Commons Sitting of 7 April 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTIEEom:—Turnpike Acts Continuance Act, 1880–81, nominated.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 4] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Leave—Bankruptcy, debate adjourned.
Ordered—First Reading—Land Law (Ireland) [135]; Customs and Inland. Revenue [136].
Second Reading—Church Patronage [30], debate further adjourned.
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention [120].
Committee—Married Women's Property (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [128]—R.P.; Agricultural Tenants' Compensation [10], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment (re-comm.) [102].
Third Reading—Inclosure Provisional Orders (Wibsey Slack and Low Moor Commons)* [114], and passed.

NOTICE OF QUESTION.
  THE SUEZ CANAL COMPANY—THE BRITISH SHARES.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSgave Notice that he would ask the Prime Minister on Friday, April 8, Whether he still adheres to the opinion expressed by him in his speech at Glasgow on December 6, 1879, that the purchase of the Suez Canal shares was a "delusion" and a "financial operation of a ridiculous description;" and, whether, seeing that the present value of the Suez Canal shares is officially stated to be £8,826,000, he proposes to take steps for realizing by their sale the accrued profit of £4,826,000?
QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many resignations have been received from members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Metropolitan Police Force, Dublin, during the six months ending March 31st; and, whether it is true that the men joining these bodies at present compare unfavourably in point of physique, height, &c. with

  867
  the class of men by which the force was previously recruited?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have received a report by which it appears that the number of resignations in the Constabulary in the period named was 113. But it must be borne in mind that there was a larger number of recruits than usual, and the number of registered candidates is still greatly in excess of the demand. In the same period there were only seven resignations in the Metropolitan Police Force; and in the past year the applications for admission were most numerous. As to the physique and height of the men the hon. Member is misinformed; if anything, the men are of finer physique than formerly.

  PORTUGAL—THE LORENZO MARQUES TREATY.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to present any Papers relating to the Lorenzo Marquez Treaty?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Correspondence is very voluminous; but it is intended to lay on the Table a selection with as little delay as possible.

  CROWN LANDS ACT, 1866—THE FORESHORE AT SHOEBURYNESS.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that, in consequence of a dispute which has arisen as to the rights of the Crown to a portion of the foreshore at Shoeburyness, the new breech-loading 43-ton gun cannot be tested; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to facilitate the conclusion of these trials, so as to hasten the adoption and manufacture of the new ordnance?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my noble Friend, I have to state that a legal question has arisen as to a portion of the foreshore near Shoeburyness; but that I do not think that much delay will result. The case being with our Legal Advisers, I cannot say more at this moment.

  CYPRUS—TAXATION.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to his statement that "the taxation of Cyprus was engaging the
  868
  attention of the Government with a view to getting rid, as far as circumstances will permit, of many anomalies," Whether he is now in a position to give the House information upon this subject, and will lay upon the Table of the House Papers showing the changes contemplated by Her Majesty's Government in the taxation of Cyprus, and also any improvements which it is proposed to carry out in the administration of the Island to remove grounds of complaint and dissatisfaction now existing?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: No, Sir; it is not in my power to say more than that the fiscal and other questions connected with the administration of Cyprus are engaging the special and earnest attention of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but that I fear some considerable time must elapse before it will be possible for me to make any statement as to what changes it is found feasible to make.

  STATE OF IRELAND—RIOT AT DUNGARVAN.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, What course the Government intends to pursue with regard to the conduct of soldiers in garrison at Dungarvan; and in particular with regard to the assaults on peaceful people and other offences which have been complained of before the magistrates of Dungarvan?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I have made inquiry into the circumstances of the disturbance at Dungarvan on the 18th of March, the morrow of St. Patrick's Day; and I will read to the House the Report of Colonel Panter, the officer in command of the regiment—
  "On the 18th inst., when a few of the soldiers of the detachment were returning to barracks at about a quarter to 10 p.m., they were, without any notice, attacked by about 100 roughs, known at Dungarvan as 'Corner Boys;' they were pelted with stones, and called by the most disgusting and insulting epithets. They behaved with the utmost forbearance, and it was only when two men found themselves surrounded by a mob of these semi-savages that they turned on their aggressors and fought their way into barracks. I have made strict and full inquiry into the matter, and have no hesitation in saying that the behaviour of my men, under circumstances of grievous provocation, was most creditable. 'An Army Pensioner' is said to have given evidence to the effect that the soldiers brought the attack on themselves. This so-called 'Army Pensioner,' I am informed, is a man who was dismissed from Her Majesty's Service. I would

  869
  take this opportunity of bringing to the notice of the Lieutenant General commanding, the constant provocation received by the detachment, 37th Regiment, at the hands of the lower orders of the population at Dungarvan; scarcely a night passes without some of the men being pelted with stones on their way to barracks, and the epithets 'B——y English soldier' and 'B——y English butcher' are hurled at them at every opportunity. Notwithstanding this, I have the testimony of the police that all this is borne with the utmost patience and forbearance."
  The hon. Member has also sent me the copy of an information of one Patrick O'Farrell against a soldier for his conduct on the occasion. Of course, I could not prejudge the case; but I may say, with reference to one part of the complaint, that the use of obscene and abusive language by soldiers is an offence against good order, which, if proved, subjects them to punishment. Perhaps I may add, that at Carrick-on-Suir a disturbance took place on St. Patrick's Day, and some men of the same regiment were assaulted. Four of the offenders were convicted and sentenced. The soldiers were not in fault.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT, DUBLIN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is correct that the Telegraph Department in Dublin and other places have instructions to send the originals or copies of telegrams forwarded or received by certain Irish gentlemen to the Executive authorities; and, if so, whether he will state under what authority this is done, and give a list of the persons whose telegrams are so dealt with?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, that no such instructions had been given.

  ARMY—PUBLIC WORSHIP—POLITICAL SERMONS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a searching inquiry will be granted into the alleged disturbance of a Catholic congregation and interruption of the religious worship of a detachment of Catholic soldiers by an officer in garrison at Birr on Sunday?
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the officer commanding a party of troops attending Divine Service is not required
  870
  by the existing regulations to withdraw his men from any place of worship where political topics are entered upon by the officiating minister?
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the following statement, published by the London press on the 28th ultimo, is accurate:—
  "An exciting scene occurred during Mass yesterday in the Parsonstown Roman Catholic Chapel. The officiating priest was referring to the doings of the Land League and other local occurrences, when an officer in command of the troops from Birr garrison stood up, and in loud tones ordered his men to withdraw. Indescribable confusion followed, women fainted, and a general rush was made for the door. The soldiers obeyed their commander, and were marched off to the barracks, followed by an immense crowd, hooting and groaning;"
  whether, if the report be accurate, the officer acted in obedience to instructions from his superiors; and, if he had no such instructions, whether the military authorities will take notice of this proceeding; whether the officer had been only five months in the service; and whether he ought to have been put in command of so large a body of men; whether, in coming down the stairs which lead from the gallery of the church, he met a woman coming up, and struck her in the bosom with such violence that she fell down and remained insensible for some time, and has since been confined to her room; and, whether the officiating clergyman made any reference to the Land League?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Members for Dungarvan and Sligo, and the hon. Member for Leitrim about the withdrawal of soldiers from Divine Service at Birr on the 27th ultimo, I have to state that I have made full inquiry into the circumstances, with the following result:—It appears that on Sunday, the 6th of March, Colonel Brodigan, commanding the 28th Regiment, was informed by the officer who marched the Roman Catholic soldiers to Mass that the preacher on the occasion referred in his sermon chiefly to political subjects. Colonel Brodigan, who is a Roman Catholic, instructed the officer that—
  "If duly constituted authority was held up to contempt on any occasion in the chapel his duty would be to withdraw the men from the influence of such doctrine."
  On the 27th ultimo the Rev. P. Brennan' curate to Dr. Bugler, the Vicar General, who is chaplain to the troops, preached

  871
  a sermon which, according to his own admission, contained much political matter. According to the report of the officer, himself a Roman Catholic, and several Roman Catholic sergeants, he not only used political language, but made a violent attack on the institutions of the country; and the officer, acting on the instructions he had received, marched his men out of chapel. Dr. Bugler states that no woman was struck, but that one was accidentally pushed down in the confusion which resulted, but she certainly was not insensible. Colonel Brodigan had, on the 29th of March, an interview with the Vicar General and his curate, and they agreed that in future no reference should be made in their sermons to political subjects when the troops were attending Mass. There is no printed regulation on this subject; but it is manifest that officers in command of soldiers at church or chapel must be allowed to exercise some discretion as to permitting them to remain there when language is used in sermons to which soldiers would not be allowed to listen if spoken at a public meeting. In this case no blame can be attached to Lieutenant Keatinge, who, though only for five months in the Service, had been for some years a Militia officer. He was only in command of 65 men on the occasion, and, as I have already said, was detailed for that duty as a Roman Catholic.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the only institution attacked was not the existing land system?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, it appeared from the Report that the institutions attacked went far beyond the land system. The Vicar General and his curate admitted that the sermon contained much political matter.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)— CHARGE AGAINST A PROCESS-SERVER.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR,who had the following Question on the Paper:—
  "To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will order the dismissal from his office of the process-server Godfrey, who, on 22nd March, while serving processes on an estate near Claremorris, entered the House of Pat Mullen, for whom he had a process, and, finding the man dead, laid the process on the dead body,"
  said, he wished to postpone the Question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not think, Sir, that the Question, which has been several days on the Paper, ought to be postponed any longer. The process-server had no process to serve on Pat Mullen, and did not enter the house. The process was against his son, who was served with it outside the house.

  STATE OF IRELAND—MR. DILLON'S SPEECH AT THURLES.
  MR. WARTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has now ascertained that the language used by the honourable Member for Tipperary at Thurles has been correctly reported in the "Freeman's Journal" and in the "Nation" newspapers of the 2nd of April, and was correctly quoted in the question put to him last week; and, whether he will now state what action, if any, Her Majesty's Government intend to take thereon?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, after the answer I gave the hon. Baronet the Member for Horsham (Sir Henry Fletcher) on this subject, I did not think it would be necessary to ask a further Question in reference to it. I have no doubt that the portion of the speech quoted by the hon. Member was accurately taken from The Freeman's Journal; but its accuracy is not confirmed by the official report I have received.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—RIGHTS OF TRAWLING SMACKS.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the strong opinions expressed by the owners of trawling smacks before the Select Committee of last Session, and their serious objections to the red and white lights as proposed by the Departmental Committee in a Return dated 11th February 1881, he will recommend the continuance of the use of the well known one white masthead light as carried for many years by trawling smacks when trawling?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in reply, said, that the Departmental Committee had again met at the Board of Trade and re-considered the subject. With every desire to meet the view of the Committee of the House of Commons they were unanimously of opinion that there was an insuperable objection to

  873
  the adoption of their recommendation. They had, however, made a small modification in the details, and the Department had sent out a Circular Letter to shipowners asking questions on the subject, and they would do the same in the case of the foreign Governments who had joined in the Convention.

  CIRCUIT COURTS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in filling up the recent vacancy in the office of Sheriff Substitute in the Long Island, he will, to meet the public convenience, make arrangements so as to provide for the holding of Quarterly Circuit Courts in other places besides Lochmaddy?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): Sir, the question of the establishment of quarterly Circuit Courts has been brought under the notice of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; and I can assure my hon. Friend that Circuit Courts will be established in Inverness-shire. I am at present in correspondence with the sheriff of the county on the subject.

  SCOTLAND—VAGRANCY IN COUNTIES.
  MR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will introduce a Bill this Session to give additional powers to the rural police in Scotland to enable them to deal more effectually with the growing evil of vagrancy in counties?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): I cannot do more than assure my hon. Friend that the subject is having every attention; but I am unable to give him any more definite promise.

  SCOTLAND—THE TREASURY MINUTE ON SCOTCH BANKS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked, If there was any objection to laying on the Table the Treasury Minute regarding the Scotch banks in its complete form?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHin reply, said, there would be no objection to produce the Minute.

