MR. OTWAY asked, whether the Papers to be laid on the Table relating to Tunis would include the negotiations of 1868 and 1869 in regard to the Finan-dren, recently inmates of the Banbridge

formed that it would be desirable to | being adverse to this country, Her Mainclude a Report of this conversation in jesty's Government will afford the House the Blue Book, and was asked in the an opportunity of discussing the Treaty usual terms, whether M. de Giers had before any engagement of a permanent any objection to his language being character is entered into; and, whether published? On the 17th, Lord Dufferin the Government will consider the detelegraphed that M. de Giers wished sirability of freeing itself from obligacertain omissions to be made, and that tions which will hamper this country a note of these omissions was being de-in reference to its Customs regulations spatched by the messenger. It left St. with out offering an equivalent advanPetersburg on that day, and reached the tage? Foreign Office on the night of the 21st. I only became aware of its receipt on the day of the debate, as the despatch had to be seen by the Secretary of State and the Permanent Under Secretary of State before it reached me, and my recollection was that it had been received only on that day. The Secretary of State on the 22nd ordered the Blue Book to be immediately issued; but as it was found that it could not be got ready before the debate terminated, it was after the debate delayed to include a further despatch, bearing the date of March 26, which had been asked for included; but the French Government dethis House.

FRANCE-THE NEW COMMERCIAL

TREATY.

MR. BOURKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice, in regard to the French Commercial Treaty. It will be remembered that the Treaty expires on the 8th of November. I believe the French Chambers will be dissolved within six weeks or two months of this time; and, therefore, unless the negotiations are concluded between this time and the middle of July, there will be very little chance of any new Treaty being negotiated before the old one expires. I should like, therefore, to ask the Government, Whether, under the circumstances, they will suggest to the French Government the desirability of prolonging the existing Treaty for six months, after the 8th of November? I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government have made any communication with the French Government. If not, I think the present circumstances would justify their making it now.

MR. MACFARLANE: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I also have one which I should like to ask him-namely, Whether, in the event of the proposed French Tariff

MR. MAC IVER said, he should like to know also, What was the present position of the question of the Sugar Bounties, and the Bounties on Shipping?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, in March last Her Majesty's Government foresaw the difficulties adverted to by the right hon. Member, and, as I have already on more than one occasion stated in this House, asked the French Government to prolong the existing Tariff for a period sufficient for all negotiations for a fresh Treaty to be carried on and con

cline to agree to this suggestion. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane), I would refer him to the replies which were given by me on the 7th of April and by the Prime Minister on the 28th of that month. In reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver), the sugar question is not under the Foreign Office, but under the control of the Board of Trade. The question as to the bounties on shipping will be brought forward again.

PARLIAMENT BUSINESS OF THE
HOUSE-LAND LAW (IRE-
LAND) BILL.

MR. M'COAN: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private Notice-namely, Whether he is correctly reported in his speech at Bradford to have said that he believed the Land Law (Ireland) Bill would be passed without any material or substantial alteration; and, whether he desires to convey by that remark that the Amendments to be moved by the Irish Members will not be fairly, and so far as circumstances will allow, generously considered by the Government?

MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had not read the report alluded to.

saw, and which is dated yesterday, would imply that we shall have the information speedily. But they are not concluded at present, and matters, strictly speaking, are as they were when I last spoke.

Certainly, if he had stated to his consti- | to the Question put by the right hon. tuents anything that would lead to the Gentleman. The last telegram which I supposition that the Government meant not to give the usual consideration to Amendments, he did not intend to make such a statement; and he was perfectly sure that no such meaning as that was gathered by his audience. He believed that he had expressed a hope that the Bill would pass, and that it would pass in its main features. But, at the same time, he mentioned one important matter which he thought would be discussed very considerably in Committee, aud, of course, he had no authority to preclude

the discussion of Amendments. nor was he disposed to say anything so absurd. He trusted he should not be supposed to even wish anything of the sort.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR hoped that before the debate on the second reading closed, it would be stated what Amendments the Government would accept.

