Scotch Poor Law Administration. The hon. Baronet would have been originally nominated for the Committee, but for the circumstance that he was not in town when the list was made out, and it could not be ascertained whether he was willing to serve; but, on his return, he expressed his wish to have his name added. That was accordingly done, and the name of another Member from the other side of the House was also added, under the usual arrangement of Committees. MR. SPEAKER: I was not aware that the Committee had been ordered to consist of 19 Members. This Motion must be preceded by the usual Motion to increase the number. SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH : Sir, it may be convenient to the House that I should take the earliest opportuQuestion, "That_the_Select Com-nity of stating what course I intend to mittee on the Poor Relief and Audit of Original Question, "That Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE and Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR be added to the Select Committee on the said Bill," (The Lord Advocate,)-put, and agreed to. BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL. On Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bill to consolidate and codify the Law relating to Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Mr. ARTHUR COHEN, Mr. LEWIS FRY, Sir JOHN HOLKER, and Mr. MONK. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 218.] House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Wednesday, 20th July, 1881. MINUTES.PUBLIC BILL-First Reading Reformatory Institutions (Ireland) * (172). The House met;-Aud having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock. The Lord Advocate pursue with respect to my Notice of Motion on the Transvaal; and it will be necessary, therefore, very shortly to recapitulate what has occurred on the matter. Before the Easter Vacation, I gave Notice of the Motion, which was in its terms a direct Vote of Censure on Her Majesty's Government for the course which up to that time they had pursued in the Transvaal. I asked the Prime Minister to afford me an opportunity for the discussion. He then suggested that it would be better I should first endeavour in the ordinary way to find without success. an opportunity for myself. I did so I again appealed to the Prime Minister, after Easter, to give me a day, and his reply was that circumstances which had occurred in connection with the capture and re-occupation of Potchefstroom had altered the position of affairs to such an extent that if there were to be a discussion then it would be injurious to the Public Service. I felt myself bound to accept that reason for delay, which, of course, was based upon circumstances which could only be known to Her Majesty's Government. But I wish to say, in passing, that I hope we shall have at some time or other an explanation of the circumstances which justified that statement, for I have not been able to discover any in the Papers presented to the House. That reason for postponement was renewed from time to time, and it was only about a month ago that the right hon. Gentleman informed us it no longer existed; and then he stated that the exigencies of the Land Law (Ireland) document would certainly be a great gain to the complete consideration of the whole subject by the House, and, I will add, to the fair judgment of the policy Her Majesty's Government have very naturally expressed from time to time their great desire that this whole subject should be completely and fully discussed, and their confident belief that the fuller and more thorough and searching that discussion should be the more triumphant would be their vindication. Therefore, I must say that it is unaccountable to me why, with the prospect of having so soon in our possession all the materials by which we might form a thorough judg ment, not only as to the past, but also as to the present and the future of this question, Her Majesty's Government should insist that this is the moment, and the only moment, when the discussion must take place; and that we must, in fact, form a judgment in this House which, in the present state of our information, I will venture to say as regards the present and the future can only be, if it be in favour of the Government, an expression of the blind confidence of their loyal supporters rather than the deliberate decision of the House of Commons, fully acquainted with the whole course and conduct of the policy which has been pursued. Well, Sir, I feel that what has occurred has seriously prejudiced the chances of the Motion of which I have given Notice, quite irrespective of the merits of that Motion in itself. I feel that I have been placed in what I can only describe as an unfair position; but I will not allow that to make me shrink from what I believe to be my duty in this matter. I intend, in spite of these disadvantages, to ask the judgment of the House, even at this inconvenient time and in this inconvenient way, upon the question of which I have given Notice; and on the understanding that Monday will, without fail, be devoted to the discussion of this Motion, I will proceed with it. Bill prevented my Motion from being discussed. I think it was a very exceptional reason to give for the delay. I should have thought it was almost unprecedented for any Government to post-pursued by Her Majesty's Government. pone a discussion on a Vote of Censure upon a question of high policy likely to receive the general support of those sitting on this side of the House on the ground of the necessity of proceeding with any measure of legislation, however important, as to which there was no absolute or statutable necessity that its consideration should be concluded by a particular day. But I felt the difficulty of the position, and I did not think it right to press the right hon. Gentleman in a manner which the Forms of the House would have permitted me to do. The result of all these postponements has been this-that a Notice of Motion of the character to which I have referred, and which I gave early in April, in the natural hope and expectation that it would be discussed within a very short period, has been postponed for a period of three months, and a day is now offered me, the 25th of July, at a period of the Session when it is perfectly notorious that any Government, from circumstances well understood, can command a majority entirely disproportioned to the real division of opinion in the House. That period coincides with the time at which it has occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that this discussion can no longer be delayed, and that it has become so immediately imperative that if I do not proceed with my Motion he will provide somebody else to take my place. There is another point also to which I would refer. We were told only yesterday that a Paper containing the Convention which will be settled by the Royal Commission in the Transvaal, a document of great importance for the full consideration of the whole subject, will be in our hands before the close of the Session. