no objection to the publication of the document which the noble Earl desired to have. It had been communicated to the Channel Tunnel Committee, with a great many other Papers, and would be published in their Report. Although, as he had said, there would be no objection to lay the Paper on the Table at the proper time, the War Office was of opinion-and he (Earl Granville) shared their view-that it was not desirable to pick out this particular document and print it separately from the others, which were very voluminous, but that the whole should be presented together to Parliament.

House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Friday, 22nd June, 1883.

The House met at Two of the clock. MINUTES.]-NEW WRIT ISSUED - For the Town and Port of Hastings, v. Charles James Murray, esquire, Manor of Northstead. PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)-Considered as amended -Third Reading-Brentford and Isleworth Tramways; Freshwater, Yarmouth, and Newport Railway; Milford Docks*; Newport Dock, and passed. Third Reading-Sir Robert Peel's Settled Estates, and passed. PUBLIC BILLS-Committee-Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [7] [Eighth Night]—R.P. Report-Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) [230]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) * [200]. Third Reading-Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) [195]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) [199], and passed.

when the discussion would have interfered with Public Business, and as he was indisposed to obtrude upon the valuable time of the Government, he refrained from bringing the matter forward on that occasion. Now, however, that he had the opportunity, he wished to say that he thought if the great Sir Robert Peel could have been in the House that day he would regret that he had contributed in any way to the greatest social evil of any country, and would look with disapproval upon the mode in which a territorial possession was being founded in his name. When the last Settled Land Act was introduced, Lord Cairns, the author of it, said that after it was passed into law no further legislation would be required in this direction; but, as if in mockery of that assertion, this Session there had been a larger number of Bills introduced dealing with settled estates than in any previous Parliament. There were at present three Bills of this class before the House of Lords; and this was the third measure dealing with private settled estates by means of a Bill which had come before the House of Commons. He was bound to say, although he did so with deep regret, that if the House were disposed to do its duty with regard to this and similar measures it would insist on the promoters of the present Bill being relegated to the provisions of Lord Cairns' Settled Land Act; and if that was not sufficient for them and the creditors, they should be told to wait until the House should have passed a measure which was, perhaps, more urgently needed in England than any other in regard to land-namely, a measure dealing with encumbered estates. Under Lord Cairns' Act, Sir Robert Peel had power to deal with every acre of 10,000 acres included in the estate, except that portion immediately connected with the house and grounds. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) was assured by solicitors in the House and in different parts of the country that one of the chief difficulties introduced by these Bills, and that which impeded the most useful operation of Lord Cairns' Act, was that there was a prohibition in the Act against the sale of the house and grounds of Drayton Manor. The present Bill really had for its object the keeping of 10,000 acres of land in one of the most fertile counties of England in embarrassed

|

hands; and it would prevent the passing of a certain portion of the whole of the estate into hands which would make better use of it, so far as the interests of the people of the country were concerned. If Sir Robert Peel and his friends liked to make use of Lord Cairns' Settled Land Act, they could effect all they desired by the sale of some portion of this large estate. There were in the United Kingdom some 50,000,000 acres of land in the position of the estate with which this Bill dealt; and all the ills of the country put together were slight, he contended, compared with that which was inflicted by the policy of settled lands. What was wanted in connection with the estate of Sir Robert Peel, and other similarly situated settled estates, was the adoption of the policy pointed out by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) in addressing his constituents in Lancashire, when he said

"We need to get rid of those obsolete and

artificial restrictions

As it was, embarrassed landowners could not, under Lord Cairns' Act, part with their whole estate; and, what was far more important, over the vast area of settled land in this country there was not an acre which could be

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the immediate Question before the House.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, he had only to add, with strict reference to this Bill, that he felt sure the great man who gave to the people of this country the blessing of untaxed food, all the more sweet because it was unleavened with the sense of injustice, would, if he could have been there that day, deeply regret that he should have contributed to this monster evil of this country, and would not look with disapproval on an humble follower of his policy, and one who entertained the deepest reverence for his memory, who, in the case of his own settled estate, ventured in the House of Commons to raise a protest in favour of free land. He regretted that he was unable to divide the House upon the question.