  ARMY—TROOPS IN IRELAND—THE 2ND AND 3RD DRAGOON GUARDS.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, If any steps will be taken this summer to withdraw from
  874
  the Irish garrison the 2nd and 3rd Dragoon Guards, these Regiments being in excess of the usual Cavalry force quartered in Ireland?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I cannot say when it will be decided to reduce the force in Ireland; but the two regiments named by my hon. and gallant Friend will be among the first Cavalry regiments to be withdrawn.

  WAYS AND MEANS—TERMINABLE ANNUITIES AND THE REDUCTION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he could inform the House how much of the reduction of the National Debt, amounting during the financial year 1880–81 to £5,325,000, is the natural effect of the operation of terminable annuities and the repayment of loans to the Treasury by local authorities under various Acts passed previous to the meeting of this Parliament, and how much due to Acts passed since he assumed the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer last April?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I stated the most important particulars, Sir, in answer to the Question of the noble Lord on Monday last, when I said that a considerable payment was due to the conversion, under the arrangements made at the previous periods of the year, of £6,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds into Terminable Annuities. A very large portion of the payment was due to the operation of an Act passed 15 years ago; but nothing of what had been done was due to any Act passed in the present Parliament. The present Parliament last Session passed an Act for the conversion of the Post Office Savings Bank deficiency into such Annuities; but that Act has only just practically come into operation.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE "PREIHEIT."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether any liability to criminal proceedings accrues to persons who have contributed funds to the maintenance of the "Freiheit" newspaper, well knowing the character and objects of the paper; whether it is a fact that two Members of Her Majesty's Government did contribute under such circumstances to the support of the "Freiheit" newspaper,

  875
  at a time when, in the absence of such support, the newspaper must have ceased to exist; whether the fact of their being Members of the Government now increases or exempts them from such liability; and, if the former, whether it is his intention to instruct the Public Prosecutor to include them in the criminal proceedings now being carried on against the "Freiheit" newspaper by the direction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, the House will observe that the noble Lord asks me if two Members of Her Majesty's Government, well knowing the character and objet of The Freiheit newspaper, have contributed to its support. If I had had to reply only to the Question on the Paper I should have contented myself with acting upon probabilities, amounting, in my mind, to certainty, and, without inquiring from my Colleagues, should have given a denial to the charge suggested by the Question; but the noble Lord has with frankness informed me that he intends to make the charge it contains against my hon. Friends the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. Brassey). When this communication was made to me I, of course, informed my hon. Friends of it; and now, Sir, on their authority, I desire to reply to the noble Lord's Question, and in language the most distinct and emphatic that Parliamentary usage permits me to employ, to say that the charge preferred is wholly and entirely without foundation. There is no ground of any kind upon which it can be made. I must presume that the noble Lord has been imposed upon, and that someone has placed before him a fabricated statement upon which he has thought right to act. I must leave it to the noble Lord to determine whether there are not many considerations, some of a public nature, which ought to have caused him, before putting the Question, to test the reliability of his information by inquiry from two Members of this House on whose word, from personal association, he knows he can rely. But in answer to the concluding portion of the Question, which asks whether it is intended to prosecute criminally my two hon. Friends, I have to ask the noble Lord, both on behalf of my hon. Friends and on ac-
  876
  count of more general considerations, that he shall forthwith place not only in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown, but before this House and the public, the sources and the nature of the information which have caused him to prefer a charge so grave, so groundless, and, he must permit me to say, so recklessly made.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Sir, I should have preferred, owing to the important statement which is about to be made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, to defer my explanation until to-morrow night; but in reply to the direct appeal which has been made to me, I have now to inform the House and the public that the person who gave me the information is a Mr. Maltman Barry, who is prepared to state, if necessary, at the Bar of the House, that he received from the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a subscription for the support of The Freiheit. I can also produce the gentleman who acted as treasurer for the funds of The Freiheit, who will be prepared to state also, if necessary, at the Bar of the House, that he received a sum of money from Mr. Maltman Barry, who told him that it was the contribution of the hon. Baronet, but was to be entered on the records in an assumed name. This, Sir, is the information on which I based my Question; and I am perfectly prepared, if necessary, to produce these two witnesses to its truth. I do not now wish to further detain the House; but I beg to give Notice that I will to-morrow, at the meeting of the House, ask the permission of the House to make a further personal explanation, and, if necessary, I will conclude with a Motion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Will the House forgive me for a moment while I say, in the absence of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whose statement I have in writing, that the charge is entirely without foundation; that the noble Lord has made no mention or given any reason why the charge should have been made against him.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon for the omission. The fund to which I am informed the Civil Lord of the Admiralty contributed was

  877
  not the fund for the support of The Freiheit; it was a different fund—an election fund, which was being raised in this country to defray the costs of the election of Herr Most and his colleagues at the dissolution which took place after the attempted assassination of the Emperor of Germany.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I think it only duo to the House, to myself, and to the Government of which I am a Member, that I should say at once, and without waiting until to-morrow, that I never saw The Freiheit newspaper until I saw the number which contained the article now the subject of the prosecution; that I never read any article in that newspaper, except the one to which I refer; that I never heard of Herr Most or the The Freihet newspaper until about three or four weeks ago; and, as it is scarcely necessary for me to add, that the statement which has been made is utterly untrue.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: All I have to say is that I am very glad to hear the statement of the hon. Baronet, whose thanks I shall expect to receive for having been the means of dispelling an injurious rumour.

  JAMAICA—ITS GOVERNMENT AS A CROWN COLONY.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any information has reached the Colonial Office of the great dissatisfaction generally prevailing in Jamacia with its present system of Government as a Crown Colony; and, whether, seeing that until a few years ago representative Government had for two centuries existed there, Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the expediency of restoring to the people some share in the management of their own affairs?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to my hon. and learned Friend's first Question, I have to say that no information has reached the Colonial Office as to any great or general dissatisfaction; but we are well aware, of course, that certain sections of the community dislike the present system of government. In reply to his second Question, I have to say that I fear it is quite impossible for me to hold out any hope of the existing Constitution being altered.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAL DELIVERIES (IRELAND).
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Postmaster General, If he would consider the advisability of giving instructions to the letter carrier recently appointed to convey letters from Drumsna to Bonny-beg, county Leitrim, to proceed to Bonnybeg from Drumsna by the road that passes by Gortconlon and Headford, as some of the residents living in that district have a constant official correspondence, and the change of route will involve no additional expense to the postal department?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, some misapprehension exists as to the facts on which the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is based; and I would, therefore, ask him to communicate with me privately on the subject.

  INTERNATIONAL BI-METALLIC CONFERENCE.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether this Country has given any reply to the proposal that it should be represented at the International Bi-Metallic Conference to be held at Paris, under the auspices of France and the United States; if a reply has been sent, whether it is so expressed as to exclude any doubt of its being the determination of this Country to maintain its present standard of value; and, whether he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence which has passed upon the subject?
  SIR CHARLES W. DUKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have informed the Governments of France and the United States that they could not consent to discuss the principles of a double standard, and that unless the invitations were so worded as to leave to each Power entire liberty of discussion Her Majesty's Government must decline to be represented at the Conference. The Government of India are willing to send a delegate, who would not, however, be authorized to vote on any question of the adoption of the bi-metallic system; but the Secretary of State for India will be prepared to consider carefully any measures calculated to promote the re-establishment of the value of silver. The question of the separate representation of certain Colonies is at present under consideration. Papers on

  879
  the subject will shortly be laid on the Table.

  THE CROWN AGENTS FOR THE COLONIES.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government in designating certain officers as—
  "Crown Agents for the Colonies, and giving them an establishment in the Colonial Office, mean the public to understand that these officers are servants of the Crown,"
  and that Her Majesty's Government is responsible for their actions; whether he is aware that these Crown agents, on the prestige of the position thus accorded to them, issue loans and make contracts for the Colonies, and have done so for the Cape Colony; whether he is also aware that they claim a right to enforce these contracts in our law courts, but in a claim against them they ignore our courts, and refer aggrieved parties to the Colonial courts; and, whether it is the fact that a Colonial Government is not a corporation that can be sued otherwise than by a "Petition of Right," and that as regards the Cape Government that remedy is excluded by the circumstance that the Cape Parliament never passed an Act authorizing such Petition of Right?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, my reply to my hon. Friend's first Question must be in the negative. The Crown agents have, no doubt, in the interests of public convenience, an establishment close to the Colonial Office; but they are the servants of the Colonial Governments, paid from Colonial, not Imperial, funds, nor is Her Majesty's Government in any way responsible for their actions. In reply to my hon. Friend's second Question, I have to say that I am quite aware that they issue, and have long issued, loans for Colonial Governments. In reply to his third Question, I have to say that, like the rest of Her Majesty's subjects, the Crown agents have no power to ignore the Courts of this country. Perhaps my hon. Friend will kindly postpone his fourth Question.

  THE QUEEN v. EDWARDS—THE PARISH OF WOOLWICH—EXPENSES INCURRED IN BURYING THE VICTIMS OF THE "PRINCESS ALICE" CALAMITY.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is not
  880
  a fact that, under the decision of Justices Lindley and Matthew, in the case of the Queen v. Edwards, the parish of Woolwich was put to an expense of £1,200 in the interment of the bodies of those drowned in the lamentable accident caused by the running down of the "Princess Alice;" and, whether he will introduce a Bill to remove such a heavy liability by extending section 1 of 48 Geo. 3, c. 75, to bodies which should be found, thrown in, or cast on shore from the sea, or from any river?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I will consider the subject if the hon. Member will communicate with me in reference to it.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870, COMMISSION (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH'S)—THE EVIDENCE.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that evidence has been published by the Land Commission, presided over by the Earl of Bessborough, bringing charges against Irish landlords, while the names of the persons giving such evidence have been suppressed; and, whether he would publish the names of the witnesses, or in some way enable the public to form a fair judgment how far the testimony may be biassed or otherwise?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I beg to inform the hon. Member that neither I nor any other Member of the Government have any control over the Commission, who conducted their proceedings in the way they thought best; and, therefore, we could not call upon them to publish the names of the witnesses who were called, neither could we publish them ourselves. It would have been better, in the circumstances, to have addressed this Question to one of the Commisioners, either in this House or in "another place." I believe the usual course was adopted.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCE,in consequence of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, begged to put the Question to the senior Member for the County of Cork, who was a distinguished Member of the Commission, and who was now in his place.
  MR. SHAW,in reply, said, there were several tenant farmers who came before the Commission, and on the question that their evidence should be taken

  881
  down and their names published, they expressed a dread; they were afraid by so doing they would expose themselves. The dread they expressed was not so much on the part of their landlords as on the part of the agents and under agents. This, he thought, was a very natural feeling under the circumstances. Their evidence was accordingly taken on the express understanding that although the evidence might be published their names would be omitted. Special inquiry was made into the particulars of the evidence given by these witnesses, and it was found to be bonâ fide At the end of their sittings a deputation attended representing the landlords of Ireland, who gave the Commission very elaborate tables of expenditure. They were asked to give the names in addition to the particulars; but they declined to give them, adding that they only brought the information to the Commission on the condition that they would not publish the names.
  Loan CLAUD HAMILTONasked the hon. Member whether by bonâ fide he meant that the evidence was truthful?
  MR. SHAWreplied that the evidence was carefully sifted as to its truth, and sent to the persons implicated before it was published, so that they might have replied to the charges if they had chosen to do so.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—GLANDERS.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Vice President of the Council, If his attention has been called to the increasing prevalence of glanders amongst horses in the Metropolis; whether there is any regular inspection of stables by veterinary surgeons or other competent persons acting under the orders of the Privy Council; if it is not a fact that the public drinking troughs are a source of infection; if it is not the case that the horses in night cabs are especially infected; and, whether it would not be possible to compel all veterinary surgeons, under penalties, to report to the Privy Council the existence of every case of this disease that comes under their notice?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, although the Returns show an increase from 601 cases of glanders in 1879 to 1,142 in 1880, the Veterinary Department is of opinion that the increased number of cases re-
  882
  ported is solely due to the Act of 1878 being rigidly enforced by the local authority, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and not to increased disease. The duty of inspection devolves on the local authority, and we have every reason to believe that it is efficiently discharged. Drinking troughs are one means by which the disease can be spread; but they are a most humane provision, and, I am told, have conferred benefits far outweighing any risk attaching to them. No doubt, if glandered horses are worked at all, they are worked at night to escape detection; but this entails penalties which have, in many cases, been strictly enforced. It is believed that it would not be possible to carry out the suggestions contained in the last paragraphs of the noble Lord's Question.