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Probably.] Well, I think the right hon. Gentleman went rather farther than "probably; " but, at any rate, he led us to suppose there was good reason to expect that that would be the case. I felt, considering the very long period for which my Motion had been already postponed, that a postponement of a few weeks longer-possibly of a few days-would not of itself be any serious matter, and that a knowledge of this MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I must own it appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman has gone far beyond the limits which might fairly be allowed him in giving a narrative of the circumstances connected with the postponement of his Notice of Motion. He has absolutely compelled me to note several of the assertions he has made; but I shall en deavour to confine myself in the strictest | that it is perfectly free to him, without manner to the points he has raised. As the slightest departure from our engageregards his narrative of what has oc- ment to promote the discussion, to exercurred I have no objection to take; it is cise his own judgment upon whether he perfectly accurate, I believe; and it is will propose his Motion either on Monquite proper that we should explain the day, or take it upon a later day. I leave grounds why we considered the circum- that entirely to his own consideration. stances which occurred at Potchefstroom The right hon. Gentleman spoke of our justified the postponement of the ques- having a great desire for this discussion. tion. Probably it would not be conve- That is far from being an accurate statenient, however, that I should do that ment of the case. The Notice having now; but it shall be done at a future been given and speeches having been time. The right hon. Gentleman says made-extraordinary charges in extrathat his Motion has been prejudiced by ordinary language from most responwhat has taken place. Now, it is a very sible persons having been advanced in odd thing that in the first conversation "another place," and in other places, I had with my noble Friend (the Earl and brought before the public by of Kimberley) on this question, that is Members of this House as well as by the very observation he made, but in others-under these circumstances, we the reverse sense. He said "Our case expressed a desire that there should has been extremely prejudiced by the be a full discussion and a definite issue. delays which have occurred." Such are If the right hon. Gentleman interprets the different views taken in regard to it. that as meaning that we are of opinion, I then told him that I believed that the viewing the interests of this country right hon. Gentleman took the same in South Africa, the division of races, view of his side of the case. The right and the balance of probabilities there, hon. Gentleman says we have strangely that this discussion is in itself desirinsisted that this is the moment, and the able, I must say that is not the case, only moment, at which this question can and I must throw upon him the be discussed; and that we insist upon entire responsibility of having raised its being discussed, after all these post-it. I cannot speak too explicitly on that ponements, before the production of Papers which may place us in possession of the Convention before the end of the Session. We have expressed that hope, because we entertain it; but it is a pure matter of opinion. It is absolutely impossible for us to say that the Commissioners will be able to bring their business, which is very complex and diverse, to a close at a particular time. The opinion I have given is the best that we can form, and the right hon. Gentleman will take it for what it is worth. But it is quite a mistake to suppose that we are pressing Monday next as the only moment for the discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it more advantageous to take a later day, on the chance of obtaining this Convention, we shall be quite ready to fall in with his view. But it is not for us, who have been so often obliged to point out the obstacles in his way, to propose any delay whatever except what was required by the necessity of the case, and the necessity of the case we consider to terminate with the Committee on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, must understand Mr. Gladstone subject. I cannot say for myself that I should have done anything whatever to promote the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks it astonishing that we should have urged the Land Law (Ireland) Bill as a reason for the postponement of a debate upon a Vote of Censure. I am ready so far to meet the right hon. Gentleman as to say I think that observation would be perfectly just and sound were the Irish measure simply a measure of legislative importance, such as the Land Act of 1870 was. But the Land Law (Ireland) Bill at every stage of its progress has stood in the closest and most immediate connection with the peace and tran quillity of Ireland, with the security of life and property in that country; and it was on that account, and on that account alone, that-admitting the urgency, with regard to time, of the Vote of Censure-we felt it necessary to ask the House to continue the debate upon the Land Law (Ireland) Bill until we reached the close of the Committee, when an interval might be given for the disposal of this matter without any serious public inconvenience, Then the right hon. Gentleman says that it is MR. RATHBONE gave Notice that if the right hon. Baronet retained the terms of his Notice he would move the Amendment thereto which he had put upon the Paper; but if the right hon. Baronet altered it, he would reserve to himself the right of varying the terms of his Amendment. He might say that many independent Liberal Members had their own opinions, and did not always agree with the Government upon this question. ORDERS OF THE DAY. 1309 LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.