HC Deb 20 July 1882 vol 272 cc1107-39

Order for Consideration read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."

MR. HEALY

said, that the Secretary of State for War had promised in Committee to amend the Bill on Report so as to wipe off all arrears up to the 1st November, 1881. The effect of the Amendments introduced, however, was that the tenants, instead of having the benefits of the Bill brought down to the 1st November, 1881, had them stopped short on the 1st May, 1881, when the hanging gale was due. The Government had taken no steps whatever to give effect to their pledges. He regretted that he should be obliged to intervene on the question that the Report should be considered; but he considered Irish Members had reason to complain that the matter to which he had referred was not on the Paper.

SIR, JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he had no personal interest save that which every man had in the peace and contentment of the country, nor had he any interest in opposing the views of the Government; but he certainly thought their conduct with regard to this clause was most ill-advised. If the benefits of the Bill were not brought down to November it would disappoint the reasonable expectations of the people.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, bethought the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was under some misconception. The pledges given by the Government during the progress of Committee were most scrupulously carried out. No doubt some matters the Government stated they would consider, and they had considered them, though they were not prepared to recommend any Amendment. With reference to Sub-section 3, it was perfectly true that the Secretary of State for War stated that the Government intended to deal with the rent of the year 1881, so that on the payment of that year's rent by the tenant, he would obtain a clear receipt for it, and all antecedent years. But he had a distinct recollection that his right hon. Friend also stated that the clause, as it stood, carried out completely that intention; therefore the Government did not now propose any Amendment to it. They were completely in accord with the hon. Member for Wexford on this matter; but the Government believed that the clause expressed their intention. It was open to hon. Members to have proposed an Amendment if they perceived any ambiguity in the clause. He would state why the Government thought the clause did not need amendment. It was provided that the rent for 18S1 must have been paid as a condition of obtaining the benefits of the Act. In the case of tenants in arrear it was not likely, irrespective of this Act, that rent paid in 1881 would be credited to that year: most likely it would, by joint consent, be credited to the earliest of the arrears. But it was considered right to give the tenant by this Bill the benefit of payments made in 188l, as against the rent for the year 1881. That was a matter of policy, in order that the rent of 1881 might be paid out of the produce of 1881. The question then arose how to carry that out. There were tenancies where it was the custom to pay the half-year's rent the day it was due, and there were others, which formed the majority, where it was not paid until six months afterwards, so that there was always a hanging gale. Recognizing these customs, this Act, in the first class of cases, caused any rent paid in May or November of 1881 to be regarded as rent paid for that year. But in those cases rent paid in January, February, March, or April, would not be so regarded, because it was not deemed likely that the rent would be paid in advance. If, on estates where the hanging gale was the custom, rent was paid in May, 1881, no one would think that it was intended for the year 1881, because the May rent would not customarily be due until the subsequent November; therefore in such cases rent paid prior to November could not be properly attributed to 1881. But any rent paid in November, or paid subsequently until the rent of 1881 had been satisfied, would be credited to that. year. It would then be for the tenant and landlord to arrange in respect of future years whether they would keep up a hanging gale. He must say he thought the hanging gale an exceedingly bad practice, and one which ought to be abolished. This Bill would afford an opportunity for its abolition in cases within the Bill. That was the meaning of the Government. It was very difficult to embody that meaning fully in the clause of a Bill; but the Government would have been glad to have received assistance to remove any ambiguities if they existed. They had not received any such assistance, either from the direct Opposition or those below the' Gangway; and he presumed it was because the clause did clearly convey the meaning he had expressed.

MR. SEXTON

said, he thought the Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced into this subsection would somewhat improve it, although, in his opinion, the sub-section as it stood would operate against the general policy of the measure, as far as it operated at all, and would tend to perpetuate the system of a hanging gale. The general understanding of the Bill was that the tenant should pay one year's rent and that the rest should be annulled. Now they were told, however, that, except in the few estates where the rent was paid on the day it fell due, the State should pay the landlord one year's rent and the tenant should pay him a year and a-half's rent. The meaning of the Amendment, if it had any, was injurious to the tenant and contrary to the original statement of the Government.

MR. MULHOLLAND

said, he believed that in its amended form the subsection would fully carry out the undertaking given by the Government when the Bill was in Committee.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he considered that this rider went in contradiction to the lines of policy laid down by the Government. If the Government put three hanging gales instead of two on the heads of the tenants, they would make the Bill useless in four out of five of the large estates in Ireland.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the Question was that the Bill be now considered. He did not understand that there were any objections raised to the consideration of the Bill; but it would be more convenient to the House to discuss details when they came to the parts of the Bill upon which they arose.

MR. HEALY

said, that he had taken the course he had done because there was no probability of his obtaining another opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that upon Report the House required that Notice be given of new clauses; but it was open to the hon. Member to move Amendments without Notice.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W.M.JOHNSON)

moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:—

(Holding valued as part of larger tenement.)

"Where a holding, as defined by The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 is not separately valued, but forms part of a larger parcel of land valued as one tenement, under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland, such holding shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be valued under the said Acts at such proportion of the sum at which the whole of the said tenement is valued as the rent of the holding bears to the rent of the whole of the said tenement."

Clause brought up, and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W.M.JOHNSON) moved, after Clause 12, the following New Clause:—

(Suspension of proceedings.)

"Where any proceedings for the recovery of the rent of a holding to which this Act applies, or for the recovery of a holding for non-payment of rent, have been taken before or after an application under this Act in respect of such holding, and are pending before such application is disposed of, the court before which such proceedings are pending shall have power, on such terms and conditions as the court may direct, to postpone or suspend such proceedings until the application under this Act has been disposed of."

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause be now read the second time."

MR. GIBSON

said, it was unreasonable to provide that a person might stay process by simply making application, and without having done anything else in pursuance of the Act.

MR. WARTON

said, there was not a word to require that any preliminary condition should be complied with.

