Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND.

MOTION FOR A PAPER.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK, in moving for a

and written by the Earl of Limerick to the
"Copy of a letter, dated 29th October 1883,
Secretary to the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland)
Acts Inquiry Commission,"
said, he should not have troubled their
Lordships with the Motion only that he
had been represented as expressing views
upon the Land Question which were en-
tirely inconsistent with those which he
held and which he had avowed, or intended
to avow, before the Land Commissioners.
He had the honour of being examined
before the Land Commission on the 28
of October last; but the evidence which
he gave was rather of a conversational
character. Owing to that circumstance.
he thought afterwards that he might
possibly have failed adequately to ex-
press his views, and, therefore, on the
very next day he wrote a letter to the
Secretary of the Commission, giving a
summary of the opinions he entertained,
and which he had intended to express in
his evidence of the previous day. He
regretted very much that that letter was
not attached to his evidence, because he
did not receive any proof of his evidence;
and the first he saw of it was when he
saw it in print in the Blue Book which

I am inclined to believe, that it will be found that claim, precisely as stated, has not really been made, and that the undoubted right, not by Treaty, but by the Comity of Nations, every Power possesses of sending an Ambassador if it chooses to the Ruler of another nation has not been in any way interfered with. If it is the case, of course it explains the language held by the noble Earl, and the attitude which he is inclined to take up in respect to this question. The matter is, undoubtedly, one of considerable difficulty. There are many considerations arising bearing upon it not touching merely English interests and politics. In this matter I feel it is our wisest plan, so long as we have no grounds that could drive us to abandon such a position, to leave these transactions and the responsibility to Her Majesty's Government, reserving to ourselves in the ultimate issue the right to express the opinions which we may entertain. there is some danger that if we discuss the question too early, or at too great length, we may raise questions which would rouse feelings between the two countries, and also might tend to envenom the feelings which have arisen between France and one of her Neighbours. On these grounds-although the noble Earl is well aware that, if it was a question of maintaining the rights of Englishmen, he could command the sup-was laid on the Table of their Lordships' port, not only of his own Friends, but of Englishmen of all Parties whatever -on all these grounds, I think we should be adopting the wisest course if we did not pursue this debate at any very great length.

But

EARL DE LA WARR asked, whether, there being no access to the Bey, there an access to the Government of

was

Tunis?

EARL GRANVILLE said, that the noble Marquess had explained very clearly how the matter stood, and he himself had stated that they had no Treaty right of personal access to the Bey; but that what had been the usual

course would not be interfered with.

EARL DE LA WARR asked, whether our Diplomatic Agent had personal access to the Government of Tunis?

EARL GRANVILLE said, if the noble Earl would explain what he meant by the Government, he would answer him.

Motion agreed to.

The Marques of Salisbury

House. Last week he saw in that evidence that he was made, on a very important point, to express views which he did not entertain. In the Blue Book he was made to say, in answer to the question, "Then practically you have fixity of tenure?""Yes; but whether it works satisfactorily or not is another thing." He did not wish to raise the question; but this was a very important matter, and precisely the opposite views to those which he intended to express and to those which were contained in the letter he moved for were printed in that answer. He therefore begged to move for the letter in question; and could only regret that it had not been printed with the evidence, especially as it must have been observed that there were discrepancies between the words which appeared to have been taken down and what he stated in the letter.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered to be laid before the House.

[blocks in formation]

Report

MINUTES.]-SELECT COMMITTEE
Herring Brand (Scotland) [No. 293].
PUBLIC BILLS-Committee-Land Law (Ireland)
[135]--R.P.; Coroners (Ireland) (re-comm.)
[187] R.P.
Report-Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1)*
[167]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2)*
[168].

Third Reading-Local Government Provisional
Orders (Acton, &c.) [159]: Pier and Har-
bour Orders Confirmation [161]; Summary
Jurisdiction (Process) * [179], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

130

PARLIAMENT-ORDER-THE HALFPAST TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL nid, he desired to put a Question to the Speaker on a point of Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had a Motion down for the Evening Sitting, the second part of which was intended to draw attention to the operation of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule. The adjourned debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) on the same subject was

fixed for Friday night; and he wished to know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow would be in Order in anticipating in any way that debate?

MR. SPEAKER: I have not had an opportunity of comparing the two Motions to which the noble Lord refers; but my impression is that there is a

considerable difference between them. The question of Order will more properly arise when the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow is brought forward; and, meanwhile, I will inform myself upon it.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.

MR. HICKS asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can, before the end of the Session, lay upon the Table of this House a Statement of the number of acres thrown out of cultivation in each of the several counties in England and Wales?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that some time ago, in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), he promised. that he would lay upon the Table, simultaneously with the Agricultural Returns, a Statement as to Unoccupied Farms and Holdings. He fancied this would give the hon. Member all the information he desired; and he hoped the Returns would be in the hands of hon. Members certainly not later than the beginning of September

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)-CARROWAN,
BOHOLA, CO. MAYO.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER (for Mr. PARNELL) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the eviction of Thomas Leonard, of Carrowan, Bohola, county Mayo, who was evicted, with five in family, by Mr. Malachy Tushy, of Ballintubber, Castlebar, county Mayo, on May 13th, who, with his family, have been sleeping in an outhouse where the rain comes in, as the police patrol the grounds at night to prevent them from sleeping in the house, and they are in consequence living in the yard attached to it; and, whether the police have a right to move persons by force from an empty house of which the door is left open?

MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the Constabulary authorities had

IRELAND-MR. EAGER, GOVERNOR OF
LIMERICK GAOL.

MR. HEALY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Eager, the present Gover

informed him that Thomas Leonard, with his wife and three children, were evicted from his holding on the 13th of May for non-payment of rent. He was a sub-tenant, and was evicted at the same time as the tenant. He slept in the house of his brother-in-nor of Limerick Gaol, is the same perlaw. His family slept in the house from which they were evicted, and none of them slept in an outhouse. In reference to the question of the police patrolling the grounds at night to prevent them sleeping in the house, they did not patrol on that account, but on this account. The night after the eviction, 13 head of cattle, the property of the landlord, were driven off the farm, and were recovered with great difficulty. On the same night his herd's house was attacked by a number of armed men, who took the herd out of bed, brought him outside, and cautioned him not to look after anything belonging to the tyrant, or they would come back and finish him.

son as the Mr. Eager who was deprived of his position as Governor or Steward, as they were then called, of Cork Gaol, and afterwards sent in a subordinate capacity to the Phillipstown Prison in consequence of a slanderous charge made by him against the then matron of Cork Gaol; and, whether there is any objection to the production of the Report of Captain Whitty, then Insper tor of Prisons, who held the investigation in 1857 on the subject?

MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the Mr. Eager referred to was the same person. He was not at any time Governor of the Cork Prison. In 1855 he was promoted to the position of clerk, and afterwards to that of steward of the temporary female convict prison at Cork. In 1857 he brought charges PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARREST of the prison, but they were not against the superintendent and matron

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO

OF MR. H. O'MAHONY.

proved. He was consequently cen

return to the position of clerk in Mountjoy Prison. He was subsequently ap pointed Deputy Governor of Phillipstown Prison, and in 1862 Governor of Limerick Prison. The Report of Captain Whitty could not be produced, as it was of a confidential nature. Indeed, in any circumstances it would require strong reasons to justify the production of a Report of that character, made 24 years ago.

MR. HEALY asked the Chief Secre-sured by the Governor, and ordered to tary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Henry O'Mahony, Poor Law Guardian, was on the 4th instant rescued from the police in the village of Ballydehob, after being arrested on "reasonable suspicion," upon a warrant ordering him to be lodged in Limerick Gacl; whether Mr. O'Mahony informed the police that he would proceed of his own accord to Limerick Gaol; whether he at once travelled to Limerick unescorted by the police, and delivered himself up to the authorities in Limerick; whether Mr. O'Mahony has not now applied to Sub-Inspector McDonnell for the expenses of his journey from Ballydehob to Limerick; and, whether the Government have any objection to refund him what he might reasonably be supposed to be out of pocket?

MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the facts were correctly stated by the hon. Member. The question of expenses was under consideration. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) considered Mr. O'Mahony's actual travelling expenses might be refunded, and he had given the necessary directions for that pur

pose.

Mr. W. E. Forster

MR. HEALY further asked, whether Mr. Eager, when in another position, had not made an attack on the warders?

MR. W. E. FORSTER asked the hon. Member to give him Notice of the Question.

SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM - THE
ZOLLVEREIN COLLECTION OF
MINERALS, &c.

MR. HICKS asked the Vice President of the Council, with reference to the Correspondence between Dr. Percy and Captain Donnelly of 23rd March 1863, and the Letter from the German Direc tor, Dr. Wedding, to Dr. Percy, dated 25th November 1879, Whether the Zoll

verein collection of minerals and mining products was given and accepted on the distinct condition that it was to be kept intact as a whole at South Kensington for public exhibition?

MR. MUNDELLA: This Question relates to the gift of a Geological Collection, 18 years ago, to the Science and Art Department by the Zollverein Commission, which was given soon after to King's College Museum, and other similar Institutions. There is no official record of the correspondence referred to; but, from an extract furnished by Dr. Percy, it apparently consists of one, more or less private, letter said to have been written by him in 1863, stating his version of what occurred at an interview between Dr. Wedding and Mr. Cole, then Director of the South Kensington Museum. Although, no doubt, Dr. Wedding seems to have been under the impression that the Collection in question would be exhibited at South Kensington, there is no condition or promise to that effect in the official correspondence; and, as far as I am aware, no objection was taken at any time by the Zollverein Commissioners to the arrangements made in 1863 with regard to this Collection.

