the same time if the Select Committee ance in dealing with it would be most was to be deferred until the other mea- valuable. If, then, the Government had sure came up, he did not see that it would laid before their Lordships at an early make much difference whether the second period of the Session the Bill which was reading was agreed to that night or was now before the House of Commons, it was referred to a future date, and he should possible that it might have been passed, therefore recommend the noble Marquess or if it had not proved to be satisfactory to defer it for a short time. on careful examination, then the measure EARL GRANVILLE said, that with proposed by his noble Friend (the Marregard to the mode of procedure on this quess of Clanricarde) might have met important subject, the Government were with their Lordships' approval. Some of anxious not to take any course which might the arguments which had been urged appear wanting in respect to the noble against that measure by the noble Lord Marquess, or to slight the important subject who first took objection to it (Lord Dufhe had brought under their Lordships' ferin) he must confess he regarded as being notice. He would not discuss the Bill now rather in its favour. His noble Friend before the other House, but all he ven- said it sought to effect a great deal too tured to say was that that Bill was founded much, and that to embrace the law relating on the principle which had been laid down to landlord and tenant in Ireland in a single as desirable by the noble Earl, that the Act was an attempt which ought not to be tenants in Ireland should have some reason-made, inasmuch as that law depended on able compensation for improvements effect- a variety of Acts of Parliament and a ed, but that they had no indefeasible right multitude of decisions, which had reduced to the possession of the land. As to the the whole system into a state of great conmode of dealing with this question, which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland described as an extreme difficulty and yet of extreme urgency, he thought that it would not be wise to hold it over the head of the measure which the Government had introduced into the other House. Even those who had spoken in favour of the Bill of the noble Marquess had admitted that it was in some respects imperfect, and it was therefore in his opinion desirable that the noble Marquess should withdraw his Motion, and thus allow himself an opportunity of removing the imperfections which had been pointed out.

EARL GREY said, he strongly recommended the noble Marquess to adopt the suggestion thrown out, and postpone the second reading of his Bill. But he could not help expressing his regret that the course pursued by the Government left but faint hopes that this question, which had been described as important and urgent, could be disposed of in a satisfactory manner during the present Session, for the Bill introduced by the Government into the House of Commons could not reach their Lordships before August. It was to be deplored, when the Government had so much business on their hands in the other House, that they did not introduce the Bill on this subject in their Lordships' House. The subject was one which their Lordships' House was particularly well fitted to discuss, because there were several noble and learned Lords whose assist

fusion. Now, if there was one reason
stronger than another for dealing with the
subject as a whole, it was, he thought, to
be found in that "banyan forest" of de-
cisions which his noble Friend described.
He was also of opinion that it was of the
utmost importance that the minds of the
Irish people should be set at rest in refer-
ence to the question, and that the law
should as far as possible be simplified and
made clear; but as it seemed to be ad-
mitted on all hands that the present Bill
ought not to be proceeded with while the
fate of the measure before the House of
Commons remained undecided, he thought
the best course to adopt would be to post-
pone the second reading until after the
recess. He had been informed that the
second reading of the Government Bill was
likely to come on on an early day in the other
House, and that there was great probabi-
lity that it would not pass.
be the case the objections entertained to
proceeding with the measure of his noble
Friend would be to a great extent removed,
and he hoped that, while consenting to
postpone the discussion of it, he would not
put it off to so distant a day as practically
to prevent their Lordships from resuming
the consideration of the Bill in the event of
the failure of the rival scheme.

If that should

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE having defended the course which he had taken in moving the second reading of his Bill that evening by reference to a precedent of 1853, when he had pursued exactly

advanced was £214,233, and no additional Secretary to the Treasury in January last capital had been raised under the Act of had been directed to be instituted in the 1863. The object of the Amendment Court of Exchequer has not been proAct was to enable the Company to substi- ceeded with? tute £20 shares for shares of a larger amount. There was every reason to believe that the canal works would be profitable.

MR. SMOLLETT said, he wished to know if any interest had been refunded? MR. STANSFELD: None; the works were not yet completed.

GRIEVANCES OF THE INDIAN ARMY.

