THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The only alternative was the workhouse. LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE said, he was surprised to hear the representative of the Government say that the only alternative before the tenant was the workhouse. ral condition of the country, he had | had almost universally the means of never known a time when it was not coming to England or emigrating. represented as worse than ever on the one hand, and as strikingly improved on the other. He thought the truth lay between the two views. He believed there was great material prosperity, and the disestablishment of the Church had, to the credit of all parties, caused less agitation and bitterness than might have THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY would been expected. Disaffection, he feared, thank the noble Lord not to exaggerate had always existed, and would probably his meaning. His noble and learned continue to exist for many years, what- Friend had never meant to say that in no ever course Parliament or the Govern- case had an evicted tenant no choice exment might take; but he believed it cept between the graveyard and an Amewas more quiescent than for a con-rican swamp; but that there were cases siderable time past, and he could not concur in the noble Lord's view of the situation. LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE contended that the Land Act, which had hardly begun to operate, had produced, and would produce, separation between landlord and tenant and between the tenants themselves, disputes formerly settled by the intervention of the landlord being now decided by litigation. Referring to the murder of the Policeman at Dublin, he felt no surprise at the acquittal of the accused, for the jury were evidently afraid to subject themselves to danger, or returning a verdict against the murderer, especially since, after the release of the Fenian convicts, they could feel little confidence in the sentence being carried out in case they convicted him. The fact of the acquittal of this man-who had been taken redhanded-could carry but one conviction to the people of Ireland-that the Executive of Fenianism was stronger than the Executive of Her Majesty's Government. The murder of Mrs. Neil in open day at her own door, after having given notice to quit to a tenant who had refused right of way to a fellow-tenant, was another lamentable symptom, and there appeared no prospect of the murderer being detected. The language of several Members of the Government at the time of the passing of the Land Act excited illusory hopes, and he especially regretted the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that an evicted tenant had no choice but between the pauper churchyard and an American swamp. [Hear!"] He was surprised that noble Lords on the Ministerial Bench should cheer that statement, for at the time it was uttered evicted tenants The Earl of Kimberley in which eviction practically left him no alternative but beggary or expatriation. In LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: He remembered the passage perfectly well, and that was the interpretation he put upon it. The Premier, also, in the other House, had said that under some circumstances emigration implied banishment. Statements like these, which were scattered the next day throughout every village in Ireland, might lead the ignorant to suppose that even the Lord Chancellor of England and the first Minister of the Crown thought a good deal was to be said in favour of the crimes which they committed. But he complained that the noble and learned Lord, though ready to express his sympathy with one class, did not extend it to another. He thought a strong case for sympathy might be found in the poor orphans left by the unfortunate lady who was murdered without cause. the recent elections the operation of the Land Act was manifest. Before the passing of the Land Act, the respectable and reasonable landlords regulated every difference between themselves and their tenants on the principle of giving every advantage and consideration to the latter; but that had all been changed now, for the law stepped in in their place. There was an estrangement as between class and class. Look at the two recent elections for Kerry and Tipperary. The Roman Catholic clergy went with the popular cry of Home Rule, and carried everything before them. In Kerry the landlords were unable to make any stand at all, and the tenants returned a young candidate who was comparatively unknown to the country. The fact was that Her Majesty's Government had tried the experiment of governing Ireland in a great measure through the influence of the Roman Catholic priests, their creed being Catholicism, nationality, and what he called Socialism-in other words, division of land. As for the two former, they amounted, according to Cardinal Cullen, to the same thing. When the Conventions Act was under discussion in the other House, Mr. Butt said that unless the Government granted what Ireland asked, the people there would take such measures as could not be resisted by the Government; whereupon the Prime Minister acknowledged the temperate and mode rate tone in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken, and went on to say, in effect, that the separation of the Empire, in some shape or other, was a matter of fair discussion-an expression coincident with that which had been used by the noble Earl that night. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I never said anything that implied that the separation of the Empire was a matter of fair discussion. LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE had yet to learn that there was much difference between Home Rule and separation. Whether Fenianism, Home Rule, or repeal of the Union was the term used, separation was implied of the two countries. He thought the noble their Lordships reason to begave lieve he meant that. Earl THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I must again interrupt the noble Lord. I beg him not to put into my mouth words which I never have spoken. What I said was, that a difference existed between Home Rule and Fenianism; that, whereas the former meant the adoption of Parliamentary methods, the latter implied violent methods. LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE confessed that he could not see any exact difference between the explanation of the noble Earl and his previous remarks. Mr. Butt said in the House of Commons the other night EARL GRANVILLE rose to Order. The noble Lord was not in Order when he referred to what Mr. Butt had said in the other House. LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE presumed he should be in Order when he said "in another place." What he maintained was that it remained an open question, from what the Prime Minister had said "in another place," as to the VOL. CCXII. [THIRD SERIES.] course the right hon. Gentleman intended to pursue in the future with regard to Home Rule. PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL-(No. 108.) (The Marquess of Lansdowne.) COMMITTEE. House in Committee (according to Order). Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 8 (Expenses of prisoners to be paid by county to which they belong). LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE complained that no satisfactory statement had been made by the Government which related to the distribution of with regard to this important measure, charges between local and Imperial Bill was, whether prisoners who were taxation. The principle involved in the removed to convict prisons should be supported by county or by Imperial rates. The alteration proposed would cause a great increase of taxation in the county of Mayo and other parts of Ireland. He would submit to Her Mato be deferred until the general question jesty's Government that the Bill ought of the incidence of local taxation was settled. Amendment moved, page 4, line 37, leave out from ("presentment") to end of clause inclusive, and insert ("funds to be provided by Parliament".)-(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.) THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE supported the Amendment. THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE said, he was quite ready to admit that the redistribution of charges between local and Imperial funds deserved that careful consideration which it would doubtless receive before long. Nevertheless, he thought so large a question ought not to be raised in the discussion of a Bill like the present, which did little more than apply to Ireland the provisions of the English Prisons Act. He hoped the noble Lord would not persist in his opposition to the clause. Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn. Clause agreed to. Remaining clauses agreed to. and to be read 3a on Thursday next. Bill reported, without Amendment ; E House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock. they had come over in consequence of an invitation from the Committee, and in the firm belief that all their expenses would be defrayed, he, after having consulted with the Speaker and with other authorities of the House, although somewhat startled at the amount of the expenditure, and regretting that the Committee had not seen fit to make arrangements with the gentlemen referred to, before sending them the invitation as on the part of the Treasury, sanctioned the payments. He could only express a hope that in the event of witnesses from abroad being required in future the Select Committee would hold a consultation with the Treasury, before issuing an invitation to give evidence. COLONEL WILSON-PÄTTEN said, he would suggest that a Standing Order of the House might be passed, requiring the consent of the Treasury in such cases. MR. BOUVERIE asked if it was true that these gentlemen asked £1,500 for their expenses? MR. SCLATER-BOOTH desired the hon. Gentleman to state more distinctly, whether the summons from the Committee had been sent to America, or whether it had not been issued till after they arrived in England? MR. SCLATER-BOOTH asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that two witnesses from America have been paid the sums of £283 138. and £261 18s. respectively for their attendance as witnesses before the Select Committee on Habitual Drunkards; by what authority they were summoned to attend; whether the sanction of the Treasury has been given to this ex- MR. BAXTER said, the question sugpenditure of public money; and, whe-gested by the right hon. Gentleman opther it is competent for Committees to summon witnesses from abroad apart from any such sanction; and, also whether the Gentlemen were in England or America when the summons for their attendance was issued? MR. BAXTER said, it was quite true that these two witnesses were paid the sums of £283 13s. and £261 188. respectively-["Oh, oh!"]