  BOARD OF TRADE—RESIGNATION OF MR. R. GIFFEN.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is the case that Mr. R. Giffen, head of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, has resigned his office; and, if so, if he can state to the House the grounds of the resignation of this efficient and distinguished public servant?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry to say it is true that Mr. Giffen has resigned his office; and, in consequence, the State has lost a most efficient and distinguished public servant. Mr. Giffen informs me that he has left the Public Service in order to better his prospects.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE "IRISH WORLD."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the "Irish World" newspaper, printed and published in New York; whether he is aware, or whether it is with the sanction of the Government, that that newspaper is circulated weekly all over Ireland, partly through the agency of and by the officials of Her Majesty's Post Office Department, and partly through other well-known channels; whether he is aware that incitements to murder Irish landlords, land agents, and land

  883
  grabbers and others are set forth in every edition of that paper; why proceedings similar to those which have recently been directed against the "Freiheit" newspaper in London have not been directed against those parties who are concerned in the circulation, sale, and distribution of the "Irish World" in Ireland; and, what difference, if any, exists between incitements to murder Her Majesty's subjects and incitements to murder persons who are not Her Majesty's subjects, which should warrant a prosecution in the latter case and not in the former?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I need not say that The Irish World is not circulated with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. I have reason to believe that its circulation is mainly, if not entirely, through other channels than the Post Office. As to another part of the Question, I should have thought the noble Lord would have been aware that, in the case of a newspaper which transgresses the law, it is very much easier to stop it if printed in the United Kingdom than if brought in from abroad; and that it is impossible to institute similar proceedings, in this instance, to those directed against The Freiheit newspaper. I may anticipate a question of which Notice has been given by the hon. Member for Leitrim by stating that if The Irish World containing the article from which he has read were published in the United Kingdom—certainly if it were published in Ireland—I should not lose an hour before taking the opinion of the Law Advisers of the Government on the subject. I am well aware that the circulation of The Irish World has been productive of evil consequences; but it has been found by all Governments to be one of the most difficult matters to prevent the introduction of mischievous newspapers from abroad.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND— SCHEME OF THE SENATE.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government will undertake that an opportunity shall be afforded for discussing the scheme of the Senate of the Royal University in Ireland, laid upon the Table of the House on April 5th, before either themselves taking or authorizing the Senate to take any steps
  884
  to carry out the proposals of this scheme, or before proceeding to fix a day for the dissolution of the Queen's University in Ireland, under section 11 of the University Education (Ireland) Act of 1879?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, before the scheme is finally adopted, the House will have an opportunity of discussing the whole question. The Queen's University cannot be dissolved until the new University is in a position to confer degrees.

  FRANCE—THE NEW COMMERCIAL TREATY.
  MR. JACKSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state whether, in the event of a new Commercial Treaty between this Country and France being arranged, the provisions of such Treaty will be made known to the House before its final ratification?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have taken steps to ascertain the wishes of the Chambers of Commerce and other commercial bodies in this country with a view to meet, as far as possible, their requirements in any arrangements with France that may eventually be come to. I can say nothing further upon the point af the present time beyond this—that every possible step will be taken to inform the House of what is going on, and that everything will be done to avoid anything like secrecy.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
  MR. SCHREIBERasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that by the Standing Order, No. 1, applicable to all Appeals presented to the House of Lords on or after the 1st day of November 1876, it was
  "Ordered, That, except where otherwise provided by statute, no Petition of Appeal be received by this House, unless the same be lodged in the Parliament Office for presentation to the House within one year from the date of the last decree, order, judgment, or interlocutor appealed from;"
  and, whether he would inform the House by what statute, if any, the time for appealing in Mr. Bradlaugh's case can be extended from one year to five?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The hon. Member is quite right in saying that the limit of

  885
  time for appealing to the House of Lords from the Court of Appeal is one year. An hon. Friend near me having suggested, as I was speaking, that the time was five years, I adopted his statement at the moment to avoid controversy.

  POOR LAW (METROPOLIS)—WORKHOUSE AT CHAMPION HILL.
  MR. ROUNDELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, before finally sanctioning the erection by the Guardians of St. Saviour's, Southwark, of a proposed Workhouse near Champion Hill, he will give the Governors of Dulwich College and adjoining landowners an opportunity of stating their objections to that site?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, the site for the proposed workhouse has been carefully inspected and approved by the proper officials, and it would be only misleading the hon. Member to hold out any hope that the decision will be changed.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— PROTECTION TO LOYAL INHABITANTS.
  COLONEL TAYLORasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, on the evacuation of the Transvaal, measures will be taken to secure the interests of those who, on the faith of the performance of British rule, bought properties and invested their savings therein?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member, I have to say that the Royal Commission has been instructed to consider the measures to be taken for this purpose.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. ELLIOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to a leading article in the "Standard" of the 6th of this month, purporting to give all the particulars of the Irish Land Bill; and, if so, whether such particulars are correct; whether they have been communicated exclusively to that journal; and, whether it is in accordance with Parliamentary procedure that the substance of Bills should be communicated to the press before the Bills are in the hands of Members of the House of Commons?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my attention has been drawn to the article in question. I am unable at present to give any particulars which will throw any light on the origin of the article. That being so, perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question on some future day. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) has also a Question on the subject; but what I have said is the only answer I call give at this moment.

  LOCAL TAXATION—LEGISLATION.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the whole question of Local Taxation next Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government are very anxious to deal with this question, which they consider to be both important and urgent, in a comprehensive manner. At the same time, we should be very bold at this moment to say what subjects we intended to deal with in the course of the next Session of Parliament.

  STATE OF IRELAND—COLLISION IN MAYO.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has received information that women and children have been fired upon, and one young woman killed, at Ballyhannis, county Mayo, by constabulary engaged in the service of notices of ejectment; and, whether the district of Ballyhannis was the scene of most severe distress and famine last year?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he would answer the Question of the hon. Member. It appeared that a process-server was most violently attacked, and a small body of police who were with him were also violently attacked and injured. The result was that the process-server refused to go on, and the police retreated with him. A mob of 200 or 300 men, and also women and children, followed the police and again attacked them. A. constable had to fire, and he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was very sorry to say that a girl was shot in the leg; but he was able to state from two police reports he had received that she was not dangerously wounded. With regard to the last Question, he had not had time to learn the exact facts with

  887
  regard to Ballyhannis; but he had no doubt there was distress there last winter.
  In reply to Mr. O'DONNELL,
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that 10 policemen went with the process-server; and it was not usual, under those circumstances, for a magistrate to accompany the process-server.

  AFGHANISTAN (POLITICAL AFFAIRS) —THE AMEER.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that a large supply of small-arms ammunition has been granted by the Indian Government to Abdar Rahman; and, whether such supply of munitions of war is intended exclusively for the external protection of Afghanistan, or is to be used by Abdar Rahman to repress discontent and opposition among the Afghan people?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: When Abdurrahman assumed the government of Cabul he represented to the Indian Government that, owing to the occupation of the capital by British troops, the arsenal was almost entirely empty. Upon that representation a considerable quantity of small-arm ammunition was given to him; but it is quite impossible for me to say to what use he may have put it. A further grant was made recently, in consequence of the representations of an Envoy of the Ameer at Calcutta.

  STATE OF IRELAND—AFFRAY IN THE COUNTY SLIGO.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following statements in the "Freeman's Journal" in reference to the affray in county Sligo:—That, as the armed party accompanying the process-server approached, a young woman ran forward to the police and said—
  "All we want are the processes and that you will leave the roofs of our cabins over us for another year,"
  and that, then, the police suddenly drew across the road, fixed bayonets, and fired under instructions; that there was no stone-throwing, except by a few children, when the police then resorted to these extreme steps; whether the coroner adjourned the inquest, in spite of the protests of Mr. Mannion, the representa-
  888
  tive of the next-of-kin of the deceased, and without any application in open court; whether the coroner is correctly reported to have said on the question of adjournment:
  "The coroner—I have received directions from the Clerk of the Crown, from the county inspector, and from the sub-inspector, to adjourn the inquest until Tuesday, the 24th;"
  and, if a coroner is thus justified in acting under the directions and by virtue of a private agreement with the constabulary authorities?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he had read the report in The Freeman's Journal. He had only to state that he had received official information confirming the statement of the police—that was to say, he had received statements from the resident magistrate and the county inspector, from which it appeared that the policemen were obliged to fire. The hon. Member asked whether the coroner was justified in acting under the direction of the constabulary authorities. Of course ho was not justified. The coroner acted on his own discretion.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND) ACT—MAIDSTONE GAOL.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a letter addressed to the clerk of the peace for the county of Kent on March 22nd, and signed "A. F. O. Liddell," in the following terms:
  "The Prison Commissioners having, reported that it is desirable, with a view to the discontinuance of Maidstone Prison, that prisoners from Tunbridge Wells should be sent to Lewes Prison, I am directed by the Secretary of State to request you to move the Tunbridge Wells magistrates to commit prisoners in future to Lewes Prison,"
  was authorised by him; and, if so, whether he still adheres to the statement made by him on this subject?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, it was not intended to close Maidstone Prison permanently; but it would be closed while alterations were being made in it.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL-PON (METROPOLIS).
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the increasing number of cases of small pox within the Metropolis; and, whether any special arrangements have

  889
  been made by the Government for the care of these patients, having regard to the great danger of admitting such cases into the general hospitals, and to the fact that the beds in the small pox hospitals are stated to be all occupied?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, my attention has for some time past been anxiously directed to the prevalence of small-pox in the Metropolis. The Government itself has no power to take charge of persons suffering from this disease; but the Local Government Board has not failed to impress upon the several authorities who are either required or enabled to provide hospital accommodation for small-pox patients, whether of the pauper or non-pauper class, the necessity of making every arrangement in their power to meet the emergency. I am glad to say that arrangements are being made by some of the authorities to supplement the hospital accommodation at the disposal of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District.

  EJECTMENTS (IRELAND).
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can inform the House of the number of ejectments which have been executed in Ireland since the passing into Law of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act; and, whether he can inform the House of the number of ejectments executed in Ireland during the period of similar length immediately preceding the passing of this Act?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that in the month of March last there had been 196 decrees of ejectments in Ireland, and 91 had been re-admitted as care-takers. In the month of February there had been 83 ejectments, and 32 of the tenants were re-admitted. The inference which he supposed the hon. Member wished to be drawn from these figures—that this increase was owing to the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act—was not correct, because the largest increase was in Ulster, where the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act was not in force.
  In reply to Mr. GIBSON,
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he believed that the ejectments were almost entirely agricultural.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Prime Minister, If he could state exactly the course proposed in Business to-morrow?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not know whether there would be a debate after the opening Statement upon the Irish Land Bill to-night. Possibly hon. Gentlemen, on a measure of that nature, would think it more convenient to reserve their comments until they had the document in their hands. The Bill would be circulated not later than tomorrow forenoon. Notice had been given of opposition to the Bankruptcy Bill; and therefore he was afraid he could not state till a later hour of the evening what would be the course of Business for to-morrow.

