SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the statement, which has appeared in several newspapers, to the effect that the Sultan has recently taken steps to effect reforms both in his Asiatic and European Dominions; whether it is proposed in such reforms to introduce into European Turkey the institutions drawn up by the Commission, of which the noble Lord the Member for Calne was a member; and, whether any Papers can be laid upon the Table on the subject? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Nothing very definite is known as to the intentions of His Majesty the Sultan with regard to the introduction of administrative reforms; and I cannot, therefore, say whether the reforms contemplated extend to the whole Empire, nor can I state their probable nature. His Majesty has, however, given Lord Dufferin repeated assurances of his determination to introduce reforms; but it would not be advisable to lay on the Table, at the present moment, any Papers upon the subject. and is still, under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. INLAND REVENUE-RAILWAY PAS- MR. BUXTON asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering that he has declared himself unable to repeal the Railway Passenger Duty, and that his predecessor has admitted that "The state of the Law on the subject is one which cannot be permanent, and ought not to be permanently maintained," he is prepared to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of the Exemption from the Duty, which may be capable of enforcement? MR. BROADHURST asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering that he is unable to repeal the Railway Passenger Duty, and that the Cheap Trains Act of 1844 has been practically abrogated by judicial decisions, which, though only partially put in force, have increased the duty on third class passengers from £70,322 in 1873, to £333,032 in 1880, he will at the earliest opportunity bring in a Bill to carry out the intention of the Cheap Trains Act, namely, to exempt from duty the fares of "the poorer class of travellers" when such fares do not exceed the rate of one penny per mile. MR. THOROLD ROGERS asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering that a Select Committee of this House reported in 1876 that the Board of Inland Revenue make arrangements with the Railway Companies respecting the exemption from Passenger Duty, based on three different plans, "which are all entirely outside the Cheap Trains Act," and that the same Committee recommended, inter alia, that until the finances of the State warrant the abolition of the Tax, it should be restricted to fares over a penny per mile, he will bring in a Bill which will carry out this recommendation, or, at any rate, THE REVENUE-THE WINE DUTIES. will establish a harmony between the inEARL PERCY asked Mr. Chancellor tentions of the Legislature and the pracof the Exchequer, Whether he contem-tice of the Board of Inland Revenue? plates the readjustment of the Duty on Spanish wine in the direction indicated in his Fianncial Statement on June 10th, 1880 ? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The question of the Wine Duties has been, MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTIN asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, since by 5 and 6 Vic. c. 79, s. 4, it is enacted that the Company of Proprietors of every Railway in Great Britain shall cause copies of the accounts of their the fares of the poorer class of passengers, is, in the opinion of the Revenue Department, fairly carried out at present, but, as they think, with possibly somewhat less strictness than the law warrants or even might require. As to the third Question, I have to say that the restriction on the Passenger Duty to fares above 1d. per mile would involve a loss to the Revenue, I am sorry to say, of £250,000 a-year. As to the fourth Question, it is quite within the competency of any Railway Company to charge duties on fares from passengers, provided they do not exceed the limit laid down in the Act; and there is no provision in law to prevent the Company from dividing the charge as between them and the passengers into two portions-one portion being for the fare and the other for the duty. respective Railways to be delivered | Trains Act, which exempted from duty to the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, verified by affidavit, and Duties to be paid thereon monthly, and since such Duties have been from time to time further settled and enacted, Whether it is competent for any Railway Company to charge such Duties on the passengers; whether any such Duty so charged on the passenger does not become part of the fare payable, and is itself liable to a Duty, provided that the fare and Duty together do not exceed the maximum toll authorised to be levied under any public or private Act; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the South-Eastern Railway Company charge their season ticket holders with the amount of Duty payable, in addition to the advertised fare; and, whether he has collected or intends to collect from the South Eastern Railway Company (and any other Company whose practice is identical) the Duty on the fare collected under the name of Duty, and on all arrears thereof? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): In answer to the first Question, there is no doubt it will be necessary at some future time to modify the provisions of the Cheap Trains Act, in order to adapt them to the changes in the mode of conducting passsenger traffic. But I do not think I can hold out any expectation of being able to legislate on the matter at present. I am truly concerned at being compelled, from week to week, to make the state of Business in Parliament a reason why the legitimate demands of the country, quite apart from Party distinction, should be postponed; but my hon. Friends are judges of the circumstances along with myself, and I think they will understand my answer. In answer to the second Question, the Cheap Trains Act of 1844 has not been practically abrogated by judicial decisions, but rather confirmed; and those decisions have only led to an increased charge of duty in cases where the Act, in the view of the Board of Inland Revenue, had not been complied with according to its full meaning. The increase in the duty on third-class passengers from £70,322 in 1873 to £333,032 in 1880 was not entirely due to increase charge, but was largely due to the immense increase in the number of third-class passengers. The intention of the Cheap IRELAND · ADDRESS OF THE DOMI NION HOUSE OF COMMONS. MR. CALLAN asked leave to postpone the following Questions, which stood in his name on the Notice Paper: "To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the telegraphic Despatch in the "Times" of April 22nd, under date: 'Ottawa, April 20th. In to-day's sitting of the Dominion of the House of Commons, Mr. Cortigan, a Conservative, moved that an Address should be presented to the Queen, praying that a form of Self-Government should be granted to Ireland similar to that enjoyed by Canada, and that clemency should be extended to the political prisoners in Ireland. Mr. Blake, the leader of the Opposition, made a powerful speech in favour of Home Sir John Macdonald, the Rule for Ireland. Premier, also supported the Resolution pro posed by Mr. Cortigan, which was unanimously adopted. Sir John Macdonald stated that he would see that the necessary steps were taken to have the Address prepared, in order that it might be sent to the Senate for concurrence;' whether he will have any objection to direct that a Copy of the said Address be laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether he purposes taking any action in the matter?" MR. GLADSTONE: I think that when such a Question relating to a public body has been for some time on the Paper it is necessary that it should be answered as soon as possible, and I propose to answer, at any rate, so much of the Question as is before us. MR. CALLAN: I wish to make an addition to the Question, and to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that since my Notice was first given the Canadian Senate, or Upper House, has confirmed the Resolution? MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I am not aware that the Senate had concurred in the proceedings of the Assembly. The Address has not been transmitted to us in the regular manner. We are cognizant of the Resolution having been passed and of its contents, but only by telegraphic report. We cannot present it to the House, because we are not in possession of the document. With regard to the substance of the Resolution, the hon. Gentleman has called upon me to enter upon a matter which is fitter for debate than a mere reply to a Question; but, of course, I may observe that although, no doubt, the Assembly of Canada desired to assist our deliberations, the question referred to in the Address appertains exclusively to the Imperial Parliament and the Imperial Government; and I may add that so much of the subject-matter as touches the discretion of the Executive Government for this is part of the subjectmatter-had our close and constant attention before the intimation of the wish expressed in the Address, either from that quarter or any other quarter, had reached us in the shape of any suggestion. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Sir John Macdonald, the Premier of Canada, is not a Member of the Privy Council; and whether, as such, he is not responsible for any advice he may tender to the Crown? MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps that is a Question, Sir, on which, I think, before answering it, I ought to take the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown; but as my own impression is undoubtedly that although a gentleman becomes a Minister of Canada, and, as such, is responsible only to the Canadian Parliament, yet directly he becomes a Member of the British Privy Council, unquestionably he must come under every responsibility in exactly the same degree as any other Member of the Privy Council. THE LAND COMMISSION (IRELAND) DECISION UNDER THE LAND ACT. MR. HEALY asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the cases of Dillon and Hanrahan versus Knight of Glin, reported in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 31st ultimo, in which the landlord appealed to the Land Commission from the judicial rent fixed by the Sub-Commission, and in which Mr. Justice O'Hagan stated that the Land Commission found themselves compelled to increase the judicial rents, as