INDIA-THE INDIAN ARMY STAFF. In reply to an hon. MEMBER,

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, that the conditions of service for the Staff in the Indian Army differed in many respects from those of officers in British regiments in the Indian Artillery, and in the Engineers-some to their advantage, and others to their disadvantage. It was not desirable to assimilate their conditions. There was no intention, in revising the scale of offices in the Indian Army, to make any changes in the conditions under which they were at present.

THE PARKS (METROPOLIS). SIR THOMAS BATESON gave Notice of his intention to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether his attention had been called to the deplorable condition of Rotten Row, owing to clouds of irritating dust; whether he would explain the reasons for the cessation of almost any attempt to allay the dust by watering the ride, especially in the morning; and, whether, when the Irish Land Bill had passed through Committee, he would undertake to consider seriously the desirability (taking into consideration the present low prices of iron) of laying down piping alongside the ride, with hydrants at proper intervals, on the same principle as has been so successfully adopted in Paris?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

16.09

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.~[BILL 135.] (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

COMMITTEE. [TWENTY-NINTH NIGHT.] [Progress 15th July.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

PART VI.

COURT AND LAND COMMISSION. Appointment and Proceedings of Land Commission.

The Attorney General for Ireland

Amendment again proposed, in page 24, line 16, after the word "of," to insert the word "judicial.”—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'judicial' be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) stated that he proposed to withdraw from the clause the sub-section giving the Commissioners power to make rules for regulating civil bill processes on ejectments and for recovery of rent. He would then move the introduction at another place of a clause enabling the Lord Chancellor and the five County Court Judges to make the rules required.

MR. GIBSON said, he did not consider the proposal satisfactory, and that the clause as it stood was sufficiently clear and distinct. An Amendment was put down a few days ago by the hon. Member for the County of Wexford (Mr. Healy) to remove the sub-section, and the proposal was met by the Attorney General for Ireland proposing a kind of compromise. It was not proposed to strike out the whole thing, and he admitted that that left the matter in a very illogical position; but what was the substitute now proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He proposed that the Lord Chancellor and five County Court Judges should make rules in reference to this matter. That was not satisfactory. Why should it not be enacted that every County Court Judge should have the same power as to serving process the moment the Bill passed as the Superior Court had? That would be clear and intelligible and immediate; but the plan suggested would be contingent, uncertain, and remote. There was nothing whatever to compel the County Court Judges to make these rules. There was nothing to indicate when they were to meet, and their duties might prevent their meeting for many months. That created an element of uncertainty; but the right hon. Gentleman balanced all that by the absolute certainty of insuring that the moment the Bill passed, whether the rules were made or not by the County Court Judges, the landlord who appealed to the Superior Court as to the serving of processes should be compelled to undergo

the chances of being denied all his costs. He did not think that was fair or reasonable, and until there was something more satisfactory he should prefer the easy and intelligible simplicity of the existing drafting of the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) explained that there was no more obligation imposed by the clause on the Commission to make rules than on the Judges. It simply provided that the Commission might make rules, and that the Chairman of the County Courts might. The only doubt entertained hitherto was a doubt as to whether it covered the 79th section. He thought those doubts were hardly justified; but the Government proposed to remove them by a declaratory clause, and that was the only object of the Amendment he had now proposed. He recommended the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment at present before the Committee, and the Government would strike out the clause; but they must in one way or other get rid of that which really ought to have no place in the clause at all.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL wanted to know whether, if this Amendment were withdrawn, it would be competent for the Attorney General for Ireland to move the Amendment he proposed, because the Committee had now arrived at the word "of" in the 16th line, and he submitted it was not competent for the Attorney General for Ireland to go back to line 15.

MR. WARTON wished to raise the same point, and desired the Committee to remember the fact that they had passed all the words down to the word "or" in line 16.