MR. HEALY

said, the clause should be made mandatory and not optional, or else a Judge might be met with who, like Chief Justice Morris, would ignore the Land Acts as "new-fangled law;" and the power should be given to the Land Commission as well as to the Court in which the proceedings had been taken.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, that the clause raised an important point. As the Bill stood, it was not necessary for the tenant to pay the rent for 1881 till just previous to the day of his application to the Court. But what if that application were not heard for the next two or three years? The Prime Minister said that the landlord would have his ordinary remedies; but the ordinary remedies were ejectment or eviction. He thought that the clause required considerable alteration, and he would therefore, later on, move, "that the Court must have proof that the tenant had paid a year's rent."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, he would agree to insert an Amendment providing that the Court should have proof of the payment of the year's rent for 1881.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. BRODRICK

said, that the Government had sprung upon the House a clause which would take away the ordinary remedies of the landlord, and would put about 200,000 Irish holdings beyond the reach of the law for some time to come. He would, therefore, move an Amendment making the clause have reference only to those holdings as to which applications to the Court were already pending.

Amendment proposed, Inline 2, after the word "rent," to insert the words" on account of rent accruing due on or before the last gale day of the tenancy in the year 1881."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, he must oppose the Amendment. As far as the Court was concerned, the clause was permissive and not compulsory. He would, however, be willing to accept some words to make the intention of the clause more clear, if it was thought necessary to do so.

MR. SEXTON

said, he approved of the clause as it stood, and thought it reasonable that the landlords should be debarred from taking any proceedings until the applications to the Court had been heard.

MR. BRODRICK

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRODRICK

begged to move the introduction of words defining more strictly the arrears to be dealt with.

Amendment proposed, At end of Clause, insert the words, "providing that the proceedings which might he suspended should he on account of rent in respect of the year 1881, and antecedent arrears."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HEALY

said, he saw no necessity for the Amendment. But, if the conditions wore made mandatory on the tenant, they ought to be made mandatory on the Court. Would the Government consent to leave out the words "have power?"

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, it had been stated, over and over again, that it was not the intention of the Government to touch the arrears after the gale day in 1881. It would be much better, he thought, to leave the clause as it was, putting the responsibility on the Court; but, since that had not been done, he would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).

MR. GIBSON

said, that if the words "have power" were left out the concession would not rest on reason, and it would be unfair and unjust to the landlords. The whole clause was unwise, and the change now suggested would make it absolutely indefensible.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

contended that the clause would not work any injustice either to the landlord or the tenant.

MR. GIVAN

said, he regretted that the Government had shown themselves disposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick). Its effect would be to lead the Land Commissioners into inextricable difficulty; and, under certain conditions, it would enable a landlord to render the clause nugatory.

MR. SEXTON

said, he would like to hear the opinion of the Government as to this difficulty, for it seemed that the mere fact of the inclusion of the rent for May in last year in any writs issued by the landlord would have the effect of taking the case of the tenant out of the purview of the Land Court.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

No.

MR. SEXTON

But it appeared to be so, because, although it had been denied, he maintained that the landlord, if he took proceedings for six months' rent, would prevent entirely the action of the Land Commissioners.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. W. M. Johnson), Amendment made in proposed New Clause, by leaving out the words "have power," and inserting "if the provisions of Section 1, Sub-section A, have been complied with."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

MR. GIBSON

said, having already stated his objections to the clause, he should divide the House as a final protest against it.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 49: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 281.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

moved the insertion of the following New Clause:—

(Evidence.)

"Evidence required for the purposes of this Act shall, whenever practicable, be taken upon oath, and the affidavit of the landlord, or his agent, and the tenant may be accepted as prima facie evidence of all or any of the preliminary conditions. Affidavits for the purpose of this Act may be taken before any person authorised by this or any other Act to administer an oath."

New Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read the second time."

MR. GIBSON

said, that the Government might prevent a great deal of useless litigation and save considerable expense if the joint affidavit of the landlord and tenant was, so far as practicable, accepted as conclusive in matters under this Act.

MR. W. H. SMITH

asked whether the amount of the arrears was to be taken as absolutely settled by the joint affidavit of the landlord and tenant, because in that case there might be some danger of collusion between the landlord and the tenant.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that the Treasury must have full power to appear and to defend its interests. The Government were alive to the danger referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and intended to accept, not perhaps the words, but certainly the spirit of an Amendment on the Paper.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved to insert the following Clause after Clause 13:—

(Operation of a release from arrears.)

"After a tenant has obtained release from arrears by the operation of this Act, such release shall be a bar to any proceeding instituted by any creditor of the tenant other than a registered mortgagee, before the twentieth day of August one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, to recover, by sale of the tenure, any debt or debts owing by the tenant of the date of the last gale day of the tenancy in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."

This was a clause, he said, framed to meet the objections put forward yesterday to the proposal which he then made on the same subject, and which received a moderate amount of support. He hoped that the objections then urged did not now apply, and that the clause would commend itself to the House. All that was wanted under his clause was, to give the creditor less than was proposed under the Bill, and even then he would be in a much better position than before, because the Act would give him a solvent instead of an insolvent debtor. No doubt the proposal might be a shock to our commercial ideas; but he thought it was desirable that the tenant should have the rest, which his clause, if adopted, would give.

MR. MOORE

said, he had never heard a more astounding proposition than that of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. He should be inclined to say, with all deference to the hon. Member, that the proposal was nothing short of dishonest.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member does not impute dishonesty, I presume, to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.

MR. MOORE

said, he certainly would not think of doing so; he referred simply to the proposal. He had every confidence that the hon. Gentleman's opinion was honestly held; but the practical effect of this clause would be to carry out a policy of dishonesty. The landlords had a substantial bonus under this Bill. Was it not preposterous to deprive other creditors, including the shopkeepers, who had fed and clothed the farmer in his times of distress, of the chance of obtaining anything that was owing to him at all? A more unjust proposal was never made in the House.