PARLIAMENT-PUBLIC BUSINESS-
THE TRANSVAAL.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH said, he wished to put a Question as to his Notice of Motion in regard to the Transvaal. He understood the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, on a former occasion, to have said that circumstances had somewhat altered in the Transvaal since the Easter Recess; and that, at that time, in his judgment, it would be contrary to the public interest that any debate on the subject should take place. Now, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had not the least wish, in the delicate nature of the circumstances, to do anything which would prejudice the Public Service; but, at the same time, he was anxious that the discussion of his Motion should not be indefinitely delayed. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, in his view, circumstances had not so far changed as to admit of such a discussion being taken?

MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the representation which I made with respect to the altered state of affairs in South Africa as bearing on the proposed Motion of the right hon. Gentleman had reference to the examination we had been able to make of the transactions at Potchefstroom; and on those transactions certain measures of the Government required to be adopted. Until those measures are completed, I cannot give any answer Mr. W. E. Forster

NAVY-DESTRUCTION OF H.M.S.

"DOTEREL."

MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to ask

the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the attention of the Admiralty has been News" of Saturday last, to the effect called to a statement in the "Daily

that information received from the Pacific station had come to the knowledge of the Government that Fenians were likely to and that precautions were taken shortly blow up the men-of-war on that station, before the disaster to the "Doterel;" whether it is in the power of the hon. Gentleman to give any information to the House on the subject; and, whether there is any connection between this information and the destruction of the "Doterel?"

that information, early in last winter, MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is true reached the Admiralty from abroad, which their Lordships thought it right to communicate to certain of the foreign stations. At the end of the letter in each case the following paragraph occurred :—

"My Lords do not wish to attach undue im portance to the information in question; but they desire to notify it to you, with the view of such precautions being taken to secure the safety of Her Majesty's ships and vessels under your command as you may deem to be neces sary."

One of these stations communicated with was the Pacific, to which the Doterel belonged; and the Admiralty do not attach importance to what, with their present knowledge, they are inclined to regard as nothing more than a coincidence. With respect to the steps taken since the loss of the Doterel, I may say that the Garnet sailed for Sandy Point on the 6th from Montevideo; and on the 4th the sloop Penguin, with a complete equipment of divers and diving apparatus from Coquimbo. The Garnet must be before this at Sandy Point, and the Penguin should be there in a day or two. Britannia, bringing the survivors, is expected at Liverpool on the 31st, where preparations have been made for their reception; and Commander Evans has

The

been ordered to proceed at once to the Admiralty, while the others go on to Portsmouth, so that within a fortnight the questions as to the disaster will be cleared up as far as human testimony can clear them up beyond the point of theory and conjecture.

the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson) to permit me, instead of himself, to address it at this early portion of the evening-though not quite so early as I hoped it would have been. Various observations have been made by hon. Members, who appear to think there has been either a purpose or unnecessary reservation on the part of the Government with respect to some questions of interest raised in the Land Law (Ireland) Bill; and I have made up my own mind that it is well for me

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL. MR. PARNELL wished to ask, with reference to the reply given to his hon. Friend the junior Member for County Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), that the Government would give reasonable con--though I do not see the justice of the sideration to Amendments moved by Irish Members in the Committee stage of the Land Bill, If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland meant the same reasonable consideration which he gave to Amendments moved by Irish Members during the passage of the two Coercion Bills?

[SEVENTH NIGHT.]
Order read, for resuming Adjourned
Debate on Amendment proposed to
Question [25th April], "That the Bill

be now read a second time."

And which Amendment was,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, while willing to consider any just measure, founded upon sound principles, that will benefit tenants of land in Ireland, is of opinion that the leading provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill are in the main economically unsound, unjust, and impolitic,"--(Lord Eicho,)

objection-to do all that lies in my power to obviate its repetition. I have, therefore, determined to take advantage of the opportunity secured by my hon. and learned Friend, and to solicit the privilege of addressing the House tonight; and being somewhat indisposed, and not able to remain in the House throughout the evening, to venture to make a change in the arrangement as to the person by whom the debate is to be resumed.

