Commons Sitting of 2 July 1879

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL. (by Order)—Considered as amended— East Indian Railway.
PUBLIC BILLS — Second Reading — Spirits in Bond [19]; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment [41], debate adjourned. Third Reading — Inclosure Provisional Order (Whittington Common)* [207], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  EAST INDIA RAILWAY BILL (by Order).
  CONSIDERATION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into Consideration."
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that, at the close of the debate yesterday, he had
  1188
  asked a question, which he had addressed specially to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. E. Stanhope) was not able to speak again; and it was suggested that he should repeat the question on the following day. He thought the question he had put was an important one; and, therefore, he proposed, on the present occasion, to put it a little more fully than on the preceding day. In a few words, the question was this. The agreement that had been made between the Secretary of State for India in Council and the East Indian Railway Company was not, as the House had been informed, an agreement made under the original contract, but an agreement l' aimable, or, as the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) had phrased it, au amiable agreement by which the holders of stock in the East Indian Railway Company were entitled to have their choice between two forms of annuity, putting aside the subordinate offer as to Terminable Annuities. For the sake of his argument, he (Mr. Childers) would leave the last item out of sight altogether; but they had the choice, either of a perpetual annuity at 4 per cent on £125, or the equivalent, converted into an annuity terminable at 73 years, at £4 6s. percent. While he was debating the point yesterday, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India had said the annuity would be paid off in 10 years—the perpetual annuity. That was quite true; but it could only be paid off by Her Majesty's Government in 10 years; as far as the shareholder was concerned, he had only the choice between a terminable and a perpetual annuity; and, of course, the Government would not pay off the annuity, unless the rate of interest fell below 4 per cent. Practically, therefore, the shareholders had a choice between two annuities— a perpetual annuity, the interest of which was calculated at 4 per cent, and a terminable annuity of 73 years, at £ 4 6s. per cent. That being so, the question he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman was this— Why, if that agreement were such as it had been described, was the rate of interest for one annuity not to be paid at the same rate as the rate of interest for the other annuity? He

  1189
  thought the House was entitled to a distinct answer to that question, especially for the reason so strongly put forward yesterday, and, in particular, by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, that this was a contract altogether outside the original contract —a contract made between the Secretary of State in Council and the East Indian Railway Company, by which the shareholders in that Company were not to be tied down to the strict terms of the original contract; but questions as to terms that might, or might not be accepted, were left open. In reference to the terms of the new contract, it was most distinctly stated that the basis of the annuity had been taken at 4 per cent, because there was a certain analogy between the present arrangement and that which was contemplated by the original contract; and, therefore, he maintained that the House ought to be informed— this being the case— why was the terminable annuity calculated at £46s. per cent, and the perpetual annuity—for, so far as the shareholders in the East India Railway Company were concerned, he (Mr. Childers) believed it would be perpetual; because, unless the Government found it convenient to pay it off, it would be perpetual—calculated at 4 per cent? He thought that this was a fair question, and, at any rate, he anticipated that it would receive a complete answer.
  After a pause,
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had not risen at once to answer the question put to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), because he thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) might have desired to say something beforehand. He was very glad, However, to answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman was, perhaps, aware that, in accordance with the terms of the contract, the Government of India had only power to pay off the East India Railway Company in two ways. In the first place, they might pay in cash; and, in the second place, the payment might be made by means of an annuity. They had no power to pay in stock in any form whatever. Whom they came to negotiate with Mr. Crawford, the Chair-
  1190
  man of the Company, the suggestion was made to that gentleman whether, in making the negotiation, it was worth while to take into consideration the question of payment in stock? and the answer made by Mr. Crawford to that suggestion was that he was not prepared, on the part of the shareholders, to accept payment in stock. He said he was prepared to accept payment either in cash, or in the form of an annuity. That being so, the negotiations were carried on on that understanding, and the terms of the agreement, as they had now been arranged, were settled. After the terms had been thus settled, it was represented to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India that some of the shareholders who were trustees found themselves in this position — they were doubtful whether, under the terms of the trust, they could accept payment in the form of an annuity. On the contrary, they thought they could not do so, and that even if they could, they would be indisposed to accept a security which was not easily saleable; their view of the matter being that the annuities for 73 years would not be so saleable in the market as Government of India stock. Representations to that effect were made to the Secretary of State for India in Council; and he decided that he would, especially for the benefit of the trustees holding in the East India Railway Company, offer stock in lieu of annuities. After devoting due consideration to the matter, he determined on offering £125 4 percent stock, payable in 1888, a period whom the remainder of the 4 per cent stock was redeemable; and, considering the advantage the trustees would acquire in having offered to the a stock that would be readily saleable, instead of a security that would not be readily saleable, it was thought they would at once be prepared to accept the offer. Well, that offer was made to the shareholders, and the result was that the holders of something like £3,500,000 of capital had sought to commute their annuities for 4 per cent stock; but he believed that since Then some applications had been withdrawn. What would be the ultimate result he could not say; but he thought that the statement he had just made was a complete answer to the question put to him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should reserve some remarks he desired to make on the point that had just been raised until the Bill got into Committee, whom he would move an Amendment which he deemed germane to the matter. With regard to the question at that moment before the House— namely, that the Bill be considered— he should like, if it were in Order to do so, to move that the consideration of the Bill be postponed for a week, for a purpose which he would explain. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India had made a statement yesterday that had surprised him; and in regard to that statement, he (Sir George Campbell) thought he might say that it was to some extent, unintentionally, of course, misleading. The statement to which he referred was this— the House had been given to understand that in respect of the matter of the disputed interpretation of the contract the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had not acted without legal advice. The Under Secretary of State for India told the House that the Secretary of State for India in his Council had men who were eminent in many ways, and more especially in regard to their legal qualifications— that in fact, there were no men in England who were more able to give advice as lawyers. He (Sir George Campbell) shared the opinion of the hon. Gentleman on that point; but since the discussion that had taken place yesterday he had had the opportunity of making inquiry into the matter, and he understood that the legal Members of the Council of India had not had the legal question respecting the interpretation of that part of the clause in the contract which affected the rate of interest specifically placed before the for their opinion to be pronounced upon it. They had an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the general policy of the Government in the matter; but with regard to the particular point that had been raised, as to whether the phraseology of the contract in reference to the question of the rate of interest was such as to bear the construction that had been put upon it by the Government, he understood that the legal Members of the Council had not had that point distinctively brought before the, with a view to get from the legal interpretation which they would put upon it. Now, that seemed to him
  1192
  (Sir George Campbell) to be a very important matter. He was given to understand that the question of this negotiation had been referred to SIR Louis Mallet, the Permanent Under Secretary of State in the Indian Department. There was no man for whose opinion on such a matter he should have greater respect, nor in whom he could repose greater confidence than SIR Louis Mallet. SIR Louis Mallet was not only eminent as a man of business, but he was also what might be called a strict and severe man in regard to matters of finance. In point of fact, there was no man with whom he was acquainted who was more thoroughly and entirely beyond any possibility of imputation that he would be a party to a job of any kind than SIR Louis Mallet—no man in this respect whom he should think it more impossible to suggest as likely to be in any degree participator in a job—no man who had the finances of India more entirely at heart, or who would more willingly suggest anything which he conceived would be beneficial to the finances or people of India. -What had really happened in regard to the matter under discussion was this— Sir Louis Mallet being, as he had said, a very distinguished man of business — a man who was constantly concerned in great and important affairs—a man holding a high position in the India Office, and one who had rendered, in regard to great political and commercial questions, important services to this country—he being a man in an eminent position, and of such distinguished services and wide experience, was not a man who would be likely to have a minute knowledge of anything that savoured of petty stock-jobbing in the City. Tie was not a man likely to have to do with shares, or who could be expected to know from day to day the price of East India stock; and it was just because he was a man occupying so high a position, that it had never struck him, as it would have struck any more petty man of business dealing in petty stocks and shares, that the rate of interest mentioned in the contract was above the rate which the obligations of the East India Railway Company usually bore in the Stock Market. He (Sir George Campbell) had reason to believe that the legal Members of the Council of India were not personally responsible for the legal interpretation

  1193
  which had been put upon the clause. What he had been endeavouring to ascertain was who was personally responsible for that interpretation. As far as he had been able to discover from the evidence taken by the Committee, the only person who was in any degree responsible for the interpretation of the clause which had determined the rate of interest was a gentleman named Mr. Cave Browne, who held a subordinate position in the India Office. He (Sir George Campbell) had not the pleasure of knowing that gentleman; but he was informed that the position of Mr. Cave Browne in the India Office was not one that would entitle him to solve difficult points of this kind. He, being the gentleman who performed the accountant's part of the business, had, with a light heart, taken it upon himself to interpret a clause which no one else was able to interpret; and he had put an interpretation on it which was, to an extent, favourable to the East India Railway Company. The clause was placed before Sir Louis Mallet; but his personal attention was probably not called to the particular point now at issue— namely, the question of the rate of interest; it had unfortunately happened that that matter had escaped his attention, the result being that the people of India would be saddled with the payment of nearly £3,000,000, which, under another interpretation, they would not have been called on to pay. Let the now see what was the position of the matter at the present moment. The special Committee who had inquired into the case had made a unanimous Report, which conveyed a certain amount of censure on the officials at the India Office; and, moreover, the Resolution moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), which had been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and by the House, was also one which did, by implication, convey a certain amount off censure on Sir Louis Mallet and the other officials who had been concerned in this business. It seemed to him (Sir George Campbell), and he spoke as an admirer and friend of Sir Louis Mallet, that it would be a very great injustice to SIR Louis Mallet and these who had been officially engaged in this matter, to pass a censure on the and say—"You are wrong; you have been careless in this matter; but you have done what
  1194
  is irreparable, and as we cannot repair it, we are, consequently, bound to pass this Bill." For his part, he (Sir George Campbell) certainly took another and totally different view. He had not had the opportunity of consulting Sir Louis Mallet on the subject; but he would state his own view, which was this—If he were in Sir Louis Mallet's position, he should say to the House—" No; if I have made a mistake, it is not irreparable. The arrangement that has been made as between me and the East India Railway Company is one that has to be submitted for the sanction of Parliament. Parliament may, or may not, sanction that arrangement." The House knew that the Bill to give effect to the purchase of the East India Railway had come before the House in the form of a Private Bill. Let the House suppose for a moment that the case had been one of a Gas Bill, and it had turned out, while the Bill was still before the House, that a Corporation, which had made arrangements to buy up a Gas Company's property, had been misled in the calculation they had made, and had, consequently, agreed to give a price that was unfair to the ratepayers of the borough for which they were acting. What would the House do in such a case? He believed it would have no hesitation in rejecting the Bill, or in postponing its consideration, in order that an arrangement might be made of a fairer and more equitable nature. It seemed to him that this was the course which might very well be followed on the present occasion— indeed, that it was the course that ought to be followed in justice to so eminent a man as Sir Louis Mallet, whose action in the matter under discussion was called in question. It seemed to him that what had been done was not irreparable, and that if the House thought there had been an oversight— and he was sure it was nothing more than an oversight— they had it in their power to postpone the Bill in order that it might be further considered. They had been told that if they did not adopt the Bill there might be a large amount of litigation, which might lead to very great difficulties. He ventured to suggest a mode by which, as it seemed to him, they might, strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract, get over the difficulty. The contract provided for the case of any

