MR. PULESTON asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, if the proposed Conference meets, Her Majesty's representative will be directed to call the attention of the Plenipotentiaries to the state of things recently created in Tunis by the action of the French Government? trous losses upon British commerce, | Lord Granville, I really have no interwhich represents eighty per cent. of the pretation to offer, because I think it is whole European trade passing through quite plain in itself, and we shall abide the Canal; and also in view of the recent by it as it stands. cession of Assab Bay to Italy, and the consequent probability of that harbour becoming an Italian naval arsenal, Her Majesty's Government will take steps for insuring, at the proposed Conference, the recognition of the preponderance of British interests in Egypt, so as to prevent the free communication of England with India from being suddenly stopped in the event of any European complication? The hon. Member wished also to ask whether with reference to the statements of Lord Granville in a despatch to Lord Dufferin of the 9th of January last, to the effect that the policy of this country as regards Egypt must be to maintain the absence of any preponderating influence on the part of any single Power, the Government were prepared to carry out that policy; and, whether they did not consider it necessary for the security of the maintenance of communications with India that the influence of England should preponderate in Egypt? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with regard to the preliminary portion of the hon. Member's Question as to the facility with which the Suez Canal could at any moment be destroyed from its banks, I have to say that the report of the authorities is quite different from that. It is to the effect that to destroy or even permanently to injure the Canal would be extremely difficult, from the nature of its construction, if, indeed, it would not be quite impossible. With regard to the cession of Assab Bay, the Government are not aware of any such cession. There is an establishment of the Italian Government there, with respect to which we have received an assurance from that Government that that establishment will be of a purely commercial nature, and that it will not be fortified or turned into a military post. With regard to the instructions to be given at the proposed Conference, we are precluded on general grounds from stating what instructions will be given to the British Representatives there, particularly in a case where it may be considered necessary that England, in conjunction with France, should be specially responsible in regard to the initiative. Finally, as to the citation of the hon. Member from the despatch of Baron Henry De Worms MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that it would not be expedient to make any attempt to enlarge the scope of the Conference, and that such an attempt would be unfavourable to the object for which the Conference was to meet. MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF) asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, inasmuch as the Conference proposed to be held at Constantinople is to be composed of representatives of the Powers signatories of the Treaty of Berlin, Her Majesty's Government will instruct the British Plenipotentiary to call the attention of the Conference to the non-fulfilment of certain stipulations of that Treaty, viz. those providing for the introduction of reforms into Asiatic and European Turkey, the demolition of the Bulgarian fortresses, and the assumption of a portion of the Ottoman debt by States now in possession of territory which, before the late war, formed part of the Ottoman Empire? MR. GLADSTONE: In regard to this Question I must make substantially the same answer. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) is not himself in his place, because I should have been glad to acknowledge his title to put the Question on account of the laborious and useful part which he took in the improvement of one of the provinces of Turkey; but, again, I think the introduction of this subject would not promote the purpose for which the Conference would meet. ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL— THE ESTIMATES. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will lay upon the Table an estimate of the gross amount of arrears of rent in Ireland proposed to be dealt with under the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, and the amount proposed to be contributed from public funds; together with any Return or other information in the possession of the Government on which these estimates were framed? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, in reply to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that I think an estimate of the amount charged in the Arrears Bill, in the sense in which the term is commonly used, can hardly be given from the nature of the case; but we are doing our best to gather together the most useful and authentic illustrative information we can get in order to place hon. Members in possession of some facts as regards this subject. That information will be made known to the House before it goes into Committee on the Bill. The heads upon which we would either have information, or, at all events, do our best to form an opinion, are, in the first place, the total amount of valuation in Ireland of holdings under £30 per annum. Then there is the total amount of those holdings up to £30 valuation. A third point is the number of holdings, which are returned in the Poor Law Report at 585,000. As regards that, a large reduction will, I believe, have to be made, and we shall not have to deal with more than 350,000 possible subjects of the Arrears Clauses-possible, that is to say, if the rents have not been paid. Then as to a question of more difficulty, which we are endeavouring to examine into as well as we can—namely, as to the deduction to be made from the total valuation and the total rent corresponding with it on account of the difference in the number of holdings, that is a very difficult matter, and one on which I am afraid we can get nothing except the opinions of the best-informed persons. Besides this, we have got accounts from a considerable number of counties in Ireland, especially in Leinster and Connaught, showing, as a matter of fact, what proportion of estates have arrears upon them and what have not. Then, finally, we have such information as the Board of Inland Revenue can supply with regard to the amount of claim by the landlords in respect of unpaid rents. These are the heads of the matters which we are desirous of laying before the House before it goes into Committee on the Arrears Bill. MR. BRAND asked if care would be taken in the estimate to make allowance for the effect of Sub-section 3 of Clause 1 of the Bill? MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, certainly, Sir; that is an important point, about which we shall