mit to the Treasury any change in the salary and position of the collectors. Their present appeal to the Treasury was founded upon the alteration made in their relative positions. The cost of the clerical service at the ports had already been most seriously increased-by not less than £1,000 a-year. The Treasury would certainly consider, before they presented another Estimate to Parliament, whether any change ought to be made in the salaries or otherwise of the collectors; but it must be well understood that the Lords of the Treasury would be guided in their decision by no consideration whatever except the efficiency and discipline of the serviceapart from which they could give no weight to comparisons between what was at one time and what was now the remuneration of different classes. He feared it was not in his power to give the noble Earl any further information on this subject; but he trusted he would gather from his reply that the Memorial to which he had referred had certainly not escaped the serious attention of the Department to which it was addressed.

House adjourned during pleasure at

12.15 A.M.

House resumed at 12.55 A.M.

The Lord MONSON-Chosen Speaker in the absence of The LORD CHANCELLOR and The Lord COMMISSIONER.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

Report from the Committee of the reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to certain of their amendments, and insisting upon certain of the Lords amendments to which the Commons have disagreed; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill with amendments and reasons.

REASONS OF THE LORDS FOR DISAGREEING

TO CERTAIN OF THE COMMONS' AMENDMENTS AND FOR INSISTING UPON CER

The Lords insist on their Amendment in

page 6, lines 3 and 4, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:

Because it is essential that there should be no doubt that, during the continuance of a statutory term, mines and minerals, coals, and coal-pits are the exclusive property of the landlord, and that the tenant should have express notice thereof;

but the Lords propose to leave out from (“coalpits") in line 3 of the said Amendment to ("shall") in line 8.

The Lords insist on their Amendment in

page 6, line 8, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:

Because there is apparently no ground for giving any preference to the landlord who is desirous of increasing his rent. The Lords insist on their Amendment in page 6, line 37, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:

Because their Lordships consider it neces

sary to impose a closer limit upon sums to be given as compensation for disturb

ance.

The Lords insist on their Amendment in

page 8, line 20, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason :

Because the words are wholly unnecessary for the purposes of the clause; are likely to raise unfounded expectations in the minds of some classes in Ireland; and may give rise to misapprehension on the part of the Court.

The Lords insist on their Amendment in page 8, line 23, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:

Because it is expedient that the tenant should be made aware by an express declaration that in the case of his causing or suffering his holding to become deteriorated, contrary to the express or implied conditions constituting his contract of tenancy, the Court may refuse an application to fix a fair rent unconditionally or conditionally;

but propose to omit from their Amendment the words (" or his predecessors in title ") and the words (" or have ").

The Lords insist on their Amendment in page 8, line 35, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:

Because it is very desirable that the power of resumption should be subject to as little restriction as is consistent with the interests and claims of the occupiers ;

THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED.

The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Lords' Amendment in page 2, line 5, which inserts (" and substantially maintained") for the following Reason:

Because the words "substantially maintained might be construed to exclude cases to which it is apparently the desire of both Houses that the Clause should apply;

Lord Thurlow

leave out from ("conditions ") in line 34 to the end of line 35.

The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Lords' Amendment in page 9, line 16, which inserts (" and substantially maintained") for the Reason assigned for disagreeing to the Amendment in page 2, line 5.

66

The Lords insist on their Amendment in page 11, line 12, for the Reason given for insisting on the Amendment in page 8, line 20.

land to a lessor on termination of a lease should be relieved by Parliament from the obligation of doing so without any compensation being provided for the lessor.

The Lords insist on their Amendment in page 39, lines 22 to 30, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:

Because it is inexpedient and unjust to creditors to postpone the time for the recovery of their just debts without relieving them from the public or private obligations to which they are themselves liable.

With the preceding exceptions the Lords do

not insist on their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and agree to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Lords' Amendments and to the Commons' consequential Amendment to the Bill.