  1195
  difficulty arising as to the interpretation of the clause with regard to the question of the rate of interest. It provided that, if any question should arise as to the rate of interest to be paid, the rate which should be fixed was to be ascertained by a reference to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. The object of that reference was to enable the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England— as persons who were thoroughly acquainted with financial and commercial matters, and who must naturally be acquainted with the state of the Money Market to make a calculation such as would put the Government and the East India Railway Company in possession of the real rate at which the interest should be fixed. But there was no doubt that this difficulty would arise. The Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England might say—" This point is referred to us as a financial question; but we find, on looking into the matter, that an extremely difficult legal question is also involved, and, consequently, we have a difficulty in arriving at a decision." Now his (Sir George Campbell's) suggestion was, that it would not be at all difficult, in making the reference to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, to say—" You may find a difficulty in regard to the legal interpretation of the clause, and if you do find any such difficulty, and it is necessary for you to take legal advice, we will bear the expense." If that position were granted, he could not see the least difficulty in the matter. The Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England would say—" We have been called on to make a calculation as to the rate of interest to be paid under the terms of the clause; but we have a difficulty as to its legal interpretation. Let us take the highest and most eminent legal advice that we can get. That advice will be paid for by the Government of India— we shall not involve ourselves in any personal responsibility on that account. We will procure the best possible legal advice, and the contract being interpreted by that advice, we will make the necessary financial and arithmetical calculations so as to make the Return which the contract requires." If that step were to be taken, the position of the Government
  1196
  would be wholly unassailable. The Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England would make a Return that would be legally binding on both parties, and which would render it impossible to have any further legal contest. He believed, therefore, that if the House would consent to delay further proceeding with the Bill, there would not be any substantial difficulty in settling the question of the rate of interest under the contract.
  He now came to the question, supposing the East India Railway Company should be unwilling to accept the terms that would thus be offered to the. There would only remain the supposed practical difficulty that might arise from their throwing the railway on the hands of the Government. Now, that was a matter of administration on which he did feel that he was in some degree qualified to offer an opinion; and he had a most decided opinion that in regard to this point there need be no practical difficulty whatever. He believed he was somewhat misunderstood yesterday by the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council (Lord George Hamilton) and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. E. Stanhope), both of whom seemed to suppose his view to be this—" If you do not satisfy the East India Railway Company by giving the good terms, you will have to take over their undertaking and manage it yourselves permanently." Now, that was not at all the view he had expressed. What he did say was, that if the East India Railway Company drove the Government into a corner, and said they must take over the railway, the officers employed in connection with that railway were at the present time so completely under the control of the Government officers, that the Government might take the railway rover without creating the smallest hitch or difficulty. They had no need to take it over permanently, if they should really be driven into a corner at the last moment; for he had not the least hesitation in saying that there would not be the least difficulty in taking over the main line on the 1st of February and rendering it back to the Company on the 1st of March, or any other month, in case they had in the meantime come to terms with the Company. Therefore, it did seem to him that there was no practical

  1197
  difficulty to apprehend in regard to this point, if the House would only consent to postpone further proceeding with the Bill as he had suggested. They had in SIR Louis Mallet a very eminent man, who possessed many excellent qualities that would be of great service in negotiating with the East Indian Railway Company; and if he did omit one important point, they must remember that no man could altogether guard against the possibility of error. His (Sir George Campbell's) own impression was that Sir Louis Mallet, if he were consulted on the matter, would be the first to say—" Do not censure me for what I have done, and Then pass your Bill; but if a mistake has been made, delay the passage of the measure, let me enter into further negotiations, and we will Then see what can be done." This was the view which he (Sir George Campbell) had taken on this subject, and he now appealed to Her Majesty's Government to adopt the course he had suggested. He would move, in conclusion, that the consideration of the Bill be postponed for a week.
  MR. D. TAYLORseconded the Amendment, but upon different grounds to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). That was a day usually set apart for Business in charge of private Members, and as the present was in many respects a Government Bill, he thought they ought to postpone it until some future day. It was scarcely fair to private Members that the day should be occupied with Government Business.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon Wednesday next."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, " That the word ' now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that the Government did not desire to stand in the way of Business in the hands of private Members; but the present Bill was a private one, and it had been put down by these in charge of it for that day, which was strictly within their right. If its consideration were now only permitted to proceed, it would be disposed of in a very short time. In reference to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), he (Mr. E. Stanhope) confessed it
  1198
  filled him with despair as to the possibility of governing India by means of a Council. He meant to speak, as, indeed, he always did, with the greatest respect of the Secretary of State for India's Council, and of every member of it. They had ever shown him the greatest possible kindness; but they and the House must remember that it was his business in that House to represent not only the Secretary of State for India, but his Council also; and it was hardly fair to him, for a member of that Council, who had an opportunity of putting his views on record, to allow matters to pass unanimously in Council, and afterwards to go to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, and authorise him to make different statements in the House of Commons.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that no member of the Indian Council ever went to him. On the contrary, he, that morning, went to one of these members.
  MR. E. STANHOPEremarked, that the hon. Gentleman had only put it in another form of words; for he understood that a member of the Council had taken the opportunity of making the hon. Member for Kircaldy the mouthpiece for expressing his views.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLdenied that any member of the Council had taken the opportunity of making him his mouth-piece. He called upon SIR Erskine Perry that morning, and asked him if he was responsible for a legal opinion, and he said he was not.
  MR. E. STANHOPEwas sorry that SIR Erskine Perry, who was a member of the Secretary of State for India's Council and a gentleman entitled to the greatest respect, should have taken that opportunity of expressing his views on the point. All he (Mr. E. Stanhope) could say with regard to the legal interpretation to be placed on the clause was, that the matter had been considered for years in the India Office. Sir Erskine Perry himself had written Minutes relating to it, and so, in fact, had several Members of the Council. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, having inquired since the previous day, thought he had discovered that the legal interpretation of the clause had been given by Mr. Cave Browne, a gentleman of the highest eminence, who had rendered great service in the India Office. But no one ever asked that gentleman for a legal opinion on the subject; he was a financial officer, who

  1199
  was asked for a financial report only. As a matter of fact, there was no secret as to the manner in which these negotiations were carried on. SIR Louis Mallet was appointed, with a sub-Committee of the Council, to negotiate with Mr. Crawford; and whom the terms were finally arrived at, they were laid before the Council as a whole, and the Secretary of State for India and his Council having considered the, unanimously accepted the. That being so, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) hoped the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy would withdraw the Motion he had made and allow the to proceed with the consideration of the Bill.
  MR. CHILDERSfelt it his duty to say, after the remarks which had been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), that on whatever side of the House they might sit they must all hope that what they had just heard would not be drawn into a precedent. Everybody had his opinions on a great many questions of public interest, and whom a conversation took place between an hon. Member of the House and a member of the Civil Service, it was always understood, However free the conversation might be, that it would not be repeated. If conversations such as that which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy appeared to have had with Sir Erskine Perry were to be repeated in that House, and a sort of misunderstanding were to arise between a permanent Civil servant and his official Chief, the first effect would be that the public generally would lose the advantage that they now had of these unrestricted, though confidential, conversations they had with members of the Civil Service. He, therefore, entirely concurred in the observations which had been made by the Under Secretary of State for India; and he trusted that, while SIR Erskine Perry would not suffer in the estimation of any of the on account of what had passed, they would not have the opinions, freely expressed in such conversations by permanent Civil servants, quoted in the House against their official Chief.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr.Fawcett) in introducing the Motion, and was perfectly prepared to support him, if it were necessary, in the view he
  1200
  took on that question. The hon. Member merely wished to challenge the preliminary proceedings, and, in doing so, made out a good case; but that case was at an end. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) did not think any variation had been made in the statement which would justify the House in throwing any permanent impediment in the way of the Bill becoming law. With respect to the Bill, its arrangement, and its sanction by the Secretary of State for India and his Council, he wished to say that there could be no finality in Public Business, if half-a-dozen men were to sit round a table, apparently transact certain business, and subsequently be permitted to say they did not go into the details which underlay the question and formed the substance of the arrangement. It would be stultifying themselves if they were to accept any such explanation in exoneration of these gentlemen; or if they were, for instance, not to take the present Bill as having received the full and substantial support of every Member of the Council of the Secretary of State for India who had not duly recorded his dissent. Under the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) would really promote Public Business by withdrawing his Motion.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had not made the Motion of which he had given Notice; but had made another of a totally different character, and one which would be still more detrimental to the Bill and the progress of Public Business. He proposed to re-consider the matter next week; but, surely, the subject had already been sufficiently debated. The arguments which the hon. Gentleman adduced against the Bill were really of the most untenable character. The state of the East India Loan, as it now existed, never entered into the minds of these who made the contract, and allowance must be made for the peculiar position in which the contracting parties stood at the time.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) that the question immediately before the House was the postponement of the consideration of the

  1201
  Bill for one week, and the right hon. Gentleman was now discussing a clause which it was proposed to amend after the House had decided the question immediately before it. He submitted it would be more convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would postpone his observations until they came to the consideration of the clause.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he was endeavouring to answer the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy's (Sir George Campbell's) speech on the Motion for postponement, and he wanted to show that there was no virtue in the hon. Gentleman's argument. The proposal of the hon. Member was that the Bill should be postponed, and the reason he gave was that there was a defect of a very serious character in relation to the payment of the annuities. The effect of the clause with regard to the rate of interest had been misinterpreted; for it was said, if there had been any doubt at all, recourse ought to have been had to the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. But these officials could not be called in by the Council at all, because the rate of interest was to be determined by the rate of interest received in a distinct period-24 months. That period never existed, for before its completion the present voluntary arrangement was made between the Indian Government and the Company. Although the contract to which the hon. Member had referred was there as a guide to the arrangements, it had no coercive power. This was a voluntary arrangement to which the contracts were a guide, but not the rule. Under the circumstances, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment, which would have the effect of postponing Public Business without any possible good result.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he could not agree with the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) in the general view he took of the question; but he did agree with him that there could be no advantage in postponing the consideration of the Bill. It was thoroughly discussed in Committee and in that House on the previous day, and, therefore, further delay would be disadvantageous. In justice to the Government of India, he must say that both the Secretary of State for India and the Permanent Under Secretary of State
  1202
  stated, in evidence given before the Committee, that it was distinctly assumed that the contracts were not binding; that they were merely to be taken as a basis of the treaty. It would be well if they were now to proceed with the consideration of the Bill, and with the clauses proposed to be amended by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell).
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was extremely reluctant to occupy the time, in as much as he had trespassed upon the patience of the House for such a considerable time on the previous evening. He would, However, venture to make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), in the face of the debate of the previous day, not to press his Motion to a Division. He (Mr. Fawcett) was afraid that, if he did so, a very erroneous impression would be produced. Moreover, if the Motion were rejected by a large majority— and, as no sufficient Notice had been given, the vote would not be a fair test of the opinion of the House— the interpretation put upon the Division would be that a majority approved of the Bill. Now, what took place on the previous day seemed to him to be this— they decided that they did not approve of the Bill, and that, consequently, a Resolution was passed unanimously by the House, which, if not a censure upon the Secretary of State for India and his Council, was, at least, an authoritative reminder that what they had done with regard to the present matter must never be done again. He should not have made any further remarks; but he did agree with what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. E. Stanhope), that it was unfortunate to single out one Member of the Council, and in consequence of a private conversation which an hon. Member had had with him, to make out that he was not responsible for something for which he was responsible. Whatever any Member of the Council might say, they could not throw away from themselves the responsibility for the Bill. Every Member of the Council was responsible for it; it was laid before him; his attention to these points which had been raised might not have been specially directed, but the Bill might have been considered by every Member of the