—[BILL 135.] Bill considered in Committee. POSTPONED CLAUSES. Clause 12 (Sale of tenancy without notice of increase of rent). Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." MR. MACFARLANE said, he wished to ask a question on a point of Order. He had risen at 1 o'clock in the morning to move an Amendment, which he had had upon the Paper for about two months; but, before he could move his Amendment, an Amendment to the same clause was moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. At the close of the discussion upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, the Chairman called upon him (Mr. Macfarlane) to move his Amendment as it originally stood on the Paper, and as it remained unaltered, except that the additional words moved by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had been added to the clause. On being called upon by the Chairman to move his Amendment, he thought he had the right to assume that, in having been so called upon, the Amendment itself was in Order; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, assuming for a moment the functions of the Chair, got up and told him that the Amendment was not in Order, that it could not be moved in that place, and that if it was to be moved at all, it [Thirty-first Night.] should have been moved before his own Amendment. The question he now wished to ask the Chairman was thiswho was to regulate the order in which Amendments were to be called? Was it the Chairman, or hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper? He would not say that his Amendment was of very much importance. He said nothing about its importance or nonimportance. That had nothing to do with the question. What he wished to call attention to was the effect of the proceeding, because, upon another occasion, it might have the effect of striking out some very valuable Amendment. He (Mr. Macfarlane) had accepted the ruling of the right hon. and learned Gentleman last night, acting in the place of the Chairman, and he had accepted the right hon. and learned Gentleman's decision that the Amendment was out of Order; but, at the same time, when Amendments had been placed on the Paper, he thought it was a duty the Chairman owed to the Members who gave Notice of them to see that they were taken in the proper place. The Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was only a week old, whereas his (Mr. Macfarlane's) was at least two months old. He wished to know who was to regulate the order in which Amendments were to be called, whether it was the Member in whose name an Amendment stood or the Chairman ? THE CHAIRMAN: The question of the hon. Member is a natural one from his point of view; but there was no irregularity in the course that was actually taken. Whenever there are a number of Amendments in the same place, which in this case was the end of the clause, the Government Amendments, by the practice of the Committee, have precedence. The Amendment of the hon. Member, coming after the part relating to the Ulster tenant right custom at the end of the clause, would have been in Order had not the Committee, at the instance of the Government, added a number of lines which prevented the Amendment of the hon. Member from being put in that place, because it then had no connection with the words which appeared previously in the clause. But the hon. Member is not without redress. He will have full opportunity of moving his Amendment on the Report. Mr. Macfarlane THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane) must have misunderstood what he had said. He did not object to the proposal of the Amendment on the ground of Order; but because, if it were proposed after the adoption of his (the Attorney General for Ireland's) Amendment, it would make nonsense of the clause. It had reference entirely to the Ulster Custom, and if it were tacked on to the end of the clause after the words which had been added to the clause, it would have made the latter part of the section quite insensible. MR. WARTON said, he wished to point out, on the question of Order, a matter which ought to act as a guide and warning to the printer of the Votes. There were two sorts of additions to a clause. One was the addition of part of a sentence which was to be read with part of another phrase. The other was the addition of entirely new matter, such as the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had proposed in this instance. Therefore, as a point of Order, he would submit that a sentence which formed, with the concluding sentence of a clause, one harmonious whole, ought, by every right of reason and grammar, to have precedence of Amendments which, although coming at the end of a clause, had, nevertheless, no connection with it. MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to Clause 12, I may remind the Committee that the well-understood purpose of the clause was simply to provide for a possible interval between the engagement of an incoming tenant and an outgoing tenant, and the incoming_tenant being accepted by the landlord. But I am now assured by the legal authorities, who are unanimous on the point, that alterations made in a later clause of the Bill will secure the object this clause was intended to meet, and therefore Clause 12 will be quite unnecessary. of the Bill," put, and negatived. Question, "That Clause 12 stand part Postponed Clause 15 (Provision in case of title paramount). THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) moved, in page 11, line 25, after "holding," insert "the estate of." |