THE CHAIRMAN: The only Amendment which has been proposed hitherto was to insert the word "judicial." Unless that is withdrawn there can be no proposal to omit the words under consideration; but if it is withdrawn the Committee can, no doubt, go back to the last Amendment.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL said, that was not the point he wished to raise. The Chairman had called the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford in line 16, and the Attorney General for Ireland had intimated that if that were withdrawn or decided upon he would ask the Committee to go back to line 15 and omit the words from the word "the"

to the word "rent." He (Lord Randolph Churchill) submitted that was wholly and completely out of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN: As far as I recollect, the original Amendment was to leave out lines 15 and 16; that was withdrawn, and afterwards an Amendment was moved to introduce the word "judicial" before the word "rent." If that is pressed to a division it will be impossible to strike out those lines; but if the Amendment is withdrawn it will be possible.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL : Then I may as well say I shall not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Of course, if my noble Friend objects to the withdrawal of the Amendment the question cannot be put in the form suggested by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but on the merits of the point I wish to say that while I do not like to interfere with questions of a technical character, it is of the very greatest importance for the working of this Bill that there should, concurrently with the new system, when it comes into operation, be a means and a certainty that those means should be used for the making of proper arrangements for the serving of processes, because we cannot help feeling that a great part of all the troubles and outrages of which so many complaints have been made, and which have so deeply struck the public mind, have arisen from attacks made on process-servers. We shall all agree that if we are to have this legislation, which is sure to lead to increased litigation, we should have, at all events, some advantages, and especially this advantage, which should at once be secured, of the introduction of a better system of serving processes. It seems to me that this is a consideration which must have been present to the mind of the Government and to the mind of the draftsman when this clause was drawn, because, whereas in every other part relating to the Commission it is said that they are to take this or that step or proceeding "under this Act," with regard to the serving of civil bill processes, they are not confined by any such limitation, and the power is given to them generally. It is not difficult to see that in reference to the general working of the system it would be desirable and not unnatural

that this power should be given to the Land Commission, and that they should exercise it. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that that power can be more conveniently and quickly exercised if you intrust it to the Land Commission than if you allow it to stand over and be dealt with as the Attorney General for Ireland suggests-in a clause to be put upon the Paper. It seems to me there is great reason and force in that suggestion. We know the great object of bringing this Court into operation would be frustrated to a considerable extent if opportunities are still left for collisions such as we see so much cause to lament between the people and process-servers. Even the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), who has never used violent language in regard to this point, has told the people that he felt his blood boil when he saw process-servers going about; and we do not want to have the blood made to boil by processservers going about. If any improvement in the manner of serving can be devised, I think we should act most reasonably if we retained this sub-section as it was originally drawn by the Government and placed in the Bill; and if subsequently, when we get on with the remainder of the Bill, the Government can suggest any other method equally effective and rapid of carrying out the object in view, it would be possible to consider it and, if necessary, subsequently to amend the clause; but we should not part with these words, which are really valuable, inasmuch as they show it is the intention of the Government to preserve the spirit of the recommendation of my right hon. and learned Friend.

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the present system of serving processes was most disadvantageous; but he doubted whether the method now proposed to deal with the matter was the best, and whether it would not almost certainly lead to disaster. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had thought the matter a perfectly clear one; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was bound to take the advice of the Legal Advisers of the Government, and they told him it was not perfectly clear, and that if the Bill were passed in the form in which it now stood, one of two things might happen Sir Stafford Northcote

either that the Land Commission, in reading the words of the preamble of the clause, would not consider that a mere omission of the word "Act" would give them the power which it was urged they would have, or if they did, and they made rules and regulations for the serving of these notices by other Courts than themselves, and if, in consequence, a landlord acted under those rules and the tenant subsequently disputed his right to do so, and said "You were not acting legally," he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was informed that an interesting law suit would probably arise, and that that law suit might, after all, be decided against the new rules and make them of no avail. He was perfectly willing to admit that there had been a mistake in the drafting, which the Government ought to have found out before; but he thought they would be to blame if, with their eyes open, they incurred that danger of almost certain litigation, which might entirely defeat the object they had in view. He thought the better plan would be to let these words now be withdrawn and to permit his right hon. and learned Friend to bring up a clause, and then would be the proper time for taking a discussion upon it.