ACCOMMODATION FOR REPORTERS. MR. O'SHEA asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has been able to carry out his intentions with regard to the increase and improvement of the accommodation provided for the reporters in this House?

also made arrangements that will give better accommodation to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. ONSLOW wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what compensation he proposed to give to the Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms now that his rooms were taken away? He believed that the rooms given to the late Assistant Serjeant at Arms were irrrespective of his salary; and it appeared to him that the Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms who had been recently appointed[Murmurs]

MR. SPEAKER, interposing, said, the hon. Member could not go into a matter of that kind.

MR. ONSLOW said, he would simply ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to give the present Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms any compensation?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I believe the question of the salary of the Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms is at present under the consideration of the Treasury.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would take this opportunity of giving the reporters another smoking-room instead of the little room downstairs? That room might be converted into a covered way for Members going to the railway station.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I propose to take from the reporters the room to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but they will have ample accommodation for smoking in another part of the building.

FRANCE AND TUNIS-PRIVILGES AND
IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, by Article II. of the General Convention between the Governments of Great Britain and Tunis, signed on the 19th of July 1875, there occurs the following stipulation:

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The resig nation of Colonel Forester has given me an opportunity of giving the increased accommodation for the reporters which the hon. Member has so much pressed upon me. It is not considered necessary that the successor of Colonel Forester should have an official residence under the roof of this House; and, accordingly, with the approval of the Speaker, I have appropriated the two top stories of the residence lately oceupied by Colonel Forester for the in- all times be paid, and every privilege and im• Every mark of honour and respect shall at creased accommodation of the reporters; | munity allowed, to Her Majesty's Agent and and I hope it will give all the accommo- Consul General accredited to His Highness the dation required by them. Additional Bey which is paid or allowed to the Representaaccommodation has been very much tive of any other Nation whotsoever; wanted, and is very necessary. The and, whether, under this stipulation, main portion of the residence-the lower | Her Majesty's Agent and Consul Genestory-will be appropriated to additional ral at Tunis is entitled to and enjoys all private rooms for Ministers; and I have the marks of honour and respect and

[ocr errors]

987

Army every privilege and immunity paid or allowed to the Representative of France in that Regency?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes; I answer the Question in the affirmative.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask the hon. Baronet, whether he wishes the House to understand that at the present moment Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Tunis has the same right of access to the Bey as M. Roustan?

no reason

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I stated the other day that we have no right of access to the Bey by Treaty. We have to believe from anything which has yet taken place that the stipulation contained in the Article on which the noble Lord's Question is based has affected the privileges and immunities of Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General. Those privileges and immunities are as follows:-Immunity from criminal and civil jurisdiction; immunity of house and goods; freedom from import duties; liberty of worship; power over suite; privilege to employ Tunisians as dragomans, who are to be protected. These are the privileges and immunities of Oriental countries.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Has M. Roustan a right of access to the Bey whenever he wishes?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: M. Roustan has been appointed Foreign Minister to the Bey of Tunis, and we have nothing to do with his rights in that capacity. As the Representative of France, he has no more rights than the Representative of any other Power.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: How is it possible to bisect the individuality When is he to be of M. Roustan? looked upon as the Foreign Minister to the Bey, and when as the Representative of France?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already stated that the difficulties which might possibly arise out of the double nature of the functions of M. Roustan are engaging the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: As I understand the hon. Member for Burnley intends to withdraw his Motion on the subject of the Anglo-Turkish Convention which stands for Friday night, I beg to say that I will, on that occasion, draw attention to the affairs of Tunis, and move a Resolution.

Lord Randolph Churchill

MR. RYLANDS: I beg to say that I have not intimated my intention of withdrawing my Motion which stands for Friday night.

ARMY ORGANIZATION-THE REVISED MEMORANDUM-SECONDED OFFICERS. MR. MOLLOY asked the Secretary of State for War, If it be intended under the new scheme of Army organisation to maintain the existing system of seconding officers employed away from their regiments as adjutants of Militia and Volunteers; and, if those captains, now so employed, who may on the 1st July obtain their substantive majorities, will be seconded in their new rank?

MR. CHILDERS: If the hon. Member will refer to the additions to paragraph 6, at the head of page 2, in the revised Memorandum, he will find an exact answer to each of his Questions.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he intends to introduce a new system of drill for the infantry of the Army, so as to allot duties for the increased number of officers on horseback (six instead of three) which it is proposed to give to each battalion under the new organisation; and, if not, whether he will state what duties in the field the new mounted officers will be required to perform?

MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to inform him that the drill will remain as at present.

The two Field Officers next in rank to the Commanding Officer will be mounted on parade, and will perform the duties assigned in the Drill Book. The other Field Officers will command companies on foot, but they will be mounted on the line of march, and will perform Field Officers' duties in garrison. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that great care will be taken to clearly define the duties of these officers.

LORD ELCHO asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Regulations were to be retrospective by which a lieutenant colonel would, after four years' service, be made a full colonel; and, secondly, whether the tenure of the command of a regiment would be reduced to four years?

MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my noble Friend, I have to say that the Regulation as to the promotion of a lieutenant-colonel, after four years' ser

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »