Commons Sitting of 23 April 1879

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Co-operative Stores, Mr. Arthur Mills and Mr. Sheil added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Animal Vaccination* [131]; Statute Law Revision (Ireland)* [132]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Water-ford, &c.)* [133].
Second Reading—Voters Registration (Ireland) [29]; Ulster Tenant Right [37], put off; Bills of Sale (Ireland) [45]; Trustee Acts Consolidation and Amendment* [106]; Inhabited House Duty and Income Tax* [38]; Municipal Franchise (Ireland) [74], debate adjourned.
Withdrawn—Joint Stock Banks (Auditing of Accounts) (Scotland)* [58].

QUESTION.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND)—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. MELDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Bill dealing with the claims of the Irish National Teachers will be introduced; whether it is time that the scheme for providing pensions for the teachers of Irish National Schools, which has been for some years in preparation, has been rejected by the Treasury or the Government, and whether instructions have been given to prepare another scheme much less beneficial to the teachers?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the state in which the question alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman now stands is as follows:—It was referred to an ac-
  924
  tuary, whose Report was received last February by the Treasury, and was forwarded to me by that Department in March. It appeared upon examination that the scale of proposed pensions had been framed upon the old scale of remuneration, and, therefore, required re-adjusting in accordance with the proposed new scale of payment. This is now being gone into. The hon. and learned Gentleman inquires whether, or rather he assumes that, the amended scheme will be less beneficial to the teachers than the original draft. That is a question I can scarcely go into now, though I may point out that the amended scheme is based upon the proposed augmented class salaries, which is manifestly a fairer and more equal basis upon which to calculate pensions than could be afforded by a fluctuating scale of results fees, which has, with good reason, been so frequently denounced by "the teachers and their friends as unequal in its application, and as operating injuriously to many, especially those whose lot is cast in thinly-populated districts. As to when the Bill will be introduced, we must, of course, wait till the scale has been corrected and considered; but I hope this will not be long.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  VOTERS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 29.]
  (Mr. Meldon, Mr. Butt, Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
  VOTERS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 29.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MELDON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the measure was of a very moderate character, and dealt with the subject of the registration of Parliamentary voters. It was, so to speak, divided into two parts. The first part, comprising seven clauses, merely proposed to assimilate the law in Ireland to that in England; and, conformably to some Amendments which were put down on the Notice Paper last year, he had done his best to make the provisions of the Bill identical with those in the English Act. The remaining clauses proposed to make some alterations in detail in the existing registration law of Ireland, which would, he thought, be admitted to be improvements. But the main principle of the Bill was

    925
    contained in the first seven clauses. The necessity for some alteration of the law with respect to the serving of objections in Ireland he could demonstrate in a few -words. The lists which came up for revision before the Revising Officer in Ireland were throe. At each revision the register of the former year formed a part—that was to say, the names of all persons who were on the register for the preceding year were brought up before the Revising Officer in a separate list, which was technically known as the old register. In addition to this list, there was one prepared with the greatest possible care by the Clerks of the Peace in counties, and by the Town Clerks in the boroughs. For this list the Clerk of the Peace was directly responsible; but he had, as assistants in their preparation, the poor rate collectors, who were thoroughly conversant with the names of the persons who paid rates and occupied tenements throughout the registration district. It was the duty of the Clerks of Peace in counties, and of the Town Clerks in boroughs, to place upon that list every occupier rated in counties at £12, and in boroughs at £4 and upwards, and who possessed the other-necessary qualifications, and it came before the Revising Barrister, and was generally known by the name of the supplementary list. There was a third list—namely, that of claims of persons who, thinking they were entitled to the franchise, claimed to be put upon the register, but who were not considered to be so entitled by the officials. He might dismiss that list altogether from consideration, because the Bill did not deal with it in any way. But these were the lists which came before the Revising Barrister in Ireland for revision, and upon which the question as to the right of the franchise was decided. Now what was the state of the case in England? There they had, of course, the names that appeared upon the old register placed on the list by the proper authorities; and, in addition to this, the overseers of the poor were bound to prepare a list with the names of all persons whom they considered to be qualified as rated occupiers, and as fully qualified in all other respects. For all practical purposes, the supplementary list and the old register in Ireland were completely analogous to the list prepared by the overseers in England. In England there
    926
    was also the list of claimants; but, for the reason he had already stated, it was not necessary to touch upon that list. Such was the state of the law, so far as the preparation of the lists were concerned, in England and Ireland. Owing to the great care with which the supplementary list was prepared, it was taken to be primâ facie evidence of the right of those persons whose names were upon it to exercise the franchise. To enable a man to be put on the list as an occupier he must be rated to the required amount, must have paid his rates up to a certain date, must occupy as tenant or owner, and must have occupied for a certain time. Why should he call attention to the superiority of this list over the English list prepared by the overseers? It was in order to point out that a list, the superiority of which was admitted by the Legislature, should not be placed in any worse position than the list prepared in England. Now, what was the grievance that he sought to redress by the passing of this Bill? Wherever the Parliamentary registration of a county or borough was hotly contested, it was the invariable practice on either side to object to the name of every person upon the list whose political opinions were different from those of the person or association conducting the revision—that was to say, the Conservatives objected to every man whose name appeared on the supplemental list as prepared by the officials if he were not a Conservative in politics; and, on the other hand, the Liberals objected to the name of every person whose opinions were not Liberal; and in that way, when the lists come up for revision, every man upon them was objected to, whether he was or was not qualified. He would just call attention to the way in which this system was carried out in the County and City of Dublin. The two organizations did their work remarkably well. They sent out Inspectors on the one side and the other, and they ascertained the qualification or want of qualification of almost every person whose name appeared upon the supplementary list; but not content with that information, and with objecting to those whose qualification they were not certain, they objected indiscriminately to every man whose name appeared on the list. He thought that was a most unfair and a most unjust thing to do. It did

    927
    not tell for one side more than for the other. It was a practice that was indulged in by both sides, and it was one that ought to be checked. It was found, both by Conservatives and Liberals, that, in the first place, it increased the expenses of the revision to a very alarming extent, and that, in the next place, it was practically useless, because both one side and the other succeeded in striking off numbers of their political opponents; and, in the end, the result was simply to keep men off who were properly qualified, but who, owing to the way in which objections were scattered broadcast, were, on one pretext or another, not able to be put upon the register. It was to meet that system that this Bill was introduced. The way in which it was met in England was this. It was not sufficient for a person objecting to a name upon the list of rated occupiers prepared by the overseers to say, "I object to your name appearing on that list;" but he was required to state specifically the grounds of his objection; and it was further provided that the objections should be treated as separate and distinct from one another, and that whatever costs the Revising Barrister might think it necessary to give should be given with respect to each objection. The result of that provision was, that every man in England who was objected to attended the Revision Court with the full knowledge of the case which he had to meet, and if he succeeded in displacing the objection he was entitled to his costs. He referred just now to the state of registration in the County of Dublin. There were in that county, in 1874, 27,000 tenements rated at £12 and upwards. Of course, it could not be expected that this number of tenements should be represented by 27,000 voters. There must be a large reduction made for duplicate tenements and for female occupiers. Accordingly, a deduction was made by the Commissioners of Valuation to the extent of 12,000, bringing the number down to 15,000 persons that the Commissioners estimated were entitled to the franchise in the County of Dublin. Of that 15,000 persons, 4,300 were registered. That was a very alarming and startling fact, and ought to lead to some inquiry as to how such a state of affairs had been brought about. He believed it was brought about by two causes—namely,
    928
    by groundless, and frivolous, and broadcast objections, and by the want of proper facilities for enabling persons entitled to the franchise to get upon the register, in consequence of the very small number of revising courts that were held. He would give the result for two years. In 1872, the Clerk of the Peace and the poor rate collectors returned upon their supplemental list the names of 3,825 rated occupiers. He found that of that number objections were served on the one side and the other to the extent of 3,736; that the objections made by the officials were 248; and that upon the revision, out of a total of 3,825 names, only 247 were admitted as entitled to the franchise, leaving the balance of 3,578 persons out in the cold. That was a very astonishing fact, taking into account that there were 15,000 persons entitled to vote, that there were only 4,300 on the register, and that there was a supplementary list nearly as large as the register, and of that list there was only the number of persons whom he had mentioned admitted to the franchise. In 1873, the supplementary list contained the names of 3,974 persons. There were objections served to the number of 3,901, official objections 177; and there were admitted at the registration, just upon the eve of a General Election, but 171 persons. That was the state of affairs which existed not only in the County of Dublin, but in other registration districts in Ireland. It appeared that in the County of Carlow the names returned, the number of persons struck off, and the number of objections served, bore the same proportion to one another as they did in the County Dublin, although the numbers were not so large. All he asked for in the first seven clauses of the Bill was that the law as it had existed in England for a great number of years past should be extended to Ireland. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), whose acquaintance with the Registration Laws in England was not surpassed by that of any hon. Member of that House, last year placed on the Paper a Notice of opposition to the second reading of a Bill similar in principle to the present. But when the Bill came on for discussion, that hon. Member, after giving full consideration to the matter, said he would

