The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-17 00:00:00

nvirrit men moved an amendment to the
clause which set out that the Board might advance to any
tenant who had purchased his holding in pursuance of
the act any sum not exceeding three-fourths of the price
of such holding, and upon such advance being made the
holding should upon an order being made by the
Civil Bill Court to that effect, be deemed to be
charged with an annuity of six pounds teu shillings
for every hundred pounds of such advance. The amend-
ment of the right hon. gentleman was that " a moiety''
should be inserted in place of the words " three-fourths."
Mr. PEASE thought the Government would be quite
safe in advancing three-fourths.

Mr. W. GREGORY hoped the Government would insist
on keeping the scale of advances as it at present stood in
the bill.

Mr. MAGuIRE supported the clause as it stood. There
had been some talk in that House about the British tax-
payer being burdened by the passing of the bill ; but he
thought the British taxpayer, who had been obliged to
submit to a burden of £10,000,000 as the cost of slaughter.
ing a wretched nigger in Abyssinia, need not be afraid of
advancing £1,000,000 on good security. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.)
After some words from Mr. GLADSTONE, the sum of
" two-thirds " was inserted in place of " three-fourths,"
and the amendment of Mr. S. Booth was withdrawn.
Considerable discussion took place on a motion pro-
posed by Sir GEORGE JENKINSON, for the rejection of the
41st clause. The principle of the clause was condemned
by the Opposition as a most dangerous innovation, and
having a socialistic tendency. Both Mr. Gladstone and
Mr. Fortescue defended the scheme, and dwelt most par-
ticularly on the fact that it was simply experimental, and
that Parliament could control its consequences. Mr. G.
Hardy and Lord Elcho strongly protested against this
part of the measure, but the latter thought that, having
regard to the state of the benches, it would be an
idle ceremony to divide on the question. Colonel Bartte-
lot warned the committee of the dangerous character of the
clause, and pointed out that there was no reason why the
same principle should not obtain in England and Scotland.
At dinner-time the committee became very impatient of
discussion, and when Mr. Whalley rose to speak he was
greeted with cries of " Sing it, Whalley," and persist:
ently interrupted. Eventually a division was taken,
when the clause, as amended, was agreed to by 114 votes
against 27.
The other clauses of the bill were considered as originally
proposed, as were several new clauses. Progress was re-
ported at twelve o'clock and the House resumed.

ARMY ENLISTMENT BILL.
On the order for the second reading of the Army Enlist-
ment Bill,
Colonel BARTTELOT objected to the measure, believing
that it was a bill which required amendment, and which
ought to be considered in committee.
The object of the bill was to shorten the period of army
service, and to establish a reserve force.
The majority of the members condemned the bill.

Mr. CARDWELL contended that a reduced period of ser-
vice was at the bottom of all military reform. According
to the present system a soldier was separated from the
rest of society, and deprived of the greatest advantages of
life. Under the bill there would be a sufficient propor-
tion of old soldiers, whilst it would establish a reserve
force, trained in the army. The bill proposed to do away
with the bounty, but to give it him in the form of good-
conduct money. He thought that a man might become a
good soldier in three years.

The bill was read a second time. -
GAS AND WATER FACILITIES BILL.
This bill passed through committee.