LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881- COLONEL COLTHURST asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the practical impossibility of obtaining an opportunity for discussing the restrictions imposed by Treasury Minute of the 21st December, 1881, upon Loans to Occupiers, under sec. 31, Land Act, 1881, he will consent to relax the most onerous of all, namely, that fixing £100 as the minimum sum to be lent? £85,597 in 1882, and £24,288 in 1918, he proposes to consider the first of the sums, or the last, or what intermediate sum, a safe basis for the further loan to pay land arrears; whether that new loan is to be a sum on which the surplus from the Church Fund is to pay both the interest and a sinking fund; or, if it is to pay only the interest, leaving the repayment to begin after 1918, when £6,674,000 of present liabilities will be extinguished; and, whether, considering that it is only by postponing liabilities, and spreading over thirty-five years annuities and debts to the National Debt Commissioners intended to be paid much sooner, that any surplus at all can be shown or created, he would endeavour, by some extension of the period, to make the surplus sufficient to pay the whole liability under the Arrears Bill, so as to avoid throwing any part of the burden on the British taxpayer? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I can only say at present that it is a very large and important matter that is involved in this Question; it is no less than this, whether the advances to be made by the Treasury in the cases of particular holdings shall assume the character partially of loans and partially of gifts. I do not wish now to express an opinion whether it ought or ought not to be done. In my opinion, it is much too important a subject to be treated as a mere matter of Executive detail. The question was carefully considered some months ago, when my noble Friend Lord Frederick Cavendish MR. W. H. SMITH asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state the financial arrangements he proposes to make in order to procure the sum of one million five hundred thousand pounds from the Irish Church Fund for the purposes of the Arrears of Rent-now lost to the country-was Secretary (Ireland) Bill, seeing that the charges on the Church Fund under existing arrangements (including the repayment of debt) are in excess of the gross yearly income of the fund for many years to come, and that income is liable to serious reduction from the heavy arrears which are accumulating? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, I suppose the first of these Questions is suggested by the Return lately laid on the Table, moved for by the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). It has naturally been supposed that the Return gave information that I intended to lay before the House as the basis of the Arrears Bill, so far as the Church Surplus Fund is concerned; but that is not the case. The Return was moved for without the smallest reference to the Arrears Bill. We are preparing information that will be more relevant to the case; and I suggest that it would be more convenient, especially considering the difficulty of giving a clear answer on a subject of this kind, that we should wait for the further Return, which I hope will be in the hands of Members on Monday next. to the Treasury, and the course that has been adopted is the only course we felt authorized to adopt. The subject is one which will be adverted to at a time when a statement is made to the House as to the course the Government advises on this and other points of importance. EVICTIONS (IRELAND). MR. HEALY asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the fact, as stated in the press, that the late Mr. Walter Bourke had issued ejectments against such of his tenants (amongst others) as sought to get a fair rent fixed under the Land Act, and that he was about to evict them while their applications were pending; whether the Government have had brought to their knowledge the fact that many tenants who have applied to the Land Courts are meantime threatened with eviction, which must ensue before their cases are decided; and, if he intends to take any steps to protect the interests of such tenants until the Courts have decided upon their applications? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I need not say it was my duty to obtain information on these points from the Irish Government. I understand that the facts are that the agent of the gentleman unfortunately murdered last week, Mr. Bourke, evicted nine families, consisting of 68 persons, for non-payment of rent. All these tenants owed more than two years' rent, one of them nearly seven years' rent, and they refused altogether to pay. It is also stated that they were led to believe that the Land League would see after their rents, and provide them with huts. It is likewise stated that there were no special hardships in these cases. In Galway, Mr. Bourke issued ejectments against five tenants, of whom two subsequently appealed to the Land Court. It was on his return from attending the place where the tenants who appealed did not appear that he was shot. In Mayo ejectment decrees are pending against several tenants; but we have not sufficient information in respect to those decrees, nor have we, nor can we have, general information of the number of tenants who, having applied to the Land Courts, are threatened with eviction. Tenants so threatened