    929
    not move his Amendment, but that when the Bill came into Committee he would move the omission of one of the clauses. He (Mr. Meldon) might say, at once, that the clause to which the hon. Member at that time objected no longer formed a portion of the Bill. The hon. Member added that he had no objection to the Registration Law of Ireland being assimilated to that of England; but he objected to its being carried further. Now, the only clause to which upon that occasion the hon. Member objected had been excised from the Bill. It was a clause which made it compulsory on the Revising Barrister to give costs in every case to the maximum extent of £5, leaving the minimum to be decided by himself. Therefore, he claimed that, upon the hon. Member's own admission, the Bill ought to pass this Session without any opposition. In the present Bill, too, in order to avoid all difficulty and to meet his opponents in the fairest way he could, he had, as far as the drafting was concerned, adopted certain other Amendments. These were the only observations he thought it necessary to make upon the principle of the Bill. The 8th, 9th, and 10th clauses made poor rate collectors responsible for the duties which were at the present time discharged by them, and the 11th clause provided that they should receive remuneration for doing this very onerous work in the same way as they were paid for preparing the lists of jurors. The 12th section provided that the County Court Judges, having already the power to issue summonses for the attendance of witnesses, they should be entitled to impose a pecuniary penalty for non-attendance. The 13th clause was a very important one, providing, as it did, for the removal of one of the greatest grievances that existed at the present time. It provided for an increase in the number of the Revision Courts. Under the existing law it was provided that every voter should have a polling-station within four miles of where he resided; but when a man wanted to get upon the list as a voter, he was frequently obliged to travel in the County of Dublin from seven to ten, and even more miles, and in other parts of Ireland from 18 to 20 miles. The provision in the Bill on this subject was that there should be a Revision
    930
    Court in every polling district, unless the Lord Lieutenant should consider it undesirable or inexpedient. He had, perhaps, trespassed upon the attention of the House longer than he ought to have done, and he now left the Bill with the greatest confidence in the hands of the House. It was merely a question of assimilating the law of England and Ireland; and he trusted the House would not refuse to read it a second time, and would give facilities for passing it into law this Session.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Meldon.)
    MR. BRUENdid not rise for the purpose of moving any Amendment to the second reading of the Bill, but merely for the purpose of making a few remarks upon the Bill. It was perfectly true that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Meldon) had adopted some of the Amendments which were suggested last year; but, at the same time, some Amendments which he considered to be of vital importance had not been included in the present measure. This was especially so in the case of the first enacting clause, and the Amendment which had been proposed by his hon. Colleague to the similarly-worded clause of a former Bill had been ignored. The hon. and learned Member had drawn attention to the supplementary lists and the register of voters in Ireland. Those lists were prepared separately by the Clerk of the Poor Law Union, and he must confess that he had always considered that the supplementary list must only be considered as a list of claimants. The first qualification that was necessary to entitle a person to the franchise was that of being a rated occupier, and paying the rates. No doubt, the Clerk of the Union officially said that those two elements had been complied with in returning the names upon the supplementary list; but there were also other qualifications necessary for the franchise. One of those was the length of time which an occupier had been in possession. It was, of course, impossible for the Clerk of the Union to say of his own knowledge whether an occupier had been in possession of the occupancy for 12 months. Then, again, it was impossible for the Clerk of the

    931
    Union to say whether a rated occupier sub-let so much of his holding as to bring his own interest there in beneath the valuation necessary to secure the franchise, or whether a person lost his right by mortgaging his interest in a farm. The hon. and learned Member had said that in the County of Dublin there were 15,000 who were not, but who ought to be, in possession of the franchise. Seeing that there were only 4,300 on the register, and that the supplementary list contained 3,825 names, a very startling discrepancy existed. It seemed to cast a reflection on the Clerks of the Union with regard to the manner in which they performed their duties; but his own opinion was that these officers did their duty very well. He objected to the hon. and learned Member treating the supplementary list in the same manner as the register of voters. Although he should be perfectly willing to support the hon. and learned Member in imposing the proper penalties on those who made frivolous and unnecessary objections to those whose names were on the register, yet he thought that those on the supplementary list should be prepared to come forward when objected to and prove their claim. He should say that the supplementary list ought to be dealt with in the same manner as the list of claimants was dealt with. There was no just reason why the list of owners of property should be placed in a worse position than those who were merely rated occupiers; but this the Bill would do. He altogether objected to raising the poor rate collectors to the level of the Clerk of the Union, and placing upon them the extreme responsibility which the Bill proposed. In the great majority of districts the poor rate was collected by deputies, and they were not the class of men who should be intrusted with duties so important as the preparation of registration lists, which formed the basis of the electoral roll. As for the proposal to increase the number of Revision Courts, the Lord Lieutenant already possessed the power of appointing additional courts upon proper representation being made to him. In his (Mr. Bruen's) opinion, the examples which the hon. and learned Member had given of the distance which a man had to travel to get his name upon the register were extreme and exceptional, and that in the great majority of instances
    932
    the Revision Courts were held in convenient places. While offering no opposition to the second reading, he should deem it his duty to put down Amendments with a view to making it a Bill which would carry out the principles he thought ought to guide legislation in this matter.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was very glad that the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) was not going to oppose the Bill; and he trusted that the Government also might assent to the second reading, and propose such Amendments as they might consider to be necessary in Committee. The speech of the hon. Member for Carlow appeared to him to be really one which he had prepared years ago to deliver against a similar measure. He considered that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Meldon), who had on so many occasions brought forward this Bill, had been fighting not only for a measure of justice to both sides of the House, but for a measure of justice to his country. It seemed to him (Mr. Mitchell Henry) an imputation upon them that they pretended to give the franchise to people with one hand and absolutely denied it to them with the other. Whether the franchise was or was not to be extended was a matter which the future would decide; but they certainly ought, in the first instance, to allow those who were entitled to the franchise to exercise it. With respect to the supplementary list, in the case of Dublin, out of 26,000 or 27,000 persons who were rated and fulfilled the conditions imposed upon them to be allowed to vote, after allowing for double qualifications, there ought to be about 15,000 persons on the list; but, in point of fact, there were only 4,300 persons upon the register. He asked whether it was either just or creditable that such a state of things should be allowed to exist. Again, on the supplementary list there were only 3,825 persons, and that proved that those who had to make up the list looked carefully to see whether the persons had fulfilled all the qualifications necessary to give a right to the franchise. He could not understand the objection of the hon. Member for Carlow to increasing the number of places for registration. It was a monstrously hard thing that poor people engaged in hard labour from morning to night should be compelled to go, in