  1203
  Council, and it was his duty to consider it with just as much care as it had been considered by the Committee to which the Bill had been referred, and as it had been discussed by the House. They could not say now that they had never considered it, and were, therefore, not responsible for it. It seemed to him (Mr. Fawcett) that a very important lesson might be drawn with regard to the duty of the House in reference to the future government of India. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), referring to the words of the contract upon which that important dispute had arisen— a dispute which, in this transaction, involved the sum of no less than £3,000,000— said, speaking with his great commercial experience— " A more unbusiness-like contract was never entered into; " and Then he said that the East India Company was responsible for it. The House, However, was responsible, and someone else was also responsible. The President of the Board of Control was responsible, and the House was responsible, because they could not lose sight of the fact that these contracts were submitted to the House; and just in the same way, as he maintained, that the Council of the Secretary of State for India could not escape the responsibility for what had been done in reference to the Bill, that House could not escape the responsibility of sanctioning contracts which they now said were the most unbusiness-like ever entered into. That showed the great importance of their keeping a careful, watchful, and incessant eye upon Indian Business. They would thus render great service to the Secretary of State for India in Council, because of what was done with regard to the present Bill. It had slipped through the India Office without proper criticism; it was on the point of slipping through that House, because the Government were going to refer it to an ordinary Private Bill Committee. No evidence would have been taken, because they could not take evidence on a Private Bill, if it were unopposed. There was no one to oppose it; in fact, it was only to be opposed on grounds of public policy. That showed the great importance of a careful watch over every Bill affecting India brought into the House. Had proper care been exercised in that instance, he
  1204
  believed the purchase of the East India Railway would have turned out more advantageously for India than it would under the present circumstances. He did not call the transaction a bad one, because, on the whole, he believed it would turn out advantageously. At any rate, great good would come out of the discussion which had taken place, and out of the exhaustive examination which the Bill received by the Committee to which it was referred. The Secretary of State for India in Council might take a lesson, and might receive a warning from the Bill which it would be prudent not to ignore. They might also know from what had taken place that a change had at length come over the House of Commons with regard to the administration of India. He believed the House had, at length, so much awakened to the critical position of Indian affairs, and to the importance of Indian affairs being carefully considered, that the Secretary of State for India in Council might know that henceforth the House would not permit laxity to remain unchecked. He did once more appeal to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy not to take a Division, which would be misunderstood, and which, to a certain extent, would take away the good they had already effected.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing, although he would much rather his Motion was negatived than withdrawn. With regard to the present question raised, he had already corrected the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India, whom he said that a Member of the Indian Council had made him his mouth-piece. In that respect the hon. Gentleman was entirely in error. He must also protest against the suggestion that he had in any way betrayed a private conversation. What had happened was this. Having refreshed his memory by reference to the report of what had happened on the previous day— that was, of what the Under Secretary of State for India had said, he, on coming down to the House that morning, called on SIR Erskine Perry. He said—" I am going down to the House about the East India Railway Bill. I want to know whether you have ever given a legal opinion with regard to the interpretation of the In-

  1205
  terest Clause?" SIR Erskine Perry said—" No; I never gave an opinion. As a matter of fact, this particular point was not brought before the Council specially." SIR Erskine Perry did not deny the responsibility, in common with other Members of the Council, for having, passed the measure as a whole; but he did deny that, as a lawyer, his opinion was ever asked as to the interpretation of the Interest Clause. He (Sir George Campbell) did not think he had been guilty of any betrayal of confidence. He had only named Sir Erskine Perry whom he found that a wholly erroneous construction was put on the affair, and he thought it best to make a clean breast of it. He must very earnestly dissent from the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who regarded the Members of the Council of India as permanent Civil servants in the ordinary sense. He took it that they were in an entirely different position; they were a class of men appointed for a number of years or for life—[" Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) was proceeding beyond the bounds of a personal explanation.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,referring to the allegation that the Indian Council had not been consulted as to that particular clause, desired to state what had actually happened. A special Committee of the Council was appointed to consider the details of the arrangement, and it was composed partly of the Finance and partly of the Railway Committees. They went very carefully into every detail of the arrangement, and on that Committee was SIR Erskine Perry.
  MAJOR NOLANprotested against the present course of Public Business. The seven first Bills upon the Paper for that day were Irish Bills; yet they were precluded from being taken, on account of a Government Bill; for although the Bill was in the charge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), it amounted to a Government measure. He (Major Nolan) maintained that, in consequence of it being taken that day, there had been a great curtailment of the time at the disposal of Irish Members. He protested against the present invasion of the rights of private Members, and thought that Irish Busi-
  1206
  ness ought not to be impeded in that manner.
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it must be borne in mind that this was a Private Bill, which was introduced, not by the Government, but by the Chairman of the Committee to whom it was referred. The main discussion upon the Bill took place the previous day, at a time which would have been appropriated to Government Business, and the consequence of the long discussion which took place, and of the whole of the Morning Sitting being occupied by the debate, was that no Government Business could be proceeded with. They had every reason to suppose that after the full discussion which the Bill received the previous day only a few minutes would have been required today to consider the particular Amendments. They really thought the question was substantially settled.
  SIR JOHN HAY,in reference to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan), pointed out that on the Wednesday in last week, whom Irish Business was first on the Paper, a House was not made until late. He wished to call the attention of the House to that matter, to show that the Wednesdays, which were sometimes devoted to Irish Business, were not so eagerly seized upon.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, the House was made last Wednesday about five minutes past 12 o'clock; it was, in fact, the earliest House made that year. The right hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir John Hay) was, therefore, very unfortunate in his illustration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  SIR. GEORGE CAMPBELLbegged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. He proposed, in Clause 7, page 20, line 3, to leave out—
  "One million four hundred and seventy three thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds, being at the rate of four pounds ten shillings,"
  and insert—
  "One million three hundred and sixty-four thousand three hundred and ten pounds, being at the rate of four pounds three shillings and three pence three farthings."
  His Amendment was intended to carry out the view of the large part of the

  1207
  Committee on the Bill, and, if carried, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) might take the Bill or leave it. The effect of it was that the rate of interest on which the annuity should be calculated should be taken at about £4 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) very forcibly showed good reason why not more than £ 4 per cent should be given to these annuity holders in regard to their claims; and he (Sir George Campbell) thought that, in some respects, the case was even stronger than the right hon. Gentleman had put it; for whereas these who accepted the 4 per cent stock were only secured till 1888, the holders of this annuity were secured for 73 years. The Amendment must commend itself to many hon. Members of the House, because it was an Amendment which was proposed to be inserted in the Bill by three Members of the Committee who sat on the Bill—namely, the hon. Members for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), and Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). These hon. Gentlemen were only out-voted by the casting vote of the Chairman, and, that being so, he (Sir George Campbell) had thought it right to submit the Amendment to the House, whether the House would accept it or not. As to the ground on which he submitted the Amendment, no doubt, it entirely depended upon the interpretation of the clause, which had already been the subject of debate, in the House. According to one interpretation of the clause, the amount to be given to the East India Company was £1,473,750, while, according to another interpretation, the amount was £1,364,310. It was a question as to which was the right interpretation of the clause. It seemed to him that no competent authority of any kind had expressed an opinion with regard to the interpretation of the clause. He ventured to say, again, so far as his information went, that the attention of the legal Members of the Council of the Secretary of State for India was never specially directed to the clause, and that they did not bind themselves to an opinion upon it. He was anxious to justify himself in regard to quoting the opinion of one of these Members, and he asserted positively that the Members of the Council of the
  1208
  Secretary of State for India were not in the position of the ordinary permanent Civil servants. They held independent positions, and they had a right to record their opinion in a totally different manner from that of permanent Civil servants. If that had been a question between the Secretary of State for India and ordinary permanent Civil servants, it would have been a totally different matter, and he would have done wrong in getting an opinion from the, or they in giving one.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he was bound to say that the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) was not speaking to the Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLconcluded by moving the Amendment.
  [There being no Seconder, the Amendment was not put to the House.]
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had three other Amendments on the Paper; but the only one he wished to move was, to add to the end of Clause 31 the words—
  "Each amount of twenty pounds or more, to two votes; each amount of one hundred pounds or more, to three votes; and each amount of one hundred pounds above the first hundred, to one additional vote."
  The effect of the clause in question was to throw an enormous power in the hands of the great and rich shareholders of the Company, and to make the direction of the Company nothing more than a close corporation even much more than it was now. His Amendment would remedy that state of things; but if the clause were allowed to be carried unaltered, the effect would be to make a close corporation a great deal closer still.
  [There being again no Seconder, the Amendment was not put to the House.]
  Bill agreed to; and to be read the third time.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SPIRITS IN BOND BILL— [BILL 19.]
  (Mr. O'Sullivan, Major Nolan, Blennerhassett, Captain Pin, Mr. Stacpoole.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he did not intend to commend the

  1209
  spirits of one country more than that of another, neither did he intend drawing any invidious distinction between one make of spirits and the other. He would merely try to improve all spirits, treat the all on the same ground, and then let each stand on its own merits. This was not a question of trade in any sense of the term, as the trade was not financially interested either in the defeat or the success of the measure now before the House; but, from a humane and morale point of view, he believed that the fair traders throughout these Kingdoms would view with satisfaction the passing of such a Bill, as they were well aware of the injurious effects of whisky of all kinds whom used in its new and unmatured state. It was not the maker of spirits, nor the dealer in spirits, or the retailer of spirits, who would reap any benefit by the passing of the Bill; but, simply and solely, the consumers of spirits in all parts of these Kingdoms, and more particularly the very poor portion of the consumers, as the wealthy consumers took care they got what was well matured. He would endeavour to show, from several eminent authorities, the injurious effects of new spirits both on the health and sanity of the consumer, and he would Then expect the passing of the second reading of the Bill without a Division. He would, in particular, ask the support of his temperance Friends in the House for the Bill, for he believed that their wish was to prevent the manufacture of spirits of all kinds. That they could never expect to accomplish in that enlightened age of liberty; but whom they-could not do that, they should try to make the article as pure and as harmless as possibly could he done. He would impress upon the House the fact that it was fusil oil which caused the greater part of the ill effects of drinking whisky. If mixed with tea, it would produce the same effect, so that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had only to pour fusil oil into his tea in order to produce the same effect as if he had taken whisky. He might be met by the Government, who might say it would be an inconvenience to rectifiers if the Bill were passed. In answer to that, he would admit it might cause some inconvenience to rectifiers; but they were a very small class, and their objections could be
  1210
  easily met by allowing the to rectify in bond under the supervision of the Excise. He believed if the Bill passed into law, as he hoped it would, it would do more for real temperance and moderation than all the Temperance Bills brought before the House during the present Parliament. He did not expect the House would be led into voting one way or the other by his opinion on the subject; but he would be able to quote for the House the opinions of some of the ablest analysts and Professors of the present day in favour of the Bill, which, he trusted, would prove to the House the necessity there was for such a measure. He might further add that he believed such a step as he was about to propose had been recommended by the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Intemperance. In giving his authorities in support of his Bill, he would first give the opinion of analysts and Professors, as he thought that the most important evidence to rely on. Professor Estcourt, whom writing his Report to the Corporation of Manchester, in July, 1877, on the subject of food sold in the City of Manchester, on the subject of whisky, wrote as follows:—
  "In Manchester the whisky was found to be genuine, in the sense that it contained no added impurities. I, However, found that it contained, as in all other towns, a large proportion of new, raw grained spirit. This crude spirit is, no doubt, largely responsible for the evil effects so strongly pourtrayed by recent speakers upon drunkenness. I would call your attention to the fact that the remedy for this state of things is in the hands of the general public. An Act compelling distillers to keep all spirits in bond for at least one year would at once care the evil so far as the quality of the spirit is concerned."
  Then he went on to condemn the practice of blending, with which lie (Mr. O'Sullivan) would not trouble the House, as it was outside the scope of the Bill, and he added—
  " The distillers, on their part, fear to move in the matter, lest the privilege they at present enjoy of turning the burning, poisonous, raw spirit (not more in some cases than a week old) into the market should be taken from the."
  On that point, he must differ from the writer, as he was aware, as a fact, that the very large majority of the respectable distillers, both in Ireland and in Scotland, were in favour of the Bill. He Then continued—
  "In this state of things, these who take a prominent part in the prevention of drunken-