-not for attendance, but for their travelling and other expenses in connection with the evidence they had given before the Select Committee on Habitual Drunkards. The Committee had no power to summon witnesses from abroad; but the Chairman, having obtained the assent of the other Members, invited the attendance of these two witnesses, who were in the United States at the time. It was absolutely necessary to obtain evidence from the United States, because it was the only country where the experiment proposed for habitual drunkards had been actually tried. The Treasury gave no previous sanetion to the expenditure incurred by these two gentlemen, but as posite (Colonel Wilson-Patten) was, no doubt, well worthy of consideration; but it was a matter for the House rather than the Treasury. No such claim as was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Bouverie) had been presented to him. An additional £100 had been claimed by each of the two gentlemen; and, after consideration, had not been admitted-so that the original claim had been reduced by the Treasury by the sum of £200. The gentlemen were in America when their attendance was desired; but he was not aware whether the summons had been issued before or after the gentlemen arrived in England. MR. HUNT asked if the hon. Gentleman would undertake that no such payment as this should be made in future until the authority of the House was obtained? MR. BAXTER said, he thought the hon. Gentleman who brought this matter forward did good service to the public; and he hoped that what had passed would be a warning to other Committees, so that when anything of the kind was again proposed they would not fail to consult the Treasury before incurring expenditure on witnesses from abroad. SUEZ CANAL-INCREASE OF DUES. QUESTION. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the proposed increase of the Dues levied by the Suez Canal Company, contrary to the spirit of the concession under which that Company was established, and to the interest of British Shipowners; if he is aware that the French Government claims jurisdiction in all questions which may arise between those who use the Canal and the Suez Company; and, whether this claim is not entirely in opposition to the existing capitulations? When the firman was granted for the Suez Canal, the term fixed for ships passing through the Canal was 10f. per ton, and that was calculated upon the net tonnage. The Suez Canal Company had made a new arrangement, which was to come into operation on the 1st of July next, whereby the toll would be calculated on the gross tonnage, and the difference would be this-the receipts of the Suez Canal Company during the last year were £475,000, but the receipts for a year under the new arrangement would be £1,335,000, making a difference of about £900,000 against British shipowners, because he believed that out of 100 ships that passed through the Canal last month 79 carried the British flag. The House was aware that M. de Lesseps was the originator of the Suez Canal Company. That Company was a Turkish Company, although the capital of it was subscribed by French people. Up to this time all questions arising between the Company and British shipowners were tried in an Egyptian Court, but within the last week or a fortnight notice had been given that such questions will be tried in the French Consular Court. That was a most important point, on which he desired a statement by the noble Lord. formation received from_Constantinople, it appears that the Porte has required explanations on the subject from the Viceroy of Egypt. Her Majesty's Government are not aware that the French Government claims exclusive jurisdiction in the way described by my hon. Friend; but, after what my hon. Friend has stated, it will be my duty to make further inquiries on the subject. TRAMWAYS (METROPOLIS). QUESTION. MR. LOCKE asked the Secretary of the Board of Trade, What course it is proposed to take in regard to the sus pended Provisional Orders and Bills for promoting Tramways in the Metropolis? MR. A. PEEL said, that having regard to the late period of the Session, and to the fact that a Joint Committee of both Houses were sitting on this question of tramways, it was proposed to further suspend the schemes for the promotion of tramways in the Metropolis which were now in suspension, and to extend that suspension so as to include all new Orders and new Bills of a similar nature. There would be one exception to that rule, in the case of the London, Streatham, and Croydon Tramway, which could scarcely be called a metropolitan tramway, since it proposed to run in a direction which was beyond the radius of the metropolis. The promoters had decided to prosecute their case before a Select Committee, and take their chance of success or defeat there. ARMY-YEOMANRY AND VOLUNTEER ADJUTANTS.