Now, Sir, before I speak on the Bill, with the second reading of which we are concerned, I wish to refer to two words which we have heard often repeated in this debate. The first word is " 'confiscation," and the second word is " compensation." They are words that are, and ought to be, in close association together; for I certainly should be very slow to deny that where confiscation could be proved, compensation ought to follow. But, Sir, I must say that those words are used too frequently and too soon. They are almost the stock expressions of debate upon certain classes of questions. They have repeatedly, again and again, been urged with the greatest confidence where, in some cases, no proof has been shown, and where, in other cases, disproof has been furnished abundantly. I will not refer now in detail to the charges that were made upon the very limited measure that we introduced last year with respect to Compensation for Disturbance, because that remains as it was 12 months ago-a matter of opinion-having been nipped in the bud, and having been prevented from doing the extended evil which was anticipated from it by hon. Gentlemen opposite, or the great good which we, on our part, confidently believed that it would have produced. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know-I need hardly remind them-how [Seventh Night.]

Act.

this charge of confiscation was raised on | of confiscation with respect to the Land the repeal of the Corn Laws; and how it was raised last year upon the very But I humbly think there have been humble, though useful, measure intro- cases much more like confiscation than duced by my right hon. and learned the Land Act. I find a case in my own Friend the Secretary of State for the experience in 1874, though it was on a Home Department in respect to Ground more limited scale: I refer to the conGame. It is more to the purpose that fiscation of the advowsons in Scotland I should remind them how freely it was under the Church Patronage Act. I raised when the Land Bill was under mentioned it at the time, and I never discussion in 1870. ["Hear, hear!"] knew a clearer case in my life. I It was used on that occasion by the hon. allude to the confiscation of advowGentleman the Member for Mid Lincoln- sons in the Church of Scotland under shire (Mr. Chaplin); but I had not in- the Church Patronage Act. But that is tended to quote him in regard to it had a small matter. Confiscation has come he not invited me by his cheer. It nearer to Ireland in previous legislation. was, however, used by others, who may When, in a country where it is now be considered as representative men of admitted that the improvements upon the Party. Lord Salisbury described the holdings are, as a rule, the work of that Bill as bribing one class by plun- the tenants, we allowed and encouraged dering another. He said "You are the landlord to carry those improvebribing one class and plundering an- ments into the market and to sell them other, and you are setting an example for his own benefit then, indeed, easily followed." Lord Cairns used there was something like confiscation. much the same language. He spoke I never heard, Sir, on that occasion that candidly, and said, "You allow me the Members for the University of Dubthe option of purchasing my own lin or anyone else belonging to their property"-words which themselves im- Party was scandalized at the proceedply confiscation. Indeed, he quoted ings of Parliament. It was a most unwith praise a declaration from a certain fortunate and deplorable business. I publication, that there would be no set- do not say, and I do not believe, that tlement of the question without some- those who made the recommendations thing which would be called confiscation. which led to it-the Members of the ["Hear, hear!"] Well, I am very Devon Commission-were actuated by glad that I am not mis-stating anything any evil motive. I believe it was a sheer as regards the case. "Confiscation error, arising out of a sheer want of rewas the word applied to the leading gard for existing facts. But I want to enactments of the Land Bill of 1870. point it out as teaching a lesson of cauDid the Land Act, when it became the tion and circumspection to those who so law of the land, confiscate the property freely and so readily use these hard of the landlords? Did it injure the words and cast them at the head of property of the landlords? We affirm, men who also consider that to propose on the contrary, and upon evidence, that principles of confiscation would be a disit improved the property of the land-grace-a disgrace to the Ministers who lords. [Dissent.] A shake of the head is less authoritative than the Returns made of authentic transactions in Courts of Justice; and authentic transactions in an Irish Court of Justice from year to year show us two things. In the first place, the rents have increased under the action of the Land Act. I am not speaking now of undue increase; I would say rents have grown under the action of the Land Act. And, in the second place, upon the increased rents, with the larger rental, a larger number of years' purchase has been obtained where the property has come into the market. And that, Sir, has been the end of the charge

Mr. Gladstone

suggested and the Parliament which would tolerate them for a moment.

I own that I go myself further than what I have stated with regard to the Encumbered Estates Act. By it we have established a system in Ireland, during the present century, which essentially altered the position of the Irish tenant without his permission-I may say without his knowledge. The old system of the Irish law made it hardly practicable for a landlord, without the greatest delay and difficulty, to put into force extreme measures against the tenant. I do not make that statement upon feeble or doubtful authority.