MR. DALY

said, if the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had wished to ruin the Irish tenants under this Bill he could not have been more successful. The proposal was unfit for the contemplation of any sane man.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

thought that a more absurd proposition than this had never been gravely put before the House. He was utterly unable, in a limited time, adequately to express the surprise with which he regarded it.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

expressed a hope that the House would now go to a division on this clause. The subject was fully discussed yesterday, and he was sure every hon. Member present had his mind made up upon it. The effect of it would simply be to drive every creditor to register his mortgage. The speeches so far had been all against the Amendment, and the Government had already intimated that they could not accept it.

MR. M'COAN

said, he could not fall in with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, because he did think that the subject had yet been exhaustively discussed. If this proposal were rejected the Bill would simply be ousting one creditor, the landlord, and bringing to the front a host of others—-shopkeepers and money-lenders—for whom the Land Act of last year and this Bill would have created a security which they had not when the debts were incurred. He observed that the opposition to the clause had proceeded altogether from hon. Members representing towns, while he believed there was an almost unanimous feeling amongst rural Representatives in favour of the proposal.

MR. BLAKE

said, he considered that the discussion had not been exhausted. One of the objects of the Bill would be frustrated unless the hands of the moneylender were kept off the tenant until he had had time to recover himself. The Amendment did not seek to extinguish debts, but only called upon creditors to make some slight sacrifice until farmers were placed on their legs again.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, although he was of opinion that the subject was well worthy of a long debate, he could not hope to defeat the Government, and, considering the state of Public Business, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. SEXTON

said, he objected to such an unsatisfactory method of dealing with the subject. In his opinion, the Amendment was an important and a moderate one. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had twice had this Amendment on the Paper, and this was the second time he proposed its withdrawal. He was sorry the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had not had the courage of his opinions, or that he had allowed it to be cooled down by loyalty to his Party. He (Mr. Sexton) supported the Amendment, because he objected to giving, as was proposed in the clause, the advantage of a greater security and a greater value than existed at the time that liabilities were incurred, especially as that greater security had arisen out of an act of policy on the part of the Government. The fact that there were so few tradesmen who would distrain was a strong reason why the Amendment should be accepted and the tenants protected against the worst class of their creditors. The benefits of the Bill ought not to be frittered away by individual creditors.

MR, MARUM

said, that, as the clause stood, it would be the least bar to the creditor. Those who opposed the entire policy of the Land Act were quite right in supporting the Amendment; but those who treated rent as an exceptional debt, and looked on it differently to other debts, could not, in his opinion, consistently support it.

MR. D. DAVIES

said, that the persons who would really benefit by the Bill were the outside creditors, for whom it created a new security. The Bill was like a locomotive when it ran off the line—no one could say where it would stop. He did not like any part of it.

MR. T. C. BARING

said, that the Bill was a reality or a sham. If it was brought in to free the utterly poor agricultural tenants of Ireland from debts they could never otherwise get rid of, this clause ought to be accepted. If this clause was not accepted the Bill was a sham. He could not think that the landlord was the only sinner in Ireland, or that the tenant would be in better hands when he got into those of the gombeen man.

MR. VILLIERS-STUART

said, now that the landlord's first claim was removed, the tenant would be more than ever at the mercy of the other creditors. He would vote for the clause.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 70: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 282.)

Clause 1 (Settlement by Land Commission of arrears of rent).

MR. WARTON moved, in page 1, line 18, to insert the words— The tenant has paid the whole or such portion of his rent as may be accepted l)y the landlord as equivalent to the whole of.

The words were introduced from another portion of the Bill, and would make the clause consistent.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 14, after the word "That," to insert the words "the tenant has paid the whole or such sum as the landlord may be willing to accept as the equivalent of the whole of."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, he thought the clause as it stood expressed the intention of the Government, and he was unwilling to accept any Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. BRODRICK moved to insert the words "by the 30th of November, 1882," in line 20.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, he accepted the Amendment. The Prime Minister had given an undertaking to that effect in the earlier discussions upon the Bill. The result would be to give a tenant the whole of 1882 in which to pay.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. GIBSON (for Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) moved to insert, in line 20, the words "or without wilful default." The object of the Amendment was to distinguish between those classes who, through no fault of their own, but from adverse seasons and other causes, had fallen into arrear, and those classes who, by the pernicious teaching of the Land League, had refused to pay rents which for years past they had been perfectly able and willing to pay.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, after the word "unable," to insert the words "or without wilful default."—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, that the Government must decline to accept this Amendment, as they had declined to accept it before. However much might be said about the immorality by which a man had got into trouble, the short and simple story unfortunately was that the small tenant found himself on the wrong side of the account. This Bill took him up when in that state, and did not stop to inquire minutely whether his inability was partly due to bad seasons or partly to want of sobriety and industry. The object of the measure was, when they found an impoverished tenantry, to see whether, without absolute injustice to the landlords, they could not be relieved from the crushing burden of their arrears.

MR. T. C. BARING

said, that the question now raised was not as to the moral delinquency of the tenant, but as to his wilful default in refusing to pay when he had money in his pocket or in the bank. There had been more money saved and put into the banks in Ireland during the last two years than for many years previously, and they had a shrewd suspicion in London that that money would have gone to pay the landlord but for the iniquitous proceedings of certain Gentlemen in that House whom he need not now particularize. It was a scandal that the taxpayers should be called upon to discharge the obligations of such wilfully defaulting tenants.

MR. SEXTON

said, he was bound to complain that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) should have taken that occasion of reviving the heated and extravagant accusations against the Land League of which the House had been so frequently the theatre. If the Land League had not taught the poor tenants to combine, they might have perished like flies without the House troubling itself either with a Land Act or an Arrears Bill. This Amendment was a preposterous one, inasmuch as it proposed that they should not only inquire into the present inability of the tenant, but whether he might not have been able to pay two years ago.