  1211
  ness, frequently caused by the fiery quality of the spirit rather than the quantity taken, have here presented to the something tangible to work for. An Act compelling distillers to held spirits in bond at least one year after they are manufactured, would be a most important step in the right direction."
  He Then wound up—
  "In a country whore so many millions are annually spent upon ardent spirits, it is advisable that the article sold should be rendered as little poisonous as possible."
  He would now read an extract from a letter which he received from Professor Cameron, of Dublin, on the 23rd of this month—
  "15, Pembroke Road, Dublin, 21st June, 1879.
  "My DEAR SIR—Many thanks for the copy of the Bill relating to the storing of whisky in bond. I hope it may become law. The popular notion that whisky is largely adulterated with bluestone, oil of vitriol, and other articles is wholly unfounded. Last year I made several examinations of whisky taken from all parts of Ireland by the Constabulary, and only found one sample adulterated. Most of the specimens were, However, far too new and fiery to be fit for use. They contain fusil oil in large excess. Such whisky must prove injurious whom drank even in not very large quantities. Should your Bill become law, the sale of such whisky as that will no longer be permitted, and great good will result there from. The ill-effects produced upon the body and mind of man by fusil oil can hardly be exaggerated. The Government should have power to disallow whisky to be used before being a year old.—Yours, my dear SIR, very truly"
  CHARLES A. CAMERON.
  "W. H. O'Sullivan, Esq., M.P."
  He would also refer the House to the same gentleman's evidence given before a Select Committee of the House in 1874, on the Adulteration of Food and Drugs Act, which showed that the Professor was in favour of such a movement as the one under notice at that time. J. Emerson Reynolds, M.D., Professor of Chemistry, Trinity College, Dublin, said—
  "I have always attached great importance to the practical freedom of whisky from fusil oil, as the latter is an organic mixture, which exerts a distinct poisonous action on the animal organism, and I am well aware that now whisky too often contains this noxious body in considerable quantities,"
  Professor Burrell, of Rotterdam, writing to him (Mr. O'Sullivan), said—
  " I have for a long time occupied myself with the hope of checking the evils arising from the consumption of newly-made spirits, and have thus become acquainted with many others who have great weight and authority on such matters. The starting point is that alcohol
  1212
  purified from its fusil oil is perfectly harmless; but, on the contrary, it is rank poison when taken in its newly-made state. I am ready to prove that the matter extracted from it by a simple mechanical process will, if added to tea or coffee, produce every symptom of drunkenness, madness, delirium tremens, and even death."
  In France, he would state that, according to Mr. Jarell, out of 15,866 cases of madness, 3,445 arose from drinking new-made spirits. Having given the House the opinions of the different Professors and analysts in favour of his Bill, he would now give the opinion of the Press on the subject; but, before quoting from the Press in favour of the Bill, he would show them, by reading a short extract from a report in the Freeman's Journal, of the evil effects of this new-made spirit on the consumers. At Magherafelt Quarter Sessions, in January, 1870, the Bo'ness Distillery Company of Scotland sued one John Magee for the price of a cask of spirits supplied to him, and for which he refused to pay on account of the badness of its quality. The defendant proved that he opened the cask the day he got it, and gave about a glass and a-half to a boy named Bradley. Immediately after drinking it, Bradley leaped clean off the ground, and Then threw himself down with his mouth and nose against the ground. Whom lying on the ground, he attempted to eat the flesh of his arms. Four men had to held him to prevent him injuring himself. Ultimately, he got an emetic which relieved him. When he recovered, he had no remembrance whatever of what occurred. The defendant took a sample of the whisky to Dr. Hedges, Belfast, to be analysed, whom he received the following certificate:—
  "I certify that the whisky placed in my hands by John Magee is contaminated by the presence of a large amount of fusil oil."
  He could bring many more cases like this; but he did not wish to take up the time of the House. The first extract he would read from was The Sanitary Record, which must be looked on as an authority on such a subject. It said on the 2nd of March—
  "An analysis and report of spirits purchased as Irish whisky in the Whitechapel district. Eleven samples purchased at so many different houses, largely patronized by workmen about the docks, labourers out of employment, and dwellers in the houses about the river. The general result of analysis is that they are deficient in genuine proof spirit, yet they are

  1213
  more fiery and biting than genuine Irish whisky, We met two old acquaintances, fusil oil and silent spirit, so well known from the blending process alloyed in the stores of Her Majesty's Customs."
  He would next refer to a leader in The Irish Times, which went to show that the Bill was a step in the right direction. He would lastly quote from an article in The Hornet, which wrote—
  "It is a fable to say that publicans in London use vitrol or turpentine; but they corrode the throats and stomachs of their customers quite as surely by using raw new spirits, which, like Cape brandy, eats the mucous membrane as nitric acid eats a copper plate. In the first place, they buy German spirit, which is made from all sorts of things, wood included, which can be purchased in London at ls. the proof gallon. They Then improve the poison with prime wine, honey, pine, &c., and sell it as whisky. More of the save themselves the trouble by getting so-called Irish whisky at 2s. 6d. per gallon from Belfast. Such spirit whom new is rank poison."
  He could quote from several other papers recommending the terms of the Bill; but he trusted he had shown sufficient proof that such a measure was badly required. His Bill did not prevent the sale and re-sale of spirits in bond of any and every age; but it prevented spirit being sent into consumption at a time whom it was unfit for human use. The present system of allowing an article into consumption, containing a certain amount of injurious ingredients, must entail a very serious responsibility on the Government, should they refuse to check such a practice whom the remedy was in their own hands. It was no exaggeration to say that at least two-thirds of the drunkenness of the country arose from the use of inferior new spirits made from rice, molasses, damaged Indian corn, and potatoes. The Bill really offered a premium to make a good article, because the bad article, if retained in bond for 12 months, would become useless; whereas sound and fairly-made whisky would improve and increase in value. It would be to the interest of the trade to support the Bill, and he confidently asked the House to read it a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the B111 be now read a second time."—(Mr. 0' Sullivan.)
  MR. KAVANAGHsaid, that if the proposal to read the Bill a second time
  1214
  had required a seconding, he should have been very happy to fulfil that duty towards it; because, as far as he understood the question, he believed the measure would forward the object that he had in view in supporting the Sunday Closing Bill. He did not propose to occupy the time of the House at any great length, because, as he said, he did not understand the question as thoroughly as he ought— and, indeed, he owed the House an apology for venturing to trespass on their time on a subject with which he was not as fully acquainted as he should be. Although the Bill was a very short one, containing only three clauses, yet the question was, on the whole, a largo one. It involved two sets of interests. In the first place, it involved directly the interest of the distiller of spirits, and the importer of the. He need not touch upon that interest, because the distillers and the gentlemen engaged in the trade of importing spirits were quite capable of taking care of themselves. If they had apprehended any bad results to themselves from the passing of the Bill, it would not have been allowed to reach its present stage without an Amendment for its rejection being put down on the Paper. Therefore, he assumed from that fact that there was no objection raised to the Bill by the traders or distillers. The only interest, Then, upon which he would touch was what he might call the interest of the consumer; and, considering it from that point of view, they were immediately brought face to face with the grave and important question of intemperance. Nobody would deny the importance which that question was to England, Ireland, and Scotland. Intemperance was one of the most costly crimes, if he might so call it, from which the country suffered. Their goals, their hospitals, and their workhouses were filled with the effects of drunkenness. Poverty, want, and crime were its inseparable companions; and if they could in any way, directly or indirectly, manage to abate the evil, the House should not grudge a little time for that purpose. So far as he understood the question, he must tender his thanks to the hon. Member who had brought forward the Bill. In what he was now going to say he did not wish to make any reflection upon his own countrymen; but it had often been to him a cause of great surprise

  1215
  why, in Ireland, intemperance should be so very frequently attended with deeds of violence. He had often wondered whether there was anything peculiarly constitutional in the poorer class of his countrymen who used whisky to drive the to commit deeds of violence. Nobody who had had experience in Ireland of largo fairs and other places, whore whisky was the chief thing consumed, but must know that drunkenness had the effect of driving the unfortunate victim mad. It had not that effect in other countries whore beer and porter were used; for, in these cases, the extreme stage of drunkenness was torpor and stupidity. But the effect of whisky drinking was the exact opposite. That pointed directly to the fact, either that in the lower classes who used whisky there was some constitutional peculiarity, or that the spirits themselves were bad. He need not say that there was no constitutional peculiarity, and, as a matter of fact, it must be that the spirits supplied were not as pure and as old as they should be. He had been told that the real cause of all this was that the spirits were adulterated with vitriol, and he did not know how many other horrible things. That might be so; but that view was not supported by the opinions which the hon. Member had read to the House. He did not think that adulteration was practised so largely as they were led to suppose. He believed the real cause was the newness of the spirits. At present, the spirit being sold almost immediately after it had been made, its evil nature could not be discovered; but if it were kept for one year in bond, it would become so bad and deteriorated as to be utterly unsaleable, and, therefore, in passing the Bill, they would make it the object of distillers to distil nothing but real and pure spirits. That, of itself, would be a great gain. But whom they knew that age divested spirits of a very great deal of this deleterious quality, there was an additional reason in favour of the Bill. He considered that these were quite reasons enough to warrant him in supporting the second reading of the Bill. He was not disposed to raise any objection to the Bill; he only feared that, by detaining all spirits in bond for 12 months, the effect of immediately passing it might be to raise the price of the article and thus offer a premium to adulteration. Therefore, some safeguard
  1216
  in that direction was necessary. Perhaps some objection might be taken to including all spirits in the Bill, and that might not be necessary; but the measure was deserving of support.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was glad to find that the hon. Member who moved the second reading of the Bill (Mr. O'Sullivan) went so far along with him, that he professed a great anxiety to get rid of fusil oil. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was a co-worker with the hon. Gentleman, for he had done so himself in 1872. There was a clause in the Licensing Bill inflicting penalties on these who adulterated drink; a number of articles were specified, but he did not find fusil oil among the, and he tried to get it inserted, in consequence of representations Which had been made respecting the dreadful effects produced by its use. He applied to the Home Office, Then to the Local Government Board, and he was referred back to the Home Office, but without success. He hoped the hon. Member would be more successful in his crusade against it than he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had been. The hon. Member was inconsistent in one matter; for, whereas he had often talked in the House about the impossibility of making people sober by Act of Parliament, he was now engaged attempting that alleged impossibility, for, after all, this little Bill was an attempt in that direction. It was a philanthropic measure to prevent the use of fusil oil by Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman had, further, made copious reference to his temperance Friends. Now, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson; objected to be called "a temperance Friend," or to being specially identified with a "Temperance Party." He was not more in favour of temperance than the hon. Gentleman, and he did not profess to belong to the Temperance Party any more than the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse). The hon. and learned Member for Leeds believed, just as he did, that drunkenness was a great evil; but, while the hon. and learned Member was of opinion that the existing law checked drunkenness, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was deSirous of introducing certain alterations into it. He was anxious to know what the objections to the Bill were. He had asked the Secretary to the Treasury what he intended to do