QUESTION.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State in Council has under his consideration all the complaints which have been made to Her Majesty's Government, or to Parliament, by officers of the Indian Army in respect of the non-fulfilment of the Parliamentary guarantee of their former rights and privileges, including questions of compensation, bonus, and pension funds; whether the Statement which he has promised

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he must beg to explain that the delay had chiefly arisen from its being intended, until recently, to institute the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer, but the regulations of that Court having been altered with regard to matters of that kind under a recent Act, it had been thought, on further consideration, that there was no good reason why the proceedings should not be taken in the Court of Chancery, which had a better machinery for taking accounts. The information, accordingly, either had been already laid, or would be laid within a day or two.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, he wished to know, whether the proceedings would be of such a nature as to allow Mr. Edmunds to offer any explanation or defence which might be within his power to all the charges preferred against him?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Of course he would have every opportunity of doing so.

to make would have reference to all such claims, complaints and petitions; and if he can inform the House when he will be pre- ARMY-THE TROOPS AT HONG KONG. pared to make that Statement ?

MR. STANSFELD, in reply, said, he informed the House the other night, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Major Jervis), that he had every reason to expect that immediately after the Whitsuntide recess he should be prepared to make the annual statement on the Indian Army. As to whether that

statement would have reference to all the claims and complaints made by officers of the Indian Army, he was afraid that that would be saying a good deal, for those claims and complaints were very numerous; but when he made the statement he hoped to be able to satisfy the House that such

matters had had due consideration.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. EDMUNDS.

QUESTION.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General, Why the proceedings which he stated on the 6th of March, 1865, were about to be taken in order to recover from Mr. Leonard Edmunds "the balance of the sums alleged to be deficient" in his accounts have not been so taken; and, why the suit which it was intimated to Mr. Edmunds by the

QUESTION.

MR. LOCKE said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the 20th Regiment (2nd Battalion) has been ordered, or whether it is the inten tion of the Government to order it, from Japan, where it is at present stationed, to Hong Kong, to occupy the quarters vacated by Her Majesty's 11th Regiment, in which great mortality had lately occurred, or whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to send Native Troops

to that station?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said,

in reply, that the 2nd Battalion of the 20th Regiment had received orders to proceed from Japan to Hong Kong, to relieve the regiment at present stationed there; but it would not be necessary that they should occupy the quarters vacated by the 11th Regiment, which had proceeded to the Cape. In March last orders were sent by telegraph to Ceylon to send four companies of Native Troops to Hong Kong as a temporary measure.

COLONEL NORTH said, he would beg to ask the noble Lord, whether the order was accompanied by unlimited authority to General Guy not to act on economical

TENANTS' IMPROVEMENTS IN

principles, but to spare no expense in se- | It provided that there should be no comcuring the health of the Battalion, and pensation for any improvements which the whether he is authorized to employ native owner might prevent the tenant from makwatchmen, so as to allow the proper relief ing, or might compel him to make, by the from duty? contract. If, therefore, a landlord wished THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON re- to control his tenant in making any implied that orders were sent that the duties provements, he had only to introduce a at Hong Kong should be diminished by specific clause into the lease or contract the employment of native police or watch-controlling or preventing him from makmen, and that under no circumstances were ing that particular improvement. If, for the troops to be kept too long on duty. instance, he chose to prevent him from With the barrack accommodation, and with building a house, he had only to introthe authority given to General Guy to hire duce a clause to that effect in the conproper quarters, there was every reason tract, and if the tenant, acting in defiance to believe that ample provision had been of it, did build, of course he could not made. claim compensation against the landlord. The right hon. Baronet had ascribed to him an observation which he did not think was quite correct, but that was the meaning of the clause. It did not, however, question to put to Mr. Attorney General give validity to general agreements professfor Ireland, which, as it considerablying to bind the tenant to forego claims for affected landed property, he might, perSIR HUGH CAIRNS said, the question haps, be allowed to preface with a brief explanation. The right hon. and learned people in Ireland desired to know was Gentleman, when the Chief Secretary in- entered into a written contract with his whether, if an owner of landed property troduced his Bill to amend the law re-tenant that as between them the provi lating to the Tenure and Improvement of land in Ireland, said that it implied the consent of the landlord to specific improvements, and that it proposed to interfere in no way with the perfect freedom of contract between landlord and tenant. That was a clear and distinct statement. It had, however, been stated authoritatively by the organ of the parties who induced the Government to bring forward the measure that

IRELAND.-QUESTION.

SIR ROBERT PEEL said, he had a

"No landlord can defeat the claim of his tenant to compensation under the Act by a general contract not to improve, or not to claim compensation if he should improve." And again

"A general agreement would be one in contravention of the policy of the Act, and would be voidable."