MR. WARTON

said, that the question really raised by the Amendment was not whether the tenant was able to pay at some previous time, but whether or not his inability now to do so was duo to wilful default. The modest Member for Pembroke (Mr. Allen), sitting behind the Ministry, a few days ago brought forward an Amendment requiring it to be shown that the tenant's inability arose from failure of his crops or the loss of his stock; but, being afraid of embarrassing the Government, the hon. Gentleman drew back, apparently "scared at the sound himself had made." The allegiance of hon. Members opposite towards the Government was becoming weaker every day, because the time was approaching when they would have to meet their constituents. ["Question!"] He protested against the principle of finding money out of either the Church Surplus Fund or the Consolidated Fund to enable dishonest tenants to clear off their arrears. Those who voted against this Amendment would be wilfully supporting not needy or indigent, but dishonest tenants.

MR. GIVAN

said, he should oppose the Amendment, which, he contended, would lead to a retrospective inquiry into the circumstances of the tenant. He would remind hon. Members that the Bill was for the relief not only of the tenant but his family, and they ought not to be made to suffer, as they might do, if the Amendment was agreed to.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. VILLIERS-STUART

said, the object of the Amendment of which he had given Notice was to draw a line between arrears incurred in the years prior to 1877, which were good 3'ears, and arrears incurred since, otherwise the effect of the clause would be demoralizing and discouraging to habits of industry and thrift. Moreover, those who had allowed debts to accumulate under the present law should be compensated when the law was altered. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 2, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words "and no action or other proceeding shall be maintained for or in respect of all or any part of antecedent arrears of rent due to the landlord on or before the last gale day of the tenancy, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, except in the event of a sale by the tenant of his tenancy, in which case such last-mentioned antecedent arrears, not exceeding in the whole a sum equal to three years' rent of the tenancy, shall thereupon become payable to the landlord by the tenant out of the purchase money received by him for the sale of his tenancy, and except also in the event of the tenant becoming entitled to compensation to be paid by the landlord under the provisions of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' and 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' or either of those Acts, in which case the landlord shall be entitled to sot off such last-mentioned arrears, not exceeding in the whole a sum equal to three years' rent as aforesaid, in part payment of any such compensation: always Provided, That no arrears which accrued previously to one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one shall be recoverable under this Clause."—(Mr. Villiers-Stuart.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, the only part of the Amendment with which he thought the House would agree was the Proviso contained in the last two lines providing that no arrears which accrued previously to 1871 should be recoverable under the clause. The rest of the Amendment violated the fundamental principles of the Bill as well as of social life, and he thought the House would not accept it.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DONALDSON-HUDSON

said, he begged to move an Amendment to the effect that all antecedent arrears should, to the extent of two years' rent of the holding, be considered a loan from the landlord to the tenant, repayable, without interest, in such instalments as the Commissioners might direct, and the remainder, if any. The distinction between this Amendment and others that had been disposed of was that in this case the landlord was to be the creditor, and in the others the Government. The high-handed manner in which the Prime Minister dealt with the Irish Church property and applied it to the needs of thriftless or incompetent tenants, reminded him forcibly of the stories told of Robin Hood, and his dealing with property he took from the abbeys— Poor men's goods he spared, abundantly relieving them with that which by theft he got from abbeys and rich old carles. Substitute for "abbeys" and "rich old carles" the words "Irish Church" and "poor landlords," and the parallel would be complete.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 5, after the word "rent," to insert the words "shall, to the extent of two years' rent of the holding, be considered a loan from the landlord to the tenant, repayable, without interest, in such instalments as the Commissioners may direct, and the remainder, if any."—(Mr. Donaldson-Hudson.)

Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."

MR. GIBSON

said, that he understood the reason why the Attorney General for Ireland did not reply to this Amendment was that the subject was discussed at considerable length in Committee. His hon. Friend had taken a great interest in this question, and, having been precluded from moving his Amendment in Committee, was entirely within his right in now bringing it on. He must say that the hon. Member presented a really new aspect of the question in a very reasonable way. Under the circumstances, he would, however, suggest to his hon. Friend that he should be satisfied without taking a division.

MR. DONALDSON-HUDSON

said, that he would take the advice of his right hon. and learned Friend, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) moved to insert in page 2, line 5, after "extinguished," the following words:— And any judgment, decree, or security for the rent of the holding, and any judgment or decree for the recovery of the holding on account of the non-payment of rent, shall be vacated so far as regards any rent due in respect of the holding before the last gale day in the year expiring as aforesaid, but shall not be vacated so far as regards any rent subsequently accrued due, or any costs due in pursuance of such judgment, decree, or security.

The Amendment was made for the purpose of meeting the suggestion that, notwithstanding the provision of the Bill that on an order for payment to the landlord of two years' arrears, all antecedent arrears should be extinguished, yet collusive arrangements might be made to set that provision aside. This Amendment, therefore, proposed that everything, whether judgment, decree, or security, which might be in the hands of the landlords should be entirely wiped out.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 5, after the word "extinguished," to insert the words "and any judgment, decree, or security for the rent of the holding, and any judgment or decree for the recovery of the holding on account of the nonpayment of rent, shall be vacated so far as regards any rent due in respect of the holding before the last gale day in the year expiring as aforesaid, but shall not be vacated so far as regards any rent subsequently accrued due, or any costs duo in pursuance of such judgment, decree, or security."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GIVAN

said, the Amendment failed, in some respects, to carry out the intentions of his Amendment or of that of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He moved to omit from the Amendment of the Attorney General the words "any rent subsequently accrued due or," and also the words "any cost." He did not think that the landlords ought to receive the rent accruing due subsequently to the last gale day in 1881, or the costs due in pursuance of any judgment obtained on the eve of this Bill.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the second word "regards," to leave out the words "any rent subsequently accrued due or."—(Mr. Givan.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

suggested that those legal gentlemen who sympathized with the tenants in Ireland should show their sympathy by reducing the costs charged to them if such costs were not statutable charges.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, he thought that great difficulties would arise if the word "security" were retained, and as he did not see any value in it, it had better be omitted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, his Colleagues and himself had considered the matter. They were of opinion that the word "security" was necessary. As to the Amendment of his hon. Friend behind him, it would have a result which he was quite sure his hon. Friend did not intend. His own Amendment provided that a judgment which the Court declared had been properly obtained for rent which had accrued subsequently to November, 1881, should not be vacated. This Bill did not deal with rent which had accrued subsequently to November, 1881. Therefore, he hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend that the provision as to a judgment for rent accrued subsequently to November, 1881, should be struck out.

Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Words inserted.

MR. GIBSON

said, that in Sub-section 2 the words— For the purpose of this Act, the saleable value of the tenant's interest may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable, be taken into account in ascertaining whether a tenant is unable to discharge such arrears were inserted. The Commissioners had been told already in an earlier part of the Bill that they were to consider the tenant's position, and that they were to take care that his holding should not be lost, and that he was not deprived of the means necessary for the cultivation thereof. The words which he had quoted cut down that and left the tri- bunal quite free to consider to what extent, if at all, the tenant had any sale-able interest whatever. It was absurd. He proposed to strike out the words "may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable," and give them a positive direction that in every case the Commissioners should take into account the saleable value of the tenant's interest. He would not trouble the House with dividing on the Amendment; but he thought it right to bring it forward, not only in consequence of the vast importance of the subject, but in order that the Government might, if they thought it right, say a final word in regard to it.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words "may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable," and insert the word "shall,"—(Mr. Gibson,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to ha left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the Government had not changed their opinion in regard to this question. The Government wished to direct the attention of the Commissioners to a consideration of the saleable value of the tenant's interest, and they wished specially to lay down that the Commissioners should be able to consider it. The real question for the Commissioners to decide was whether the man whose pecuniary condition was before them was a proper object for State bounty or not. The object of the Bill was not to ruin any man who came within its scope; and if his saleable interest was saleable, but so small that he would be left no longer master of his holding, the Government were of opinion the Commissioners ought not to take the tenancy into consideration. The Government could not accept the Amendment.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, he thought the clause should be made decidedly imperative.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Modification in case of evicted tenant when restored to holding).

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendments made, in page 2, line 41, after "rent," by inserting— Or whose tenancy has been purchased for the landlord at any sale under and by virtue of any writ of execution founded upon a judgment obtained by the landlord for an arrear of rent due in respect of such holding; in page 3, line 3, after "evicted," by inserting "or his tenancy had not been sold;" in line 14, by leaving out "but otherwise shall proceed in manner directed by," and insert "and on compliance by the tenant with the other conditions of;" in line 15, after "1860," by inserting "the court may order his restitution;" in line 19, after "him," by inserting "within six months from the time of eviction and."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, after the word "tenancy," to insert the words "for a period not exceeding three months."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HEALY

said, he thought the extension was insufficient, having regard to the fact that a considerable number of evictions were going on, and that an enormous number of applications would be made under this Bill, inevitably causing a block in the business of the Court. He moved that the period be extended to six months.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word"six,"—(Mr. Healy,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

MR. PARNELL

said, he should support the further extension of the period.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, the Government had made a very important concession by extending the period for three months. The enlarged period was to give the tenant a further, opportunity of seeking the benefits of the Act, and he thought that such an extension of time would prove a great boon. The object was to prevent surprise and enable justice to be done. The Court to conduct the business of the Bill was now in working order, and there was no reason why the very day after the passing of the measure the tenants should not commence proceedings.

Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Words inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Powers of Land Commission).

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendments made, in page 3, line 31, after "all," by inserting "such;" in line 32, after "1881," by inserting "as are referred to in the First Schedule to this Act;" in line 34, by leaving out from "Act," to "Act," in line 37, inclusive.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Delegation of powers of Land Commission).

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendments made, in page 4, line 10, by leaving out "such," and inserting "an;" in line 10, by leaving out "if any," and inserting "on matter of law;" in line 11, after "Land Commission," by inserting "on and in such conditions and circumstances;" in line 12, after "rules," by inserting "or appointments."

On the Motion of Mr. GREGORY, the following words were added at the end of the Clause:— The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury may be represented on any inquiry under this Act by any person nominated by them for such purpose.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Rules for carrying Act into effect).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) moved, in page 5, line 19, after "prescribed," to insert— (7.) The mode of collecting, suing for, recovering, and accounting for charges and instalments of charges, and the procedure for the sale of tenancies to raise the amount of such charges, and for dealing with the proceeds of such sales under this Act.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HEALY

inquired who was to compensate the rate collectors—would the Guardians have to do so, or who? They were poor men, and would certainly need to be paid to stimulate them to do the work which would be thrown over.

MR. CHILDERS

said, the Government were proposing an Amendment upon this point.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendment made in page 5, line 20, by leaving out "(7)" and inserting "(8)."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Arrears of rent how dealt with).