  SOUTHERN AFGHANISTAN—PISHIN AND SIBI.
  In reply to Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL,
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that no answer had been yet sent to the Despatch of the Government of India upon the subject of the abandonment of Quettah; but he did not consider that any action had been taken here or in India which precluded the occupation of Pishin and Sibi.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Ordered, That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notices of Motions for leave to introduce the Land Law (Ireland) Bill and the Bankruptcy Bill.—(Mr.Gladstone.)
MOTION.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself, Sir, to the exposition of, I think, the most difficult and complex question with which in the course of my public life I have ever had to deal, I do feel at least some satisfaction in exchanging the dreary work of repression in which we have been engaged for nearly the whole of the past three months for legislation which, at all events, we hope will be of an improving and reforming character. At the same time, I cannot but contrast the circumstances in which we address ourselves to this task with

    891
    the happier circumstances of the year 1870, when the Government last attempted to deal with this subject. We are obliged now to enter on the consideration of a question above all things requiring tranquillity, impartiality, and strict balance of mind in the midst of a state of things in Ireland, which I do not wish to characterize by any strong language, and which is now happily in course of mitigation, but which, at the same time, we cannot call less than a disturbed state of things—a state of things so disturbed as undoubtedly to have influenced the minds of men, not less seriously, perhaps, than the real and permanent merits of the question. It is important, Sir, at the outset to consider what are the grounds on which the Government are of opinion that we ought now to proceed to legislate on Irish land. I am bound to say that there are certain of those alleged or supposed grounds which I must at once emphatically disclaim. It is commonly said that the iniquity of the Irish Land Laws is a main reason for legislating on Irish land. Now, Sir, equity and iniquity may be in great part comparative; but I must say that, if we are to proceed on that principle of comparison, I think it is an exaggeration to describe the Land Laws of Ireland as iniquitous. The Land Laws of England are laws under which, at any rate, this country has lived, has remained contented, has made extraordinary progress; but the Land Laws of Ireland chiefly differ from the Land Laws of England in the very special provisions which they present to us on behalf of the tenant. Neither, Sir, can I say that I think that the more extreme plans which have lately been broached in Ireland, and which have been largely commended to the notice, to the judgment, and to the passions of those who had to consider them, constitute in themselves any very valid reason for our approaching practically the consideration of the case. Those schemes, Sir, I must frankly say, have constituted in the eye of the Government a main difficulty in approaching it. I do not wish to ascribe to any hon. Member of this House, or to any proposers of those schemes out-of-doors, a consciousness of their character and tendency such as I consider them to be. But, speaking of many of those plans quite apart from the motives and views
    892
    of those who propose them, I am bound to say that it passes my ability to distinguish them from schemes of public plunder. I hold it to be an occasion of just praise to the people of Ireland in general that those who have been engaged in examining into the Land Question do not ascribe to that people a participation in views which can be so characterized. In the 3rd paragraph of the Report of the Bessborough Commission the Commissioners thus describe the moderate views of the tenant farmers of Ireland. They say—
    "The tenant farmers of Ireland declare that they do not desire the expropriation of the landlords or the confiscation for their own benefit of the property of others; but that they do desire to cultivate their farms in security, and to receive the full profits of their industry while rendering a fair rent for the land they occupy to those whose means have been invested in it."
    And I rejoice to think that, such being their views, we have a fair and a broad basis on which we may hopefully proceed. Well, Sir, neither, I am bound to say, should we think it just to propose legislation on this great matter on the ground, whether expressed or implied, of general misconduct on the part of the landlords of Ireland. On the contrary, as a rule, they have stood their trial, and they have, as a rule, been acquitted. The Report of the Bessborough Commission, which certainly is not deficient in its popular sympathies, in its 10th paragraph declares that the greatest credit is due to the Irish landlords for not exacting all that they by law are entitled to exact; and it likewise points out with perfect justice that if they had exacted all that they would by law be entitled to exact they would have been guilty of injustice; they would have appropriated the results of their tenants' labours in the improvement of the soil. Again, I find in the 9th paragraph a remarkable statement, which runs as follows:—
    "It was unusual," that is to say, in Ireland, "to exact what in England would have been considered a full or fair commercial rent. Such a rent over many of the larger estates, the owners of which were resident and took an interest in the welfare of the tenants, it has never been the custom to demand. The example has been largely followed; and is to the present day rather the rule than the exception in Ireland."
    But while it is satisfactory thus to indicate the good conduct of the great proportion of the landlords, there are other

    893
    features of the case on which we do arrive at the conclusion that there is a great necessity for searching and comprehensive legislation. The first of these is that old and standing evil of Ireland—that land hunger, which must not be described as if it wore merely an infirmity of the people for it, and really means land scarcity, still continues to import into the agricultural relations of Ireland difficulties with which as yet we have not been able completely to deal. It is this land hunger, aggravated, no doubt, by the bad seasons of the last few years, together with other circumstances, which constitutes the necessity for directing the attention of Parliament to the subject of Irish land legislation. I am bound, Sir, to add, as a principal author of the Land Act of 1870, that defects have been developed in that Act which have seriously marred the completeness of its operation. Some of those defects undoubtedly—I will not dwell on details, it would be invidious—are due to changes which the Bill underwent after it had left this House, and in which we were constrained reluctantly to acquiesce. But others of them, I am bound to say, were involved in the original construction of the measure; and even if it had passed into law in the same shape as it passed this House, it would not have been completely adequate for its purpose. I hope, Sir, it will not be thought harsh or unjust if, after the tribute I have striven to render to the Irish landlords at large, I mention, as a third and conclusive reason for this legislation, that a limited number of that class have been distinguished by conduct different from the predominating number. There have been, Sir, both arbitrary raisings of rent and harsh and cruel evictions. It may seem hard, where there are so many landlords with whom we have not a shred of title to interfere, were it possible to sever their case from other cases around them, that they must be liable to interference on account of the acts or omissions of the few; but so it is, and so it must be, under the iron necessity of public affairs. I remember an illustration I may, perhaps, be allowed to give which occurred long ago; it belongs to the period of my early life, though I think it bears a marked analogy to the case now before us. I refer to the time when, in 1833, Parliament, by a very wise and great act of legislation, deter-
    894
    mined on the emancipation of the negroes of the West Indies, and introduced a period of six years during which there was to prevail a system of what was called apprenticeship, substantially founded on freedom, but coupled with a qualified and limited degree of compulsory labour. Do not let it be supposed by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland that I am comparing the relation of the West Indian planters to the negroes, with that of the Irish proprietors to their tenantry—it is only for a limited purpose that I am quoting the illustration. The system worked admirably well throughout almost the whole of the West Indies. Those who had been owners of slaves, and were still owners of estates, entered into the spirit of the law, and the progress made under the system of apprenticeship was very gratifying. But unhappily in one or two islands, especially in Jamaica, there was a knot of men who could not forget or sever themselves from the vicious habits of their early life, and contrived to carry the traditions and practices of slavery into the new legal condition which the Legislature meant to be one of freedom. This was discovered by the vigorous philanthropy of Mr. Sturge, who emblazoned it before the people of this country. It entered deep into the hearts of the people; and in consequence of the acts of a few, notwithstanding the good conduct of the many, there was a sharp and sudden interference with the letter of the contract, ending in the unrequited remission of two years of apprenticeship in the West Indies. Well, Sir, I think that, in the same way, some few landlords of Ireland—generally the smaller landlords—have contrived to inflict on their brethren in their own class much dishonour and much inconvenience.
    These are the reasons on which we ground the necessity that has led us to come forward and propose to Parliament a measure which we think of great importance. Let us consider, in the first place, what is the guidance to which we might naturally look for our direction in the framing of a Bill upon Irish land. We found in existence when we came into Office a Commission which had been appointed by the former Government—a Commission with extraordinary width and scope—to investigate the working of the Land Acts. The Report of this Commission was sure to be a consider-

    895
    able element in the consideration of the case. But, at the same time, it would hardly be expected that a Government formed from this side of the House would be content with the sole verdict of that Commission. Partly, therefore, because of the gravity of the case, and partly because we thought it necessary that a body should be appointed which might give its undivided attention to the thorough and searching investigation of the Irish Land Question, Her Majesty was advised to appoint a second Commission, and we have now before us the results of both Commissions. As I stated, the Land Act of 1870 achieved but a partial success. I am compelled to say the same of the Commissions of Inquiry. From the two Commissions we had naturally to expect two Reports; but instead of two Reports there have been a collection—I might say a litter—of Reports; not less than seven in all. One Report of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, signed by a considerable majority, is flanked or backed by another Report of a not inconsiderable minority, including some names of great authority in regard to Irish land. One member of the minority, Mr. Bonamy Price, is the only man—and to his credit be it spoken—who has had the resolution to apply, in all their unmitigated authority, the principles of abstract political economy to the people and circumstances of Ireland exactly as if he had been proposing to legislate for the inhabitants of Saturn or Jupiter. And when I turn to the labours of the Bessborough Commission the process of sub-division is not loss remarkable. There were four Commissioners, of whom two signed a Report which, I must say, is one of the ablest and most interesting I have ever read, though we are far from adopting the whole scheme they recommend. But of these four Commissioners my hon. Friend the Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) has signed a collateral Report, which undoubtedly, in some important particulars, must be regarded as a counter Report. Another—the O'Conor Don—signed a Report of his own, with proposals of enormous scope, more especially for the general purchase of the estates of all willing vendors in Ireland by the Government—a condition which he appeared to make vital and fundamental to any proposal for which he
    896
    would be responsible. Lastly, there is, completely separate, the Report of Mr. Kavanagh. I will not mention his name in his absence without saying that he is one of the ablest, if not the ablest, Gentleman coming from Ireland I have ever known among the Party opposite. Besides his ability, he is a man of independent mind; and I do not scruple to call him—making allowance for his starting-point—a man of liberal and enlightened feelings. This, then, is the result of the sub-division of the Reports. The more numerous Richmond Commission produced three Reports. The less numerous Bessborough Commission produced four Reports. The total number is seven. We are greatly indebted to the Members of the Commissions for the disinterested pains and great ability with which they have addressed themselves to their task; but our gratitude, I must say, must be mixed with some bewilderment. Although the Commissioners have not been able to lend us the immense assistance which would have been derived from their union in a body of identical recommendation, yet allow me to say that we have derived immense assistance from their Reports. The body of their fundamental recommendations are of the utmost value, because I look not only at the points in which they disagree, but still more at those in which they agree. And what do I find? I find that, setting aside the single Report of Mr. Bonamy Price, the whole body of the Richmond Commissioners and the whole body of the Bessborough Commissioners, without any exception, are agreed in making a recommendation of the most vital importance—I mean the constitution of a Court for the purpose of dealing with the differences between landlords and tenants in Ireland in regard to rent. It is not for me to fix authoritative interpretations on the language of public men; and therefore I think it only fair, after what I have said, to read the recommendation of the Richmond Commission on this subject. It is needless for me to refer to the recommendations of the minority of the Richmond Commission or the recommendation of the Bessborough Commission. They are perfectly clear and unequivocal; but I wish to read to the House what I conceive to be one of the most important portions of the document before us—a short passage from the preliminary Re-