  1217
  with regard to the Bill, and was only told that his hon. Friend intended to wait until he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) spoke. For his own part, he saw no harm in the Bill; but, like all other Bills, he thought it might be improved, and, with that view, might, perhaps, propose some little alterations in Committee. For instance, in the clause providing that spirits should be kept in bond one year, be might move to leave out " one," and insert "a hundred." If the alteration were made, Then indeed, there would be some chance of a good result. He thought the hon. Member was a little too sanguine in his hopes that the measure would cure drunkenness. He said if they could only get rid of the fusel oil the spirit would be harmless. He said if he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) put fusil oil in his tea lie should be made drunk. But if lie put alcohol into his tea, would not that also niche him drunk? He did not understand that fusil oil was found, at any rate, to any appreciable extent, either in beer or wine—[Mr. SULLIVAN: Yes.]— he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not think it existed to any great extent; and yet, from inquiries which had been made in Liverpool, it was shown that the greatest amount of drunkenness was caused by the consumption of beer. There was something more than fusil oil in spirits to make people drunk. The hon. Member lied for once hit the right nail on the head, whom he said there was not much in the outcry about adulteration of spirits. That was his (Sir Wilfrid Lawson's) own belief. It lied been very much his mission to defend the publicans of this country. He seldom made a speech without doing so. He said the publicans were among the best of men—if he did not say that, he should lie told—" Oh, you must get a new set of publicans, and that would cure the evil." On the other hand, he maintained that the publicans were selected for their high moral properties and carrying on their business according to law. He did not believe that they adulterated to any great extent. Indeed, they did not adulterate— they only diluted; they added a great deal of water, and the more the better. It was the alcohol, not the fusil oil, that was the real evil. SIR William Gull heel told the Lords, in the Committee on Intemperance, that alcohol was the most destructive agent in the country. Another
  1218
  great medical authority had told the that the greatest amount of disease, not among poor people only, but among the upper classes also, flowed from the moderate and daily consumption of alcohol. He would conclude with one observation. If the hon. Member who brought forward the Bill thought there was so much evil in fusil oil, why did lie and 10 or 11 of his Friends keep the House up for so many nights last Session, whom an effort was made to put down the sale of such mischievous stuff on Sunday all over Ireland? He had more hope of him now that he had joined the ranks of temperance reformers. The hon. Member had said, eloquently, that society, religion, and humanity called for the suppression of the sale of new spirit. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) agreed with him, and he said that society, religion, and humanity called for the suppression of the new and old spirit. He was not without hope that, after this favourable commencement of his career, his hon. Friend would, on the next occasion that a Bill was proposed for checking the sale and consumption not only of fusil oil, but also of alcohol, prove himself, instead of a staunch opponent, one of his heartiest supporters in his endeavour to promote one of the greatest reforms that could be introduced for the good of the people of this country.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought the measure was one which, so far as it went, would effect some good. He should not have thought it necessary to take any part in the debate had it not been that the observations of the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Kavanagh) might give rise to an erroneous impression, both inside and outside the House, as to the sources of intemperance in the United Kingdom. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) agreed with the hon. Baronet who had just spoken (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) that the inordinate consumption of alcohol, in whatever form, was the great evil against which they had to contend. Taking the whole alcohol consumed as being represented by the figure 100, only 3 out of the 103 parts were consumed in wine, 26 to 28 per cent were consumed in the form of spirits, and 67 to 69 in the form of beer. The injurious effects of alcohol were in the ratio of the alcohol itself, wholly irrespective of the vehicle in which it was

  1219
  conveyed; and he was equally in favour of taxing alcohol according to its volume, whether in wine, spirits, or beer. Let alcohol, whether regarded as an enemy or a friend, be dealt with fairly and equally wherever found. With respect to Ireland and Scotland, whore the consumption of alcohol principally took place in the form of proof spirits, diluted more or less with water, lie ventured to say that the criminal statistics of these two countries, relatively to population, would compare favourably with the criminal statistics of England. The proportion consumed in Ireland was as 5 to 7 in Scotland, and between 11 and 12 in England, and yet the English paid less in taxes on the alcohol they consumed than did the Irish or the Scotch; and lie was in favour of abolishing the distinction in that respect. The Englishman had a climate ands was engaged in occupations which were favourable to indulgence in beer, and had the advantage of being able to get twice as much alcohol in that vehicle at about half the cost that the Irishman or Scotch-man paid for the beverage more suited to his climate.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he had hitherto, on many occasions, taken a different line to that adopted by his hon. Friend who introduced the Bill (Mr. O'Sullivan); but he was happy, in reference to the present Bill, to support his proposal. He agreed that the provisions of the Bill were very important, and lie believed that the carrying of it would go a long way towards diminishing drunkenness. He, as a magistrate, had seen the extraordinarily injurious effects of raw spirits. In his district the magistrate had often ordered the analysis of spirits from a belief that they must have been adulterated, in consequence of their extraordinary and maddening effect upon these who partook of the. But, in the great majority of cases, no adulteration was discovered, and the evil could only be traced to fusil oil. It was the duty of the Legislature to guard the public against the deleterious effects of fusil oil, as well as against the adulteration of whisky, for the consequences were as injurious as if they were produced by adulteration; and, therefore, it was equally the duty of the State to prevent the, if it were possible, by such a simple measure as keeping spirits in bond for a year. No one had yet
  1220
  opposed the Bill, and he hoped the Government would abstain from doing so, and that they would see their way to allowing the Bill to pass.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he should not have risen, but that his name had been mentioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) under circumstances conveying something approaching, to a sneer on a subject upon which he (Mr. Wheelhouse) was probably as much interested as even the hon. Gentleman himself.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to explain. He said he quite believed the hon. and learned Member for Leeds was a strong advocate of temperance, quite as much as anyone else. He did not sneer at him.
  MR. WHOELHOUSEsaid, he was quite willing to accept that view, but could not help noticing the way in which the hon. Baronet had compared his own ideas with these which he (Mr. Wheelhouse) professed. While the hon. Baronet knew perfectly well that However necessary they might both consider temperance and moderation in most things, one of the went much further than the other on this particular point, the hon. Baronet practically declaring that there could he no moderation in reference to alcoholic drink at all. Therefore, it seemed unnecessary that he (Mr. Wheelhouse) should be challenged as being just as much an advocate of temperance as the hon. Baronet, and that his name should be placed in juxtaposition with the view the hon. Baronet took immediately afterwards. He made these remarks for this reason— he should really do injustice to himself and to his own feelings — he should do even a greater injustice to the feelings of a very largo majority of the people of this country— if he did not re-iterate at this moment a view about which, whatever might be thought of it either here or elsewhere, there could be no doubt— namely, that while a very large body of persons in that House and in the country generally felt that moderation in all things, whether in drink or in anything else, was the only line and rule permissible to human conduct, these people said as strongly and strenuously as anyone could that they disliked drunkenness in all its shapes and forms just as much as the hon. Baronet himself disliked it. But whom, because certain

  1221
  Gentlemen felt that alcohol in every form was objectionable, they were told that no intoxicating drink ought ever to be taken by anybody, he contended that was a doctrine which could not be accepted. Every man should exercise his own discretion, as long as he did no harm to anybody. With regard to the Bill before the House, he apprehended there could not be two opinions. Even supposing it did no good, it would be difficult to point out any harm it could do — none, so far even as the distiller himself was concerned. Distillers usually made so much spirit that they had an opportunity of keeping it such a length of time as to make a year's probation a matter of no consequence. If, by any accident, the Bill should damage the small manufacturers, of whom there were very few, that ought not to stand in the way of passing such a measure as this, the object of which was to get rid of matter that was admitted to be deleterious in raw spirits. The removal of that objectionable matter, by insuring spirits being kept in bond until they were mellow and ready for drinking, would do a great deal to stop drunkenness in its worst form— namely, that maddening effect of which mention had been made. There could, therefore, be no doubt that it was deSirable such a measure should pass. He understood it might be looked upon as a tentative operation, and if it were found not to answer its intention, it might be repealed, or, better still, amended so as to admit of exceptive treatment with spirits from abroad, if thought necessary or deSirable; bat, at any rate, if they passed it to-day— which lie was glad to feel was more than likely to be the case— they should have done something that was beneficial according to the opinion of these who best knew the effects upon the population of the practice of drinking raw spirit. They would soon know what good had been effected, and if they once set their minds to work upon questions of chemistry on these matters other beneficial measures might follow. He thought they might do very much indeed by taking away the deleterious material from home-made spirits; and he was one of these who believed that if it was possible it was their duty to remove from people who were in the habit of drinking spirits to any extent whatever the possibility of being mad-
  1222
  dened by that deleterious matter. He was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) call attention to the fact that in Ireland especially, in Scotland to a very considerable extent, and in England to some degree, they had a class drinking spirits, who very possibly could scarcely afford to drink anything else but spirits— he meant the poorer artizans of the other Kingdom especially. If they could do anything— he eared not how little—but if they could do anything at all to provide that what was taken by the wage class of the three countries should be less deleterious, he considered they were bound to take the necessary steps in order to insure that what they took was as good as it possibly could be. If they could make any improvement in any article of consumption, whether it was ardent spirits, or beef, or beer, or anything else, Then they ought to do so; but it would be unreasonable to say that the use of beer, or beef, or anything else ought to be abolished because the use was abused in some cases. Under the circumstances, he, for once, should be very happy indeed to find himself, not in the same Lobby—for lie understood there was to be no Division upon the measure--but following the same tone of thought, to this extent, as the hon. Member opposite (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and lie had great pleasure in supporting the Bill.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, he was glad to find that, not with standing the passage of aims between the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse), an occasion had arisen on which these hon. Members, like brethren, "could dwell together in unity." The Bill was an exceedingly simple one in its nature, but if they could secure the object aimed at by it, it would prove to be of muck value; and although there might possibly some question arise as to the framing of it, he thought that could be easily settled whom they got into Committee. The object of the measure was a most desirable one. There could be no matter of question whatever that age, and age alone, was the thing which destroyed the fusil oil in spirits. It had been objected that if the Bill became law it would affect the supply of whisky in the United Kingdom for at least one

  1223
  year, and thus affect the Revenues of the country; but he thought it was well known that the stocks of whisky in the United Kingdom were much more than sufficient for one year's consumption, and, therefore, no inconvenience could possibly be felt from passing the measure. He did not think any serious objection could be taken to the measure, and hoped that Her Majesty's Government would, at all events, allow it to pass a second reading.
  BRUENthought the Bill seemed to involve one rather important principle, and that was whether the Government were responsible for the quality of an article which was very largely consumed, and from which the Government itself derived a profit by taxation? The question arose— Did the Government undertaken any responsibility for the quality of an article which it taxed? The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) seemed to think that that question had been answered in the affirmative; but he (Mr. Bruen) (did not think that that was the case, and wished to guard himself against giving assent in any way to the proposition. It appeared to him that the position which the Government had taken, upon passing the Adulteration of Food Act, was that of preventing a fraud upon the purchaser by the trader, which was an entirely different matter. In this case there was no question of fraud, and it was important to consider how far the principle of improving the quality of an article should be carried by legislation. With regard to the Bill itself, he thought it was of a character which commended itself to the House, and he should, therefore, give it his support. The Government were only asked to do a very small thing—namely, that they should undertake the custody of spirits in bond for a certain time, and that was a thing he thought they might easily consent to do. He presumed there was no doubt that storage could be found for the quantity of spirits that would have to remain in bond; but the storage would increase the cost, and he wished to know who was to pay it, and whether it was likely to increase adulteration? He believed, However, that the latter was not a probable result, and that the improvement in the whisky would more than compensate for any additional cost to the consumer.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he should give the Bill his support, as the object of it was one in which he entirely concurred. He contended that fusil oil was a natural impurity, which might occasion as much harm as over-preserved meat, and that it was an evil to bed got rid of. He denied that the Bill was a small one, and pointed out that, if it passed a second reading, it would require very careful consideration in Committee. The debate had turned principally upon whisky; but the Bill dealt with all spirits, and it would not lie desirable that imported French brandy, perfectly matured, should remain in bond for 12 months, seeing that it was generally sold with a certificate of age. It would, therefore, be necessary in Committee to take care, on commercial grounds, that foreign spirits, properly purified and duly certificated, were not needlessly kept in bond. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. YEAMANsaid, that in the great manufacturing towns of Scotland the effects of immature spirits had been frequently observed. It must have been proved to the satisfaction of the House that the poisonous ingredient in such whisky had a bad effect upon the people. The Government might have some objections to the Bill; but he did not think the want of storage could be properly urged as one of thee, because there were close on 40,000,000 gallons in store and in bond now, or a quantity about equal to three years' consumption. There was, therefore, no fear that the effect of the Bill would be the failure of spirits to meet the demand. The loss to the rectifiers could be avoided by allowing new spirits to go into the rectifying process at once, and thereafter to be kept in bond for one year, same as to whisky. He was satisfied that the measure could be licked into shape in Committee, and converted into a very good Bill. He would, therefore, vote for the second reading.
  SIR HONRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he felt great pleasure in being able to congratulate the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan) on having brought about a sort of Parliamentary Millennium, in which the hon of temperance had laid down with one whom he had always looked upon as the pet lamb of the publicans. It