On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendments made, in page 7, line 23, by leaving out "Court," and inserting "Land Commission;" in line 27, by leaving out "as the equivalent," and inserting "in full discharge;" in line 29, after "and," by inserting "that;" in line 31, after "make," by inserting "to the landlord;" in line 36, after "half-yearly," by inserting "on the first day of January and first day of July;" in line 39, by leaving out from "provided," to "holding," in page 8, line 5, inclusive; in page 8, line 8, by leaving out from "and," to "accordingly," in line 15, inclusive, and inserting— The charge declared by the order as aforesaid shall have priority over all charges affecting the holding, except quit-rent and crown rent, and sums payable to the Commissioners of Public Works, and shall be payable by the tenant of the holding for the time being, and shall be levied and collected in manner hereinafter provided; and in the event of the tenant failing to pay any half-yearly instalment of the said charge for the space of twelve months after the same shall have accrued duo, then and in every such case the amount of such instalments, together with the entire of the unpaid residue of such charge, with interest as ascertained by the Land Commission, shall forthwith be payable by the tenant, and the amount thereof shall he raised by sale of the tenancy in the prescribed manner. The half-yearly instalments of such charge shall he from time to time collected by the collector authorised to collect poor rate in the electorial division in which such holding is situate; and for the purpose of such collection every collector shall have all such powers and authorities as he shall for the time being possess for collecting and recovering poor rate, and shall and may collect and levy the same accordingly from the tenant with and by the same, notwithstanding that such tenant may not be liable to pay poor rate. For the purpose of such collection the Land Commission shall, in each half-year, transmit to the clerk of every union, within which any holding or holdings charged as aforesaid shall be situate, a warrant under the seal of the Land Commission, setting forth the arrears of the tenants within such union liable to pay such charges or the instalments thereof, and the amount due by each respectively; and such warrant shall be judicially noticed in all proceedings in court, and shall be conclusive evidence of the arrears due by such tenants respectively, and of their liability to pay the same. Every such collector shall pay and account for the sums collected or collectable by him under this Act to the guardians of the union in which such holding is situate in the prescribed form; and the guardians shall transmit the amounts from time to time received by them as aforesaid to the Land Commission under the prescribed regulations. In the event of such default by the tenant for the space of twelve months as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the county court of the county in which the holding is situate, on the application of the Land Commission, to order a sale of such tenancy which shall be sold, and the proceeds of such sale dealt with by the said county court in the prescribed manner. If the proceeds of any such sale fail to realise the amount ascertained by the Land Commission as aforesaid, together with the cost of sale, the amount of the deficiency shall be paid by the landlord of the said holding, and shall be a charge upon his estate and interest therein, and shall be collected and levied in the prescribed manner: Provided, That on any transfer of the tenant's interest in the holding by sale, the principal sum and interest, if any, remaining due to the Land Commission, shall be paid out of the purchase money to the Land Commission; in line 16, by leaving out "Court," and inserting "Land Commission;" in line 26, by leaving out "by the Court."

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 42, after the word "period," to insert the words "Whenever, in the case of any tenant evicted for non-payment of rent since the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and eighty, the landlord agrees to reinstate such tenant on the terms in this section set forth, this section shall apply as if such tenant had not been so evicted from his holding."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. PARNELL moved as an Amendment that the words "for non-payment of rent" be omitted from the proposed Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the words "for non-payment of rent."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said roposed Amendment."

MR. SYNAN

said, he should support the Amendment.

MR. MARUM

pointed out that the Amendment did not imply any action against the wish of the landlords.

THE SOLIOITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, the clause went as far as the Act of 1881 with regard to evicted tenants, and the Government were not prepared to go any further.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the practical question, however, which the Government had to consider was whether the process of tranquillizing Ireland would or would not be accelerated by restoring to their farms all persons who had been evicted. This Bill ought to be the signature of a truce between the contending parties, and, in his opinion, the greater the number of the combatants who were restored to the status quo ante the more likelihood there would be of a permanent peace.

COLONEL COLTHURST

hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. He should support it on behalf of the unfortunate tenants who had been terrorized by "Captain Moonlight."

MR. CHILDERS

pointed out that the omission of the words "for non-payment of rent" would not carry out the views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork.

Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SYNAN

said, he proposed to insert, after "rent," the words— Or in case the holding of the tenant has been sold and purchased by the landlord, and possession taken thereof by him. It would greatly help to restore order if all tenants were placed on the same footing.

Amendment proposed, In line 1 of the said proposed Amendment, after the word "rent," to insert the words "or in case the holding of the tenant has been sold and purchased by the landlord, and possession taken thereof by him."—(Mr. Synan.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. PARNELL,

at the risk of being told again that the tenants had followed his advice, urged that the Amendment was well worth consideration, asking what objection there could possibly be if the landlord and tenant were agreed, and suggesting that many landlords would not thank their Friends in the House for resisting the Amendment. There were many signs that landlords and tenants were more willing to settle their disputes than they were three months ago, and in the interests of the country it was desirable that they should be allowed to do so. He therefore urged the Government to reconsider the matter, and do something to restore peace and contentment in Ireland.

MR. MARUM

said, he did not think the Amendment went far enough, because there were cases in which men would have bought their tenancies, but they feared to do so.

MR. MOORE

said, that many of the tenants in question had acted fraudulently, and all had been ill-advised. He had, therefore, no sympathy with them, although he knew of cases in which they had been powerless against influences stronger than themselves. The Bill, however, was a message of peace; and he asked the House to let bygones be bygones, and to make the necessary sacrifice, and not continue the fight longer—if only that no further outrages might be committed.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he supposed that the sacrifice which the hon. Member had recommended was a surrender at discretion to the Land League. The House would probably be convinced by the conclusive arguments of the Solicitor General for Ireland, who had emphatically announced the determination of the Government to resist this proposal, and would regard the Amendment as an attempt to maintain in their holdings tenants who either from contumacy or from inability refused to pay their rents. In his opinion, the money of the British taxpayer ought not to be used in support of collusive arrangements between landlords and tenants.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he wished to treat the Amendment fairly and upon its merits. In those cases where the landlord desired to reinstate the tenant there would be no objection; but they must object to a tenant being reinstated where after ejectment he had built a hut in the neighbourhood of the holding for the purpose of preventing the landlord taking possession. Under the circumstance?, as the Amendment went to the smaller matter, the Government were willing to accept it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Amendment, as amended, be agreed to."

MR. J. LOWTHER

remarked, that the Secretary of State for War had thrown over the Solicitor General for Ireland, and had surrendered at discretion to the Land League.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that at the time his hon. and learned Friend had spoken the distinction he had noticed was not observed. This was a very much smaller and more restricted Amendment than the one which had been objected to before.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, surrender to the Land League meant in this instance surrender to the hon. Member for the County of Cork, who had denounced the Land League.

COLONEL COLTHURST

observed, that one of the arguments he had used was that these poor people were compelled by agents of terror to put themselves in the unfortunate position in which they now wore.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Schedule agreed to:

First Schedule.

Powers of Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, referred to—

Section 48 (3), (5).