    897
    port of the Duke of Richmond's Commission. It runs as follows:—
    "Bearing in mind the system by which the improvement and equipment of a farm in Ireland are very generally the work of the tenant, and the fact that a yearly tenant is at any time liable to have his rent raised in consequence of the increased value given to his holding by the expenditure of his capital and labour, the desire for legislative interference to protect him from an arbitrary increase of rent does not seem unnatural. Legislation properly framed to accomplish this end would not be objected to."
    Now in that passage there is no express mention of the name of a Court; but I think I cannot go wrong in interpreting the passage to mean that and nothing else. In fact, I should say that it must either mean that, or something more; it may be interference, for instance, to give perpetuity of present rents without any increase. Clearly this is not what is meant; but, in pointing to the regulation by a public authority of the rents in Ireland, I conceive that I am making a fair, an impartial, and, I would almost say, a necessary construction of the language of the Commission when I say that we have that Commission, appointed by the late Government, appointed certainly with no special want of regard for the just interests of the landlords, recommending that in the peculiar circumstances of Ireland there shall be legislative interference to protect the tenant from arbitrary increase of rent. I do not know to what extent the Noblemen and Gentlemen who signed that Report had considered the ulterior consequences of the proposition which they thus laid down; but I own it appears to me—and I am not now attempting to saddle them with what I am about to state—that legislative interference for the regulation of rent cannot by any possibility be severed from legislative interference for the regulation of tenure and from the regulation of the principle of tenant right. That, however, is by the way; for I do not attempt to avail myself of the advantage of the authority of this Commission, combined with all the other Commissions upon this great subject, further than I have stated. But it is plain that the independence and the difference of the judgments which have been arrived at by the several Commissions give additional force and weight to the points on which we find them agree.
    Now let me state to the House that this subject must be considered to di-
    898
    vide itself into three branches, with one of which I have little or nothing to do. The first is that which is commonly known to us as Land Law—the whole important group of questions connected with the registry, the transfer, the devolution, and the nature of estates in land. These are matters which, substantially, I shall hardly touch to-night. I mention them now in order that the omission may not be supposed to testify indifference. It is my firm belief that no more valuable gift could be conferred on Ireland than sound and thorough legislation on those subjects: but it is not our work to-night. Everyone will admit that it would not be possible to combine such legislation with the great and complicated subject with which we have now to deal. The two subjects are indeed so far connected that, proceeding on the same principles as we adopted in 1870, we are endeavouring to provide that whatever operations are contemplated by the measure, they shall be placed within the power of limited owners of the soil. Consequently we may set aside limitation of ownership, so far as may be necessary for our purpose. The two great questions which remain are these: in the first place, the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland; and, in the second place, that important group of questions which I may here gather together under the name of subjects which require advances from the Public Exchequer. These are the two branches of the subject which it will be my duty to open, and I must open them with many apologies, and with a respectful appeal to the indulgence of the House. In dealing with these questions I can hardly hope to be even accurate in detail, still less can I hope to exhibit the numerous provisions of the measure in their due proportion and relative bearing upon the whole subject. I fear that I may be justly open to the reproach both of being prolix and defective in the statement I have to make. But, relying upon the patience of hon. Members, I will do my best to explain the whole spirit and the main provisions of the measure we are submitting to the House. I have never as a Minister felt overwhelmed with as great a sense of the enormous importance of the topics and the propositions involved in it; and there is nothing that can legitimately be done by the Government which we shall hesitate to do for

    899
    the purpose of promoting such legislation as shall deal effectively with the Land Question in Ireland.
    It appears to me that the proposal to create a Court, or to allow of the reference to a Court, of most important and numerous transactions of life between man and man—I mean in a material sense—has become, in the circumstances of Ireland, and with the authorities before us, quite inevitable; and that being so, it is evident that it must be a salient and cardinal proposal of any measure into which it enters. But a question of the greatest importance meets us on the threshold. Is this Court to be compulsory, and, being compulsory, is it to be universal, and therefore perpetual? or is it to be a Court as to which there is to be an option reserved? This question I shall have to argue before the House; but, before arguing it, I will speak of a matter as to which we have the deepest conviction, and with regard to which also I think a great deal of prejudice and misconception prevail—I refer to the subject of assignment, generally known in the language of the "three F's" as Free Sale. In using the word assignment I use the word which I believe is best known to law and to history. As far as I have been able to observe, more objection has been taken to the legislative recognition of assignment in those quarters where objection was likely to be taken than to the other proposals of the Commission—namely, fixity of tenure and fair rents, obtained by the arbitration of a public authority. It appears to me that while this particular proposal has been most objected to, and appears to be the most unpalatable in many quarters, it is distinctly and decidedly the least open to objection in the circumstances of Ireland, and almost absolutely ingrained in the necessities of the case and in the circumstances with which we have to deal. Now let us see whether that is or is not an unreasonable statement. I will speak of that which is assigned as the tenant right of Ireland; and, for the purpose of my argument, the assumption is that every tenant has some right or other in his holding. What are the elements of that right in Ireland? They are more easily traced there than elsewhere. In the first place, you have the unquestioned fact that improvements have been to a larger extent than probably in any
    900
    other country the work of the tenant himself. Tenant right is the result of these improvements. Secondly, you have this great fact in Ireland—a land hunger coupled with land scarcity. With a supply of land in the market so much less than the demand, you have a state of things in which it is well worth the while of a man, who has not got land as a means of obtaining a regular subsistence and livelihood, to pay for obtaining it. That willingness of the incoming tenant to pay enters distinctly into the interest of the outgoing tenant, so long as he continues the tenant, as something he has to receive. There is also a principle of rarer, but not altogether insensible operation in the circumstances of Ireland—that which may be called the pretium affectionis—the disposition of many an Irishman, even after he has left his country, perhaps driven from it by hard necessity, to find his way back, and, if he can, to settle himself once more on the soil. I may, perhaps, be permitted to mention an instance of this kind—no doubt an extreme instance, but, at the same time, an instance which will help us to see how it is that the tenant in Ireland thinks he has something to transfer for which he has the right to obtain what he can get. A landlord in the West of Ireland had, among other holdings, a rather miserable holding consisting of a small tenement and an acre or two of land, for which he received a rent of five guineas. Repeatedly, as he rode by the spot, it occurred to him that he ought to reduce the rent; but before he had taken any steps in that direction a returned Irishman from America called upon him and said he was very desirous to obtain a plot of land on his estate; he had applied to the tenant of this small holding; the tenant was quite willing to sell, and he was quite willing to buy; and he came to ask the permission of the landlord. The landlord said—"Very well, I have no objection; what are you willing to give?" And the man said he was willing to give £100 for this five-guinea holding. The landlord said, by way of jest—"Then I think I must raise the rent;" but he did not, and the transaction proceeded. Now that was as much a case of pretium affectioni as paying £10,000 or £20,000 for a set of old Sévres or China ware. There are specialities in the case of Irish tenant right.

    901
    But what I wish to impress upon the House is this—that, apart from those specialities, the principle of assignment is a principle rooted in law. By artificial provisions, introduced into agreements, through commanding position of landlords, assignment has been generally prohibited; but the assignment of the tenant's interest, whatever it be, is a principle, not only of Irish, but of English Land Laws, and of the Land Laws of Europe generally. The Bessborough Commission says—
    "For many generations the great bulk of the land under cultivation in Ireland has been held on small farms under 30 acres, without leases upon parole tenancies from year to year. In these tenancies, by the Common Law, the tenant has always had a right of property which he might dispose of, and which was only determinable subject to conditions, the principal of which was the requirement of six months' notice to quit, recently extended by the Act of 1877 to 12 months."
    I will quote a few words from a very able, though concise, work of Mr. Richey, a Professor of the University of Dublin, on the Irish Land Laws. He informs us in an early part of that work that yearly tenancies, when they first arose in the 16th century, were commonly called leases for the term of a year and onwards de anno in annum, according to the pleasure of both parties; and he says that the tenant was entitled, as any other owner of an interest in land, upon this yearly holding to sell or sub-let his farm to whom and on what terms he pleased. He then explains how it was that the landlord's consent came to be asked; and he says that, whether the landlord assented or not to the sale, all the interest of the previous tenant passed by the sale to the purchaser. I will quote lastly an extract with which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has supplied me, from a work of Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, in which it is distinctly laid down that tenants for even a less period than four years, but who are possessed of a certain quantity of interest, may alienate the whole or any part of it unless they are expressly restricted from so doing. A tenant from year to year may therefore assign his term or under-let; but he may not by under-letting grant an interest exceeding his own in point of duration. I am anxious to call attention to the fact that this interest is embodied in the ancient law, because I
    902
    think that fact meets, in a great degree, the fundamental objection which Gentlemen are apt to take to this period of tenant right. They say it establishes joint proprietorship, which they consider is a bad thing. I do not admit that; but if it does establish a joint proprietorship, I hold that, in the absence of express restrictions, the old law of the country, corresponding, I believe, with the general law of Europe, recognizes the tenant right, and therefore recognizes, if so you choose to call it, joint proprietorship. Well, that being the state of the case, how does it stand under the Land Law of 1870? It stands thus—that before the Land Act of 1870 the tenancy was determinable upon a certain notice at the close of each year, at the sole will of the landlord, and without any other consequence whatever. What the tenant had to assign was so small that the assignment was little worth giving or receiving. But in the Land Act—not, I must own, with a view to fortify the principle of tenant right, but simply with a view to defend the tenant in possession of his holding and to render it difficult for the landlord capriciously to get rid of him—we proceeded to enact a scale of compensation for disturbance, without which the tenant could not be removed. That being so, a valuable consideration was, by the Act of 1870, evidently tacked on to every yearly tenancy in Ireland. And, under the Act of 1870, whether we intended it or not, tenant right has become something sensible and considerable. The actual sale of the tenant right, as, I believe, is observed in a marked manner in the minority Report of the Richmond Commission, has grown and spread in Ireland; and the old idea of the people, running back into times anterior to tenures now prevailing, has in modern circumstances received authority and acquired extension from the legislation of this House. That being so, it ought also to he remembered that the recognition of tenant right is certainly of very great practical convenience, provided it can be restrained from undue interference with the landlord's right—of which I will speak presently. In the first place, it affords a means of valuing improvements by far the simplest, cheapest, and most rapid that can be conceived. The improvements are worth that which it is worth the while of the incoming

    903
    man to give, and so the matter is disposed of. Nor is it an inconsiderable advantage that the landlord is secured in all his just claims by the existence and recognition of the principle of tenant right. It is admitted to be the first charge on tenant right that the rent shall be paid, and that anything else which the landlord may have to claim against the tenant—as, for instance, in the case of waste—shall be defrayed out of the money received for the tenant right. How does this stand with regard to the Commissions? For I must say that the authority of these Commissions is a very important element, as all will feel, in our consideration of the case. Every one of the Bessborough Commissioners—Mr. Kavanagh with some reluctance, recognized the principle of tenant right. The minority of the Richmond Commission emphatically acknowledges it, and the majority have not said one word against it. So we stand as to authority. But before passing from these recommendations there is one on which I cannot refrain from dwelling for a moment, and that is the immense political advantage that has been found to attend the principle. I do not think we could have a more vivid illustration of this political advantage than the state of distress which prevailed just 12 months ago in the West of Ireland. At that time there was a whole group of counties in which there prevailed extreme distress. In most of these counties that extreme distress was attended with great public danger. I refer particularly, of course, to Mayo and Galway. But there was another county where the distress was hardly by a single shade different from the others, yet where there was at that time no public danger, no public agitation, no disquietude other than the disquietude of humane and Christian-minded men at the sufferings of their fellow-creatures; and that was the county of Donegal. And the only circumstance—for it is one of the wildest counties you have in Ireland—that made it differ, as far as human judgment can be formed, from the counties near it, in Connaught, was the circumstance that in Donegal you had tenant right, while in Mayo and Galway you had not. Well, Sir, objections may be taken to tenant right, and I am not about to propose an unregulated tenant right. It appears to
    904
    me that it would be very unfair to give legislative force to a tenant without leaving in the hands of the landlord, or of some public authority, the means of securing his own just interest. If a Court is to be called on at the will of the tenant to limit the annual receipt of the landlord, and to fix what, in this Bill, we call a Judicial Rent, then I do not see on what principle you shall say that the tenant right of the tenant is to be subject to no similar and analogous limitation. There are certainly some strong arguments other than the interests of the landlord in favour of that course; for it may be very fairly said that in vain do you cut down the landlord's judicial rent—and I am only assuming that this effect may be to cut down, for in some instances the effect may be to raise it—and take care that the landlords' receipts shall be limited if, with the land hunger and scarcity which prevail in Ireland, you still leave it open to anyone to pay an extravagant sum for tenant right, and thereby to take holdings on the same virtually rack-rented condition. I therefore hold, and we have framed the Bill on that principle, that to recognize duly the power of the landlord or of the Court to raise the rent is the due and just means of preventing the tenant right, which we think to be the just right of the tenant, from passing into extravagance, and from trespassing upon what is the just right of others. We believe that by bringing together, on fair conditions and in fair competition, the right of the tenant to assign, and the right of the landlord to get, what his land is reasonably worth, we shall be able to obtain a result agreeable to justice and agreeable to the interests of both. I have detained the House at some length on this subject, because I am extremely anxious to do what I can for the purpose of showing, in the first place, that there is nothing strange or of an innovating character in the recognition of this principle; secondly, that it is rooted in the history of Ireland, and in the ideas of the Irish people; thirdly, that it is recommended by a multitude of practical advantages; and, lastly, that it need not entail injustice upon anyone.
    Now, Sir, I come to the great question which I must constitute the salient point and the cardinal principle of the Bill, the institution of a Court which is

