intended confiscation of the land aforesaid? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the noble Lord's Question last week. If any land has been transferred to a French protected subject to which the British residents have a claim, they should represent the matter to the British Agent and Consul General, and take proceedings to maintain their claim in the Courts usual in such cases. THE EARL OF BECTIVE: Has the hon. Member communicated with Her Majesty's Agent? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; we have the fullest confidence in his taking the necessary steps in the cases brought before him. He has the fullest instructions to take action in cases of this kind.. TELEGRAPH ACTS, 1863, 1868, AND 1878 -TELEGRAPH WIRES OVER PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES. SOUTH AFRICA-THE TRANSVAAL- BARON HENRY DE WORMS asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Sir T. Shepstone issued a proclamation on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on the 12th of April 1877, which contained the following words: "All bonâ fide concessions and contracts with governments, companies, or individuals by which the State is now bound, will be honourably maintained and respected, and the payment of the debts of the State must be provided for;" whether the fact that Her Majesty's Government propose to place the Transvaal under the suzerainty of Her Majesty is held to free this Country from the obligation of fulfilling the above promise; whether he is aware that the Railway material purchased by the Transvaal Government in 1876 for a sum of £71,813, which was the security for the payment of the principal and interest of the Railway Loan, has been MR. W. H. SMITH asked the First sold by the authority of Her Majesty's Lord of the Treasury, with reference to Government for a sum greatly below its the responsibility of the local authorities value, having afterwards been resold at of the Metropolis for any mischief which a large profit; and, what steps Her Mamight result from the fracture of tele-jesty's Government propose to take for graph wires, he will state whether these compensating the bondholders for the wires are not vested in the Postmaster loss they have thereby sustained? General by Statute; and, if he will also state under what Statute local authorities have a right of interference, or the power to call on the Postmaster General to remove any wires they may consider dangerous to the public safety? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, the Question had already been answered in the House. The matter was regulated by three Acts of 1863, 1868, and 1878. The first of these measures gave power to the Telegraph Companies to make such erections, with the consent of the local authorities; and the Act of 1868 transferred the powers vested in the Telegraph Companies to the Post Office. By the Act of 1878, if any question arose between the Postmaster General and the local authorities with respect to these matters it was to be settled by the arbitration of a magistrate. The local authority was thus prima facie intrusted with the safety of the public; it was their duty to see that the public were not exposed to danger in the streets that were vested in them. The Earl of Bective MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Question of the hon. Member appears to indicate an impression that the words used by Sir Theophilus Shepstone, which are correctly quoted, were intended to convey an engagement on the part of the British Government with respect to the Consolidated Fund; if there be such an impression, I believe it would be an entire misapprehension. The engagement given by Sir Theophilus Shepstone was given entirely on behalf of the Colonial Government, which had replaced the Government of the South African Republic as it was called. The question as to the sale of certain rails I can answer only as a matter of information, and not as in any way clashing with what I have just stated. I learn that the rails in question were sold for the best price that could be had for them, and they were sold in consequence of their being held under a lien to a creditor of the Company, who had the power to take them. Of course, it has been the duty of Her Majesty's Government to look to this matter in the communications now going on. The Convention for the settlement of | March, 1880. The whole details he the Transvaal, which will probably be would find at pages 129 and 128 of the signed in a very short time by the Report of the Commissioners of Woods Boer Leaders, but which will have for the year 1880. to be submitted for ratification to the Volksraad, will contain provisions under which, as I understand, it will be declared that the loan is a first charge on the revenues of the Transvaal State. LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL-THE COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE able to make a statement as to Clauses (NEGOTIATIONS). LORD JOHN MANNERS asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that the French Government have announced their intention to adhere to the system of specific Duties as the basis for negotiating a Commercial Treaty with this Country; and, if so, whether Majesty's Government propose to accept that basis? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I understand the French Government have repeatedly stated that they insist on the principle of specific duties. This principle in itself does not meet in limine as a principle with objection from the British Government; because it is conceivable that in many cases specific duties may be levied so as to represent and correspond very fairly to the value; but I am bound to add that in these cases those who represent the British Government are under the impression that if specific duties be thus broadly insisted upon, they will raise most formidable difficulties in the way of a settlement, which our negotiators do not at present see their way to surmount. 31 and 34 in the Irish Land Bill, relating to the constitution of the proposed Land Court. I want to know if he is now in a position to give that information? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am not in a position to state with completeness the particulars in which we propose to modify the clauses with respect to the Court; but, of course, there is one point on which I can state distinctly the intentions of the Government in explanation of what I have previously said. I used a general expression that it would be in the power of the parties to pass through the Civil Bill Court to the Commission; our meaning is that it will be in the power of either of the parties to do so. With respect to the clauses, what we should propose is this-It may probably be found a convenient course that when we come to any clause that embraces points that will be modified by us, we should postpone those clauses, and finish the legislative clauses, for we have yet remaining some important legislative clauses. We shall find it convenient to postpone the clauses that require to be modified in relation to the constitu COMMISSIONERS OF WOODS AND tion of the Court; and particularly it FORESTS-WINDSOR PARKS AND WOODS. MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House a detailed statement showing how the amounts of £5,017 and £25,734, stated in the Abstract of Accounts of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to have been received and expended during the year ended 31st March 1881 for Windsor Parks and Woods, are made up? MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he believed the citation of figures by the hon. Member was a correct citation from the accounts of the Crown estates; but they referred to the year ending 31st will be necessary to postpone, undoubtedly and unconditionally, the clause in which the Members of the Commission will be named. LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL-MR.. MR. LONG said, he had to ask the indulgence of the House while he made a personal explanation. He very much regretted, especially after the interruption they had already had to the Land Bill that day, to interpose between that Bill and the House. But he should not detain the House for more than a few minutes, and he was quite sure the House would extend to him the kind indulgence which it always did extend MR. PARNELL said he rose to Order. The hon. Member commenced by saying he was going to make a personal explanation, and he now announced that he had discovered that the property in question belonged to his (Mr. Parnell's) younger brother. He submitted that if the hon. Member had any accusation to make against his (Mr. Parnell's) younger brother with regard to the management of his property, the hon. Member was not entitled to do so under cover of a personal explanation. The proper course, he submitted, for the hon. Member to take in such circumstances-his brother not being absent from, but not even a Member of, that House-would be to give Notice of his intention in order that the person accused might, if he so desired, put his version of the case before the House. to Members who desired to make expla- | startled him considerably. After invesnations about anything said in a pre- tigating the matter, though he thought vious debate. Perhaps he might remind he did investigate it before, but after the House that on the 16th of June, in going again fully into it, he found that the course of Committee on the Irish the property in question belonged to the Land Bill, he made a statement with younger brother of the hon. Member for regard to the management of his estates the City of Cork. The facts were very by the hon. Member for the City of briefCork (Mr. Parnell). In taking this somewhat unusual course, he had been | animated by the feeling that it was right first of all to vindicate himself in the eyes of the House for the statement which he had made; and, secondly, he desired particularly that the House should thoroughly understand the information upon which he made those statements. În that statement which he made to the House there were two errors. One of them was an error which he committed at the time from accident, and it was an error of which the hon. Member for the City of Cork took full advantage. When he (Mr. Long) told the House that he quoted the county in which the property was as Wicklow, instead of Carlow, he thought the House would agree that the mistake was not of great importance, seeing that the two counties were only divided by a small MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member river, and that the property and resi- for the