Section 49.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill he re-committed in respect of New Clauses and Schedules relating to Emigration, the appointment of an additional Land Commissioner, and exemption in respect of public charges upon Arrears of Kent extinguished, and an Amendment relating to payment for collection of Loan Kent-charges."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

MR. GREGORY

appealed to the Government to re-commit the Bill generally, so that he might be in a position to move a new clause that he had upon the Paper relating to exception being made in respect of charges upon arrears of rent.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Bill could not be re-committed generally; but the Government would not object to the subject referred to by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) being introduced.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Bill he re-committed in respect of New Clauses and Schedules relating to Emigration, the appointment of an additional Land Commissioner, and exemption in respect of public charges upon Arrears of Kent extinguished, and an Amendment relating to payment for collection of Loan Kent-charges.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision therein, pursuant to the Resolution reported from the Committee on Arrears of Kent (Ireland) [Salaries and Emigration] this day, and then agreed to by the House.—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

THE CHAIRMAN

I have to point out to the Committee that, by the Instruction from the House, the first point to be dealt with has reference to the expenses, and the next to the question of emigration.

MR. GLADSTONE

I rise to move the following Clause:—

(Power to appoint an additional member of the Land Commission.)

"In addition to the three persons named as commissioners in the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, is hereby constituted a member of the Irish Land Commission at a salary of three thousand pounds a year, and for a term of two years from the passing of this Act.

"Save, as aforesaid, the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, which relate to the members of the Irish Land Commission, other than the Judicial Commissioner, shall apply to the said and to every person appointed as hereinafter provided to a vacancy in his office, as if he had been named in the said Act a member of the Land Commission other than the Judicial Commissioner.

"If and so often as during the said term of two years any vacancy occurs in the office of the said by the death, resignation, inability to act, or otherwise, of the said or any person appointed in his place, Her Majesty may, by warrant under the sign manual, appoint some fit person to fill such vacancy; hut the person so appointed shall only continue in office until the expiration of the said term of two years: Provided, That any act or matter which under the said Act shall be done or performed, or may be done or performed by three Land Commissioners sitting together, shall and may after the passing of this Act be in like manner done or performed by three of the Land Commissioners."

I have already indicated the nature of the clause, and the reason for it. The Bill adds very considerably to the labour of the Land Commission, and, therefore, it has been deemed necessary to strengthen that Commission. The Government have sought to do so by the choice of a person who has already received some marks of confidence, both from the Crown and the Legislature, in connection with the Irish Church Act; and our impression is that he enjoys, and very deservedly enjoys, a largo amount of public confidence in Ireland. He has also had the advantage of a legal training, having been called to the Bar, and, in addition to being acquainted with the mode of conducting business, he is thoroughly respected in every relation of life. We do not, however, think we should be justified in asking the House to continue the appointment of a fourth Commissioner for a longer period than two 3years, because there is no reason to suppose that the plethora of work which now exists will continue for any length of time. I have already mentioned that there is another object in making the appointment, brought prominently forward by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who pointed out that, from the necessities of the case, two Commissioners only have during the last month or two been hearing appeals, thereby to some extent dissappointing the assurances with respect to the hearing of appeals given by the Government to the House at the time the Land Act passed through Parliament. The intention of Parliament certainly was understood to be that, as a rule, three Commissioners should sit. That was another object we have had in the clause we now propose, so that after that time it would be always practicable to have one Commissioner in Dublin hearing appeals, and at the same time to keep up the full strength of the Court.

New Clause (Power to appoint an additional member of the Land Commission,)—(Mr. Gladstone,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. GIBSON

I must say that I regard this clause with a considerable amount of hesitation and anxiety, seeing that it proposes largely to increase the patronage of the Government in Ire- land. There never was a time in the history of that country when such an immense and stupendous amount of patronage was created in one year as has been created by the present Government within the last few months. I pass by the judicial patronage, because it is, no doubt, within the strict right of the Government to give the appointments to their own political friends, and I do not mean to say that they have not appointed men who will perform their judicial functions satisfactorily; but, last year, the Land Act, and this year, the necessity of obtaining the assistance of a considerable number of Resident Magistrates, threw into their hands an immense amount of patronage. In addition, we now have, at the last moment, a clause presented to enable the Government to appoint, for a period of two years, a now official of the highest class, at a salary of £3,000 a-year. I think that the matter is one that should be closely and jealously scrutinized, and the Committee should not be content until the Government have proved the uecessity for creating this new appointment at the last stage of the Bill. It was obvious, at the earliest moment the Bill was introduced, that there would be a considerable amount of work entailed by the Bill, and that numerous inquiries would have to be carried on under it. That fact was pointed out during the debate, but it was not deemed worthy of the notice of the Government until the very last moment. It was only yesterday intimated that they had the smallest intention of dealing with the personnel of the Land Commission, and changing it to any extent.

MR. GLADSTONE

I stated that when the duties were largely increased it would be necessary to consider what increase should be made in the strength of the Commission.