    905
    to take cognizance of rent, and which, in taking cognizance of rent, will also, according to the provisions of the Bill, not be debarred from taking cognizance of tenure and assignment. The question first to be considered is as I have stated: Shall this Court be an optional Court, or shall it be universal, compulsory, and perpetual? If it is to be an optional Court, there is one vital matter—namely, that we shall be assured in our minds that the option shall be free. If it could be shown that in exercising an option with regard to going into Court an Irish tenant was liable to the same kind of pressure in any degree, either great or small, under which he now lies in the land market when he bids for land, I should say that such an objection would be fatal. But on considering the matter, as well as we can, we do not see that there can be anything to interfere with the perfect freedom of the tenant in this respect. I mean, that if we say that by law an Irish tenant may go into Court, it is impossible for the landlord to bring any intimidation, direct or indirect, to prevent him from doing so. The case is something like this. An infirm man on a public road may be intimidated by a stalwart ruffian. But the presence of the stalwart ruffian will not interfere with the freedom of the infirm man if he sees some policeman on the road; and he would call in the policeman just as freely as if he had been under no fear of the stalwart ruffian. It appears to us that the aid of the Court may be invoked just as freely by the Irish tenant, if there be good reason for giving it an optional character. There is no reason why the policeman should be glued to your side for your whole life. Therefore we say that if the access to the Court be perfectly free, and if the action of the Court and the control of the Court be complete and sufficient, it ought to rest with the tenant to consider, from time to time, whether he should continue in the Court or not. There are other strong reasons for making the Court an optional instead of a compulsory Court.
    In the Bessborough Report there is a short passage which says—
    "It seems desirable that, in the future, the same Land Laws should prevail throughout Ireland, and that a yearly tenant, in every part of the Kingdom, should possess the same rights, and be subject to the same obligations."
    906
    We have not accepted that proposition. It appears to us that there are many weighty pleas to be urged against it. One plea is this. There may be tenants in Ireland who do not desire the interference of the Court. After all that we have heard with regard to the management of many estates in Ireland, I must confess that I believe it to be possible—and even likely—that there may be a considerable number of tenants who would rather be allowed, if they have adequate protection from the law, to conduct their own affairs with their landlords than be compelled to go into Court. Here, again, I call in aid the authority of the Bessborough Commission, for in the 79th paragraph, notwithstanding their recommendation of a system universal and compulsory, they say this—
    "There will probably be estates among those which have been kindly managed, where the large allowances made to improving tenants, the materials given or sold under cost price, and the many other benefits conferred by a good landlord, would be preferred, by some tenants at all events, to fixity of tenure and free sale."
    They say there that everything like fixity of tenure and free sale might in some cases be sacrificed by the tenant in preference to abandoning the benefits of the relations which exist. I do not exactly adopt those words as they stand; but I think they give important reasons in support of the belief that it is not possible for us at this moment to form a judgment as to what proportion of the tenants of Ireland there may be who would rather keep in their own hands the management of their own affairs than invoke the compulsory aid of a public authority.
    But, Sir, I own that it appears to me that there are many circumstances in the case of Ireland which discourage us from an attempt to procure what I may call a dead or mechanical uniformity in the legal condition under which its agriculture is carried on. There is no agricultural country in the world the face of which is so seamed with variety as Ireland. You have, to begin with, all the usual varieties, and you have many varieties that are Irish, and exclusive Irish too. You have the grazing and the tillage farms; you have the large holding and the small; you leave the large proprietor and the small; you have the landlord absentee and the landlord resident; you have the improvements made sometimes by the tenant

    907
    and the improvements made sometimes by the landlord. For, happily, there are and have been landlords in Ireland who, in the strictest sense, are called improving landlords. You have the leaseholds and you have the annual tenancy; the care-takers of land; lands in conacre, and lands in rundale; you have the lands over-rented through the operation of the great land hunger; you have the lands under-rented through the tradition of many estates, and in certain cases through the desire, and perhaps with the express purpose, of excluding tenant right and assignment. You have the old-fashioned Irish landlord and you have the new-fashioned Irish landlord; and although the old-fashioned Irish landlord was not an impeccable being, yet many of his sins, at least towards his tenants, were sins of omission rather than of commission, and in some respects will bear no unfavourable comparison with what I call the new-fashioned landlord. You have land under middlemen and land without middlemen; you have lessees in perpetuity; and then, above all, you have in Ireland the prevalence of local customs which have taken deep root in the country, and which, in my opinion, we should be incurring a very heavy responsibility by gratuitously endeavouring to wipe away from the face of the land.
    All these are very strong reasons, Sir, for making it optional to the tenant to consider whether he shall go into the Court, or whether he shall not. I am bound also to give some other reasons. I have very great doubts indeed whether—if we were, by a compulsory law, to refer the ultimate regulation of every bargain relating to land to a Judicial Commission sitting in Court—any judicial authority you could create would not break down under the weight so imposed upon it. I believe that it would probably prove to be beyond its strength. Then I cannot help saying, though I hope it will not show that I am disloyal to the cause of reform in the Land Laws of Ireland, that there is no country in the world which, when her social relations come to permit of it, will derive more benefit than Ireland from perfect freedom of contract in land. Unhappily she is not in a state to permit of it; but I will not abandon the hope that the period may arrive. After all, what the Irishman wants—and I do not mean
    908
    to say it is his fault that he has not got it—is the habit of self-government. [Cheers from the Home Rulers.] He wants that which the Scotchman has got—[Cheers and laughter.]—and I hope that by interpolating that objection, I have sufficiently guarded myself against unwarranted deductions. But I say seriously that the Court, after all, though it may be, and I believe is, a right and a needful measure; yet you must not conceal from yourselves the fact that it is one in the form of centralization, referring to public authority what ought to be transacted by a private individual. That may be an infinitely smaller evil than some other evil you may have to contend with, and may be therefore a thing that you ought to embrace with all your heart under the circumstances; but I confess to great doubts whether it is a thing which you ought to stereotype and stamp as far as you can with the seal of perpetuity. But, in any case, it ought not to be a one-sided Court. If a Court is to interfere, it must interfere for the purpose of doing justice. Therefore, speaking generally, we cannot lay down the proposition that it is to interfere for the protection and advantage of the tenant alone. We cannot make those who sit on the seat of justice forsake justice, even with objects in view so high and so important as the objects of Land Reform in Ireland. Well, Sir, if that be so, the proper conclusion is that we should not force anyone into the Court. We should leave the access to it perfectly free; so regulated by public authority that the smallest tenant in Ireland may go into it as fearlessly as if he were the greatest. Another conclusion is that we should not by compulsion insure the perpetuity of what is, after all, an abnormal system—its perpetuity under all circumstances, however much they may have changed from those which now prevail, and however closely they may approximate to the circumstances of other countries where the relation of landlord and tenant require no such means to be employed in order to their just and satisfactory regulation. We therefore propose that the entrance into the Court should be an optional entrance.
    And now I will proceed to give you the words, which I hope will be perfectly clear, relating to those propositions which we justly consider the most vital

    909
    and central portion of the Bill. Every tenant now existing in Ireland may call in the Court. The first purpose will be to find a "judicial rent;" that rent will be upon the basis of a fair rent; and we have thought it our duty to endeavour to grapple with the very difficult task—where none of the Commission show any particular readiness to deal with it—of giving to the Court some guidance in its efforts to arrive at a fair rent. The words themselves will be found in the Bill; but I may describe the principle of them. Possibly they may be open to amendment; but I may describe the principle of them as containing a reference to a solvent tenant on the one side, and on the other side a due regard to the value of the tenant right. When the Court has fixed the judicial rent, that judicial rent will carry with it a statutory term of 15 years, during which there can be no change. During that period there can be no eviction of the tenant without leave of the tenant or the Court, except it be for breach of certain specified covenants, or for the non-payment of rent. During that period, there will be no power of resumption by the landlord, even with the leave of the Court, no matter what may have taken place as between the landlord and the tenant, or however grave the plea for resumption may be. In regard to the more purely legal aspects of the Bill—the event of breach of covenants, or for non-payment of rent—the process which will be adopted will be more fully explained, as the Bill progresses, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland. The general idea is that there can only be a compulsory sale of the tenant right in the case of a breach of the conditions of the tenant right within the period to which I have referred; and at the end of that period the tenant will, of course, give up his holding. The tenant right may be sold, according to the provisions of the Bill, at any time within the period at the end of which, under the present law, the tenant would be finally turned out of his holding. The effect of our proposal will be that the tenant will have allowed to him for the sale of his holding all the time which, in the event of non-payment of rent, is allowed for the contingent resumption of his holding upon the discharge of all pay-
    910
    ments to be made him. At the close of the statutory term of 15 years application may be made for the renewal of this time, and that application may be made toties quoties until a certain contingency, which I will presently describe, arises in the tenancy. When it is renewed, the conditions as to eviction will remain the same; but after the expiration of the next term of 15 years the landlord may, with the approval of the Court, and for certain strictly defined and sufficient reasons, resume possession. This right of resumption by the landlord will, when the holdings are in Court, be subject entirely to the judgment of the Court, because we fully recognize the importance of clear definition in an Act of this kind; but the cases which we recognize as fulfilling the definition of reasonable and sufficient are these. They must be cases either referring to the good of the holding, the good of the estate, or the benefit of the labourers in respect of their cottages, gardens, or allotments. The renewal of the judicial rent may take place, toties quoties, at the end of each of these terms, as long as the tenancy continues to be what in the Bill we define as "a present tenancy." I wish to draw the particular attention of the House to these terms, because, as we intend, a present tenancy does not cease to be a present tenancy simply on the change of the tenant, and the only mode in which it can pass from a present to a future tenancy are these. If there be a breach of covenant, and upon that an eviction, the land passing back to the landlord, then a new tenancy arises; if there be reasonable cause for resumption by the landlord, a new tenancy arises. We have also, under the Bill, reserved to the landlord what is called a right of pre-emption in case the tenant wishes to sell his tenant right. Not that the landlord can compel the tenant to do so; but if the tenant wishes to sell his tenant right the landlord may, under the authority of the Court, apply for it and purchase it. If the landlord does not, the tenant becomes again the possessor of the holding. But we provide that his becoming the possessor of the holding shall not constitute any future tenancy within the 15 years after the passing of the Act. Therefore there will be no future tenancy created this way within the first 15 years after the passing of the Act. In cases where what is called