House adjourned at One o'clock A.M., to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.

MR. DODSON: Sir, on July 19 I stated that I hoped to deal with the making and collection of rates next year. Should this be found impracticable, I shall not be indisposed to consider the propriety of bringing in a Bill to place the owners of small tenements in the same position in relation to highway rates as they stand in regard to poor

rates.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)— REMUNERATION OF POOR RATE COLLECTORS.

MR. BIGGAR asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is he aware that the Poor Rate collectors get ninepence in the pound commission, while efficient collectors could be had for fourpence in the pound; is the clerk to the union justified in refusing to inform a guardian when asked by him at the sitting of the Board at what time the poundage was raised to its present rate; and, is it beyond the power of a majority of a Poor Law Board to supersede a Poor Rate collector, or to lower the scale of payment if the guardians consider it too high?

MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the Local Government Board did not know of any case in which the Guardians paid 9d. in the pound commission. If the hon. Member would supply him with the facts, he would make an inquiry. The last part of the hon. Gentleman's Question he must answer in the affirmative.

ARMY (INDIA)—ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS.

MR. A. MOORE asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the position of Roman Catholic chaplains serving the troops in India; whether it is a fact that, in addition to their being paid on a scale very much lower than that of their Protestant and Presbyterian colleagues, they are also declared disentitled to any leave, whether sick leave or privilege leave, or furlough whatsoever; whether this regulation is so strictly enforced that, when ordered

proposal has been made to Russia, or refused by her, for the presence of a British Representative at the delimitation of the new Frontier.

highway, and the duty of protecting the public interest would fall on the local authority. If the Postmaster General should hereafter permit the Telephone Companies to use any posts or wires vested in him, he will, of course, take care that they are properly maintained, so as not to inconvenience the public.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)

RETURN OF AGRICULTURAL

HOLDINGS.

MR. ANDERSON (for Mr. SEELY) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the statement in a Paper presented by command of Her Majesty to Parliament, entitled "The Agricultural Statistics of Ireland for the year 1880," that the number of holdings is 574,222, and by another Paper presented by command of Her Majesty to Parliament, entitled "Return of Agricultural Holdings in Ireland compiled by the Local Government Board in Ireland from Returns furnished by the Clerks of the Poor Law Unions in Ireland in January 1881," the total number of agricultural holdings is stated to be 660,185; and, if he can give the House any explanation of the difference between these two Returns? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had communicated with the Registrar General with respect to the difference between the two Returns referred to, but had not yet received the required information. Perhaps the Question would be repeated on a future day.

CENTRAL ASIA-RUSSIAN ADVANCES. MR. E. STANHOPE asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is not the fact that Persia claims a considerable portion of the territory recently annexed by Russia in Central Asia; whether any remonstrances on the subject have been addressed by Persia to Her Majesty's Government; and, whether it is true that Russia has refused to allow any representative of this Country to be present at the approaching delimitation of the new RussoPersian frontier.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, in answer to the first clause of the Question, I have to say that we are not aware that that is so. No remonstrance on the subject has been addressed by that Power to Her Majesty's Government; and no

FOREIGN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES (OATHS AND PROCEDURE.)

MR. LABOUCHERE asked the Under Whether he would instruct Her MaSecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, jesty's Representatives abroad to report upon the political oaths or affirmations exacted from the Members of Foreign Legislative Assemblies, and upon the mechanical modes by which votes are taken in Foreign Legislative Assemblies; and, whether he would lay these Reports, when obtained, upon the Table of the House?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, there will be no objection to calling for the Reports which my hon. Friend requires."

THE MAGISTRACY

THE EVIDENCE FURTHER AMENDMENT ACT, 1869REFUSAL OF MAGISTRATES AT BIRMINGHAM TO ALLOW A WITNESS TO AFFIRM.

