SIR Surely, Sir, the House would best consult its own dignity and the dignity of the Chair by leaving this in your hands. The action of the House was quite clear some time ago. You have entirely given expression to the feeling of the House, and the House may safely trust this matter in the hands of its Chair.

STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: that it should be pressed forward with all despatch, and he hoped it would be ready that week.

MR. GLADSTONE: I entirely concur with what has just fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon. It would, in my view, be im prudent on the part of the House to interfere with its own Executive, so to speak, in the discharge of the duties which appertain merely to that Executive. It is the business of the Executive to look after the fulfilment of the Orders of the House; and, if that were not so, there would be no use in having an Executive. When the Executive finds it necessary to do so, no doubt it will come forward and appeal to the House for the purpose of having effect given

to its action.

MR. SPEAKER: It may be convenient to the House that I should read the Order of the 10th May. It is

"That the Serjeant-at-Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh from this House until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."

MR. DILLWYN: There is one point which I wish to see cleared up before this matter is allowed to drop. It is said that the Motion is absolutely made, and that the letter of Mr. Bradlaugh will be printed, and that the proper course for the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock to take would be to move that it be expunged from the Votes. I should like to ask whether, if the noble Lord moves to expunge it, that Motion will be one of Privilege or not? Can it be sprung upon us without due Notice?

MR. SPEAKER: It could not.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL:
I beg to give Notice that I will make
the Motion at the earliest possible mo-

ment.

AUSTRO-SERVIAN COMMERCIAL

TREATY.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked, When the text of the Austrian and Servian Treaty would be laid upon the Table of the House?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, that he had given orders yesterday

THE TREATY OF COMMERCE WITH
FRANCE.

MR. BOURKE said, he wished to ask a Question arising out of an answer given by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). He wished to know, Whether the French Treaty was to be extended for three months after the 8th of November?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, the French Treaty Tariffs would come to an end on the 8th of November, and there was a Bill now before the French Chambers to enable the Government to prolong them for a further period of three months in the event of negotiations for the conclusion of a new Tariff being still pending. The French Government had made proposals to several other Powers to enter into negotiations, and if the negotiations were still proceeding on the 8th of November, the French Government would propose the prolongation of the Tariffs for three months.

PARLIAMENT-ORDER-THREATEN

ING A MEMBER.

MR. MAC IVER, rising to a point of Order, said, he wished to ask Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) was entitled to threaten him in the Lobby of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is appealing to me on a point of Order with reference to a matter which has occurred in the Lobby. I am bound to say I must decline to give an opinion upon occurrences in the Lobby.

MR. MAC IVER: The hon. Member for Oldham stated that you, Sir, had | made a communication to him in reference to a Petition which I presented. I am bound to ask you, whether you did make such a communication to the hon. Member? ["Order!" and "Chair!"]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, in speaking to a point of Order, has asked me whether I made a communication to the hon. Member for Oldham. I am not aware of that communication; but I must tell him that he should not appeal to the Chair on a point of Order of that kind.