    911
    the "English system" prevails, or, as we define it, where the holding has been maintained and improved by the landlord, we have thought that justice demands that the landlord should not be brought into a new and exceptional state of things which really has no application to the relation which subsists between him and the tenant. We have left a large power of equity between the landlords and their tenants; but I must make an explanation to the House on this point with reference to the action of the Court, because it is one of great practical importance. A very lively and just susceptibility has been shown by Representatives from Ireland as to the effect of the Act in cases where proceedings with a view to eviction have been commenced; and it has been said that if you take the cases of excessive rent which the tenant has been unable to pay, it would be extremely hard that such a tenant should be deprived of the benefit which this Act proposes to confer on tenants as a class. What we propose, therefore, is substantially that where the process has been completed, and the redemption period has expired, there should be no interference; but where the proceeding is pending, where it has been commenced, we provide that the application of any tenant in Ireland, who is under this process, to the Court on the first day of its sitting shall have the same right as if it were made on the first day of the passing of the Act. The effect of that will be virtually to stay the proceedings to this extent—that it will allow a tenant to go before the Court and obtain the fixing of the judicial rent, and he will thus obtain a tenant right, whether fixed or not, of which he will not lose the benefit on account of any proceedings taken before the passing of the Act.
    I think, Sir, that is a tolerably fair account of the main provisions relating to the action of the Court, with the exception of what I shall call the "judicial lease," which I shall explain by-and-bye. It is more important that I should next submit to the House the case of what, in the Bill, we call "ordinary tenancies;" because, as I have said, we do not think it desirable to make a complete holocaust of free contract in Ireland, but to allow those who are satisfied with the present system to
    912
    remain under it. We do not, therefore, deal with ordinary tenancies held by those who have no wish to avail themselves of the altered circumstances.
    I will now describe the changes made in their case quite irrespective of any application to the Court. The ordinary tenant will, like the tenant under the Court, be invested from the passing of the Act with the right of assignment. He will be able to sell his tenant right. Of course, the landlord will have the right to refuse the purchaser to whom the tenant wishes to assign his right; but only upon reasonable grounds; and in defining and determining these reasonable grounds, we have endeavoured to follow, as well as we could, the practice that now prevails in Ulster, and which is hardened into a sort of inflexible and recognized rule. The landlord, when the tenant desires to quit, will have the right of pre-emption of the tenant right at a rate fixed, but not by himself. He may buy in the open market, or he may apply to the Court to have the price fixed by the Court. When the price of the tenant right is fixed by the Court, in all cases where the holding has been improved by outlay on the part of the landlord the amount of such improvements may be treated as a set-off against the tenant right, provided the landlord has never been remunerated by the rent paid or otherwise. I need not say that the landlord's claim will, according to the universal practice in Ireland, be satisfied out of the purchase money. Ordinary annual tenancies may be bequeathed; but they must be bequeathed to one person only. Of course the House will, I imagine, readily understand the object of that provision.
    I now come to an important point of the Bill which refers to cases in which landlords propose frequent increases of rent. In cases of that kind the landlord may propose to the tenant an increase of rent; and if the tenant accepts the increase the statutory term ensues, and the rent cannot again be increased for 15 years. That is to amend one of the flaws of the Land Act under which unduly increased rents have been placed on the shoulders of tenants. But if the tenant refuse an increase of rent he may choose between three alternatives: he may sell his tenant right, in which case increased rent demanded will serve to diminish the price he will receive for it.

    913
    But in cases where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the rent was below a fair rent, the landlord shall be entitled to plead that fact as a set-off against any claims of the tenant in respect of the increase; and the Court may dispose of any part, or even the whole, of that increase. We have introduced a provision of this nature into the Bill, the effect of which may be stated as follows. If the landlord desires to raise the rent, he will be able to do so, presuming that the tenant will agree to pay rather than leave the holding. If, on the other hand, the landlord does not desire to keep the tradition of his property, but wishes to keep the rents below a value corresponding to the idea of a fair rent, he shall not be liable to have that eaten up by its going to increase the tenant right; but when the tenant right is claimed, he may establish the fact that the rent is below a fair rent, and have the difference set off against the claims for tenant right. So much for the tenant's first option; he may sell his tenant right and ask the landlord ten times the increase. His second option is that he may fall back upon compensation for disturbance and compensation for improvements. The third option he may exercise is that he may, upon demand for an increased rent, exercise his right to go into Court and demand the fixing of a judicial rent. If he accepts the increase in the rent, he obtains, ipso facto, what we call a statutory terra of 15 years. If he exercises his option in favour of taking compensation for disturbance, then comes the change we propose to make. We propose to keep the scale of compensation for disturbance, but to raise the rate with regard to large holdings. I had better perhaps read to the House the scale as it will now stand. First of all, we strike out all valuation in regard to compensation for disturbance, and we propose that compensation for disturbance shall be regulated entirely by the amount of rent. If the rent is under £30, the compensation that may be given for disturbance shall never exceed seven years' rent; if under £50, five years' rent; if under £100, four years' rent; and if over £100, three years' rent. The scale at present is, that if the rent is over £100, only one years' rent is to be given, and if under £10, seven years' rent. That is the condition in which we propose to leave
    914
    such of the tenants of Ireland as do not desire to invoke the protection of the Court.
    There are other provisions of the Bill to which I will now very briefly call the attention of the House.
    I have said nothing as yet about the Ulster Custom; and on that subject a lively interest is felt by many hon. Members from Ireland. The general principle of our Bill as regards the Ulster Custom is this. The Ulster tenant may, if he pleases, remain under the custom as he is now; but if he remains in that position, as regards the sale of the tenant right and other particulars, he shall have the protection of the general provisions of the Bill for controlling augmentations of rent. We are convinced by the evidence that there is, whether extensively or occasionally, a very manifest conviction that the Ulster Custom, if it is to endure, must have some protection; and it is desirable that if the Ulster tenant wishes to go into the Court he should be allowed to do so. If he accepts the increased rent, he obtains the term of 15 years, during which he will hear nothing more of increased rent. So much if he remains under the custom; but if he chooses to pass from under the custom and fall back upon the general provisions of the Bill, and go into Court like anyone else, he is at liberty to do so. Speaking generally, we have thought it no part of our duty to interfere with current leases in Ireland. But as to leases in Ulster, we believe their case to be peculiar; and we provide that the Ulster tenant, now under lease, may claim compensation, as it has been provided under the clauses of the Land Act, with the modification now introduced when the lease expires. I think that is all I need say about the particular case of the Ulster tenant.
    We have endeavoured to amend the law with regard to compensation for improvements. At present the law is defective, because it is dealt with under the phrase "improvements effected by the tenant or his predecessor in title;" and a technical difficulty, with regard to a breaking tenancy, has had the effect, in many judgments delivered in Ireland, of depriving tenants of the title of their predecessors as to compensation for improvements. We have therefore endeavoured to make an effectual amendment of the law on that point, so as to give the tenant compensation for the

    915
    improvements effected by his predecessor in title, and for which he has had to pay.
    Now comes the question of the leases in Ireland. We have provided in the Land Act of 1870 that a lease for 37 years should exempt the landlord from the provisions of the Act. But it has been stated that the feeble position of the tenant has been taken advantage of in some cases—though probably not in many—so far as almost to compel his acceptance of a lease, at a high rent, and on harsh terms, and with no remaining status at the end of the lease. Now what we propose is this: that any lease which is to exempt from the provisions of the Act must be a judicial lease, prepared or approved of by the Court; and we have made it the special business of the Court, in preparing and approving the provisions of a lease, to consider the interests of the tenant and the valuation of his tenancy. So that I hope we have made a sufficient provision as to the terms of the lease. With regard to the provision as to the expiry of the lease, the tenant will be in the position of a "future tenant"—that is to say, he will not have the power of going into the Court and of getting a judicial rent fixed; and the landlord may, if he please, raise his rent at the end of the lease. But in all other respects the tenant will be an annual tenant, and will have power to sell his tenant right.
    There is a plan which it is said some of the landlords in Ireland are disposed to adopt and some of the tenants are disposed to favour, under which there is to be what is called a fixed tenancy—that is to say, a tenancy where the holding continues, subject either to a perpetual fee-farm rent, without any variation, or a perpetual fee-farm rent with a re-valuation by the Court at fixed periods, and where all power of resumption by the landlord from any cause, however great, and under whatever authority, is taken away. We think that to make a compulsory law of that nature would be to destroy the character of proprietor in the landlord in its essence and in its centre; and I do not require now to enter into the many grave arguments, perfectly distinct from the landlord's interest and right and including that interest and right, against such a proposition. Our proposal is that, in the case of these fixed tenancies, the
    916
    Court should undertake the burden, wherever the landlord and tenant are agreed, of applying these provisions. We have provided, generally speaking, that there can be no power to contract out of the terms of the Act; and yet it does appear strange to impose a limitation of that kind upon what may fairly be called large holdings. We cannot here adopt the rule of rent, because the power to contract or not to contract out of the Act might vary with the variation of rent in a manner almost ridiculous. The valuation is more paramount; and we therefore propose that there should be a power to contract out of the Act in cases were the valuation amounts to £150 and upwards—that is to say, speaking generally, that this power of contracting out of the Act shall only apply in the case of holdings of a value of over £200 a-year. We have also a clause substituting arbitration for a decree of the Court; and I think that the only other point I need make clear to the House is the nature of the present tenancy. We are desirous to obviate any such supposition as that the present tenancy means anything but a tenancy in the hands of the present owner. We say that, if there is no breach in the conditions, it is capable of bearing a continuing interest—in fact, it is capable of passing on from generation to generation, unless the landlord exercises the power of resumption under the sanction and control of the public authorities.
    After this long enumeration, I must still detain you for a very short time while I say a word or two with regard to the second and far less complex part of this Bill, in which at the present time the liveliest interest is felt; I mean the portion which I have described under the general phrase of the group of provisions requiring public advances. I would just take this opportunity, as making these public advances will constitute a very large part of the duties of the Court, of stating what we propose as to the constitution of the Court. That which will be, in one point of view, a Court, will be, in another point of view, a Land Commission. As a Court it will be charged with the final authority over the decisions of all land cases, and it will be the business of the Court so considered to lay down rules for the guidance of the Civil Bills Courts, which will really be the Courts

    917
    of First Instance in all land cases. We did not think, upon the whole, that it would be wise to dispense altogether with the advantage to be derived from the great experience which the Judges of the Civil Bills Courts have acquired. It would have been very difficult to provide a new agency such as would absolutely justify us in removing the present powers altogether from the field. But we have endeavoured, in the first place, to make provision for calling in the aid of valuers where needed, and rendering that aid effective; and, in the second place, for their being subject to the rules of the Land Commission, so as to secure efficiency and uniformity in the administration of a very important law. The Land Commission will thus be the Court of Appeal, and will be the master, in what relates to land, of the tribunals below. It will consist of three persons, one of whom must always be a Judge or an ex-Judge of the Supreme Court. Its proper seat will be in Dublin. But, inasmuch as its operations may extend, especially in cases of public advances in connection with land, beyond the power of one set of Commissioners to deal with, we have invested it with the power not only of appointing Assistant Commissioners and other officers, but, if necessary, of appointing Sub-Commissioners to sit in the several Provinces of Ireland, and to conduct their functions under the control of the Central Commission.
    So much for the constitution of the Court, which will be charged with this double group of functions, each of which I think exceedingly important.
    Now I come to describe, and I need only describe briefly and rapidly, the important subjects which connect themselves with public advances. Do not let it be supposed that public advances are things unknown to Ireland. On tine contrary, we find that as regards agricultural improvements, so far as the definition of the purposes goes for which advances may be made, it is, I believe, absolutely beyond the wit of man to enlarge them; and the change which we propose to make in the law is not in regard to the purposes of agricultural improvements, but in regard to the agency through which they will be carried on. The first and most important point is that which relates to the acquisition of land by the tenant. I will not dis-
    918
    cuss that interesting question at present I will only say that, economically, I quite admit it is open to a great diversity of view. It has m some cases been eminently successful. In Ireland you have many owners of land who have shown a faculty, which we cannot but admire, for it is nowhere excelled, of extracting the means of subsistence and the means of prosperity from very small holdings or spaces of ground. On the other hand, it must be admitted that, from whatever cause, small virtual proprietorships, under the name of perpetuity leases, have not been happily distinguished in the past history of Ireland. But I decline to enter into the economical part of the subject. What we desire, and what my right hon. Friend tine Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the original author of the suggestion, desires, is the political and social advantage of the people. We feel the great necessity there is of a serious effort on the part of Parliament to enlarge the circle of proprietors of land in Ireland, and to insist upon a more considerable portion of the community being in that body which possesses the traditions associated and connected with the ownership of land.
    Now our provisions in regard to the acquisition of land by tenants are of two kinds. In the first place they are these: to assist tenants with money for the purchase of their holdings, without any further intervention by the Commission, where the tenant is able to buy and the landlord is willing to sell. I must say, on this point, that there are questions with regard to some public Bodies in Ireland—possibly some of the Companies in the North of Ireland—which may be opened up in the discussion on this Bill, but upon which I at present sedulously refrain from giving my opinion. I do not wish to complicate this discussion with that matter. But where a tenant can be assisted and fortified in the independent purchase of his holding, and where it would be fair to enable him to do it, we are disposed to give him every aid we can; and this, whether he purchases absolutely, or whether he purchases with the payment of a fine and the retention of the fee-farm rent on the land. But then what is more important is this—that the Commission is not only to assist the tenant in the purchase of his holding,