MR. LABOUCHERE asked the Secre

tary of State for the Home Department,

Whether his attention has been called to a report in the "Birmingham Gazette" of the 6th instant, of the conduct of Mr. W. M. Ellis and Mr. John Lowe, in re

fusing, when sitting as magistrates at the Birmingham Police Office, to allow a witness to give evidence because he asked to be allowed to affirm; and, whether he contemplates taking any notice of this conduct on the part of the aforesaid magistrates?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he observed that an almost similar Question was asked him by the Colleague of his hon. Friend (Mr. Bradlaugh) on the 17th of August last year. He must repeat the answer he then gave. This Question and many others put to him were founded upon an entirely erroneous view of the office and functions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Some people, and he was surprised to find among them some hon. Members, had a notion that he had got a general power to direct magistrates and Judges as to how they ought to conduct judicial investigations. The Home Secretary had no such power. The

fundamental principle of the Constitution of this country was the independence of judicial officers, and the absence of any control of the Executive Government over the actions of the Judicature; and yet he was constantly asked if he had seen what such and such a justice had done, and if he would undertake to set the decision aside. If he undertook any such function he would do that which he was forbidden to do by the Constitution. The only office of the Secretary of State was to advise the Crown as to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. He had made these observations generally, because he was constantly being plied with Questions of this kind. In reference to this particular Question, he had to say that if any magistrate or Inferior Court admitted evidence which ought not to be admitted, or refused to receive evidence which ought to be admitted, that was a matter that could be corrected, and only corrected, by a Superior Court of Law, upon the interpretation of the statute.

MR. LABOUCHERE asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was not the case that the Lord Chancellor could dismiss any magistrate, and who was responsible in that House for the

action of the Lord Chancellor ?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, the Lord Chancellor could dismiss a magistrate for proved misconduct, for conduct of a corrupt or dishonest character; but he could not do so for an error in the interpretation of the law. As to who was responsible for the action of the Lord Chancellor, that was a Question which he was not prepared to answer off-hand.

MR. LABOUCHERE asked whether ignorance, when it amounted to the extent shown in his Question, was not a reason of itself for removing a magistrate from the commission of the peace? [No answer was returned.] EXPLOSIVES ACT-REGULATION AS TO MINERS MAKING CARTRIDGES IN THEIR HOMES.

MR. MACDONALD asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, considering that there is a strong feeling of antagonism in many of the mining districts against the regulation under the Explosives Act prohibiting the miners from making cartridges in their dwellings, or contiguous thereto, for Sir William Harcourt

purposes in their employment, he will direct the inspectors of the various mining districts to report as to whether the regulation has led to a prevention of the destruction of life and limb in their respective districts?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had received a Report from Major Ford, Inspector of Explosives, on the subject of this Question, from which it seemed that the regulation referred to was very necessary, and that serious accidents had arisen in consequence of a neglect of it. He would be happy to show the Report to the hon. Member.

STATE OF IRELAND-" BOYCOTTING."

LORD ARTHUR HILL asked the of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant there are hundreds of acres of meadow land, which are so called "Boycotted,” that no one dare work on these meadows, no matter what rate of wages are offered; and, whether the Government intend to ton waste of property? take any measures to prevent such wan

he was aware that there was what was MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, called "a strike" among the agricultural labourers in certain parts of Iretheir close attention to the matter with land, and the Government had directed the view of preventing any breach of the

peace.

noble Lord not to put general Questions He must, however, ask the on the subject, but to point to some particular case, when he should be happy to give him a precise answer.

ARMY ORGANIZATION-RETIRING
OFFICERS.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Colonels who held that rank before October 1877 will receive on retirement the fair actuarial value of their prospective succession to an Honorary Colonelcy of a regiment; whether it is the case that it has been conceded that Lieutenant Generals and Major Generals retired for non-employment under the maximum age, for remaining on the active list in their respective ranks, and whose retired pay is reduced by £10 a-year for every year under the maximum, will be permitted to receive the full rate of retired pay when they reach the maximum age; and, whether there