MR. MAC IVER (who rose amid cries | head (Mr. Mac Iver), in presenting at of "Order!") said, that he was sorry for Petition, was somewhat discursive in his the interruption, but to put himself in remarks. Several hon. Members on this Order he would conclude with a Motion. side of the House rose to Order; but, on The facts were these. The hon. Mem- receiving an assurance from the hon. ber for Oldham had, in the Lobby, ac- Member that he was only repeating the cused him of having gone much beyond Prayer of the Petition, he was allowed the terms of the Petition which he had to proceed. I, afterwards, ascertaining presented, and said he had been consult- that the hon. Member had travelled ing Mr. Speaker on the subject, and was beyond the Prayer of the Petition, conadvised to bring his (Mr. Mac Iver's) sulted the hon. Member for Swansea conduct before the House. He (Mr. (Mr. Dillwyn), who is one of the most Mac Iver), having a perfectly good de- experienced Members of the House after fence, wished the hon. Member to do so yourself, Sir, whether the matter was -if it was true that he had been so one to which the attention of the House advised; but on saying this to the hon. should be drawn. On the whole, we Member, that Gentleman declined to have come to the conclusion that we had proceed. He was aware that he did better not waste the time of the House use language which was out of Order; when there was so much more important but he stated nothing whatever beyond Business before it; but, having consulted what the Petitioners wished him to say, with the hon. Member for Swansea in and he left much unsaid that they desired this matter, and meeting the hon. Memhim to say. He simply wished now to ber for Birkenhead in the Lobby, I ask Mr. Speaker whether the hon. Mem- thought it more candid to tell him what ber for Oldham had had any conversa- I had done. I told him, that though I tion with him on the subject; whether would not waste the time of the House he had told the hon. Member that the by drawing attention to an assurance matter was one which he ought, if he which enabled him to be out of Order, felt aggrieved, to bring before the House and thereby take advantage of the House, publicly? The hon. Member had not that if such a thing occurred again I done that, but threatened him with a should call the attention of the House communication from Mr. Speaker, the to it. That is the substance of what existence of which he (Mr. Mac Iver) passed. had ventured to doubt, and had, in one of the Lobbies, charged him, in the first place, with having gone beyond the Prayer of the Petition, and, in the second, with obstructing the Business of the House. That was a charge which could not be reasonably brought against him.

MR. SPEAKER: I must put it to the hon. Member that he is now abusing the Privileges of the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. If he moves the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of asking me whether the hon. Member for Oldham had a certain conversation with me, he is committing a gross abuse of Privilege.

MR. MAC IVER, rising amid cries of "Name him!" said, he had not the slightest wish to trespass further upon the House. He had only mentioned the matter, because he thought the conduct of the hon. Member for Oldham most improper and unbecoming.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to make a personal explanation. The House is probably aware that the hon. Member for Birken

MR. MAC IVER: One word. The hon. Member spoke of a communication from you, Sir, and said he wanted to -["Order, order!"]

MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

In page 8, at end, add the following
sub-sections:-
:-

Member to propose an outlay of public money in a Committee on a Bill, provided only that the terms of the Resolution of the 30th May do not exclude the purpose for which the money is pro

"(12) If the judicial rent of any holding is less than the rent payable by the tenant at the date when the application was made, the landlord, on shewing to the Land Com-posed to be taken. mission that the reduced rent that will pro

bably be actually received from the estate will not be sufficient to pay taxes, rates, cesses, interest, and instalments on public loans, and other charges of a public nature, on the estate, and to keep down the interest or yearly charge for incumbrances thereon, and to leave for the landlord a reasonable surplus, may require the Land Commission to purchase, and the Land Commission shall purchase the estate, under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts incorporated with this Act;

"(13) The purchase money shall be applied and distributed by the Land Commission, first, in discharge of incumbrances, as far as the purchase money extends, and then according to the rights of the landlord and others interested in the estate; and for that purpose any trustees may be appointed by or with the approval of the Land Commission;

THE CHAIRMAN: The difference is

that in Supply the sums are fixed and may be reduced, but cannot be increased, either as a Vote or a tax, by a private Member. Any increase of a Vote or a tax can only be moved by a responsible Minister of the Crown; but, in a Committee on a Bill, the Ministers of the Crown have no privileges as to Money Clauses beyond private Members, after the House has come to a Resolution regulating the monies to be voted by Parliament for the purposes of the Act. Both are governed by the Money Resolution of the House, and any proposals made within the terms of this Resolution may be considered, whether they are made by private or official Members of the House.

MR. CHAPLIN said, the object of the Amendment which had been referred to was to provide for those cases which it appeared to him might possibly arise under the Bill in consequence of a reduction of rent by the Court. He was quite aware it was a somewhat startling proposal to make that landlords or any other classes of the community should be relieved of debts which they had legally incurred, and he quite admitted it was a choice of evils. It was a painful dilemma in which to be placed; but the fault was not his. The fault lay with the Government who introduced this legislation, and it seemed to him that it would be even worse that any class of the community should suddenly be reduced to beggary and ruin through no fault of their own, but owing to the action of the Government who introduced legislation of this kind. It ap

THE CHAIRMAN: It may save discussions upon Order if I state, before asking the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) to propose his Amendment, that I have carefully compared it with the Money Resolution of the 30th May, and that I consider it is within the wide terms of that Resolution. By it the Committee can consider proposals for "advancing or purchasing of estates," no limiting words being at-peared to him that this was another tached to such purchases except provisions which may ultimately be enacted in the Bill before us.