    933
    some instances, 20 miles, and very rarely less than six, to register their votes.
    MR. BRUEN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that I objected to the proposal in the Bill for increasing the number of Registration Courts, because the power already exists in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant to increase them on proper representations being made.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that they knew the Lord Lieutenant had that power; but they also knew that the number of Registration Courts was wholly inadequate to the wants of the people, and the reason was not because the Lord Lieutenant was not willing that there should be a sufficient number of Registration Courts, but it was expressed in the very phrase which the hon. Member had twice used—on proper representations being made. Who, in the case of a people like the Irish, who were not accustomed to exercise public rights, was to get them to make proper representations? And such representations ought not to be required. By the provisions of his hon. and learned Friend's Bill the law would make the representations for them. It would merely reverse the present practice, and the probability was that the change would result in something better than the present system. When this Bill was first brought in some years ago, it was brought in with the simple intention of improving the system of registration, and some provisions were introduced which were not taken from the English Act. However, hon. Members objected, and had, over and over again, said—"We will be very glad to assimilate your law with that of England, and give you the same privileges as ourselves; but we will not go further." The Irish Members had believed in the reality of that phrase, and thus it was that this Bill had been brought forward, which would simply place Ireland exactly in the same position as England. The supporters of the Bill did not mean to contend that the registration in both countries might not be greatly improved; but they said, if you wish, lot the improvement be made in some subsequent Session, first for England and then for Ireland. What they now contended was that the system of registration was defective in both countries; but for the present Ireland should simply have such an improvement as
    934
    would be accorded to her by the application of the system now in operation in England. He was glad, therefore, that the Bill was going to be read a second time; and he trusted that the Government would give facilities for the Committee on the Bill, and that it would be one of the measures on which they might pride themselves, and on which they could seek the suffrages and the smiles of the Irish electors when a Dissolution came this autumn or next.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he did not agree with the last speaker as to the observations of the hon. Member for Car-low (Mr. Bruen), which he thought most pertinent. It was a subject on which the hon. Member for Carlow had taken a great interest, and he thought his observations appropriate to the provisions of the Bill before the House. He did not, any more than his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow, rise for the purpose of opposing the second reading of this measure, though he could not say personally that he thought the result of the Bill would be to improve the present system of registration, or represent more fairly at Election times the persons who were entitled to vote in the counties and boroughs of Ireland. He trusted that his right hon. and learned Colleague the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) would, take care that nothing should be done to prevent this measure being very carefully considered in Committee, when hon. Members on either side put down Amendments. He must say that the Bill had been introduced by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) with fairness and moderation; and should his hon. and learned Friend succeed in carrying this Bill into law, he must congratulate himself on the persistent and very able efforts which he had made for so many years to attain that object. It was, however, subject for regret that, while discussing a Bill of such importance, they had not the advantage of the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), whose familiar voice they had in former years heard on this subject; and he need hardly say that on both sides of the House that regret was increased by a knowledge of the fact that illness deprived Members of the benefit of his eloquent advice. As he (Mr. Plunket) happened to be Chairman of the Committee that

    935
    investigated this subject, and as the Report of that Committee was not in favour of the recommendations of the present Bill, he should like to say a few words in justification of that Report. It would be admitted that the investigation was full and careful, and that abundance of evidence was taken on both sides of the question. There was, no doubt, very great difference of opinion, not only amongst the Members of the Committee, but amongst the witnesses who were examined before it, and the evidence of some of the witnesses who were not in favour of the proposals of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare was entitled to peculiar respect. The matter was not put forward at that time, as he understood it, as a crying injustice or an intolerable hardship; but they were all agreed that it was desirable, on the one hand, to have on the register all who were entitled to be there, and, on the other hand, that those who were not entitled should not have facilities for getting on the register. That was the spirit in which the Committee entered on their labours and conducted their investigations. If he remembered rightly, two of the first witnesses called were the Revising Barrister who presided over the Registration Court of the County of Dublin, and the Revising Barrister for the City of Dublin, and both gentlemen said that the existing registration was not only very convenient but effective for its purpose. Mr. O'Hara, the Revising Barrister for the City of Dublin, who was a Roman Catholic, and in politics a Liberal, and very much respected by all parties, expressed the opinion that but for the vigorous Party action which now prevailed the register would become defective, and many persons would remain on it who had ceased to become qualified. He also said that persons who were really entitled had no difficulty in getting on, or keeping on, the register. The Revising Barrister for the County of Dublin gave evidence of much the same character, and it was on testimony like that that the Committee were led to their conclusion—that there was no such evidence of hardship as to induce the Committee to think there was any necessity for a change in the present system. It was quite true that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill had abandoned his sugges-
    936
    tion that the supplemental list should be accepted as primâ facie evidence of a claimant's qualification; but they must take care that they did not enact something like it by other means. It was admitted that that grievance, at the worst, was not a great one; and they must beware, in attempting to remedy, it, not to incur the risk foreseen by the gentlemen whose evidence he bad referred to. Mr. Gerrard, one of the witnesses, said he objected to such an alteration of the law as would compel the objector to state the ground of his objection, because that would be tantamount to making the supplemental list primâ facie evidence that the party possessed all the necessary qualifications. This witness, no doubt, had in his mind the fact that in the County of Dublin there was a shifting population of proprietors going backwards and forwards, so that it was necessary to watch very closely, or they would have a misleading register. The great body of evidence influenced the Committee in coming to the conclusion that there was no urgency at that time for such a change as that proposed by this Bill. He did not admit that the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare would really assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England. It made an approach to such an assimilation. But, before such an assimilation took place, the matter ought to be very carefully considered; and he was of opinion that, before going into Committee, it would be well to submit the measure to the consideration of those persons in Ireland well versed in the subject. They ought to be very careful, in considering the proposals, to weigh well the opinions of the witness whom he had last quoted, an experienced witness, whose testimony had great weight with the Committee. He repeated, that he did not think the Bill would really improve the register; but fully admitting that every person entitled to vote ought to have all facilities for getting on the register, and as this Bill was not so objectionable as the Bill of last year, and still less objectionable than preceding Bills on the same subject, he should not, for his part, oppose the second reading.
    MR. E. COLLINSsaid, that almost entire agreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House was very gratifying, as it was also to observe the moderation of tone, and, he might