can apply to the County Court of the district in which the execution is issued, for the purpose of having the execution stayed. I believe the provision of the law in that respect ought to be sufficient. With regard to the general question as to the stoppage of evictions, I have to repeat to the House that the only mode in which we can shorten the painful proceedings. going on, and to some extent, of necessity, going on in Ireland, is by earnestly recommending and entreating the House to make progress and dispatch with the Bills we have now in hand. Every day adds, on the average, 20 to the number of evicted families, or 120 a-week, subject to deductions which I cannot exactly state, on account of those who may be replaced as caretakers. That is going on, and must go on, and we have not the power to check it, even if it were right we should, on which I do not give an opinion at present. I do think the House will feel, without distinction of sections or Parties, that this is a most powerful reason for our endeavouring to get forward with the legislation in hand, in order that the numerous persons who are in arrear and who are unable to pay their rents may have the opportunity of reaching a better and more secure position. Mr. Gladstone MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask, Sir, whether the Irish Government can give any information as to the number of tenants whom Mr. Walter Bourke sold out in the county of Mayo before the passing of the Land Act, and so deprived of the legal value of their holdings or title to the protection of the Court. With reference to the appeal of the Prime Minister to expedite the passing of the-[ Cries of "Order!"] MR. GLADSTONE: I have no information from the Irish Government on the subject of Mr. Bourke and his property, except that which I have given; but if the hon. Member will put down the particulars, or let me have them. I will take care to cause inquiry to be made. MR. HEALY: The facts which have been stated as to the evictions going on and the manner of carrying them out, suggests a Question which I desire to address to the right hon. Gentlemannamely, Whether, as a number of new crimes are being invented by the Prevention of Crimes Bill, he could not include a clause making harsh and cruel evictions of the character which the Chief Secretary for Ireland described yesterday a crime punishable in the same way as Boycotting?" 66 MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member does not require to be told that the proper time for proposing a new clause is when the Bill is in Committee. EGYPT AND ITALY-CESSION OF ASSAB BAY, BARON HENRY DE WORMS asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, with regard to his statement relating to Assab Bay, Her Majesty's Government have recommended the Government of Egypt to agree to the demand of Italy with regard to that harbour; and, what is the exact position of the negotiations on the subject of the Italian establishment at Assab, and of the projected Convention between the Italian and Egyptian Governments? The hon. Member further asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a Bill was presented in the Roman Chamber by Signor Mancini, on the 12th of June, with reference to the Italian establishment in Assab Bay, which declared it to be an Italian colony, made it a free port, exempted the natives from taxation for 30 years, declared that their religion would be respected, and gave the Italian Government the right of making concessions of land and concluding treaties with neighbouring rulers; and, whether, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman still adheres to his previous answer that there has been no recent cession of Assab Bay to the Italians? LORD JOHN MANNERS: My hon. Friend called your attention, Sir, not to the hon. Baronet declining to answer the Question, but to the terms of censure which he used. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have said, Sir, that I have never known anything more extraordinary than the course taken by the hon. Member with regard to this Question; and I was going on to say, when I was interrupted, that I not only maintain the censure which I gave at first [Loud cries of "Order!" and Withdraw!"] SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the hon. Member has taken a most extraordinary course. He has asked the Prime Minister a long Question on foreign policy without giving any No-" tice of it. I must say that anything more remarkable I have never seen in all my experience. BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The statement to which I referred has only just appeared; but as it was antecedent to the answer of the Prime Minister that no cession had been made of Assab Bay, or that, at all events, the Government were not cognizant of any cession, I thought I was in Order in pointing out a want of knowledge on the part of Her Majesty's Government. MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say that if any hon. Member, in putting a Question, which he does entirely within his own right, is subject to censure, that censure should come from the Chair. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The censure, Sir-[Loud cries of "Withdraw!"] In consequence of repeated interruptions, I have never been allowed to finish my sentence. The course adopted by the hon. Member, to which I wish to call attention, began with the Question of which he gave public Notice to the Prime Minister about 10 days ago. The hon. Member wished to ask whether the Prime Minister was aware of the fact that Her Majesty's Govern SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Gentleman has given no reason whatever for not putting the Question on the Notice Paper. [ Order!"] He has not given any shadow of a reason. [Re-ment had recently ceded Assab Bay to newed cries of "Order!"] More extraordinary conduct BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I must appeal to you, Sir, whether the hon. Baronet is in Order in using such language? MR. SPEAKER: If I understand the hon. Baronet correctly, he desires that the Question should be put on the Paper. If so, he is within his right. BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I was alluding, not to the Question being put on the Paper, but to the censure which the hon. Baronet made. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I not only must maintain that censure, but I must increase it. BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I must appeal to you, Sir. Italy? These words were struck out at the Table, after public Notice was given; and I am very sorry the Question was so altered, because the Prime Minister would have been able to have made a most indignant reply to the Question in the form in which public Notice was given. BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I rise to Order. I never stated anything of the sort. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am not speaking of the Question which appeared on the Paper, but of the previous Question. BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I have a copy of it here. I was perfectly cognizant of the fact that the British Government could not cede Assab Bay to Italy, as it did not belong to the British Government. The words of my Question were these-" And also in view of the recent cession of Assab Bay to Italy;" but not by Her Majesty's Go MR. SPEAKER: I did not interfere with regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Greenwich, as I did not think it was out of Order; but in so far as he puts a Question which is not on the Paper, the hon. Baronet has a per-vernment. fect right to complain of that part of the Question which was put without Notice. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I was speaking, not of the terms of the Question as it was put on the Paper, but of the terms of the Question as it was originally given by the hon. Member, and as it was first printed. BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to repeat, Sir, that I never said anything of the sort. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I will place the Question as originally printed before the hon. Member. With regard to the Question on the Paper, I must ask the hon. Member to reserve his desire for further knowledge of the details until the Papers, which we are now bringing out rapidly, are laid upon the Table. I would remind the hon. Member that three weeks ago I answered the Question as it now stands on the Paper. BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to give Notice, Sir, that in consequence of the answer of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I shall, on the earliest opportunity, draw the attention of the House to this subject, and move a Resolution. As I cannot allow these words to go uncontroverted, I may state that the Question which I put today is not in the least degree similar to the one which the hon. Baronet answered last week. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Question to which I referred was asked by the hon. Member several weeks ago, and led to a discussion across the Table between my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench opposite (Mr. Bourke) and myself. My right hon. Friend said that the Italian flag was not flying at Assab Bay when the late Government left Office. I said it was flying there when the late Government left Office, and that was the case. BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I will repeat my Question on Monday. MR. BOURKE: I never suggested that the late Government gave their sanction to the cession of Assab Bayquite the reverse. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The present Government also have done nothing with regard to the cession of Assab Bay. They proposed an agreement between Turkey, Italy, and Egypt on the subject. That was declined. It fell to the ground, and nothing whatever was done. MR. BOURKE: Did not you recommend the Khedive to cede Assab Bay? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Italians were already at Assab Bay at the time when the late Government went out of Office. We recommended that Sir Charles W. Dilke the position should be "regularized," and that there should be an agreement between the Porte, the Khedive, and the Italian Government on the subject. That agreement was declined. It never came to anything, and nothing whatever was done. MR. BOURKE rose, amid cries of "Chair!" and "Order!" to make some further remarks, when— MR. SPEAKER: The House will, perhaps, allow me to say that in Questions of this character Notice should be given. PARLIAMENT-SCOTCH BUSINESS. SIR JOHN HAY asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will consider the expediency of suspending the Halfpast Twelve Standing Order for the remainder of the Session, and thus give the Scotch Members an opportunity of forwarding measures interesting to that part of the United Kingdom, and not affecting England and Ireland, in those sixteen hours formerly appropriated to the business of the House, but of which it is deprived by the Standing Order in question? SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, he would like to ask, also, Whether there was any truth in the statement that it was proposed to send Scotch Business to a Committee of Scotch Members, so as to enable those Gentlemen to deal with it in the day-time instead of the dead of night, before the breakfast hour? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in answer to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I am very sensible of the importance of the subject, and I do not wonder that he should put the Question just as if he were in despair; but I must own that to ask the Government to abolish the Half-past Twelve Rule at the present moment is only asking them to add another subject of discussion to the subjects we have already in hand-when the time at their disposal, and at the disposal of the House, is unfortunately very inadequate for its immediate purposes. With respect to the rumour inquired about by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), I should have thought, Sir, if there were any truth in its being intended to make a proposal of this kind, the proposal would have appeared in due course upon the Notice Paper of the House. All I have to say upon this subject at present is that the Government are very ready indeed to receive any suggestion that can be made of a practical character upon this Question, and that it is one to which, undoubtedly, they will give their own. serious attention at the earliest moment when they can bring any results of their consideration into a practical form. MR. O'DONNELL asked the Prime Minister whether he would consider the desirability of committing the Irish Coercion Bill to a general Committee of Irish Members? MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, I have no intention of doing that, and I think it would be irregular, under the circumstances; but I may observe, that if I did, the fact would appear that it is only a small minority of Irish Members who oppose the Bill. WAYS AND MEANS-INLAND REVENUE MR. R. N. FOWLER asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the serious depression of the silver trade, owing to the uncertainty prevailing in the minds of manufacturers and dealers respecting the duties upon gold and silver plate, and, seeing the varions objections to the grant of a drawback upon existing stocks, and, seeing that no drawback has been allowed in the case of holders of duty-paid stocks of cotton and other European goods in India, who have had to sacrifice very largely under the recent Budget, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to adhere to their determination not to abolish the duties in the present Session of Parliament ? SCIENCE AND ART-THE NATIONAL MR. COOPE asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is prepared to avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the sale of the Hamilton Palace Collection, to secure to the Nation some of the unrivalled works of art contained in it? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the subject is one to which the attention of the Trustees of the National Gallery has been carefully directed, as is known to me by their Correspondence with the Treasury, which will, I think, shortly reach its conclusion. PARLIAMENT-PUBLIC BUSINESS. MR. STOREY asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the large increase in the number of evictions in Ireland, he will take immediate steps. to introduce a Bill temporarily to stop evictions, or will give special facilities for the discussion of the Bill of the honourable and gallant Member for Galway? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I may, perhaps, remind the hon. Member that to expedite our proceedings is the only manner in which we can possibly act in a beneficial way in this question. With that view, it is the intention of the Government, in consequence of the experience we have had, to ask the House to hold a Morning Sitting to-morrow, and on Fridays, during the present pressure of Business. When that is over we shall see how we stand. Moreover, it is my intention to move to-morrow-which I may as well mention publicly nowthat the Arrears (Ireland) Bill do take precedence on all days when it is set down for discussion of all other Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion except the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, there is a good deal in the suggestion evidently meant to be conveyed by this Question; but I believe, as far as my knowledge and means of forming a judgment goes, that the mode indicated by the hon. Gentleman is the only mode out of the embarrassment attending this subject. But, considering the time of the year, and that nearly two months have elapsed since the financial plans of the Govern- MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to give Notice ment were announced, I do not think that, when the right hon. Gentleman anything but the prevalence of a general makes that Motion, I shall ask the Gowish will justify Her Majesty's Govern- vernment to give facilities for the disment in making a proposal on the sub-cussion of the Agricultural Tenants' jec atthe present time. Compensation Bill this Session, as that When that Motion is made, I shall ask the Government for some general account of what Business they intend to take besides that. |