The question, therefore, he had to ask was, Whether the statement of the right

hon. and learned Gentleman was the correct interpretation of the Bill; and whether by Clause 29 an owner will have power by means of a written agreement with the tenant to prevent him from executing all or any of the improvements mentioned in the 37th section of the Landed Property Improvement Act, 1860?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON) said, he thought the clause alluded to by his right hon. Friend was clear and free from ambiguity.

VOL. CLXXXIII. (THIRD SERIES.]

improvements made by him under the Act.

sions of this Bill should not apply at all, that would be valid under the Bill?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR

IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON) said, he did not

think that would be a valid contract.

ARMY-MILITIA-WAR OFFICE COM

MISSION.-QUESTION.

THE O'DONOGHUE said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Why the recommendations of the late Militia War Office Commission have not been carried out; and whether it is the intention of the Government to carry them out?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, in reply, that the greater part of the recommendations of the Commission referred

to by the hon. Gentleman had been carried

out, and he did not know to which of them not carried out the hon. Gentleman referred.

THE BALLOT.—QUESTION.

MR. MONK said, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Bristol, Whether he intends this Session to bring forward his annual Motion in favour of the Ballot?

MR. BERKELEY, in reply, said, he should deem it his duty to bring on the 2 C

question of the Ballot in the course of the Session, but he should take care in doing so not to interfere in any way with the progress of the Government Reform Bill.

LOSS OF MERCHANT SHIPS.

QUESTION.

paying their inspectors by allowances for items of work done, instead of salary.

THE PANIC IN THE CITY.

QUESTION.

MR. DISRAELI: I take this opportunity of inquiring of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is any truth in the prevalent rumour that Her Majesty's of the provisions of the Bank Charter reGovernment have authorized any relaxation

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he intends to propose any change in the Tribunal prescribed by the Merchant Shipping Act for investigat-gulating the issue of notes? ing the causes of the loss of Merchant Ships at sea, or in any other manner to provide increased security for the safety of passengers in passenger ships?

MR. MILNER GIBSON, in reply, said, the subject referred to by the right hon. Baronet was under consideration, and a measure dealing with the question was in course of preparation; it would also contain some other Amendments of the Mer

chant Shipping Act. In the present state of public business, however, he did not think it very probable that such a measure would pass during the present Session.

PAYMENT OF CATTLE INSPECTORS.

OBSERVATIONS.

MR. BONHAM-CARTER said, he rose to call the attention of the Vice President of the Committee of Council to the subject of the payment of Cattle Inspectors. The Cattle Diseases Act Amendment Bill of this Session, passed on the 23rd of last month, enacts by the ninth clause that no fee or other charge shall be demanded or paid for any certificate or licence under that Act, or any order or regulation thereunder. In many counties the local authority had before the passing of the Act authorized and promulgated schedules of fees payable by cattle owners to inspectors or other officials for certificates and licences. He wished to ask, first, Whether under the above clause such payments were forbidden and had become illegal? and next, whether the clause precluded the local authority from authorizing, under Section 8 of the Privy Council Order of the 24th of March, allowances payable from the county rate, calculated on items of work done by its officers, whether by granting certificates, or licences, or otherwise?

MR. H. A. BRUCE said, in reply, that the clause applied only to the levying fees from persons applying for licences or certificates, or making declarations; but did not preclude the local authority from

MR. BAZLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has anticipated the question I intended to put to Her Majesty's Government; but I would also wish to inquire further, whether in the event of their not having already taken measures to afford relief the necessity for so doing is not deserving of their immediate consideration under existing circumstances?

MR. BIDDULPH: I wish to ask the

Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he Bank Act in the event of the Bank diis prepared to relax the provisions of the rectors making a proposition to that effect?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In the first place, in reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I beg to state that there is no truth in the statement that Her Majesty's Government have authorized any step to be taken at variance with the provisions of the Act of 1844. In point of fact, they have not arrived at any decision upon the subject of the state of things which prevails in the City in immediate connection with the calamitous event announced yesterday. I may go further and say, that until two hours or two hours and a half ago no representation or formal report of any kind had reached me from the City upon the subject of the existing state of things; but for the last two hours and a half my time has been occupied in receiving information and statements, and, I may add, an important requisition from very influential persons connected with the City. I have seen many of the most influential and respected members of the body of the London bankers on the subject, and I have not yet had time to see, but I expect to see as soon as my engagements in this House will allow me to leave my place, a deputation regularly constituted from the joint-stock banks in London to the same effect. The purport of the statements made by them is that they conceive the state of panic and distress which prevails in the City to be without parallel in the recollection of the