    937
    almost say, pleasantry, with which the debate had been conducted. The differences which appeared to exist were upon, non-essential points, and related rather to matters of detail, which could be dealt with in Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had stated quite truly that the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Mel-don) had given up the proposal which had been objected to on previous occasions, to make the supplementary list primâ facie evidence of the right of the man to be placed on the register, and that being so, the hon. and learned Gentleman had little to say against the Bill. But the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) seemed to be under a misconception as to the scope of the Bill, inasmuch as his arguments were directed against parts of the Bill which could not be described as essential. In reference to the subject of the supplemental list, the hon. Member stated, and stated quite properly, and in perfect agreement with the House and the hon. and learned Member for Kildare—that two points were necessarily admitted in reference to the persons whose names appeared on the supplemental list—namely, that they were rated to the poor, and that they had paid their rates. He also properly stated that the fact of subletting or variation in the occupancy might, and doubtless would, affect the right of a man to be placed on the register. So far, he was right; but the hon. Member for Carlow went further—and he (Mr. Collins) should like to correct his misapprehension, because he appeared to attach a good deal of importance to it—that the person preparing the register could not be aware of the circumstances of the right of a man to be placed on the register, and that, under the Bill, if an occupier mortgaged the premises from which he derived his vote, he forfeited his right to be on the register. That was not the state of the law. It was not at all necessary that the persons preparing the lists should inquire whether there were any changes on premises entitling occupiers to be placed on the lists; for the fact of a mortgage existing would not affect the right to be on the register of voters. The first seven clauses of the Bill were devoted to endeavouring to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England;
    938
    and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin contended that the effect of those clauses would be to lead to abuses. Such an objection was obviously wrong, because if such abuses had been found to result from the almost similar state of the law in England, there could be no doubt attention would have been directed to the matter much sooner. Another fallacy in the observations of the hon. Member for Carlow was where he took exception to poor rate collectors being put into a more responsible and prominent position under the impression that it was intended by the Bill to some extent to supersede the Clerks of Unions and place the collectors of rates in their stead. Now, that was not at all contemplated by the Bill. The Bill merely proposed that the poor rate collectors should more effectually aid the Clerks of Unions and the authorities in preparing the lists, but not that they should supersede them or take their places. In conclusion, he wished to say that he believed his hon. Friends on the Opposition side of the House would be very willing to meet those who opposed the Bill on points of detail, and that they would be pleased and ready to meet every reasonable objection. He therefore trusted that, by the co-operation of both sides of the House, he would not say an abuse or an injustice would be removed, but that the law on the subject would be put on a more equitable and convenient basis than it stood at present. He had much pleasure in supporting the Bill.
    MR. KAVANAGHsaid, he was glad that the Bill had proceeded so far without opposition; and he hoped that, with such Amendments as were found requisite, it would pass into law. He was sure that there was no wish on that side of the House to prevent those who had a real bonâ fide claim from getting on the register. He was equally confident that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), or any of his supporters on the Opposition side of the House, had no wish to put any man on the register who had no right to appear there. And he would be very glad to remove any obstacle which could fairly and reasonably be shown to exist, as the law stood now, between the enjoyment of the franchise and those entitled to it. It was possible, however, that

    939
    several hon. Members opposite, in their good nature and their earnest desire to see that all their fellow-countrymen enjoyed the boon of the franchise, might take too sanguine a view, and really unintentionally afford an opportunity for those to get on the register who had no legal right. As the Bill was now drawn, he feared that an opportunity might be given to people—persons, no doubt, of his own political persuasion, as well as of the opposite—to get placed on the register, without having a sufficient qualification. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare had considerably modified the Bill this year, and on that account claimed his (Mr. Kavanagh's) support. He desired to point out that the Amendment which he put upon the Paper last year, and which the hon. and learned Member for Kildare had now incorporated in his Bill, was only a sequence to the Amendment placed on the Paper last year by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis). There were several features of the Bill which he would feel disposed to oppose in Committee; but with regard to the Preamble, in which it was proposed to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England in this matter, he did not feel himself in a position to offer an opinion. He had spent that morning unprofitably in wading through the English Act, and he must confess that he had not been able to find the striking assimilation which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kildare wished to establish. That, however, was not a matter on which he wished to lay any particular stress. He felt that Clause 5 opened the door to considerable abuse. He assumed that this clause applied both to the register and to the supplemental list, and that being so, it appeared to him that it would have this effect—that if a man were on the register or supplemental list who had no right there, and he(Mr. Kavanagh) chose to object to the retention of his name there, and he did not exactly hit upon the proper ground of objection, the man would still remain on the register. He felt that that clause in its present form would keep men on the register who had no right there, and if that were so it was a grave fault in the Bill. With respect to the other clauses of the Bill he had no objection to make. In view of the wonderful unanimity that prevailed
    940
    among Irish Members in favour of the Bill, he should not oppose the second reading; but he thought that as many Amendments were likely to be put on the Paper it would be as well if the Committee on the Bill were not fixed for some time to come.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTwished to say that the Bill had been drawn with a view to assimilate the law in Ireland as nearly as possible to the law in England. A careful comparison of the clauses of the measure with the corresponding clauses of the English Act would prove that they were substantially identical. When they were considering the desirability of assimilating the law of the two countries, the burden of proof should be thrown upon those who objected to the assimilation. Such proof had not been given by any hon. Member who opposed the Bill, or gave it a reserved support. They had given their opinion very freely that no great injustice or hardship was suffered by persons in Ireland who were entitled to be upon the voters' list. Speaking from his own knowledge of the County Dublin, he said there were many who were perfectly entitled to be upon the list, but who were prevented from voting owing to the difficulties caused by the present system. Under this system, it was only necessary to lodge a general objection to a voter's right to be on the list, such as—"I object to so and so." The man thus objected to was obliged to go to great inconvenience, travelling often several miles, and it was only when he got into Court that he learned what the objection was. As far as the County Dublin was concerned, facilities for revision, so far as places fixed for the holding of the Courts was concerned, were not sufficient. The right hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel Taylor) would admit this, and would also admit that many who were entitled to the franchise were deprived of it owing to the operation of the present law. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) pointed to the great evil if, by any interference with existing political organizations, the purity of the register should be tampered with by people getting their names thereon without the right to it. Those who supported the Bill wished nothing of the kind. All they desired was that when persons made objections the burden of

    941
    proof should be thrown upon them to show that their opposition was reasonable and valid; and, failing to do so, that they should be obliged to pay the costs. The Bill could be defended on much broader grounds. They were constantly told in the House, when they brought forward questions with regard to the self-government of Ireland, or of land, that no difference should be made between the two countries, and that Parliament and the Government were perfectly willing that everything in Ireland should be put upon the same footing as in England. Whatever the merits of the present system of registration in Ireland, it was totally different from the system in England. In England, if a man's name was on the list, which was at least analogous if not identical with what was known as the supplementary list in Ireland, it was held us primâ facie evidence of his right to vote, and this could only be upset by a reasonable and fair objection. In Ireland it was quite the contrary. Every facility was there given for pressing objections, however trivial, to persons desirous to exercise the franchise. In counties where there was any real opposition, any intention upon the part of one party or the other to contest the representation, every difficulty was thrown in the way of voters. He was sure it was not the wish of the House that this state of things should continue. Into the details of the Bill he did not feel himself competent to enter; but he felt sure the House must admit the principle that everybody should have the franchise in reality who was by law entitled to it. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin and the hon. Member for Carlow assented to that principle; yet they foreshadowed certain Amendments in Committee which would take all the life out of the Bill and render it perfectly useless. If the House accepted the principle of the proposal now before it, he hoped care would be taken that the Bill should leave the Committee improved and not emasculated.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, there appeared to be a substantial agreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House in giving their adhesion to the proposal to deal with the Registration Laws of Ireland. No one could question, and no one on either side of the House had
    942
    questioned, the fairness of giving every reasonable and possible facility to vote to those who were legally entitled to be upon the register, nor had anyone attempted to suggest that anything in the shape of unreasonable and frivolous objections should be encouraged. Neither had he heard it alleged that there should be any effort to prevent bonâ fide objections being put forward in a reasonable way; because, if that were desired, it would defeat the object in view, which was not only to have free but pure registers. A Bill of this kind must deal largely with details, because it was obvious that registration was made up of details. Each of these details was important, and might be regarded from different points of view. He could hardly think the matter was so entirely simple as was suggested by his hon. and gallant Friend who had just spoken (Colonel Colthurst), but who had not adverted very minutely to the weighty objections urged by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh). The distinction pointed out by every Member who had spoken from the Government side of the House between the old register and the supplementary register was of considerable importance, and it was only reasonable to expect that a distinction of the kind would again come up for consideration when the measure reached Committee. With respect to what his hon. and gallant Friend said as to the assimilation of the law of England and Ireland in this matter, it ought to be borne in mind that the supplementary list was peculiar to Ireland. There might be in England something regarded as an equivalent to it; but there was nothing corresponding to it in terms or exactly in substance. The difference between the two lists was obvious and substantial; the old contained the names of those electors who had at some time or other proved their claim; and with regard to them the Bill would remove grievances under which they laboured. These grievances were not very great; still they ought to be considered. At present, a man whose name appeared on the old list might have his claim assailed by a general objection. He thought it only reasonable that when such a name was objected to the specific objection should be pointed out. But before this principle was applied to the supplementary lists he, without ven-