City of Cork seems to have dence of the hon. Member for the City assumed that the hon. Member who is of Cork and the property and residence in possession of the House is about to of his (Mr. Long's) own relations-the make some attack on his younger two people concerned in the question-brother. I have no reason to suppose were in Wicklow and Carlow both. He that that is so; and, at all events, until stated also that the rents on this estate such attack is made, it will not be for had been raised to an average of 70 per me to interfere. cent over Griffith's valuation. That he had not an opportunity of proving at the moment; but he now held in his hand a copy of the Landed Estates Court rental, and a full copy of the rents showing that previous to the sale in 1873 the rents were fixed at 75 per cent above the Government valuation, and also showing that the average he quoted was the correct one. He next came to the more important error which was made in the statement which he had the honour to make to the House, and that was not an error made through any fault of his own; but was contained in other information which was given to him of a very accurate nature. He said that his property was solely the property of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork met that statement with a deliberate denial, and he confessed that that denial Mr. Long MR. FINIGAN rose, amid loud cries of "Order!" MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Ennis rises to Order, the House no doubt will hear him; but he is not entitled to interrupt the hon. Member who is in possession of the House. MR. LONG, resuming, said, he would set at rest the suspicions of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He had no intention of calling in question the manner in which the younger brother of the hon. Member managed his property, and had only alluded to him in order to express, in as strong terms as possible, the regret he felt that the information furnished to him should have induced him to say anything which was not absolutely correct, or to have mentioned the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, when he ought to have mentioned that of his brother. The mis take of his (Mr. Long's) informant had | for his brother asked him to bid for the arisen from the fact that when the pro- two lots. He did bid for the two lots, perty was re-valued the elder accom- and they were knocked down to him. panied the younger brother in his visit His brother asked him to write the to the tenants when the increased rent letter referred to and to transfer the was demanded, and the neighbours not property to this gentleman, who, he beunnaturally concluded that the elder lieved, subsequently became owner. His brother was the owner of the estate. In (Mr. Parnell's) ownership was entirely reference to the statement of the hon. nominal, and only lasted a few weeks. Member for the City of Cork that he He had no concern whatever with the had never sold any landed property in management, and he thought the hon. the counties of Wicklow or Carlow, he Member might have mentioned that the would venture to read to the House the lots in question were not connected with following letter, a copy of which had any charge of rent raising. He repeated been supplied to him:— what he said before, that he never sold any property in Wicklow with the exception of these two lots of which he became nominal owner under the circumstances he had stated. He did not wish to put himself forward as a good landlord, for poor Irish landlords were not usually the best landlords, and he did not happen to be a rich man; but he had never raised the rent of a tenant "Avondale, Rathdrum, September 16, 1874. "Dear Sir,—If Mr. Dick is desirous of purchasing lots 29 and 30 (Ballinagilty and Blindennis) of my brother's estate in Carlow, of which I have been declared the purchaser, I should be glad to learn what price he is prepared to give for these lots before I conclude negotiations for the sale of them to another party. "I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, "CHARLES S. PARNELL." His (Mr. Long's) relative declined to buy these two lots, which, as he understood, were now the property of Major Newton; and probably the hon. Member for the City of Cork would like to say whether that gentleman bought the property or had it presented to him. He apologized to the House and to the hon. Member for having been led into any error, however slight, and he was willing to submit the information upon which he had furnished his statement to any Member of the House who might desire to see it. MR. PARNELL said, he thought the hon. Member had attempted to make an attack upon his younger brother with reference to the management of his property. It was no part of his business to defend his brother's management of his property. If the hon. Member repeated the charge, and vouched again for its correctness, that the rents of the property belonging to his younger brother were raised 70 per cent, he submitted it was, so far as it went, an attack upon his younger brother. Let him explain to the House that the two lots of land referred to in the letter read by the hon. Member belonged to himself, so nominally that he had forgotten about the circumstances, for they only nominally belonged to him for a few weeks. At the sale in 1878, the solicitor acting 70 or any other per cent. ORDERS OF THE DAY. 1500 LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.