MR. HEALY said, he thought the little arrangement which had evidently been come to between the two Front Benches must really have been rehearsed, and certainly the Tory Party ought to be delighted with the concession they had got from the Government, especially as the skilful Member for the University of Dublin had succeeded so well in his obstructive course. Now that he had been so successful, no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to get something more out of the Government; but he (Mr. Healy) would like to remind those who sat on the Front Bench that there were other sections of the House, insignificant though they might be, who intended to make themselves heard, and who were deeply interested in this question. He wished to remind the Government of what took place on Friday night. On that occasion he (Mr. Healy) moved an Amendment striking out these two lines. The Government said, fairly enough, through the Attorney General for Ireland, that it would not be desirable that the Court should not have the power in the case of

a judicial rent. He (Mr. Healy) at once accepted that suggestion, and moved an Amendment inserting the word "judicial" before rent. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) spoke against the proposal; but the Government put up man after man to defend the Amendment, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland-though without much enthusiasm, for he knew he was defending something his heart was not in-gave his argument, and the Solicitor General for England did the same. The Tory Party then, in the exercise of the function they were always happy to use when it suited them, moved that Progress be reported. When the Irish Members did that, they were accused of wasting the time of the House; but it was very different when a Member of the Tory Party proposed such a Motion. What did the Chief Secretary say? Why, that the Government must take a division. But did they take it? No; because several others got up and made it perfectly clear that they would keep the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues here all night. Then the Chief Secretary, seeing that there was a spirit of accommodation among hon. Members below the Gangway, gave up. Now, the Government, seeing that the Tory Party had made a demand, and were strong enough to impose it upon the Government, had asked the Government to recede from their position and to accept an Amendment which was a sop to Cerberus. But what would happen if the proposal were accepted? The proposal now before the House would, no doubt, pass in " another place; " but what security would they have that "another place" would not throw out the clause suggested by the Attorney General for Ireland, and when the Bill came back to this House in the genial days of August, when there were only some two or three score persons present, what guarantee had they that the Government would provoke a legislative crisis by sticking to the words which they had offered as a sop to the Irish Members? There was no guarantee whatever. Let the Government stick to the arguments which they thought so strong on Friday. What had happened since? Why, the right hon. Gentleman had consulted the Prime Minister. When the Irish Members suggested

that the Prime Minister's absence was inconvenient, on a former occasion, they were told that they were insulting him; that he was taking his necessary rest; but now, when right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench spoke of it, there was no insult suggested. Oh, no; that came from the Tory Party, who were, of course, infallible, and whose actions were at all times to be approved. They had in the Attorney General for Ireland a man who sympathized with the tenant; but the Prime Minister was the evil genius of this Bill, as far as the acceptance of Irish Amendments were concerned, because they found that, whenever the Tories wanted an Amendment accepted, they wanted the Prime Minister present; but whenever the Irish Members wanted to have an Amendment of theirs accepted, they wanted to have the Prime Minister absent. He put it to the Government whether, seeing that this Amendment had been accepted, not by any single Member of the Government, but by three of them, all in a bunch, on Friday, they would not now stick to the words that they themselves proposed?

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, it seemed to him that the course which the Government proposed was entirely logical. The proper course was, as the words now in the Bill were not within the scope of the clause, that they should be left out; but if the Amendment was not to be withdrawn, the best course for the Government to take was the course they proposed the other evening, and when a new clause was proposed these words could be struck out.

MR. PARNELL said, that, as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would be obliged to go to a division upon it. He regretted very much that the Government should, by the course they had taken to-day, have mixed up two questions. He agreed it was desirable that there should be power to frame special rules for the service of processes and resuming possession of holdings in the case of tenants who came into Court and applied to the Court to fix a judicial rent. But the other proposal which came from the Front Opposition Bench - namely, that there should be an