    943
    turing on a final opinion, thought it was only reasonable to consider that the two lists were entirely dissimilar. As the measure had been originally presented to the House, the claim was that the being upon the supplementary list was primâ facie proof of the possession of all the qualifications necessary to confer the franchise. This claim had been conceded to the objections urged to this, and the House was not now asked to affirm this principle; but it was reasonable to consider whether some of the remaining clauses consequent upon it did not indirectly claim for those on the one list the same status as was allowed those on the other and the older one. That was a matter which hon. Members on the Government side of the House thought required examination in Committee. The parties who prepared the supplementary list were most respectable men; but these only knew of two out of the five qualifications. Clerks of the Poor Law Union knew that the parties were rated, and that they had paid their rates; but the Union Clerk was entirely ignorant as to their length of occupation and the character of the occupancy, or whether the premises were sub-let. That it was alleged by hon. Members on the Government side of the House would also require consideration; and they further said that it was reasonable they should be called upon by a general objection to disclose and prove their claims. He did not say that some distinction might not be made in favour of the two qualifications of which the clerk had cognizance, as against the remaining three of which he was ignorant. That, however, was a matter which might fairly be examined in Committee, but scarcely upon the second reading. He thought too much had been made of the case of the County of Dublin. The position of that county was peculiar. There the numerous seaside towns and villages were resorted to during the summer months for the purposes of health, and the names of persons occupying these houses would be upon the supplementary list; but they forfeited their right to vote in most instances by sub-letting for the rest of the year. Such sub-letting was a matter outside the cognizance of the Poor Law Clerks. He did not wish to go into that, however; but the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County referred to it.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he did not in any way allude to this class of persons, but to tenant-farmers.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that that simply proved that such tenant-farmers very often neglected to attend the Revision Court, and did not care a farthing about the franchise. A farmer had nothing to do but attend the Court or send a member of his family, and every facility would be given him for getting upon the list. The real difficulty to be considered in dealing with this question was that in many counties in Ireland considerable apathy prevailed on the subject of the franchise. Many persons would not take the trouble to cross the road from their own doors to go to a Revision Court. In every contested election it was seen that there were thousands who would, not take the trouble to go to the poll. There was one other subject to which he wished to refer. It had been alleged that there should be increased machinery for the Revision Courts. He hardly thought the existing legislation on that subject was sufficiently present to the minds of hon. Members who made the suggestion, or that they adequately considered the powers given by the Act to the Executive Government to deal with such a grievance. The old law provided a Revision Court wherever there was a polling place. By the Act of 1872 a great extension of polling districts took place. The number in Kerry, for instance, was increased from 5 to 29, and in Westmeath from 3 to 17. It was obviously impossible for the County Court Judge, to whom was intrusted the work of revision, to attend at each polling station, with the whole paraphernalia of county officials; and in 1873 the law at present governing the practice was passed, under which the Lord Lieutenant might increase the number of Revision Courts. He was not aware of any case in which the Irish Executive had refused to redress a proved grievance on this head. The hon. and gallant Member for Cork County had omitted to state that within very recent years the number of Revision Courts in County Dublin had been increased from three to five. If a substantial case were made out for a further augmentation of this machinery it would be attended to. There appeared to be a considerable amount of unanimity on the

    945
    question now before the House, and when Irishmen were agreed their unanimity was wonderful. He hoped that some little time would elapse before the Committee was taken, so that hon. Members might have an opportunity of considering what Amendments they would place on the Paper.
    MAJOR NOLANhoped, considering the wonderful unanimity alluded to, the Government would give them facilities for getting the Bill into Committee. He was sorry to say that the general tone of the remarks of the Attorney General for Ireland seemed to favour the view that he would not care to give many facilities to persons entitled to vote to obtain their rights. ["No, no!"] The view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously was that the voter should go to considerable trouble to have his right admitted, and not that the State should see that the voters should be registered. It was the State that, receiving taxes, should see that its subjects duly appeared on the list. The Bill could not be passed this Session unless the Government gave facilities for its passage through Committee. The half-past 12 Rule would prevent its coming on, and it would be sent there before the end of the Session, and its purpose with reference to the General Election would be defeated. If it did not come on before the end of the Session it would be the fault of the Government.
    MR. J. LOWTHERhad not intended to trouble the House with any remarks about the Bill, after the clear statement of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland; but as the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Galway (Major Nolan) had talked about the Bill being smothered unless the Government afforded facilities for dealing with it in Committee, he would ask, did the hon. and gallant Member wish the Government to postpone the measures they had in hand, as to which, in many cases, they had given pledges, in order to make way for the Bill now before the House? However, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and those with whom he acted, might increase the chances of time being available for the Bill if they would afford facilities to the Government for disposing of Government Business. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman had done that, he would be able to repeat
    946
    his request with far more reasonableness than on the present occasion. The salutary Rule, commonly known as the half-past 12 o'clock Rule—than which none better existed amongst the Standing Orders which regulated the proceedings of the House—had been alluded to; and he felt bound to say that if the Bill was to be discussed at all, that discussion ought to be taken at a reasonably early hour. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would allow sufficient time to elapse before putting it down for Committee, to enable the Government to consider the Amendments they might deem necessary to make the Bill useful and equitable. He trusted the House would now assent to the second reading.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

  ULSTER TENANT RIGHT BILL.
  (Mr. Macartney, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. William Wilson.)
  ULSTER TENANT RIGHT BILL.