-[BILL 135.] COMMITTEE. [TWENTY-FOURTH NIGHT.] [Progress 8th July.] Bill considered in Committee. ACQUISITION OF LAND BY TENANTS, RE- Acquisition of Land by Tenants. Amendment proposed, In page 17, line 15, to leave out the words Works to," in order to insert the words "the "the Treasury may authorise the Board of Land Commission may, with the concurrence of the Treasury,"-(Mr. Charles Russell,) instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." MR. PARNELL said, he would appeal to the Government to re-consider the decision they had arrived at. The clause proposed that the Board of lation, and the people who had been Works should advance the money from cleared from the richer land sought the Treasury for the purposes of recla- refuge upon the poorer and more barmation or improvement of waste or un- ren portions of the country. They had cultivated land and other works of agri- reclaimed the bogs and brought in the cultural improvement. The Amendment hill side, and they had been allowed to proposed to substitute the Land Com- stay upon their little holdings, because mission for the Board of Works. He at the time of their settlement the land submitted that the Board of Works, a on which they located themselves was Board which stood condemned for in- absolutely worth nothing. They had capability and mismanagement, was not made that land worth something, and a proper institution for carrying out im- since then the landlords had placed a portant works of this character. It must rent upon the holdings such as the necessarily follow that questions, grave people were not able to bear, partly by and weighty, would arise from time to reason of the excessive nature of the time in the working of the whole Bill rent. Professor Baldwin and everybody with regard to the desirability of allow else he believed that hon. Members on ing Companies to purchase tracts of both sides of the House had pointed out land in certain districts; and it was that something must be done for these absurd to suppose that a body like the small tenants, that they could not live Board of Works could be trusted in re- where they were, and that it was absogard to the decision of those questions lutely necessary to give them some opporof policy. But he might be told that it tunity of settling down on holdings of a was not the Board of Works that would larger area than they at present occuhave to decide questions of policy, but pied. There were in Ireland 360,000 that such questions would be decided by holdings of a value of less than £8 per the Treasury. He did not think, how- annum, and, he believed, something like ever, that the Treasury was a proper from 200,000 to 250,000 which were body to decide questions of this cha- valued at less than £4 per annum. racter. What had been one of the chief Hence it followed that much of the grounds for believing that no Bill con- misery which had been the chief cause taining the "three F's," or no Bill estab- of periodical famines and periods of lishing a peasant proprietary, would re- scarcity in Ireland was owing to the move one of the chief evils of the Land fact that large numbers of the people Question in Ireland? It had been be- were crowded upon small holdings cause there existed in the West of Ire- which were absolutely insufficient to land-in three or four of the Western afford a living to such poor families. counties, and in a few other counties- There were, undoubtedly, contrary opicrowded districts where the tenants were nions as to the best way in which this settled in such numbers on poor and evil could be remedied. Some advosmall holdings that it was utterly im-cated emigration, and others advocated possible for them to make a decent sub-migration. He did not wish to go at sistence and to pay any rent at all. That fact had been vouched for by everybody who had studied the Land Question on the spot. They had the evidence of both of the Royal Commissions on this point. They had the evidence of Major Robertson and Professor Baldwin, the two Assistant Commissioners, who were appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the state of the poorer and smaller tenancies of Ireland, and more especially in those districts in which they had been told no measure could satisfactorily settle the Irish Land Question which did not in some way make provision for those small holders. After the Famine and at other times lands in many of the Irish counties were cleared of their popu Mr. Parnell any length into the question of emigration, because it was connected with a separate and distinct clause of the Bill. However, it came incidentally into this clause, because the clause seemed to have been pitchforked into the Bill for the purpose of providing an alternative scheme to that of emigration. In other words, the Government seemed to have relied on the Bill for the purpose of trying what could be done in the way of migrating families from the poorer districts to better holdings. But if they started by giving this duty to the Board of Works they would deprive the clause at the very outset of all possible chance of success. He did not wish at the present moment to enter into any discussion |