-QUESTIONS. MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE (for Sir WATKIN WILLIAMS WYNN) asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether allowance in lieu of forage is included in the pay of Adjutants of Yeomanry at 10s. per diem; and, whether Adjutants of Volunteers have allowance in lieu of forage, exclusive of their pay at 10s. per diem? SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, the adjutant has in each case 10s. a-day pay. In the case of the Yeomanry, this pay includes forage, except when out for VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the atten- permanent duty, when he has 3s. a-day tion of Her Majesty's Government has extra. The Volunteer adjutant has 28. been been called to the proposed in-a-day all the year round. The Voluncrease of tonnage dues levied by the teer adjutant has other duties, on which Suez Canal Company; but from in- account, I presume, his pay is higher. MR. BASS asked the Controller Ge- | neral of Ordnance, If he would state to the House why the Adjutants and Permanent Staff of the Yeomanry are not placed upon the same footing with regard to pay as the Adjutants and Serjeant Instructors of Volunteer Light Horse, the duties of the former being necessarily greater, besides their liability to be called upon at any moment? SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, the pay of Adjutants of Yeomanry Cavalry prior to 1861 was 88. a-day, including 28. a-day for forage. On the recommendation of the Committee appointed to inquire into the organization of the Yeomanry Cavalry, it was in 1861 raised to 10s. a-day, including forage, on the ground that Adjutants of Volunteers received such rate. In 1863, Adjutants of Volunteers were required to undertake the duties of paymaster to their regiments, and in consideration of that additional work, they were granted 10s. a-day exclusive of the forage allowance. The Adjutants of Yeomanry Cavalry not having as yet to perform any financial duties, their pay has not been raised to that of an Adjutant of Volunteers. The pay of a Yeomanry Cavalry sergeant-major is 28. 2d. a-day more than a sergeant-major of Volunteers, the former being paid at the rate of 58. 2d., the latter at 3s. a-day only. Ordinary sergeants of Yeomanry receive but 28. a-day and a contingent or clothing allowance of £2 per annum. Sergeants of Volunteers received 28. a-day pay and 6d. for lodging and clothing. The duties of the former-that is, sergeants of Yeomanry Cavalry-are simply to drill the men periodically, while the duties of the Volunteer sergeants are without intermission. ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION-ROYAL (LATE INDIAN) ENGINEERS. QUESTION. SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any and what decision has been come to in the claim of the officers of the Royal, late Indian, Engineers of the three Presidencies, for compensation, for the sums they would have received on retirement from the junior officers of their regiments, had the Army Regulation Act of 1871 not been passed into Law, on the same principle as was laid down in the case of the twelve non-purchase or In dian Regiments by Clause 4 of the aforesaid Act? MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the difference between these six corps and the 12 nonpurchase regiments consists in thisthat the succession of contributors in these six corps was arrested in 1861, and the former contributors were entitled to the benefit of Lord Cranborn's despatch. No provision was thought necessary for them under the Act of last year. The Law Officers have since advised in effect that the continuance of the arrangement among the still remaining officers is illegal, and hence a question of some difficulty has arisen, upon which I am now in correspondence with the India Office. IRISH FISHERIES PROTECTION. QUESTION. VISCOUNT ST. LAWRENCE asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, inasmuch as a vessel is always granted. for the protection of the Scotch fisheries, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, during the herring season about to commence, to send a steam gunboat to the east coast of Ireland, when boats will be assembled from England, Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man, in order to check the illegal practices which it was proved took place there last autumn? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, he had just ascertained that orders had been given to send a gunboat for the protection of the fisheries on the east coast of Ireland. MR. CAWLEY asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have, in conformity with a promise conveyed to the Trustees of Arbroath Harbour in a Letter dated 27th July 1871, now on the Table of this House, reduced the rate of interest on the loan of £20,000 therein referred to, from 5 per cent to 3 per cent per annum, and extended the period for repayment from 20 years to 50 years, such loan being for the execution of works which the Public Loan Commissioners had decided were not such as to entitle the Trustees to the benefit of a loan at a reduced rate of |