    [BILL 37.] SECOND BREADING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MACARTNEY,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill had already been before the House on two occasions; and Bills similar in principle, but going farther than this one, had been before the House since 1874. One of those Bills was brought in by the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland), and on another occasion the late hon. Member for County Down (Mr. Sharman Crawford), introduced a measure which contained clauses similar to the clauses of the present Bill. The Bill introduced by the noble Lord the Member for County Down (Lord Arthur Hill-Trevor) was passed last year; but in "another place" it met the untimely fate which the hon. and gallant Member for Galway seemed to fear would befall the Bill which he (Mr. Macartney) now asked the House to read a second time. The custom called Ulster tenant-right had been so often handled in the House, and its rise and progress traced by other speakers, that he would not waste time by dwelling upon it. The 1st clause of the Bill sought to establish for the usage of Ulster the same principle

    947
    which had been established for the benefit of the tenants in England—namely, that they were supposed to have made the improvements unless the landlord could prove the contrary, the presumption being in favour of the weaker party. Owing to the wording of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1870), which spoke of the "usages of Ulster," instead of the "Ulster tenant-right custom," it was held by the Judges that it could only be applied to a holding on a particular estate after it had been proved that the custom existed on that particular estate, and that it was not sufficient to prove that the custom existed in the district, barony, or province. The result was this extraordinary anomaly—that a man might have three or four estates in one county, all managed in the same way and by the same agent, and that it would be necessary to prove the existence of tenant-right on each estate before the tenant on that particular estate could sell his tenant-right to another person. That was considered a great hardship. Formerly the great majority of landlords in this matter held themselves bound by public opinion; but a few took another course, and, refusing to allow tenant-right, caused an agitation to spring up which led to the passing of the Irish Land Act. If the 1st clause of this Bill were passed, the custom would be taken to exist in all estates in the North of Ireland situated in districts where tenant-right prevailed. He believed it could do no injury to any landlord in Ulster, and it would be a source of satisfaction to tenants to have a certainty in their own case. The Bill would prevent much litigation and bad feeling between landlord and tenant. The 2nd clause related to a particular rule existing upon some estates called an "estate office rule." Some rules, which were very general, allowed a tenant to sell his interest, the incoming tenant to be approved by the landlord; and the price was such a fair one as the outgoing tenant, according to the rate of purchase money usually prevailing in the district, could get. It had been said that he wished to do away with estate rules. He wanted to do no such thing. The only rule that the 2nd clause would apply to was one which existed on a few estates of fixing an arbitrary price per acre, or a certain number of years' pur-
    948
    chase to be paid by the incoming tenant to the outgoing tenant for his tenant-right. Such a rule had not been in existence more than 40 or 50 years in any part of Ulster, and formed no part of the time-honoured custom of Ulster. It had caused very great heart-burnings and very great injustice. He therefore proposed by the 2nd clause that on any estate where a rule had been introduced fixing an arbitrary price per acre, or a certain number of years' purchase of a holding, the existence of such a rule should not prevent the outgoing tenant from receiving the full amount which his tenant-right was worth. The 3rd clause met another anomaly. Before the passing of the Act of 1870, it was the custom on most properties in the North of Ireland when a lease dropped that the tenant should continue on his farm subject to a re-adjustment of rent, or that if he gave it up he was entitled to get the full value of his tenant-right from his successor in the holding. The Chairmen of some of the counties had held that under the Land Act tenant-right continued after the expiration of the lease; whereas others held that the terms of the lease should be strictly adhered to, and that, where there was a covenant to surrender on the fall of the lease, there was no longer any right to sell. In all such cases the present Bill would presume the existence of the tenant right at the close of a lease, just as was the case with ordinary tenants holding from year to year. In conclusion, he said his object was to submit an equitable measure. He himself was a proprietor and the possessor of land; it was the only means of living of most of his relatives and friends; so that for every reason he would be slow to do injustice to his own class. At the same time, however, he was equally anxious that no injustice that the House could remedy should be done the tenants.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Macartney.)
    SIR JOHN LESLIE,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, it was no doubt a small measure; but in cases of robbery it was the small man who was first introduced, and, just as a man of larger dimensions followed, so would they find large measures following this one. He regarded

    949
    the Bill as designed materially to destroy the rights of property in Ulster. He opposed it upon these grounds—First, because, from his personal knowledge of Ulster, having resided there lately for six months, he did not believe that there existed amongst the tenants, all of whom had paid for their tenant-right, the feelings described by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), or any desire for a measure of this kind; secondly, he opposed it because it was directly aimed at the usages of Ulster, which were favourably considered and respected by the legislators who brought to a conclusion the Land Act of 1870. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) then said it was not intended to disturb the happy relations existing between the landlord and the occupiers which had induced the landlord to view favourably the growth of such usages. It was desired to find a remedy for insecurity of tenure without shaking the stability of property. Now, he (Sir John Leslie) contended that in the 2nd clause of this Bill the stability of property was directly attacked. Though it professed to be in the interest of the tenants, it was not in the interest of the tenants that the Bill was brought forward. The 3rd clause was provided for by another Bill in "another place," and was therefore unnecessary. It was the 2nd clause which contained the essence of the Bill. It claimed for the tenant the right to sell, not only what was his own, but also that which was the property of another. To prove that, he must examine what it was that the tenant purchased. According to the rules of the estate the tenant purchased the security of his occupation, the privilege of holding his farm at a rent below the market value, and a security that he should not be disturbed except for non-payment of rent. He (Sir John Leslie) contended that the amount between the actual rent and the rent the landlord had consented for 50 or 100 years to take was 5s. or 7s. an acre less. His tenants had profited thereby; but that 5s. or 7s. remained as the landlord's own property and part of his capital. Now, this clause would make it legal for a tenant to sell that which was another's; and, therefore, it was a clause which proposed to legalize theft. It proposed to reverse the eighth Commandment, and, therefore, should
    950
    not meet with any respect in that House. Besides, the Bill would not operate as it professed to do in the interest of the tenant, because the effect of it would be this—that if the tenant sold the farm to the highest bidder the landlord would raise the rent. The landlord could not be expected to keep the rent at the same pitch. It would naturally rise to the marketable value. Therefore, it would not only disturb the existing arrangements, wherewith the tenants were perfectly satisfied and contented, but it would positively prove a punishment to them. He expected the Bill, if it became law, would provide that most useful branch of the Legal Profession, the solicitors, with constant employment; and he believed the origin and purpose of the Bill related to attorneys rather than to the tenants themselves.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I beg leave to say in explanation that I am not an attorney.
    SIR JOHN LESLIEsaid, he did not for one moment suggest that; but probably the hon. Member would not be so prompt to deny that there were names of members of that distinguished Profession on the back of the Bill, and no others. Believing the measure was not calculated to benefit the tenant, and was contrary to equity and justice, he moved that the second reading be postponed for six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir John Leslie.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he was sorry that the hon. Baronet who had just spoken should have referred to this Bill in connection with the Land Bill of 1870, and said that it would afford employment for the solicitors. Although in framing this Bill they would have the very valuable assistance of one hon. Member who was a solicitor on the Bright clauses, which were considered by a Select Committee last year, he did not wish to have the whole of the Members for Ireland solicitors, any more than he wished to have them all members of any other Profession. He was very glad that this Bill had been brought forward, although it did not affect the South of Ireland.