MR. GIBSON

I have followed closely the discussion of this Bill, and I at once accept any statement made by the Prime Minister. Any statement he says he has made I am quite sure he has made; but it certainly was not present to my mind until yesterday that it was proposed to appoint a new Land Commissioner, which is the statement I am dealing with now. The only particular ground now alleged by the Prime Minister for that proposal is the fact that, beyond the increase of business, it is necessary because there has been a certain amount of irregularity in the hearing of appeals, which has occasioned some comment among the classes affected by it. Now, in my opinion, it is not necessary to appoint a fourth Commissioner to cure that evil. I have closely examined the Land Act this morning, when I saw this provision, and I think that the Act might he easily worked under the existing powers of the Land Act by constituting a Sub-Commission to do the ordinary routine office work during the necessary absence of the three Commissioners. The Government have exercised their discretion in another way; but I do not think there is anything of a special character in the ordinary routine work under this Bill which might not he done by a Sub-Commission. They are all matters which a superior clerk of adequate training would he able to perform without calling into existence a new official of this high class. However, the Government may have had present to their minds all the difficulties with which they had to cope, and they have elected to appoint another Commissioner for two years, with a salary of £3,000 a-year, and they have selected for that position a very well-known Nobleman, Lord Monck. Now, there is nothing so distasteful as personal criticism; but I think it hard, in legislation which deals with all the landed property in Ireland and with all the landed proprietors of Ireland, that a tribunal should be constituted altogether of one political aspect. If ever there was a tribunal which ought to be constituted by the Government with impartiality and, if possible, with some neutral elements, it is a tribunal which has to decide on the property of those the majority of whom are your political opponents. Instead of that, you have deliberately, in the Land Act and now, so selected your tribunal that every man of them is a decided supporter of the present Government. [Cries of "Oh!"]' Yes, every man of them, and they have all indicated—certainly Lord Monck has indicated throughout his career—the strongest political sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he has in everyway, by speech and by writing, advocated every decision and action on the part of the Land Commission. I admit that Lord Monck is a Nobleman of capacity, a man of high honour and of high character, who has been employed in important service by the State; but that does not prevent him from being fairly and legitimately criticized. And I must say that if the Government thought it necessary to appoint a new Land Commissioner, I think they might, for the sake of novelty, at all events, have appointed someone who was not so absolutely in accord with their own politics and all their own views on that subject, and who has not committed himself to such entire identity on all points with the decisions which have been pronounced.

MR. SEXTON

said, he thought there could be no doubt that the Land Commission was now overworked, and required strengthening; and if, instead of one, two or three Commissioners were added to it, and it were sub-divided, so as to enable as many of the tenants as possible to avail themselves of the advantages of the Court as early as possible, he should not have objected to the proposal as far as abstract principle was concerned. Lord Monck was not a Tory, and, therefore, his appointment was something very dangerous in the eyes of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). That right hon. and learned Gentleman would have approached the subject more rationally if, instead of considering to what political Party Lord Monck belonged, he had thought of how the case stood as between the landlord and the tenant class in Ireland. To say that a man was a Tory or a Whig had nothing whatever to do with the question. The Land Commission, which had to adjudicate between those two classes in a time of great excitement, consisted of throe gentlemen, two of whom were landlords. Mr. O'Hagan was not; but now a third landlord was to be appointed, and there would be on the tribunal three persons who were landlords against one who was not. He admitted that Lord Monck had conducted the Church Temporalities Commission in a way which gave general satisfaction; but that was an experiment involving no political feeling or passion, and his fitness for discharging the duty of conducting an inquiry into the Church Temporalities might afford no conclusive proof that he was also fit to discharge the duties of the present position. The fact that Lord Monck sympathized with the Government would not induce him (Mr. Sexton) to regard that Nobleman with favour. Some time ago Lord Monck presided at a meeting of magistrates in Dublin, and on that occasion he made a speech which he (Mr. Sexton) regarded as singularly unworthy of the high magisterial position he held, and as tending to excite hatred between class and class. He, therefore, did not think Lord Monck was a Gentleman fitted for the administration of the Land Act, especially after the bias he had displayed in regard to the disputes between landlord and tenant. He only expressed his own opinion upon the point; but he certainly thought the Government might easily have got a person who would have commanded greater confidence on the part of the people of Ireland.

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Member opposite has urged that because Lord Monck has taken a very severe view of the state of crime that has existed in Ireland, he is unfit to discharge the duties of a Commissioner to administer the Land Act and the Arrears Bill. I cannot conceive why, because Lord Monck has taken a view of that subject in accordance with the view generally entertained on the subject of crime in Ireland by persons of the education and of the station of Lord Monck, he should be disqualified from administering these Acts. He may be strict in his views as to the propriety of maintaining law and order; but I cannot see how that circumstance is to interfere with his efficiency in working under the present Act and the Land Act. The appointment of Lord Monck has also been found fault with on the ground that he is a partizan of the present Government. All I can say is that he has not been appointed to this office on the ground that he is a partizan of the Government.

MR. GIBSON

He is one of four.

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not admit that he is one of four. Mr. Vernon never described himself as a partizan of the Government. I remember perfectly well being introduced to Mr. Vernon in Ireland, but he was not introduced to me as a supporter of the Government.

MR. GIBSON

He is a supporter of the present Government.

MR. GLADSTONE

I believe that Mr. Vernon supports the principles of the Conservative Party. Lord Monck has described himself as an independent politician, although, doubtless, he has said that in certain matters he is prepared to give his adhesion to the Party to which I myself have the honour to belong. I wish to point out that Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, who was a very decided Tory, was one of the Church Commissioners named under the Irish Church Disestablishment Act, not because he was a Tory, but because he was a man of large financial experience, and we knew his competency, and we were glad to name him, Tory though he was. The present Government would have been very glad to have selected a Tory to fill the position now filled by Lord Monck, if they could have found one possessing the necessary qualifications to discharge the duties of the office. [Cries of "Oh!"] Perhaps hon. Members do not understand what are the necessary qualifications for discharging these duties. If we had merely to look for a man possessing learning, ability, and character, no doubt we could have found one among the Tory Party in Ireland; but we wanted a man who would work the Land Act in the spirit in which the Legislature has conceived and passed it. In the case of Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, we had the most entire confidence in him, and believed he would work the Act in the spirit in which it had been passed by the Legislature. Her Majesty's Government would have been very glad to have found some gentleman who could have discharged the duties of the office, who was altogether dissociated from themselves, provided he possessed the essential qualifications to which I have referred; but we have failed to find such a man, and, in these circumstances, we have determined to select Lord Monck to fill the post.

SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS

said, they had now on that side of the House stated their objections to this appointment; and, considering the amount of Business they had to dispose of, it would now be much wiser not to waste further time on the discussion at the present moment. It had not been anticipated that the Government had really any serious intention of enlarging the strength of the Commission.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the blanks in the Clause be filled in with the name of the Eight Honourable the Viscount Monck, "put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. TREVELYAN,

in moving the following New Clause:—

Forward to