MR. GLADSTONE: On a point of Order, Sir, perhaps you will be kind enough to explain to us the difference between a Committee of this character and a Committee of Supply, in which the power of making proposals for taking money, through the authority granted to it by the House, is entirely limited to Ministers of the Crown? I understand you, Sir, to say that it is open to any hon.

illustration of the difficulty which Parliament must necessarily encounter the moment it departed from sound principles of legislation, and from that strict regard for the rights of property which had hitherto been recognized by the Administration of every country in the world with the exception of Her Majesty's Government. No doubt, it would be a very considerable shock to those persons and those classes in this country who had invested their money in securities of this nature to find that it was im

THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) is much further on, and I do not like to give a definite opinion so far in advance of the Business of the Committee. There is a difference between the two Amendments. In the Amendment the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire proposes to move, I apprehend he suggests that if the judicial rent is lower than than which existed before, that the whole estate should be purchased; but in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding, it is sug

rent fixed lower than formerly, that that holding should be purchased. But I am not prepared to say whether they are substantially the same, until I have given further consideration to the subject.

perilled by this legislation, or by Amend- | and it being negatived, it would prements moved in consequence of it, and vent the Amendment of the hon. Memno one regretted more than he did the ber for the Eastern Division of the West necessity of moving an Amendment of Riding of Yorkshire from coming on? this nature. But he confessed that he If his (Mr. Chaplin's) Amendment were would regard it, to a certain extent, as moved and negatived, and the position a mitigating feature of that necessity if of the hon. Member's Amendment was it brought home to the general public not thereby interfered with, he should some sense of the dangers which were be glad to go on with his proposal. incurred at the present time by property of all classes and descriptions through the legislation introduced by the present Government, and the dangers they must necessarily encounter the moment Government or Parliament began to tamper with the rights of property, and devise legislation which he looked upon as nothing less than confiscation. The effect of the Amendment would be this-if the judicial rent was lessened by the Court to such an extent that it was not sufficient to meet, in the first place, either the taxes or the encumbrances of the estate, and, in the second place, to leave some reasonable surplus for the land-gested that if the holding has a judicial lord, then the landlord might require the Land Commission to purchase the whole estate under certain terms. The 2nd section provided that the estate, having been purchased in this way, the purchase money should be applied and distributed, in the first place, to the discharge of all the encumbrances on the estate, and, if there were any surplus, it should be applied to the rights of the landlord, or the rights of any others who might possess an interest in the estate. The 3rd section provided for the case where there was a deficiency of funds after the estate had been purchased to meet all the charges and encumbrances on the estate. In that case it enacted that the purchase money having been allocated by the Land Commission, if there was not sufficient to pay the whole, it should be treated as a discharge of the debt in full-that was, so far as it related to the State giving security. Before he moved the Amendment, however, he wished, on a point of Order, to ask the Chairman's opinion, because he had observed there was another Amendment, somewhat of the same nature, on Clause 20, page 13, line 23, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Sir John Ramsden). He wished to know, by the Chairman's ruling from the Chair, whether, in the event of his moving this Amendment,

Mr. Chaplin

MR. CHAPLIN said, that as he understood if he pressed his Amendment it was possible that the subsequent Amendment to which he had referred would be placed out of Court, he would refrain from bringing forward his proposal.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. GLADSTONE: The reason that I rise now is that I desire to state to the Committee what is the view of Her Majesty's Government as to the principles contained in the clause; and that I shall do in the briefest manner, as the discussion has already ranged over a very wide field. It has been observed that there is more than one point involved in the present clause. There, are, however, only two to which I will refer, and the first of them is that which relates to judicial rents, whilst the second is that which concerns the renewal of the statutory term. Those are the two main principles of the clause, and, undoubtedly, those two principles might have been separated and put into two different clauses. This case might have arisen. Some hon. Gentlemen, or important