    951
    Still there were a great many tenants in the South of Ireland who considered that an extension of the Ulster tenant-right would be very valuable in the South and West of Ireland. He said that the Western Members were most anxious to support the Ulster Members; and he only wished he could get the Ulster Members to return the compliment when the Southern Members brought in their Land Bill. As a general rule, the Southern and Western Members of Ireland were willing to vote for what was desired by the Northern farmers; but the Members returned by the Northern farmers of Ireland did not in a similar manner support the proposition brought forward by the Representatives of the Southern and Western farmers. Some time since, at a meeting of the farmers in the South and West, it was proposed not to support the Northern farmers till they supported the farmers in the South and West in their Land Bills. Such a policy as that, however, he should be sorry to support. Owing to the custom called "Ulster tenant-right" having been only established in the Province of Ulster, he admitted there might be some difficulty in extending this Bill to the South and West; but he thought that difficulty might be very easily got over. He had heard it rumoured through the House that this Bill was to be talked out by its opponents; but when they bore in mind that they had two hours and a-half to discuss the Bill, and that the subject was so well known, he hoped that hon. Members would curtail their remarks and allow a Division to be taken.
    MR. GREGORYremarked that the most objectionable part of the Bill was its 2nd clause, by which the rule of the estate was entirely set aside in favour of the tenant. The Bill might be considerably improved in Committee; but he was convinced that the 2nd clause would operate unfairly. He thought the constant efforts of the Irish Members to alter the relations of landlords and tenants were injurious to Ireland. He knew from his own experience that these constant attempts to tamper with the rights of landlords and tenants gave rise to a feeling of insecurity with regard to Irish property which seriously depreciated it in the eyes of English capitalists.
    MR. W. WILSONdenied that the Bill would give the tenant an unfair advantage, and hoped that the Government would see their way to support it. It only did justice to the Northern farmers. With regard to the onus of proof of the custom of the estate, it would be better for it to rest with the landlord than with the tenant, as the former had more facilities for proving it than the latter.
    MR. SHAWsaid, he was glad that there seemed to be no intention of talking out this Bill, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite would allow the Bill to go to a second reading. This was a remarkable Wednesday as to Irish legislation. Already one Bill had been disposed of, and the House was composed entirely of Irish Members, and it would be a very pleasant thing if two Irish Bills could be passed with the approval of both sides. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had said that constant tampering with the law had injured the landed interest of Ireland in the English market. He differed with him altogether about the borrowing and lending of money in Ireland, and would say to the hon. Member that they had no difficulty in borrowing, notwithstanding prejudice, and the prejudice was most contemptible, because the security offered in Ireland was as good as any security offered in England. They wanted to transfer from the North of Ireland to the South this tenant-right which had grown up as a custom. It would increase the value of land. In the North, land was worth nearly 25 years' purchase, and in the South 20 years, and the reason of the difference was the feeling that the tenant in the South was prevented from spending his capital on the land owing to the insecurity of the tenure. They did not in the least degree wish to interfere with the stability of property. That seemed to have alarmed very much the hon. Baronet who had moved the rejection of the Bill. He had talked about the insecurity of the landlord's property; but what did he think of the insecurity of property on the part of the tenant? He believed that, instead of injuring the stability of property in the North of Ireland, the Bill would really increase the value. But that had always been the bugbear thrown in their teeth. By passing this measure in favour of the South, the land would be put in the

    953
    same position as in the North, and its value would be increased by five years' purchase.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, that although the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) had skilfully used the voice of a charmer, and though they were, as he had said that day, almost an Irish Parliament, where it might be supposed there was nothing to obstruct complete unity, yet he was obliged to differ from the hon. Member. He was sorry for it; and it was in no spirit of acrimony or strong Party feeling that he was obliged to say a very few words against the second reading of the Bill. He did not think the hon. Baronet the Member for Monaghan (Sir John Leslie) intended to cast any imputation on the Legal Profession; but as he understood the observations, it was that litigation would grow out of this Bill. He believed himself that litigation would be very much increased if this Bill became law, and that was one of the reasons why he should vote against the second reading. He took this view of the matter with reluctance, because, certainly, the hon. Gentlemen who had introduced the Bill were those with whom he generally had pleasure in co-operating. This was in principle a matter of fundamental importance, although in practice there might not be very much difference between the law as it was and the law as it would be if this Bill were passed. The tenant-right question, to be understood, depended very much upon the part of the country in which it was. It varied in different places. In Ulster, undoubtedly, some such a system prevailed very generally; but those who were in the habit of seeing an extensive form of that custom put in operation every day in their own locality were quite surprised that those who lived in another part of the same province should take a different view, and resist the introduction of a measure which would, in the latter case, entirely alter the relations of landlord and tenant. He should like to point out that this was the difficulty which lay at the bottom of all discussion on the Ulster tenant-right custom. It was a varying custom, and when it was attempted in 1870 to deal with it as one custom, and not as many customs, it was found impossible to do so. It was found that there were local and distinct usages, and therefore, that they could not
    954
    be dealt with as one. After debate on the measure then under consideration, the language adopted was not "the tenant-right custom," but "the usages that prevail in the Province of Ulster, and are known as the Ulster tenant-right custom." The usages varied, and there were some parts where there was no tenant-right at all. The question was no doubt a great deal embarrassed by what were called "estate rules." In some parts of the Province of Ulster the estate rules were as old as the custom itself, and it was impossible to distinguish these estate rules from the limitations of the custom. It was illusory language to speak of "custom in Ulster." It was on account of this difference from his hon. Friends—a difference of principle—because, in fact, they were attempting to stereotype this custom as one custom prevailing everywhere, and in that respect departing from, the policy of the Land Act of 1870, mainly that he resisted the Bill; and, as he had already said, he resisted it with great reluctance, because he knew it had become an object desired by many of the loyal and industrious tenantry. He should be glad if a measure was introduced to give a tenant-right at the end of a lease, and he should always give such a proposition his hearty support; but he could not give his assent to the 1st clause of the Bill, which stereotyped one uniform tenant-right for Ulster, and on account of that, and some other provisions, he could not support the Bill. He was glad to think that the agitation which had disturbed the Province of Ulster some time ago was now subsiding. This he attributed to the fact that the Land Act of 1870 had been administered and interpreted by the Judges in no narrow or stingy sense. He believed that the law as it stood was, in the main, sufficient to give a fair and full protection to the tenants; and he also believed that the more experience there was of the operation of the present law the greater satisfaction would be felt. He was not, therefore, prepared now to support legislation which might disturb the settlement of 1870.
    MR. SYNANsaid, he thought that the measure might be easily made workable if certain Amendments were agreed to in Committee. He quite accepted the statement that the efforts to define the Ulster custom in 1870 failed, and he did

    955
    not see how it could be defined by this Bill. He, however, was in favour of the Bill, because he believed the great grievance was that in the six counties in the Province of Ulster the custom had been cut down from what was intended by the Act of 1870 by arbitrary estate rules. Now, he did not think that it was desirable to declare that there was only one tenant-right for the whole of Ulster, because that was contrary to the fact. But what he thought was desirable was to recognize the tenant-right of each district, and protect that against being cut down by the estate rules. The 1st clause of the Bill could, he believed, be made workable by adding the words "prevailing in any particular district for the trial of land cases;" and, if that were done, it would be done on the lines of the Act of 1870. With regard to the next clause, he perfectly agreed that a particular estate rule should not cut down the custom as to the amount of compensation to be paid to the outgoing tenant, or the amount of the purchase money, for that was a matter to be regulated by the circumstances of each case and the state of the land market. The 3rd clause, which gave tenant-right at the expiration of a lease, was generally admitted to be a good one, and he hoped it would be adopted. It was now so decided in some cases by some of the Land Courts, and the law ought to be declared and fixed by Act of Parliament. The acceptance of the Bill depended upon the Government, and he could assure them that the tenants of the North of Ireland would narrowly watch their conduct.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) had reminded the House that they had spent a very agreeable afternoon in discussing Irish questions without the intervention of any other than Irish Members in the debate; but he feared that the hon. Member must have been disappointed at the interruption of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), who so clearly pointed out the reasons which induced him to oppose this Bill. The hon. Member for East Sussex had really given the House the very information they desired with reference to this Bill. He hoped that his own appearance on the scene would not diminish the amicable character of the
    956
    debate, although, unfortunately, he must ask the House to reject the Bill. Nothing could give him greater pleasure than to support any measure introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), and supported by other Members on the same side of the House; still he thought that in this case measures, not men, should be the guiding principle which should govern their conduct, and that he should, not be justified in supporting a Bill because it was introduced by Members on his own side which he should have opposed had it proceeded from his political opponents. The Bill seemed in reality to consist of several Bills, because each clause embodied distinct principles, which might very fairly have been included in a separate measure. It had been pointed out that no definition clause was attached to the Bill. If there had been such a clause, it might very fairly have contained a definition of the term "district," which occurred in the very first clause. This term was vague and presented considerable difficulty. He did not think the hon. Member could succeed in defining it; but even if he did, he would have still the more formidable difficulty to encounter of defining the Ulster tenant-right custom. Now, when the Land Act of 1870 was before the House, he recollected that there was a great deal of discussion on this point amongst the able lawyers then in the House, many of whom had since gone to the Bench; and he recollected that it was thought imprudent, if not impossible, to attempt to define tenant-right, but that this must be left to the reasonable interpretation of those who had to administer the law in reference to the cases brought before them. In departing from the Land Act in this respect, his hon. Friend would land the House in difficulties, from which it would take some time to escape. Again, not content with ignoring the just rights of the landlords, the hon. Member dealt with an entirely different subject, and he dealt with it in a way which enabled the tenant to purchase his tenant-right in a cheap market, and then by means of this Bill to sell it in a market which would have become a dear one, and thus dispose of it in a way which was contrary to all practice. He (Mr. J. Lowther) objected to the onus of disproving