  1225
  would certainly not be in accordance with his (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's) own views and wishes if he was found there to-day as an absolute opponent of the Bill. He thought it would certainly not be the first time that he had stated in that House how completely crime depended upon the consumption of ardent spirits; and whilst expressing his own feeling in favour of any measure which might tend in any way to diminish that crime, or bring about a better state of things with regard to the quality of these liquors, he could not help pointing out to the House that there were sonic difficulties in the way of passing the Bill in its present shape. One hon. Member had told the that he looked upon the Bill with favour, because he said that they had legislated for adulteration; and, therefore, it was only fair that they should deal with what the hon. Gentleman called the adulteration of that particular article. He would ask the House to remembers what was the real history of the bonding of spirits. There was a duty upon spirits, and spirits were therefore bonded, in order to collect the Revenue from the. Hence the necessity for bonding-houses. But if the duty should be taken off spirits, the necessity for bonding-houses would cease to exist; and, therefore, if the Bill was passed, the Government would be passing a Bill by which they compelled the bonding of spirits for a certain time whom the real reason for bonding the might have ceased to exist. That seemed to him one of the difficulties which they had to encounter in this Bill. In other respects, he was ready to admit that the objects of the measure were sound; but still there were many difficulties in the way of it. They had been told that the Bill would practically stop a very large amount of importation of spirits. For instance, there was something like 35,000 gallons of spirits imported annually from Germany. He thought thee House ought to remember that, although a good deal of cheap spirits, no doubt, came in, which would, if kept in bond, by the effect of time be practically destroyed, by not being able to compete with the honest spirit made in this country, there was also a large amount of spirit which came from abroad, which was in no way entitled to such censure. In fact, he believed that the spirits which were imported from
  1226
  Germany were largely used for rectifying whom they came to this country, and that the spirits were kept a long time in Germany before they were sent here. Therefore, a large proportion of the 35,000 gallons which came from Germany was in no way to be classed with the bad spirits. A very large amount of it was kept a long time in Germany before it was sent to the market here; and he did not think it would be fair that such spirits should be forced to be kept in bond for the space of one year before it could be put in the market. No doubt, the Bill might affect the Revenue, because He supposed it would be necessary to increase the staff of officers; but he did not mention that as an objection to the measure. He thought, However, that its effect would undoubtedly be to throw on the foreign trader a certain amount of expense, inasmuch as his capital would be locked up for a year, and that expense must necessarily, sooner or later, conic out of the consumers' pocket. Before they closed the discussion on the second reading of the Bill, there were a good many other points which he should like to bring to the notice of the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan). There was one especial point which really affected the trade. At the present moment a very large proportion of the 5,000,000 gallons of proof spirits now delivered direct from the distilleries and warehouses were above proof, and were used almost immediately by the rectifiers for the purpose of improving foreign brandies. If these spirits were to be kept for a year in bond, as they would have to be under the Bill, the rectifiers would be unable to use the at once, the strength by keeping would be reduced, and the rectifiers would have to use spirits of a strength they did not want. He merely wished to call the attention of hon. Members to that, because if the went into Committee, it would be necessary to amend it after consultation between the rectifiers and the Board of Inland Revenue. Another objection which he had to make to the Bill was this— He did not see why the Bill was merely to affect spirits containing 60 degrees of alcohol. He objected to the word "alcohol," and lie objected to 60 degrees, because he did not see why they should apply that limitation. There was another point in the Bill to which

  1227
  he wished to direct the attention of the House. As the measure was drawn, it was hardly clear that the bonding-warehouses belonging to private individuals, and not in any way licensed, but merely approved by the Inland Revenue, would come under the operation of the Bill, and if that were the case, the Bill would become practically a dead letter. These were the objections which seemed to strike him on the face of the measure; but if some alterations were made in the direction he had pointed out, lie should not, on behalf of the Government, oppose the second reading of the Bill, the object of which seemed to be the very laudable one of destroying the traffic in spirits of an injurious character. It would be a matter of congratulation if its adoption would ultimately remove the evils that were complained of, and which might tend to a diminution of drunkenness.
  MR. O'SULLIVANbriefly replied, expressing his willingness to amend the measure in Committee by exempting old spirits from the operation of the Bill. The reason for not going below 60 degrees of alcohol was, that there was a great deal of wine imported into this country which contained 40 degrees of alcohol, and he did not wish to interfere with wine. As to rectifiers being interfered with, he certainly thought that if they sent a bad spirit they ought to be interfered with. However, alterations could easily be made in the Bill in that respect whom they got into Committee, if the House thought fit, and also in the direction which had been pointed out by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson).
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was extremely sorry to hear the hon. Baronet's (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's) observations, for he (Mr. Ramsay) thought it was his lack of acquaintance with the history of bonding spirits and the laws affecting distilleries that had caused him to make the concession he had done. The effect of the Bill on the makers of spirits would simply be to require the to provide warehouse accommodation for the total quantity manufactured for the next 12 months after the passing of the Bill. Did the hon. Gentleman know what that implied? The best of motives might have animated the hon. Member who introduced the Bill (Mr. O'Sullivan);
  1228
  but more than 25 years ago, whom he (Mr. Ramsay) was well acquainted with the details of the working of distilleries, he remembered capitalists among the distillers proposing that they should have a law of this kind enacted, and its being attributed to the that they did so for the purpose of monopolizing the trade. He was sorry the milk-and-water statement of the hon. Baronet should have been made to the House. The Government had justly complained of the waste of time in that House; but he (Mr. Ramsay) thought legislation on a matter of that kind, so completely within the control of the people themselves, was a waste of time and nothing else. He could not see why it should bed passed, especially as it had been admitted by the hon. Gentleman himself that its terms were objectionable in principle and in detail. After that, he hoped there would be no more complaint by the Government of waste of time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. D. Taylor, Mr. T. Dickson, .Mr. B. Whitworth.)

  [BILL 41.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. D. TAYLORsaid, that at that late hour of the day, he should in a very few words move the second reading of the Bill—the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment Bill —lie had the honour to introduce. He should not have undertaken to bring so important a measure before the House, were it not that lie felt that it was only required to make a simple statement of the effect of the present Land Act, to convince the House it was necessary to make some amendment in it. The Bill which lie had the honour to introduce was almost similar to the one that was introduced to the House by the late Mr. Sharman Crawford, and that was a Bill pretty well known in the House, and thoroughly known throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, and which would for ever be associated with the name of Sharman Crawford and the cause of

  1229
  tenant right. Every Irishman was persuaded of the importance of the Bill, and the opposition to it came from the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), who was living away from the country, and was unacquainted with the habits and conditions of the Irish people. He (Mr. D. Taylor) knew it was very difficult for an Englishman to conceive the possibility of a tenant being part-owner of his farm. Nevertheless, there could be no doubt of the fact that by the erection of buildings, by drainage and improvements by the tenants, a real interest was created in the land. The Land Act of 1870 he looked upon as the greatest boon ever conferred by legislation upon Ireland. It was a great thing to promote the improvements and the industries of the country, and at the same time, in a great measure, the interests of the tenant in the farm. But now, after about eight years of action, the Land Act had been found to have failed in several points, and it was with the object of remedying the defects that the present Bill was brought before the House. It consisted of two parts. The first represented exclusively the Ulster tenant right, and the other referred to general previsions, and dealt with the Land Act throughout the whole of Ireland. With regard to the former, he might say the first object of the Bill was to charge the presumption of tenant right in Ulster in favour of the tenant, and the reason of that was this — it was well known there were few farms in Ulster that the custom did not apply to, and the farmers believed it was very hard whom the custom, as was well known, did apply, that they were compelled to bring proofs that the custom did apply. And besides that, they did so under great difficulties. Sometimes a tenancy existed for a very long time, the farm having gone from father to son; but, in other cases, the tenant had come there and taken up a new position. These were the difficulties; but not one of these difficulties would the landlord have in proving the tenant right did not exist, because he, either himself or his agent, and others had records that were in existence, and, therefore, to him the difficulty would be very small in proving that the claim did not exist. He would just read a few words delivered by the Chairman of the County of Enniskillen with regard to
  1230
  the difficulties of proving that the tenants had the rights. Speaking at Enniskillen, he referred to the prosperity of the district, and mentioned the fact—
  "That in the year 1872 there was lodged in the Savings Bank at Enniskillen the sum of £154,000, deposited by depositors, and there was now in the same hank the sum of £169,000, an increase of £15,000 upon the deposits, and there were nearly 4,000 depositors. The savings banks were chiefly supported by the farming class; and, therefore, no man need tell him that the country was in a state of poverty and want whilst there was the fact staring the in the face. He had been under the impression that it would have been better for the to expend their capital in improving the land when protected by tenant right; but on account of the difficulties of proving their claim, he had given up encouraging a tenant to lay out his money on the land."
  Now, nothing, he thought, could show more than that the amount of injury it did to the tenant farmer. The next object was to give the right of sale to the tenant whom he had a bonâ fide interest in the soil. He could not understand how there could be any objection to that, with the condition that, whom the sale took place, every shilling that the previous tenant owed to his landlord for rent, or for any advance he might have made to bins, should be discharged the first thing out of the money received; and the only matter that might be found to be difficult was this— that the landlord should have power to object to any tenant that he considered was not suitable. As a rule, it was of the greatest advantage to landlords that farms should be allowed to change hands, and it was, of course, an advantage to the tenant. The majority of the cases whore it would be so advantageous was, whore a tenant fell short of capital; and, in such cases, it was also an advantage to the landlord that the tenant should be allowed to sell his farm, so that another man of more energy or means could take it and cultivate the soil, and that also would be an advantage to the country as well as the landlord. There was one point in which the Land Act told very hardly on the tenant, and that was this— that if the tenant were disturbed by his landlord, either by a notice to quit or with the view of getting him out, a tenant could go to court and claim his compensation; but if a tenant wished to leave his farm, no matter how much lie might find for his tenant right or for his farm, if he

