attempted to make the simplest reply to his demonstration on the subject of confiscation. Now, to the charge of confiscation brought against the Bill, I endeavoured to make what I thought was a sufficient reply, though, probably, the hon. Member, from the sublime height on which he stands, has failed to observe so minute an object as a counter-argument. The hon. Member says that no answer has been made to that charge. Answers have been made and answers will be made. There is no confiscation in the Bill. If there were confiscation to be found in this Bill it would be found in the recommendation for which the hon. Gentleman is responsible, which would enable the tenant to obtain the judgment of the Court to prevent a landlord from obtaining the rent he might obtain in the open market. If there is anything in the shape of confiscation the hon. Member is the author of it. But I will not enter into that matter now. I will only take the opportunity of assuring the hon. Member that he shall have it elucidated to his heart's content. As to the seductive prospect which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) holds out to me of having his support in the coming division, if I will only give an assurance that I am ready, at the expense of the people of the Three Kingdoms, to authorize a Commission to go into Ireland and compulsorily to buy the estates of the landlords, or to buy them without any particular limit as to the amount, and for the Government to undertake the responsibility of providing the means, I will not add a syllable to what I have already said on the subject. I have gone very far in proposing that liabilities should be undertaken by the Public Exchequer; and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who likewise wants assurances as to the importance I attach to Part V. of the Bill, and is jealous that it may be dropped, Mr. Gladstone appears to have forgotten that on the night of the introduction of the Bill he pointed to the large and dangerous liabilities which the measure involved. Under the present circumstances, I do not think it wise to enter into a large discussion of this part or that part of the Bill. The Bill has been proposed by Her Majesty's Government as a whole. They draw no distinction between one part and another part of the Bill. The importance they attach to it is more than they can describe in words, and that importance they have never limited to Parts I., II., III., or IV., or any other part. Upon that ground they are prepared to stand, and as I trust we are all desirous of dealing with the matter, and of proceeding with the Bill, we may now pass to the consideration of the 1,500 Amendments which stand on the Paper in order that we may make some progress with the measure. MR. GORST wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that having been challenged to give an assurance, he had sat down after having carefully avoided giving any. This was one of the points in which the Committee were placed in a position of great difficulty by the two voices with which the Government spoke to them. When the Secretary of State for India addressed some observations upon the subject, he laid the greatest possible stress upon Part V. of the Bill as the cardinal portion of the Bill, and the noble Lord did what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said the Government would not do-he did draw a distinction between one part of the Bill and the other. [Mr. Tuo ROLD ROGERS: Where?] It was not in the House of Commons. The learned Professor who gave that ironical cheer appeared to think that the words of a Minister were not binding unless they were uttered in that House. He (Mr. Gorst) imagined that Ministers of the Crown were bound by their public utterances everywhere. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India did what the Prime Minister said no Member of the Government would do-he drew a distinction between the two parts of the Bill, and stigmatized the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th parts as a mere modus vivendi until Part V., which was the really valuable part of the Bill, should come into operation. All he (Mr. Gorst, now wished to call the attention of the Com mittee to was that on scores of occasions it would be their fate to listen to two distinct voices on the part of the Government, and that they would have the greatest difficulty in making out which voice they were to believe. The Secretary of State for India said the 5th part was to be the important part of the Bill. The Prime Minister, when challenged, slurred over the 5th part, evidently attaching no importance to it, and his (Mr. Gorst's) belief was that when Part I. and the earlier parts of the Bill were safely got through Committee, they would see Part V. dropped altogether. cure, or to provide the means for making the existence, either of landlords or tenants, tolerable and pleasant in the meantime-I should say the immediate object is the more important one. But I do not wish to be drawn into giving precedence to the importance of one part of the Bill or the other. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with what was said by my right hon. Friend that the Government regard this Bill as a whole, and that as a whole they intend to go on with it. The condition of Ireland appears to me to be that of a patient, who from some cause-perhaps of very long standing-finds himself extremely ill. There might be an opinion that certain changes in his mode of living would alone restore him to complete good health; but these changes could not be applied immediately to restore him, and it is a remedy to be actually applied at this moment that the Government are proposing in the first part of the Bill. I hope that, having now stated what I said and what I intended to say at the Fishmonger's Hall, there may be an end of any attempts on the part of hon. Members opposite to attribute to me a desire in any way to disparage the importance of the first portion of this Bill. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred again and again to what I said in the City not long ago; and I may as well, therefore, state exactly what it was I did say on that occasion. I referred to the different parts of the Bill, no doubt; but I am not aware that I drew a distinction between them. Certainly I did not do what the hon. and learned Member says -"stigmatize" the first portion of the Bill. I do not know why the hon. and learned Member should assert that a statement that the first portions of the Bill are intended to provide a modus virendi must be called "stigmatizing" the Bill. I should like to know what could be more important than to provide a modus vivendi ? What can be a more essential object of this Bill? No doubt I said, as I would still say, and I think most of my Colleagues would say, that the provisions of the Bill which relate to emigration and the increase in the number of landowners are the provisions most likely to effect a permanent improvement in the condition of Ireland. At the same time, I stated plainly, as I state now, that we cannot look to these parts of the Bill and to these provisions to produce any very rapid or immediate improvement in the condition of Ireland; and it is absolutely necessary, until the beneficial influence provided by that portion of the Bill can come into full operation, that other measures should be adopted which will enable the coun-"most," but by all of his Colleagues. try to tide over the present state of things. I certainly never drew any distinction between the relative importance of these objects. If I am asked which is the most important object-whether to provide a permanent but very gradual LORD JOHN MANNERS: It must be a matter of satisfaction to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) and to other Members of this House who take the view which he doesnamely, that the material part of the Bill for the permanent improvement of Ireland is to be found in the 5th part, and not in the first four portions-to find that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India adheres entirely to the statement which he made some nights ago in the City. It is most satisfactory to be informed, on the authority of the noble Lord, that not only does he hold that view, but that he is authorized to say that that view is shared by most of his Colleagues. I am sorry that the noble Lord has not been able to go a step further, and to assure the Committee that that view is shared, not only by Still, that assurance is most satisfactory, and I trust that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary, after that assurance, to press his Amendment to a division. With regard to the statement of the Prime Minister I have only one word to [Second Night.] say, and that is that in the course of it the right hon. Gentleman thought it expedient again to attempt to fix on my hon. Friend that most unfounded charge that he is responsible for the constitution of the Court for settling the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. No doubt my hon. Friend, as one of the Commissioners, assented to the Report of the Commission; but I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to find in that Report any mention of the word "Court." MR. MAC IVER wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India a question in regard to the meaning of the statement which he had just made. When he, on the part of the Government, declared that they took their stand on the whole Bill, did he mean that they gave the House the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, and that the House must accept it without having regard to any of the important Amend ments which had been placed on the Paper by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and without the omission of a single clause? Did the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister mean that when they said that the House must take the whole Bill absolutely and precisely as it stood? If the noble Lord did not mean that, would he kindly point out in what direction Amendments would be accepted? MR. BIGGAR thought that the Irish Members, on a question of this sort, Members, on a question of this sort, should have an opportunity of saying a few words. It seemed to him that the policy of the Tory Party in regard to the Bill was, if possible, to get the only portion of the measure which the Irish Members looked upon as beneficial to the Irish tenants shelved, and simply carry that part of it which the Irish Members conceived to be, not only valueless, but mischievous. Hon. Members with whom he acted were all of opinion that the clauses which had reference to emigration would be highly mischievous; and they thought the Prime Minister should not stick too firmly to the idea he had propounded that it was necessary to have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. The practical result of adhering to that policy would be that the Bill would still be in Committee, at least, until the 1st of August, with the certainty that it would not be passed into law during the preLord John Manners sent Session. There were two parts of the Bill that it was most important and desirable to pass into law this Sessionnamely, those parts which proposed to fix the rents of the holdings, and to make provision for the purchase of holdings by the tenauts. If those portions of the Bill were not rapidly disposed of there would be no chance of having any really valuable measure passed this Session, and all the time which had been occupied over the Bill would be entirely wasted. Amendment negatived. LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE said, the next Amendment on the Faper stood in his name, and was merely a formal Amendment to enable him to move other Amendments further on, excepting certain tenancies from the operation of the clause. He was simply anxious that when he reached the part of the clause in which he wished to move a substantial Amendment, he and others having similar Amendments should not be debarred from having the right to move them on the ground that, having accepted the earlier portion of the clause, they had shut themselves out from proposing these alterations. He hoped the Prime Minister would be able to assure him that when the exceptions to which he referred were reached, neither his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), nor the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), nor himself, should be considered as having deprived themselves of their right. He mentioned this because it had been stated on another Bill that when a clause had been practically passed a proposal for an alteration or exception at the end was too late, the Member making the proposal having been a party to accepting the clause as it stood, without there being anything to show that there was to be an exception further on. He wished, if possible, to have an assurance from the Prime Minister that the Rules of the House for regulating the proceedings of Committees would not be used to prevent him from bringing up subse quently the Amendment which he wished to move. The best course would certainly be to discuss the exceptions on their own merits when they reached the last part of the clause. Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, before the words "the tenant," insert "except as hereinafter provided.' (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.) MR. GLADSTONE said, he apprehended there would be no difficulty in moving the Amendment the noble Lord desired to move at the end of the clause. LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE said, that, in that case, he would, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the Amendment. THE CHAIRMAN put the Question that the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn, and declared that the "Ayes" had it. expression, I must move that the words be taken down. MR. WARTON: What words? MR. GLADSTONE: The words, "You did not." It is a direct contradiction of the Chair. MR. WARTON: My words were not the contradiction they appeared to be, and were probably not distinctly heard owing to the noise which prevailed. I should not have been so rude as to contradict the Chair. I did not say, "You did not." The expression used by the Chairman was, "The Chair endeavours to look round," and I said, "But does not." If it is an expression I was out of Order in using, I at once withdraw it; I only wish to say that I did chalchallenge the decision of the Chair before the Amendment was declared to be withdrawn. MR. WARTON: I object, Sir. THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment has been, by leave, withdrawn. MR. WARTON: No, Sir; I lenged it before you said that it was withdrawn. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member may have challenged my decision; but his challenge did not reach me until after I had declared that the Amendment was withdrawn. MR. WARTON: I spoke loudly and distinctly. VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE: I heard the hon. and learned Member challenge the decision of the Chairman. MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Is not the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) resisting the authority of the Chair? THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member denies having used any offensive expression. The next Amendment on the Paper is one in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy)Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at commencement, insert "From and after the passing of this Act the 13th section of The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be, and the same is hereby repealed." That Amendment cannot be put, because it proposes to insert words at the beginning of the clause. It can, howTHE CHAIRMAN: I have no doubt ever, either be brought up as a sepathe hon. and learned Member for Brid-rate clause, or as an addition to the port is perfectly correct in his statement, clause. The next Amendment is in the and I can only regret that I did not hear name of the hon. Member for Stroud his challenge until after I had said that (Mr. Brand). the Amendment was withdrawn. EARL PERCY: Would it not be as well that the Chairman, on rising to put an Amendment, should kindly look round the House before he decided? MR. BRAND: I rise to Order. I wish to ask what is the Question before the Committee? THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Question before the Committee on which the noble Lord (Earl Percy) is entitled to speak. EARL PERCY: I rise to Order. THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Question of Order. I always endeavour to look round. MR. WARTON: But you did not. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name him!" MR. GLADSTONE: If the hon. and learned Member does not retract that MR. HEALY said, he did not propose to challenge the decision of the Chair; but he wished to know upon what grounds an hon. Member could not propose an Amendment at the beginning or in the middle of a clause just as well as at the end? He had never heard it laid down before that an Amendment must appear at a certain corner or turning of a clause. As far as he was concerned, the present ruling did not make the slightest difference, as he was indifferent whether the Amendment came at the beginning or at the end of the clause; but he would submit that for the purposes of the Bill the Amendment would really be better at the beginning, and he did not think that he ought to be fettered in his judgment as to where it should be inserted by the judgment of [Second Night.] any other Member, even if it happened! THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman to be the Chair. [Cries of "Order!" is intrusted with the duty of presiding and "Chair"] He had said nothing over the conduct of Business in Commitdisrespectful to the Chair. He had tee. After consulting the officers of the only submitted that hon. Members ought House, who have had the greatest exnot to be fettered in their judgment by perience, and who coincided with me the views of any other hon. Member. that it would be inconsistent with the construction of the clause for the hon. Member to move his Amendment at the beginning of the clause, I ruled that the Amendment was out of Order. I now call upon the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand). MR. MORGAN LLOYD rose to Order. He wished to know if the hon. Member was in Order in challenging the ruling of the Chair? THE CHAIRMAN: I have already explained to the hon. Member that his Amendment would not be out of Order if proposed at the end of the clause; but it is inconsistent with the construction of the clause to take it at the commencement; and I, therefore, rule that it is out of Order. I call upon the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand). MR. BIGGAR rose to Order. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again. There would be no use in commencing the discussion of a new Amendment two minutes before the time at which they would be obliged to adjourn the consideration of the Bill. MR. CALLAN asked whether, as the Chairman had called upon an hon. Member by name to move an Amendment, it was competent for the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to intervene, and, stating that he rose to Order, proceed to move to report Progress? THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) is perfectly correct. It is not competent for the hon. Member for Cavan to intervene on a question of Order, and then to move to report Progress. MR. HEALY said, that he had also risen to a point of Order, and had not concluded his remarks when he was interrupted by a Welsh Member. Mr. Playfair, without allowing him (Mr. Healy) to conclude, called upon the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brand). He apprehended that the Chairman had ruled his Amendment to be out of Order to call attention to the importance, in view of probable changes in the electoral franchise and the distribution of politi cal MR. BLENNERHASSETT, in rising tion with respect to the relative advan power, of full and accurate informatages of various systems of election incumulative vote, and the restricted vote; cluding proportional representation, the simply upon his own ipse dixit-Cries of Name!"]-but he did not propose to challenge the decision of the Chair. It had been ruled that he could not move any Amendment at the present time. Of course he submitted to that ruling; but he respectfully asked the Chairman to state upon what grounds he (Mr. Healy) was unable to move the Amend-lated to secure the just and complete represen ment. and to move "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the system of election of Members of this House best calcu tation of the whole electoral body," Mr Healy |