    957
    the custom being thrown on the landlords. He could not agree to the provision that the rule of an estate should not be allowed to cut down the custom, if by that it was meant that a man who had under an estate rule purchased land at a certain number of years' purchase should, under the custom, be allowed to sell at a greater number of years' purchase. He did not see how anyone could defend Clause 2. It was a pity that so many subjects—or rather Bills—should be embodied in one measure. As to Clause 3, the Government, as such, would not have opposed it if it had stood by itself, although he (Mr. Lowther), in his individual capacity as a Member of the House of Commons, disapproved of it; and therefore, if it stood alone, he should not oppose it officially. There was one consideration which the House should keep before them in dealing with this Bill. When the Land Act of 1870 was passed, it was always urged that the object was to set the Land Question in Ireland at rest, and put a stop to agitation, if not for all time, at least for a generation; therefore, these constant attempts to reopen this question deserved the very anxious attention of the House. He had always been an opponent of the Land Act, and, therefore, he would not speak of it as one he felt bound to defend; but, at the same time, he should much regret any attempts to disturb the settlement which had been made. Vested interests had sprung up under the provisions of that Act which they were bound to regard. He did not withdraw one syllable of what he had said against the Land Act; but, at the same time, he should regret, as a Conservative, any attempt being made to disturb that settlement. An hon. Member who had addressed the House in the course of the debate said that he objected to any restrictions being placed on the amount of capital which the tenant invested in the land. But the Ulster custom was the means of diminishing the capital employed by the tenant in the cultivation of the land. He believed that if there was one thing more than another to which exception might be taken in the interest of the consumers of food in Ireland it was the Ulster tenant-right custom. But however that might be, and however disinclined he might feel to assist in inaugurating such a system if
    958
    it were now proposed for the first time, still, as the custom had existed so long, and as vested rights had grown up under it, he should be the last person to oppose the preservation of those vested rights and interests. What he said on this point was merely to show that he thought the promoters of the Bill took a dangerous ground when they affected the political-economy argument, because they failed to prove that the extension of the tenant-right custom would conduce in any way to the effective cultivation of the soil. Neither did he think the Bill would be of any advantage in the interests of order and good government. He had said these few words, because he thought it right that there should be no mistaking the grounds on which Her Majesty's Government opposed the Bill. It was, as he said a short time ago, by no means agreeable to him to have to oppose a Bill which was introduced by an hon. Friend on that side of House. He might also say that he would be the last person unnecessarily to resist anything which would conduce to the advantage of those in whose interest this Bill was ostensibly framed, and for whose benefit it was erroneously, as he thought, supposed to be. He referred to the occupiers in the North of Ireland. They were a class of persons to whom, associated as he was with them by political, religious, and other ties, he should be glad to make any concession if he felt it his duty to do so; but, under the circumstances, he thought this was a Bill which the House would do well to reject, and he certainly should support his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Sir John Leslie) in his Amendment for the rejection of the measure.
    MR. MACARTNEY,in reply, said, he considered that the arguments which had been used, to the effect that the Bill, if passed, would prevent landlords from borrowing money on their property, were fallacious. In his opinion, the Government could not feel the sympathy which they professed to feel for the tenants of Ulster if they opposed the measure. If any opponent of the Bill would show him any part of Ulster in which tenant-right did not exist, where the tenants were better off, the land better cultivated, and the rents more valuable, than in those parts where it prevailed, he would withdraw his measure at once, and never introduce it again. It was not

    959
    unusual to make such speeches in the House as they heard that night; but it was very desirable that, before making them, hon. Gentlemen should go through the various counties of Ireland and inform themselves of the value of the tenants' holdings and of the landlords' estates. If they did so, they would find that in no part of Ireland were landlords' interests more valuable than they were in the North. The four counties in which tenant-right existed to an extreme degree were Down, Antrim, Armagh, and Derry, and in those counties the largest amount of comfort and prosperity prevailed, which was, to his mind, an unanswerable argument.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 146: Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 72.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

  BILLS OF SALE (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Meldon, Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)
  BILLS OF SALE (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 45.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MELDON,in moving that the Bill be read a second time, reminded the House that a Bill was passed last year on the subject of the Registration of Bills of Sale in England. It had been a subject of very great inquiry amongst the commercial community and persons specially interested in the question, and the result was an alteration of the law in England. There could be no question that in legal matters the practice ought to be identical in the two countries, unless there was a presumption to the contrary; and, therefore, this Bill was introduced to extend to Ireland the provisions of that important and exceedingly useful Act of last year. Formerly in England, as at present in Ireland, if a bill of sale was properly registered, and if a person became bankrupt before it was put in force, the bill fell to the ground, and the result was that it became really valueless as a security. That had now been remedied in England, and there was no reason why the remedy
    960
    should not be extended to Ireland. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to pass without opposition, because the present difference between the two countries was highly inconvenient. As the time was short, he would not go further into the merits of the question, but would at once move the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Meldon.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the hon. and learned Member had fairly stated the purpose of the Bill. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not intend to oppose the second reading. He would only ask that a fair time for ascertaining the opinions of the people of Ireland should be given before the Bill was taken in Committee.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 13th May.

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.— [Bill 74.]
  (Major O'Gorman, Sir Joseph M'Kenna, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Blennerhassett.)
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.— [Bill 74.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Major O' Gorman.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)pointed out that the Bill had not been issued, and he objected to the second reading until they were in possession of the objects of the measure. He suggested that the second reading should be adjourned If, however, the hon. and gallant Member persisted in his Motion, he should move the adjournment of the debate.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the Bill had come on him by surprise, and he therefore thought he should be consulted.
    It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  ANIMAL VACCINATION BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. CAMERON, Bill to encourage Vaccination by providing facilities for the optional use of Animal Vaccine, ordered to be brought in by Dr. CAMERON, Earl PERCY, Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR, and Dr. LUSH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 131.]

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill for promoting the Revision of the Statute Law of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. JAMES LOWTHER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 132.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (WATERFORD, &c.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JAMES LOWTHER, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Borough of Waterford and to the Town of Bangor, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES LOWTHER and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 133.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.