  1231
  wanted to leave of his own free will, from any cause, either from inability to continue the work of the farm or a desire to go to any other place, he could not ask his landlord by right of the Act to pay a single farthing for all the interest which he had in the farm, and his landlord could refuse him anything lie demanded as tenant right claims. He could refuse to let him sell the farm, and the tenant might be compelled to leave everything, supposing the circumstances were such as to make it necessary for him to leave. He asked the House, if that was the condition to leave tenants in, and, above all times, whom the general depression was so great? Now, the fact of the landlord being able to refuse the tenant liberty to sell gave him enormous power, either with respect to fixing the amount of his tenant right or making any other conditions. It was a very hard thing for any man who wished to sell his farm. A man wishing to sell went to the agent and told him, upon which the agent said lie should ask from the new coiner an increase of rent of, say 5s. or 10s. an acre. There was a man living upon an estate upon which there was a property valuation at intervals, say of 10 or 20 years; but the moment he wanted to sell his farm a barrier was put on his farm that did not exist upon any other farm upon the estate. He was glad to say that, although these incidents were frequent, and were well known by the number of cases that were reported from time to time as existing throughout Ulster, they were not so frequent in the other parts of the country with respect to other tenants. Some landlords did all they could to assist their tenants; but he was sorry to say that there were others who Mowed out an opposite course, and said to their tenant—" You have now got your Land Act; stand on your rights. We will stand upon ours." And they took every advantage the Act gave the to try and set aside what the landlords would have granted before the Land Art was passed and became law. Now, with regard to the other clauses referring to leasehold tenant right, he need not say anything, as the House had passed, at formers times, a Bill of the nulls) Cord the Member for Down (Lord Arthur Hill-Trevor), which stood for second reading. As a general rule, lie thought it was in the interests of
  1232
  landlords that every encouragement should be given to the tenant farmer to create improvements, and until they gave an undoubted security they could not expect tenants to put their capital into the farms. He could not better illustrate the value of tenant right than by reading a line or two from a letter he hid received upon the question from a farmer. The farmer said—
  "The tenant's right suffers. It is the sliding scale that must stand the pressure between good and bail times. The landlord knows if his rents run behind in bad times they are perfectly secured by the tenant right of the farm, which will be sure to realize all he has against it whom times improve. But the poor down-trodden farmer has no security, or comparatively none, for his investments in the soil."
  That was the feeling which was in the Lind of the tenant, and which prevented him from investing his money in the ground, and which caused a great deal of the capital to flow into the savings' banks, because the savings' bank of Enniskillen was no exception. In the borough which he had the honour to represent—Coleraine—although only a small place, there was a sum of money nearly equal in amount, and that amount, as lie knew very well, was from tenant farmers. The security that the tenant right gave could be seen from the comparative security given in Ulster at the present this. In Ireland they had nothing like what they had in England, with regard to tenants noticing their landlords and giving cup their farms. An hon. Member of that House told bins, a few days ago, lie was in charge, of a number of farms— he (Mr. D.Taylor) believed, in Kent— and he said that one of the tenants gave notice lie was obliged to leave the farm, of which he lied been tenant fur a number of years. The hon. Member said he regretted to lose so good a tenant, and urged him to remains; but time tenant said he could not afford d to continue longer in possession of the ferns. Whom asked to make an offer lie declined, and further said he could not continue on the farm, even with a reduction in the rent of 25 per cent. At last, he offered to take a reduction in the rent to 45 per cent, and refused to increase his offer, and left, stating he could not afford to remain longer. Au-other hon. Friend told him he had three farms, the rental of which was upwards of £1,200, and the whole of the three farms were under notice to quit, and he

  1233
  did not know whore he should get a I tenant to succeed these who were leaving. Therefore, in times of great depression, lie thought the principle of tenant right was a good one for landlords. Then his Bill provided general powers applicable to all Ireland. There were powers with regard to the arrangements of rent without going through the process of notice to quit, and there were greater facilities introduced in what were called the Bright Clauses. All these were most important provisions, and he trusted that they would consider that everything that could be done by any possibility for persons in the present state of agriculture ought to bed done. He thought the time had fairly arrived whom the House might well deal with the question. The Land Act had done a great deal; but, in the opinion of everyone who had seen the working of it, it required some important alteration, and for that purpose he introduced the Bill, the second reading of which he now begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr.D.TaYlor.)
  MR. GREGORY,in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, he objected to the Bill as containing provisions of a very objectionable character, and as being of too general an application to carry out the results professedly contemplated. The Bill was not one at all in the character of local application; but one which was of such an elastic nature that it might generally be applied to the relations of landlord and tenant, not only in Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom. Instead of being an amendment, as it professed to be, of the Land Act of 1870, it appeared to him to be a violation of the principle on which that Act was framed. That Act was intended as a settlement of the Land Question, and this disturbance of its conditions was prejudicial to the interests of Ireland. The Bill proceeded on the assumption that one general custom prevailed throughout the Province of Ulster; but that assumption was negatived by the Land Act of 1670. According to the present law, the onus was thrown on the tenant of proving that the right in respect of which he claimed existed; but, by the present Bill, if it became
  1234
  law, the onus in question would be shifted from the tenant to the landlord. The presumption that the custom existed was to prevail, unless the landlord could disprove its existence. Then, again, the Bill sought to give the tenant a right to go to the Quarter Sessions Court and have his rent re-assessed by the Chairman of that Court. What did that provision really amount to? It would simply transfer the land to the tenant, arid reduce the landlord to the position of owner of a rent-charge on his own estate, the amount of the rent-charge to be fixed by a Court. Surely such a provision as that could not meet with the approval of the House of Commons. \Veil, it was said that the operation of the Bill was to be confined to the Province of Ulster. Did any hon. Member think for a moment that such would he the case? If the principle of the Bill were once established, could there be a doubt that there would be an effort made to extend it all over Ireland, if not all over the United Kingdom? The Preamble of the Bill stated that difficulties had arisen in the carrying of the provisions of the Land Act into effect. He (Mr. Gregory) had listened in vain to hear what these difficulties were. There might, no doubt, be difficulties in proving the existence of the custom or usage; but they were no greater than occurred every clay in proving disputed claims set up in respect of other matters. The hon. Member for Coleraine (Mr. D. Taylor) had stated that large deposits of money were being made by the tenants all over the Province, and he spoke of the flourishing condition of the tenantry. Well, were these reasons for changing the state of things under which the tenants so flourished as to be able to make large deposits? Little pressure, the hon. Gentleman added, was brought to bear upon the tenants. Was that a reason for passing such a Bill as the present? Could it be doubted that if the Bill were passed it would be used as a lever for its extension to the Provinces of which it could be said that the tenant farmers were not so prosperous as were these of the Province of Ulster? There were other grounds of objection to the Bill, one of which was the provision that the tenant's claim for compensation was not to be defeated by the fact of his accepting a renewed letting of his laud. But what could be a greater proof of his

  1235
  waiver of all claim for compensation than his voluntarily surrendering one contract and entering into another? Another objection was to be found in the proposal to alter the provision of the Land Act as to the amount to be advanced to the tenant, an alteration which he feared would leave a very narrow margin of security for the advance. The Bill was, in short, a violation of the rights of property. It would introduce a totally new principle into the relations between landlord and tenant by creating a new law and usage as against the landlord, and by practically reducing him to the position of an annuitant or owner of a rent-charge, and depriving him of all the incidences of ownership; and the House could not doubt that if these provisions were applied to Ulster they would soon be extended to the other Provinces of Ireland. He begged to move the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this clay three months."(Hr. Gregory.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. LAWin rising to support the Bill, said, with reference to the observations of the last speaker (Mr. Gregory), he (Mr. Law) would admit that it was difficult to get English Members to understand the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland. They seemed, in fact, to require fresh explanation every year. Accordingly it had been just stated that no ground existed to justify the introduction of this Bill; but he (Mr. Law) hoped to show that there were good reasons for the proposals of his hon. Friend; and reasons which had been given, and more than once admitted to be sufficient even by hon. Members opposite. It was objected by the hon. Gentleman that the Bill contained a clause providing that the amount of money to be advanced by the Board of Works to tenants for the purchase of their holdings should be increased. He (Mr. Law) did not know if the hon. Gentleman was aware that the Committee which sat to consider the subject had unanimously recommended an increase, and, by a majority, an increase to the extent of four-fifths, as proposed by the Bill. The substance, However, of the proposal was that the
  1236
  amount should be increased. A still stranger mistake was made with respect to another provision, which was also unanimously recommended by the same Committee— namely, the repeal of the clauses of the Land Act, which forfeited the holding if the tenant assigned it without the consent of the Board. Prohibition of sub-letting and sub-division might be reasonable; but what difference did it make to the Board or the Treasury whether the mortgaged holding still remained vested in the original purchaser or his heir, or had been transferred to another subject to the charge? However, the Bill on this point also was founded on the Report of the Irish Land Act Committee. He would now refer to the leading provisions of the Bill, with respect to the Ulster custom of tenant right. The framers of the Bill had attempted to describe what was the essence of the Ulster custom, and he (Mr. Law) thought they had successfully made that attempt. Whom the Land Act of 1870 was under consideration, it was admitted that, whatever might be the subordinate variety of details in connection with the custom of tenant right, there was this in it under all its variations— namely, the right of sale. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) on that occasion observed, in reference to the custom, that although, as insisted by these who resisted the measure, the tenant right might wear a variety of forms, still these forms were all based on one common model; were all modifications of one substantial right, and that was the right of the tenant to sell his occupation. He (Mr. Law) too was glad to find that his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not disagree with that description of tenant right; for, in a speech which he made in that House some three years ago, he said it might he stated that under these tenant right usages the tenant had always a right of sale subject to the approval of the landlord. It therefore seemed to him (Mr. Law) that the Bill of his hon. Friend very properly took the right of selling as the thing to be described. Well, Then, if that rightly described the essence of tenant right, was it a reasonable thing to impose on the tenant the obligation of proving that the custom existed on his particular holding? It was notorious

  1237
  that the custom existed in 99 cases out of a 100 holdings in Ulster, and it appeared to him (Mr. Law) to be only in conformity with common sense to make the presumption in favour of what was general, and not in favour of what was exceptional. However notorious its existence might be, there was often difficulty in the tenants proving it. Difficulties, too, were thrown in his way now which did not exist originally; and it could not be denied that he had not the same facilities for proving that the custom existed which the landlord had for proving its non-existence in any particular instance. One of the County Court Judges, in Ulster, said, in a case brought before him in 1875, that since the passing of the Land Act every case was contested, and that the tenant right, which, before 1870, had been universally admitted, was now almost as universally denied. Another Judge said, in 1876, that though he felt bound to say that in the case of the large estates no difficulties were placed in the tenants way, yet, whore there were new proprietors, especially of small estates, he almost invariably found that efforts were made to baffle and render nugatory the Land Act of 1670. Just consider for a moment the position of the tenant. An estate, for instance, might be sold in small lots, and years afterwards how was the tenant on one of these lots to prove that his holding was once part of that large estate, and that the custom prevailed on the estate whom it all belonged to one landlord? He could produce none of the title deeds. The only means he had of proving the original unity of the estate was, that as long as persons lived who remembered the payment of rent by all to the same landlord he could bring the forward; but, surely, that could not be regarded as a satisfactory foundation for the tenant's title. Accordingly, another County Court Judge, the other day, said that in Ulster the law ought to provide that the presumption should be in favour of the tenant right in its largest form, leaving to the landlord the onus of disproving its existence or restricting it, and added that he hoped sincerely there would be legislation upon this point. It was notorious that in Ireland the tenants generally made the improvements; and, therefore, in the Land Act of 1870, the Legislature very properly enacted the presumption that they belonged to the tenant, unless the contrary could be
  1238
  proved by the landlord. Now, in reason land fairness, on whom should the burden of proof in this case rest? Should it rest on the tenant, in a tenant-right county, or should it lie on the landlord to disprove it? He should like to know how this matter stood in Lincolnshire; and whether it was in each case necessary for a tenant to prove that the custom of the country affected his holding. But, However that might be, he (Mr. Law) submitted that it was desirable and right to make the presumption in favour of the custom which Parliament had declared to be "prevalent in the Province of Ulster," as was proposed by the 2nd clause of this Bill. But exception had been taken to the part of the description of tenant right which qualified the right of selling in two respects; first, that it must be subject to a "fair rent:" and, secondly, to a person to whom the landlord should not make "reasonable objection." Here, again, the hon. Gentleman had fallen into au error. The Irish Courts had repeatedly laid down that the rent could not be indefinitely raised, and that the landlord could not object to a purchaser without good cause, and thus, in effect, prevent the tenant from selling. Was it an unfair thing to ask that the landlord should make only a reasonable objection? That was what the Ulster custom always was. He did not believe that any Ulster landlord, many of whom he saw on the benches opposite, would support the hon. Member for East Sussex in his view. What was the language used by two Lords Chief Justices, both of whom were taken from the other side of the House? Chief Justice Whiteside used the same language as Chief Justice Morris—" It must be a reasonable objection, otherwise the right of the tenant might be absolutely destroyed." That was simply a true description of the existing tenant right. Under these circumstances, he did not think any hon. Member would say that the proposal contained in the clause was a very extravagant one. With respect to the principle of the 4th clause, that had been affirmed by the Courts over and over again. His right hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General for Ireland) knew that the mode of transferring these holdings was not by deed, but by what legally amounted to a surrender to the landlord and a re-letting to the new tenant or assignee; and whom, in 1870, it