endeavour to arrive at a sound judgment. PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL-THE PROTEST OF THE JUDGES. MR. HEALY asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he has now received the protest of the Irish Judges against the abolition of trial by jury in Ireland, and what reply it is intended to make thereto, or if any has been sent? MR. CALLAN asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, since his statement to the House that no communication or memorial from the Irish Judges had reached him or any of his colleagues in the Cabinet, he has received a letter from the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, Ireland, stating that the resolution come to by the Judges had been forwarded, when passed, to the Lord Lieutenant by the Lord Chancellor; whether such letter and resolution had not, in fact, at the time been received by the Lord Lieutenant; can he state what answer has been returned to the letter and resolution of the Judges so forwarded; and, is it still his intention to persist in imposing distasteful duties on the Irish Bench; whether, as stated in the "Freeman's Journal" of Friday last, the Judges had on the preceding day again met and passed a resolution reiterating in language of increased emphasis the former declaration; and, whether he will have any objection to place upon the Table a Copy of these resolutions of the Irish Judges? MR. GLADSTONE: I think the answer I gave on a former occasion was not quite accurately understood. Immediately after making it, I learnt that the resolution of the Judges had been communicated to the Viceroy of Ireland, but in a manner which did not appear either to him or to us to require a formal answer. Of course, in view of the Bill now before the House, it is for Parliament to say whether these duties shall be imposed on the Irish Judges or not. MR. CALLAN asked whether there would be any objection to lay a Copy of the resolution on the Table of the House? MR. GLADSTONE said, there would be no objection. MR. HEALY asked what answer was to be returned? MR. GLADSTONE said, that, in their opinion, the resolution did not call for any reply. THE IRISH CHURCH FUND-ESTI MATED ASSETS. LORD GEORGE HAMILTON asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, in the Return of the estimated receipts of the Irish Church Fund for the next fifty years, which has just been issued, he is satisfied that a sufficient deduction or allowance has been made for the reduction or postponement of rent, interest, and other income receivable by the Commissioners, and that the estimated assets of the Fund can be relied on as accurate and capable of realisation? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my estimate was a minimum of £1,500,000. I will lay on the Table a further Paper, which will, in effect, contain a better answer than could be given across the Table of the House. It will show the ground on which we have proceeded in our estimate, and I have every reason to believe that our calculations will prove correct. MR. MULHOLLAND asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the thirty-seventh section of "The Irish Church Act, 1869," requires that the accounts of receipts and expenditure of the Irish Church Fund for each year shall be presented to Parliament within five months after the expiration of such year; and, if so, why the accounts for the year 1881 have not been so presented; and, whether he could inform the House on what day they will be laid upon the Table? MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the hon. Member correctly states the directions of the 37th section of the Irish Church Act. The Irish Land Commission, who have now charge of the Church property, asked the Treasury to change the end of the year of account from the 31st of December to the 31st of March, so that the Church Fund account might run to the same date as the other accounts made up by the Land Commission; and the Treasury assented to the change. The Church account is, therefore, under this arrangement, not yet due. THAMES NAVIGATION-THE THAMES BELOW BRIDGE. MR. THOROLD ROGERS asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is able to inform the House whether the Government intend to take any steps with a view of improving the condition of the river between London Bridge and Gravesend ? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in re ply, said, that, in concert with his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, he had been considering the constitution of a small professional Royal Commission to inquire into this subject. The preliminaries were on the point of completion, and he hoped the Commission would institute the inquiry very shortly. PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL-THE CONDITION OF IRELAND. MR. MONK wished to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which he had not given him Notice. He wished to ask whether, considering the large amount of innocent blood now being shed day after day in Ireland, he was prepared to ask the House to vote Urgency with respect to the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill? MR. O'DONNELL said, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered that Question, he should like to ask him if his attention had been called to the following declaration with regard to outrages in Ireland. It was in the form of a Pastoral from the Archbishops and Bishops of the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland. It was as follows: "We should fail in our duty, without in any sense excusing the crimes and offences which we have condemned, if we did not declare that in our belief they would never have occurred had not the people been driven to despair by evictions and the prospect of evictions for the non-payment of exorbitant rents. Further more, the continuance of such evictions, justly described by the Prime Minister as a sentence of death, is a permanent incentive to crime." He would ask whether Her Majesty's Government would postpone all other legislation until some measure for the immediate stoppage of evictions on the non-payment of exorbitant rent was passed? SIR HENRY TYLER wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Government during the passage of the Prevention of Crime Bill, and before it could be completed, to take any further measures for the prevention of murder, outrage, and crime in Ireland? MR. GLADSTONE: My attention has been called generally to the document to which the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) refers, and I am not sorry that he has quoted certain words of mine in it, because I wish to say that it is entirely under a misapprehension that the opinion is said to have been expressed by me that a sentence of eviction is a sentence of death. What I said was, in my own judgment, whether rightly or wrongly, altogether different from that—namely, that, taking into account all the circumstances of the time and the condition of all but famine in which a number of people were, it could be no great matter of surprise if, from their point of view, a sentence of eviction appeared to be a sentence of death. It was not a statement made by me; I said it would be no great wonder that the people should think so. With respect to the other matters in the letter referred to, they do not call for any expression of my opinion, but rather belong to a discussion on the general state of Ireland. Speaking from memory, I think I am quite correct in the substance of what I have said as to the words at tributed to me. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), it is a subject of constant anxiety with us how we can promote and expedite, to the best of our ability, the passage of this Bill. The time spent upon it has been considerably longer than we should have desired, and, perhaps, than we may have considered altogether reasonable. But then I am bound to say that it is an opinion which the Government has had to form many times during the present Session in regard to particular debates; and we are also bound to bear in mind that we have been discussing some of the nicest and most difficult questions, involving Civil rights, that this House can be called upon to consider. The modification of trial by jury, and the giving of a new application to the law respecting intimidation, are certainly matters on We which we should not think ourselves warranted in attempting to draw the line between liberty and excess. shall endeavour to consider, if necessary, what measures we ought to take to expedite the proceedings of the Committee; for while I do not hesitate to say now that we have got through all those difficult subjects, I hope I am not too sanguine in anticipating some more speedy progress. My hon. Friend inquires whether we will not ask for Urgency; but to ask for Urgency is one thing, and to obtain it is another. I think the circumstances under which we shall ask for Urgency will be such that, so far as we can judge, the House will be willing to grant it. We are not desirous of complicating the matter if we can possibly avoid it. I do not understand the Question that has been put to me by the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir Henry Tyler). We are now legislating on the subject of the prevention of crime in Ireland; and I do not understand what the Executive can do more, while that legislation is under the discussion of the House, than what we have been doing, and are doing, to the best of our ability— namely, to use to the utmost extent the forces that Parliament has placed in our hands for the maintenance of peace and order. MR. HEALY inquired whether the Government intended to take any steps to prevent the execution of evictions in cases pending before the Land Commission? MR. T. P. O'CONNOR wished to know whether, on the second reading of the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill in 1880, the Prime Minister did not use these words "It is no exaggeration to say, in a country where the agricultural pursuit is the only pursuit, and where the means of the payment of rent are entirely destroyed for the time by the visitation of Providence, that the poor occupier may in these circumstances regard the sentence of eviction as coming for him very near to a sentence of starvation. . . . In the failure of the crops, crowned by the year 1879, the act of God had replaced the Irish occupier in the condition in which he stood before the Land Act. Because what had he to contemplate? He had to contemplate eviction for non-payment of rent, and, as a consequence of eviction, starvation."-[3 Hansard, ccliii. 1663.] He wished to know whether the Prime Minister did not declare that a sentence of eviction was equivalent to a sentence of starvation? MR. GLADSTONE: I have used many words since that speech was delivered; but, speaking from memory-though, I am sorry to say, my memory is not as good as it once was-I do not hesitate to say that the second passage expresses with great exactitude what I said; and with reference to the first passage, it entirely corresponds with the account which I gave just now. SCOTLAND-LOCAL TAXATION AND EXPENDITURE. MR. ANDERSON asked the Lord Advocate whether the Return lately presented to Parliament was intended to give an accurate and complete statement of the local taxation and expenditure of Scotland? THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The Parliamentary Paper referred to by my hon. Friend contains only the Returns of Local Taxation in Scotland, now made for the first time under the Local Taxation Returns Act of last year. Returns applicable to the three subjects mentioned in the Question were previously required to be made by law, and such cases were exempted from the operation of the new Act. These Returns are consequently not included in the Paper referred to; but they will be presented separately, as they have hitherto been. MR. ANDERSON: May I ask whether the learned Lord could arrange that these Returns should be given in one Report, so that it may be possible to see at once the total amount of local taxation in Scotland? ORDERS OF THE DAY. 1806 PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.-[BILL 157.] (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.) COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th June.] Bill considered in Committee. PART II. OFFENCES AGAINST THIS ACT. At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided, That no refusal by any person to deal with another in the way of the trade, claration of intention not so to deal, and no rebusiness, or employment of either; and no desort to the practice of what is commonly known as exclusive dealing, shall of itself be deemed to be intimidation."—(Mr. Healy.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added." MR. HEALY said, he had proposed that Amendment on Friday, and he thought that it was a very reasonable one. He did not see why they should wish to import into the law a principle which had never yet been applied to the law of any country. His object was to provide that no act should be treated as intimidation unless it was of a specific and real character; and he wished to get from the Government a declaration that they did not propose themselves to use THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I shall see whether that can be done. It would plainly be very desir-the Bill for purposes of intimidation. able. There were two kinds of intimidationthe intimidation alleged to be struck at by the Bill, and the ordinary intimidation which had so long been practised by the Irish police. The Irish Members desired to induce the Government to insert certain specific words in the Bill, in order to prevent the police from harassing shopkeepers and others in the exercise of their trade and business. The Amendment proposed that if a man in the way of trade, business, or employment refused to deal with another, that such refusal should not be held to be penal, and that a declaration of the intention of one man not to buy from or |