Mr. Arthur Arnold

MR. RAIKES said, he felt that it was hardly possible for him to sit there without expressing the regret which he felt, and which, no doubt, would have been still more largely expressed if the House had been fuller, that any hon. Member should have felt it his duty to make such a speech as that which had just been delivered by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). It would be an extremely unfortunate precedent if Bills of this class-Estate Bills to give a legislative sanction to arrangements made between private persons in matters which concerned only themselves, were to be dragged from the obscurity they had hitherto been allowed to enjoy, in order to form a theme for a tedious disquisition upon free land. He hoped it would be long before there would be a repetition of what he could not help regarding as one of the worst examples he had ever seen of an abuse of the privileges enjoyed by hon. Members of that House.

MR. HOPWOOD said, he thought the remarks which had been made by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) were hardly deserved by anything which had been said by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). In his opinion, his hon. Friend had done quite right in calling attention to the present system of consecrating large interests of private individuals in Acts of Parliament, and of ignoring those interests which concerned the public. He hoped his hon. Friend would continue to enter a protest whenever a similar Bill was brought in. His hon. Friend had done good service, and he trusted he would persevere in the same course of action, notwithstanding the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge.

MR. LABOUCHERE said, he thought the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Salford did not propose to divide against the Bill showed, on the whole, that he was not opposing it. He (Mr. Labouchere) certainly felt called upon to protest against the view that when a Private Bill was brought down to that House any hon. Member did not possess the right of expressing an opinion against it. Surely his hon. Friend had a perfect right to do that. If his hon. Friend had taken a vote against the Bill, he (Mr. Labouchere) would not have sup

QUESTIONS.

18:0:6

NEW SOUTH WALES-DISAPPEARANCE OF AN EXPLORING PARTY AND BOAT'S CREW.

MR. ALDERMAN COTTON asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, With reference to the sudden and mysterious disappearance on the sea coast in October 1880, and within 200 miles of Sydney, of a party of five men, the leaders of whom were two officers of the New South Wales Government, viz. Mr. Lamont Young, an Associate of the Royal School of Mines and a Fellow of the Geological Society, and a German gentleman, Mr. Max Schneider; and, whether any circumstances have been discovered, tending to clear up this mysterious occurrence, by the New South Wales Police; and, if not, whether he would suggest to the Governor of New South Wales to have the present offered reward of £200 largely increased, with a view to elucidate the matter, as it is firmly believed by many that the party

were murdered ?

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, the New South Wales police have used the utmost diligence in trying to account for the mysterious disappearance of these men; but hitherto they have failed to obtain any clue beyond what was given by the discovery of the empty boat. As to the question of the offered reward, the matter rests with the New South Wales Government, who have already informed the father of Mr. Young that there does not appear to be any good reason for supposing that an increased reward would now lead to any fresh discovery. The hon. Member says it is firmly believed by many that the party was murdered; but I may remind the hon. Member that it is firmly believed by many others that the party was drowned.

MR. ALDERMAN COTTON said, that the friends of Mr. Young believed that

ACT, 1882 POLICE.

-CHARGE FOR EXTRA

MR. O'SULLIVAN asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Under what Clause of the Crimes Act the Lord Lieutenant has power to charge the cost of extra Police to a different barony in a county from that in which they are employed on special protection duty?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER) said, this Question was of a somewhat abstract

character; but he had no objection to answer it. He was not aware of any section of the Crimes Act which authorized the Lord Lieutenant to charge the expenses of one barony upon another, unless both were in the same proclaimed

district.

ARMY-ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT— MR. LYNAL THOMAS.

MR MACFARLANE asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, If his attention has been called to a Paper circulated amongst Members of this House by Mr. Lynal Thomas, in which that gentleman makes the grave charge of

fraud" against the War Department, in connection with his claim to be the inventor of the heavy guns now in use in Her Majesty's Navy; and, if he proposes to institute any inquiry into the case for the purpose of refuting such a serious imputation?

MR. BRAND: Yes, Sir. The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the charge of fraud made by Mr. Lynal Thomas against the War Department; but it is not his intention