  1239
  was proposed to make the non-payment of money inconsistent with the existence of tenant right, it was shown that the adoption of such a clause would tend to abolish the custom in the majority of cases. With regard to office restrictions on the price for which a farm was to be sold, he would remind the House that it had long been a crime for officers in the Army to take more or give more than a regulated price for their commissions; and yet, after more than a century of trial, that prohibition was found and admitted by Parliament to he futile. As the Report of 1870 truly said—
  "Where one man has something of value to sell which can legally be sold, and another man is desirous of purchasing it, it has been found useless to prescribe by lay or regulation the precise terms on which the sale shall be effected."
  Accordingly, whom Purchase in the Army was abolished, compensation was given by the Legislature, not on the regulation prices, but on the actual value of the Commissions. Just in the same way with respect to tenant right— no matter what regulation prices might be prescribed by some landlords or agents— everyone knew that in fact the full market value was paid by every purchaser; and before the passing of the Land Act, if the landlord took up a holding from his tenant, he paid the full price for it, or, if he did not, was regarded as having violated the custom. He now came to a clause of considerable importance. applicable to the whole of Ireland, and that was the one with regard to the ascertainment of fair rents. There was no doubt that, so far as his inquiries went, the grievance of the tenants was not so much wholesale eviction, but having to undertake to pay more for their farms than they could really afford to pay. Landlords were forced by the existing law, though they merely desired to raise the rents of their tenants, to serve ejectments upon the; but along with the ejectments went notices to the effect that they would not be proceeded with in the event of the tenants agreeing to an increase in their rents. Now, what the Bill proposed was this— it gave the Chairman power to arbitrate between the parties and to fix a fair rent. At present, he could only order the eviction of the tenant, which the landlord did not desire, and give to the tenant compensation for disturbance, which he did want. His hon. Friend proposed to provide machinery whereby
  1240
  the Chairman could do for each party that which each desired to have done. In conclusion, he (Mr. Law) submitted that this and the other provisions of the Bill which was applicable to all parts of Ireland would work substantial good, and would tend to the mutual good understanding of landlord and tenant. He must say it was somewhat curious that the first to take up the discussion should be the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for East Sussex; but lie trusted that before the debate closed the House would be assisted by some of these hon. Gentlemen opposite whose connection with Ireland, and especially with Ulster, enabled the to speak with authority upon the subject. Meantime, he ventured to express a hope that the House would favourably consider the measure of his hon. Friend.
  MR. A. GATHERNE-HARDYsaid, that after listening to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Law), he did not feel more favourably disposed towards this Bill than previously. The statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the 2nd, 3rd, and clauses of the Bill were merely declaratory of the existing law could scarcely be accepted as correct; although the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have established the fact, as far as he himself was concerned, that the measure he supported was unnecessary. The hon. Members in charge of the measure (Mr. D. Taylor) had objected to the opposition to it proceeding from England; but until hon. Members representing Irish constituencies were successful in obtaining that Home Rule for which they sought, English Members could not divest themselves of responsibility whom great principles were at stake, merely because the measure was one relating to Ireland; although, of course, the opinions of hon. Members from that country should receive special consideration whom advanced on the subject of land tenure. The course which had been taken of late by hon. Members opposite was not calculated to induce the House to make concessions to the sister country. Some years ago, in the time of that eminent man, Sir Johan Gray, whose services would never be forgotten by his country, whom £80,000,000 were handed over from the landlords to the tenants, the Land Question was practically settled, and he (Mr. A, Hardy) protested

  1241
  against the course adopted by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who came to the House year after year, like Irish Oliver Twists, asking for more. The question, therefore, was, could that House in fairness, justice, or prudence, make any further concessions to the Irish tenants at the expense of their landlords? He thought not. As had been already stated, the so-called Ulster tenant-right custom was, in truth, no custom at all, but a mere collection of varying usages, which differed in every county and in every parish in the North of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Law) said that one usage was common to the whole of the Ulster custom— namely, the power to sell. Now, granting that was so, though there was the power to sell, yet the way in which that power was exercised widely varied in the circumstances and the manner in which it was exercised. The principle of the measure was contained in its first five clauses. By its 2nd clause, which might be said to be the most important, it was intended to shift the burden of proof from the tenant on to the landlord; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite considered that reasonable, because, if the customs were known and notorious, there would be no difficulty in the tenant proving this. But, nevertheless, he (Mr. A. Hardy) could not see the justice of throwing on the landlord the burden of proving a negative, and he could not conceive how, except in cases where the estate had been in the same family for a very longtime, the landlord could satisfy a tribunal that the custom did not exist, especially whore the general feeling was strongly in favour of the Ulster custom. With regard to the 3rd clause, in the absence of proof of special custom, the existence of a lease ought to be accepted as the strongest proof that the custom did not apply. In reference to the 4th clause, he did not object to the continuance of the right of sale where that right already existed; but he objected to the custom being forced upon the rest of the country. The 5th clause proposed to effect a change in the law which was most objectionable, in as much as it altogether took the control of their property out of their hands, by compelling the to accept any tenant who might purchase the right of succession to a farm, irrespective of his solvency. Surely there was no justification for removing from
  1242
  the landlord, in the manner proposed, all restrictions over his tenant, all control over his property in this respect. As to the question of valuation and rent, he did not see why that element should not be settled by contract rather than by arbitration. For these reasons, he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory).
  COLONEL COLTHURSTtook exception to the remarks made by the last speaker, the hon. and learned Member for Canterbury Mr. A. Hardy). The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to what took place some years ago, when £80,000,000 was handed over to the tenants of Ireland from the landlords, and he stated that it was unfair to come to the House year after year to seek to amend the Land Act. In his (Colonel Colthurst's) opinion, the Bill was not intended in any way to interfere with the Act of 1870; it merely sought to confer on tenants the privileges intended to be granted by the Act of 1870; but which, by some obscurities in the Act, and by decisions of the Courts,
  tenants did not receive. In doing that he contended that they were only endeavouring to obtain what was just and fair. He thought that in this question of rent the privilege they gave to the landlord should be given to the tenant; and he, therefore, hoped the House would favourably consider the Bill. The essence of the Ulster custom was, that the rent should be a fair and reasonable one in accordance with the custom of the neighbourhood; and though it might be subject to a rise, owing to a sudden increase in the price of land, or any, commodity, rent could net be raised by any act of the tenant or his predecessor on the farm. Therefore, if they recognized tenant right at all, they must recognize some arbitration outside either the tenant or landlord, by the establishment of tribunals for the settlement of fair and reasonable rents. The Ulster custom imperfectly provided for that; but in other parts of Ireland there was no such provision; and if a landlord wished to increase his rent, he must do so by means of a notice to quit. These notices might be, and often were, misunderstood, and many notices to quit had been quoted as instances of eviction. Therefore, in the interest of the landlord, it would be an advantage to have a tribunal to settle these disputed questions otherwise than by notice to quit. The

  1243
  Bill also provided for an appeal by the tenant in these cases whore his rent appeared excessive; and he should have been glad if his hon. Friend the Member
  for Coleraine(Mr. D. Taylor) had gone further, following the advice of Chief Justice Whiteside, whose words were, speaking of the Ulster tenant right-
  "That the principle which had worked so beneficially in Ulster should be extended to the rest of Ireland."
  But the Bill as it stood would, in his opinion, work considerable good, and he would ask the House to give it a second reading.
  The ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. GIBSON)said, that to his great regret there was but little time, indeed, only a few minutes, left to him to make some remarks upon the Bill; and he must necessarily, therefore, be brief. He was sure that everyone would be desirous of doing anything that would benefit and advance the position of the tenants of Ireland, and these for whom this Bill was intended— namely, the farmers of Ulster. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. D. Taylor) had stated that that had been his object in introducing the Bill; but he did not think that the hon. Gentleman himself, in his moderate and fair speech, had made out ally case in the circumstances of that part of Ireland to which the Bill referred to justify any considerable change being made in the state of the law. He clearly stated that there were very few cases of hardship existing between tenant and landlord, and mentioned that there was great agricultural depression existing in all parts of the country except in Ulster. Looking at these statements, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) certainly did not think that they were calculated to bring the House to think that any change in the direction proposed by the Bill was required in that part of Ireland. Then his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Law) took two or three cases out of the records of the County Courts to show that hardships had existed, and referred to judgments—one in the year 185, another in the year 1876, and another in the year 1879; but he failed to point out that the result of these decisions was that the present law was incapable of dealing with such cases. The Courts were open to the tenants just as
  1244
  they were open to the landlords. If the Judges had a case of hardship brought before the, they did not hesitate to say so, and punish the landlord by giving the tenant full measure of justice. What did the Bill ask to do in the main? It sought to do what was an admitted impossibility, and that was to give a hard-and-fast definition of the Ulster tenant right custom. It must be conceded that the usages of the tenant-right custom were numerous and very extensive in their incidents, and that they differed widely even in the same county, and, he believed, sometimes in the same parish. What the Bill proposed to do was not only to shift the onus of proof, but to assume against the landlord the strictest form of tenant right. That was a very stringent proposal, especially whom it was stated by the hon. Member who introduced the Bill that there was no real necessity for it. The hon. and learned Member fur Canterbury (Mr. A. Gathorne-Hardy), in the very clear and sensible remarks lie had made, had properly said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Law) had conclusively shown that Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill were unnecessary. He quite concurred in the view taken by the hon. and learned Member of Clause which appeared to him to be the clause which contained largely the principle of the Bill, and to it he had the strongest objection. It provided that the tenants should have the right of sale, and not only so, lint sale by auction, and should have the right to present to the landlord a tenant not to be selected by the ordinary mode of selection, but a tenant selected at the auction, after all the statements generally made at an auction. He wished to know was that a hind of clause which could be accepted by any reasonable man, or whether it would be reasonable for a landlord to accept a tenant who had been selected for him by the rough process of an auction? The principle that right of sale by public auction should be held by the tenant was condemned in 1675 by the noble Lord the I Leader of the Opposition (the Marquess of Hartington), and the clause now appeared again at the end of five years. Therefore, be was entitled to say that the clause in question was of the greatest importance in considering the Bill. But what was the case? However important the clause, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had noticed that the hon.

  1245
  Member for Coleraine (Mr. D. Taylor) had passed it over without alluding to a single syllable contained in it. Then there was another provision in the Bill, and it was that the tenant might sell without having reference to restrictions as to the price which might have been placed upon the property previously. A landlord might wish to get a solvent tenant, and, in the interests of his tenants and his estates, would not have an impoverished tenant, or one who would give an extravagant price for the land at an auction, and might not desire any person to farm his estate who had given more than five or ten years' purchase. But the clause said in effect—although a tenant might have been restricted from giving for his tenancy more than five years' purchase, yet ho might turn round and dispose of Ins holding by private sale or by auction. He could not see how this could be accepted without grave qualification, and could only imagine that these provisions had been put in the Bill merely with the object of catching a stray vote or two in Ireland. Under those circumstances, and others, he was unable to support the Bill before the House.
  MR. GOLDNEYregarded the measure as a most extraordinary one, and contended that it sought to interfere with a most important principle. The hon. Member was proceeding—
  And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.