fixed by the Sub-Commission, by sums of £4 a year and £3 a year respectively, in consequence of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Adams versus Dunseath, deciding that, as regards tenants' improvements made prior to the Land Act of 1870, mere user of them by the tenant must be regarded as to some extent a compensation for them; whether he is aware that the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, then Attorney General, in refusing to consent to an amendment to the recent Land Act proposed by Mr. Parnell, which would have prevented this, declared it "absurd" to think that the Courts could come to such a decision; whether he himself expressed an equally strong opinion; whether, in spite of this, the tenants Dillon and Hanrahan will now be compelled to pay the increased judicial rent for fifteen years; whether he can give any assurance that, in the vast number of applications to fix a fair rent now pending, steps will be taken to prevent decisions contrary to what has been stated to have been the intentions of the Government when the Act was passed; whether any amending legislation which the Government may bring in to carry out these intentions will be retrospective, so as to give tenants like Messrs. Dillon and Hanrahan the benefit of it; and, whether it can be speedily introduced to prevent further cases of the same kind ? MR. GLADSTONE: I must avail myself of the aid of arithmetic to follow the paragraphs of the hon. Gentleman's Question. The first paragraph is, I believe, perfectly accurate. With regard to the second, I do not think it is quite accurate. I have communicated with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and he does not recollect using the expression quoted in the Question; and as a reference to the reports of the debates shows-so far as they can be considered an authority, and, of course, in connection with the discussion of details, they cannot be taken as an absolute authority-it does not appear that he took part in the dis- |J. Cowen) on Friday last. ["No!"] cussion referred to by the hon. Member. Well, perhaps not a precisely similar As a matter of fact, however, he had Question, but a Question with respect no apprehension that any such decision to which the answer falls under the would be arrived at. Thirdly, I believe same category. With regard to the my own expression was that I had no Question put by the hon. Member for doubt that this was nothing short of Newcastle, and still more with regard impossible. Perhaps that was too strong to this Question, which refers to a statea term to use about the interpretation of ment of our intentions, I can only say an Act of Parliament; but I did contend that I could not undertake to enter into that the matter was perfectly plain, and that subject in reply to a Parliamentary did not admit of doubt. The answer to Question. Though it would not require paragraph 4 is, "Yes." The answer to any very detailed explanations, consiparagraph 5 is, that I am not able to dered as a matter of speech, it would give the desired assurance, inasmuch as certainly amount to the character of a fresh legislation would be required, and speech, and for that a very convenient as in considering the expediency and opportunity will, I think, offer itself topolicy of introducing amending legisla-morrow. tion at this early date we must necessarily take into view the comparative importance of different subjects and the difficulty of adjusting them. With regard to paragraph 6, as far as I am advised by the best legal authorities, the case which the hon. Member has very naturally, and not unfairly, quoted, is very much in the nature of an isolated case, and is not likely to form a fair or probable representation of the ordinary working of the law. MR. HEALY remarked, that it was a mistake for him to have represented that the Lord Chancellor's statement was in reply to his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell). It was in reply to himself (Mr. Healy). STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS-THE IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT. MR. GORST asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government have, as promised before the Easter Recess, taken into their consideration the increase of agrarian crime and the general collapse of the administration of justice in Ireland; whether the Government are yet prepared to state to Parliament the measures they intend to propose for restoring peace and order in Ireland; and, whether he will indicate the time at which such statement on behalf of the Government will be made? MR. J. LOWTHER: Might I ask, having regard to the fact that a discussion of very considerable importance must obviously arise in consequence of the Ministerial Statement which has been promised for to-morrow night, whether the right hon. Gentleman will re-consider the proposal for a Morning Sitting to-morrow, and thus allow the House to meet when an opportunity will be afforded for a full discussion of that important subject? At the same time, I would wish to address a Question to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay). It is whether, having regard to the facts to which I have just referred, he will feel justified in bring ing forward so important a Motion as his is at a time when it could not be fully discussed? I cannot expect an answer to this Question now, for, no doubt, he would like to consult his political friends, and perhaps the Government, on this matter; but before the rising of the House I trust he will be in a position to answer. MR. GLADSTONE: The Question put to me is really whether I will ask the House to rescind a decision come to by a considerable majority after a long discussion? I am not prepared to ask the House to rescind that decision, more MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, the particularly as I do not think that the hon. and learned Member has put this time has yet arrived when a full exaQuestion in ignorance--which is nomination of the proposals which it may wonder-[Laughter]-no wonder respecting either him or any other Member of this House, considering the voluminous nature of our proceedings-in ignorance that a similar Question was put to me by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. be the duty of the Government to make some little time hence, could be entered upon with any benefit to the Public Service. MR. GORST said, he wanted an answer to the third paragraph of his Question. He asked at what time a general statement of Irish policy would be made by the Government? The noble Lord on the Front Ministerial Bench (the Marquess of Hartington) had said on Friday that no such general statement would be made on Tuesday night, and that the statement then made would be about the release of the " suspects." The Government ought to indicate to Parliament the time when they would be prepared to make a general statement. MR. HEALY: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether a general statement on the question as to the collapse of justice in Ireland is not a matter of argument, and whether such a question ought not to appear on the Votes of the House? I put this Question because, if Irish Members import into Questions anything of the nature of argument, it is immediately struck out. House when the subject of the Evening Sitting was discussed last week, and as far as he had been able to gather[" Order, order!"] MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that this matter cannot now become the subject of debate. SIR JOHN HAY said, he wished to renew his appeal to the Prime Minister, and in doing so he wished to reply to the Question which was put to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther). He felt it would be unfair to the House to allow him to suppose that, even if the Government did not make an alteration, he should abstain from going on at 9 o'clock. He (Sir John Hay) proposed going on at 9 o'clock, whatever might happen; but he thought it very inconvenient to commence the discussion of so important a Motion at an Evening Sitting, and that, perhaps, it would lead to an adjourned debate. STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS THE LORD LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND MR. GLADSTONE: I might myself take exception to one part of the Question. I am not disposed to admit the alleged promise which I am supposed to have given. What I stated was that the whole subject had been and would continue-not during the Recess in particular-under the consideration of the MR. ONSLOW: I beg to ask the Government. My noble Friend was per- Prime Minister whether Earl Cowper fectly right in guarding the House has retired from the Office of Lord Lieuagainst the idea that a general state-tenant of Ireland on private or political ment of policy would be made. A gene- grounds? ral statement of policy, as those terms are usually understood, would be held to mean a statement which would occupy a very considerable period, and would open up many branches of questions with regard to the general condition of Ireland. I am not sure that in that sense it will be our duty to-morrow to make a general statement; but I have no doubt we can conveniently indicate to the House that which, as at present advised, we are inclined to think will have to be proposed or not proposed. The proposals which we may entertain we shall desire to proceed with at as early a period as the necessary Business of the House will permit. It would be quite impossible to indicate them in detail at the present moment. SIR JOHN HAY said, the right hon. Gentleman might not be aware that Notices of Amendment to his Motion had been given Notice of by the hon. Members for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) and Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). He had not had the pleasure of being in the MR. GLADSTONE: I think it is my duty simply to say that Earl Cowper has resigned the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In reply to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire, I thought I had indicated the sufficiency of the occasion that we shall have to-morrow night for the Business which shall come before us; and, so far as I can judge, there will be no public advantage in an alteration of the arrangements of the House. THE LIBERAL ASSOCIATION OF IPS WICH AND IRISH LANDLORDS. Lord of the Treasury, If his attention Irish people have taken to shooting landlords. If anybody ought to be shot in Ireland it is the landlords; " "I feel a sort of satisfaction in hearing the |