    919
    but it is itself to become, on reasonable terms, the purchaser from willing landlords of their estates in order to re-sell those estates. Perhaps I ought, on this point, to say, without further delay, that a most important and difficult question here arises. We shall authorize the Commission, if the Bill be approved, to purchase where the proportion of the tenants, amounting to three-fourths in number and value, is ready to re-purchase, and to advance to these purchasing tenants three-fourths of the whole price. And here arises a very important question: are these tenants to be allowed to borrow the remaining fourth? Well, we came to the conclusion that, upon the whole, they ought to be allowed to do so; and one reason which I think is conclusive in favour of that liberal arrangement is this—that already under the Bill, apart from any purchase of the soil, they will have the tenant right. Having the tenant right, they will have something upon which they can borrow. When they purchase, the tenant right will merge in the fee; and it will be extremely hard upon them, when they have become not only possessed of the tenant right but are absolutely part owners of the soil, that when they have become the actual owners of a piece of land they should lose the power of borrowing which they possessed before. We propose that those purchases shall be entirely relieved from the difficulty as to the legal expenses of the purchase. We shall charge them a lump sum, and that lump sum will cover the law conveyance and every other charge. It will be so calculated as to do no more than fairly remunerate the State for the cost and labour involved in conducting the private business of individuals.
    There is yet a further and not less important boon which we propose to confer. Of course we are obliged to provide that while the holding continues subject to a charge it should not be sub-let or subdivided. When it ceases to become subject to a charge the owner will become absolute master and landlord. But the boon to which I refer is this: we mean to guarantee the title of these purchasers. Now that is a provision of great importance; for, if you recollect, the Commissioners will not have a Parliamentary title themselves, but they will have a power of investigation, and they will be able, in the enormous majority of cases—almost
    920
    in every case—to attain to a moral certainty. That which they will surrender, that which they will endanger, by giving this perfectness of title will be something very small; that which they will confer on the tenant purchaser will be something very great and essential.
    This is a brief account, a rude outline, of what we propose with regard to provisions for the acquisition of land by tenants. So far as the rules of action are concerned, with regard to agricultural improvements, I have already stated that nothing can be more liberal or comprehensive than the definition of the purposes for which the State is authorized to advance, and desires to make advances both to owners and tenants—including leases—wherever they have an interest sufficient to constitute in any degree a basis of public security; and to show that I am not misleading the House in making this statement, I may observe that since the Famine the sum advanced in Ireland for the whole group of purposes of this kind appears to be not less than £17,500,000. The change we make is this: we propose to authorize the advances, not only to owners and to tenants, but likewise to solvent Companies. Companies may be formed for the purpose of the reclamation of land, for planting, or for other agricultural improvements; and the condition which we propose to require is this—that our advances shall not be greater than one-half the sums which the Companies themselves have procured and laid out, except in the case where they obtain the cover of a baronial guarantee; and then the sums we can advance, instead of being limited to one-half, may amount to as much as two-thirds.
    There is another subject which cannot be omitted; but it is one of delicacy as well as of importance. I mean the subject of emigration. It is impossible for the Government to pass it by; but, at the same time, they are of opinion that it is a matter in which there must be great caution. There must be great caution in dealing with anything like what I may call sporadic emigration; but there may be well-regulated emigration—emigration of communities, carrying with them their local organization and traditions and domestic ties, which may possibly be carried on to the great advantage of all parties and to the

    921
    individuals themselves. Keeping that in view, we include emigration amongst the purposes for which public advances may be made. This matter will not be, like advances for public works and so forth, under the control of the ordinary machinery of the Government; subject to the consent of the Treasury, it will be under the Land Commission, which may make advances for this purpose either, in the first place, to Colonial Governments—and in the case of Canada we include not only the Dominion but also the Provincial Legislatures—and, in the second place, to Companies.
    So much for the purposes of the advances that we propose Parliament shall undertake in general terms to make it. It may perhaps be asked: what is the amount up to which these advances may be made? Well, Sir, we have much considered the matter, and we have thought it our duty not to place any other limit than prudential rule on the amount which Parliament may think it right from year to year to give. Let us take care not to charge the State with duties which it cannot perform. Let us take care that when we make advances they are covered by reasonable security. Let us take care that we do not tempt others into foolish measures. But, adopting all the rules of prudence, we should not like to say that either £5,000,000 or £10,000,000, or any other number of millions, was the absolute limit which could in no case be passed. And there is another reason for this course, which is complimentary to my right hon. Friend opposite, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it was in his time that full recognition was given to the principle that these advances of public money, though they are against assets, and are upon security, ought to be kept under the control of Parliament precisely like public expenditure. I think it was my right hon. Predecessor who first gave full effect to that principle, and established that good and excellent system under which the annual prospective wants of the State for all these purposes are now confided in the Treasury, and a Bill is brought down to Parliament asking it for whatever sum is shown to be necessary. I should have been sorry to infringe on any good law or measures which I found was due to the forethought and care of my Predecessor;
    922
    and in this case I think the principles of Parliamentary control are in happy coincidence with our general purposes. I do not hesitate to say, on the part of the Government, that in our opinion the system of advances for the several purposes I have described ought to be tested by its working. We ought to be very slow indeed to fix a merely pecuniary limit so long as the bounds of prudence are respected, the essential conditions are fulfilled, and while we find the people of Ireland able and willing to avail themselves of the provisions of this Bill.
    I think I have now gone through the most important provisions of this measure. I feel that I have led the House through a wilderness of detail, through. which I do not know whether I can supply them with a clue; but I will, in a very few words, try to sum up the effect of what I have said. I ought perhaps to have stated before, that as to the descriptions of tenancies in Ireland to which this Act applies, they are substantially the same as those contemplated by the Land Act of 1870. Therefore, when I speak of tenancies in Ireland, I mean such tenancies as come under the Act of 1870. We propose to set up, on the one hand, a system of limited and regulated freedom of contract between landlord and tenant. But in consideration of the circumstances of Ireland, we propose that the tenant shall, notwithstanding, be fortified by certain provisions of the law as to his right of sale and as to guarantees against arbitrary increase of rent. On the other hand, we offer free entrance into Court for the settlement of all questions which may arise between the parties, so that no matter relating either to tenure, or to assignment of land, or to rent, can escape the supervision of the public authority—the Court—if the present tenant desires it. The Court must act on general principles of justice; and if the improved general law keep a tenant out of Court, it will do so because he thinks it his interest to remain out of Court. I fully admit that in the case of any country in which the agricultural relations were established on a tolerably good and happy footing, it would be an extremely sorry offer to make, either to a landlord or a tenant, to tell him that he might have the privilege of going into a Court of Justice for the pur-

    923
    pose of making his bargain. Still, in the peculiar state of affairs in Ireland, it is what we deliberately and advisedly propose to do. We have accordingly made the entrance into Court an essential part of the Bill; indeed, it is the very core and centre of the measure we now submit.
    On the morning that this Bill passes every landlord and tenant will be subject to certain new provisions of the law of great importance. In the first place, an increase of rent will be restrained by certain rules. In the second place, the compensation for disturbance will be regulated according to different rates. And in the third place—more important probably than any—the right to sell the tenant's interest will be universally established. These are some of the means outside the Court which we propose; but there will also remain to the tenant the full power of going to the Court to fix a judicial rent, which may be followed by judicial tenant right. The judicial rent will entail a statutory term of 15 years, the renewal of it toties quoties to be provided so long as the present tenancy exists, and the present tenancy not to be determined by the mere change of tenants. Evictions will hereafter, we trust, be only for default; and resumption by the landlord, apart from the default of the tenant, will disappear from Ireland, except it be from causes both reasonable and grave, and such as may be brought into question before the Court.
    We are sometimes told that it is a hopeless business to legislate for Ireland. I am not of that opinion. Let us consider what has happened in Parliament in our time. For half a century, and half a century alone, Parliament has been intermittently—but still, on the whole, not without resolution, and not without good intention—engaged in the attempt of applying to Ireland better, larger, and more liberal systems of policy and legislation. And what has happened in Ireland in that time? No country has reaped larger benefits from the great transition between Protection and Free Trade—benefits absolutely unmixed, for the price of everything that Ireland produced was raised. In England the tenant farmer had to face a decrease in the price of his principal commodity, on which he had always mainly and unduly relied for the payment of his rent—namely, his wheat. But Ireland is a
    924
    country which imported more wheat than was grown. The benefit to her accordingly, in that respect, has been unmixed, and from other causes it has been abundant. Look at the improved condition of the people. What old man is there in Ireland now who can compare unfavourably the condition of the people at present in every part of Ireland with what it was half a century ago? or who can overlook the great transformation that has taken place in the country without thanking God for what has occurred? Look at the increase in wages; to say that they have doubled in many cases would be saying what is very far within the mark. Look at the diminution of crime. The homicides of Ireland have shrunk to a mere fraction of what, within my recollection, they habitually were. The small holdings—the very knot of the difficulty, not yet overcome—have, after all, kept on a steady progress of diminution. In 1851 they were 280,000; in 1861 they were 269,000. [Ironical cheers.] I am now speaking of holdings under 15 acres, and I believe they are a source of great difficulty in Ireland. I have no aversion to small holdings. In England I delight to see them. I may say I abhor the system which has prevailed in Ireland—the system of what is called the wholesale consolidation of farms. Still I have no doubt that the diminution of small holdings in Ireland is a sign of the progress of the country. In 1851, as I have said, there were 280,000; in 1861 they were 269,000; in 1871 they were 246,000; and in 1879 they were 227,000. That cannot be said to be a violent diminution; nor can I wish to see a diminution in any respect resembling that which succeeded the Famine. That which has taken place seems to me to be a diminution under the influence of gentler and more natural causes; and if by those causes the diminution can be carried further, especially in a few districts of the country, I have no doubt—in fact, it is proved in evidence—that it will be greatly for the advantage of the people of Ireland. On the other hand, holdings above 15 acres have increased considerably in number. In 1851 they were 149,000; in 1879 they were 171,000.
    And here, Sir, there is another statement which I wish to notice, although it comes from a source not particularly sympathetic or gentle towards

    925
    me. Indeed the pamphlet from which I quote rather violently denounces the Land Act of 1870, for which I am greatly responsible. It is a pamphlet which is called Facts and Figures, published by the Land Committee of Ireland, and I assume nothing on its behalf except its good faith and the competency of the people who wrote it.
    Now here are some very interesting facts on which I cannot but think reliance may be placed; and if they be facts, they will tend to correct a mischievous misapprehension that has gone abroad, to the effect that changes and raisings of rent have become more frequent during late years in Ireland, at least, as far as the larger estates are concerned. For these facts and figures, and the operations of the Land Committee, do not profess to have a great deal to do with, or to speak for, the smaller estates. What they state is this. They give an account of 4,703,000 acres of land in Ireland, which makes an area so large that we cannot suppose it not to be representative of a large proportion of the entire country. From page 19 of the pamphlet from which I quote you will find the following figures:—In the 10 years between 1850 and 1860 the rents were changed, that is to say raised, for that is evidently the meaning of it, on 1,515,000 acres. In the 10 years between 1860 and 1870 the rents were raised on 868,000. And in the 10 years between 1870 and 1880, that is, during the period since the Land Act was passed, the rents were only raised on 326,000 acres, or less than one-fourth of the acreage on which the rents had been raised in the decade of 20 years before.
    Take next the case of evictions, which is the last test I will apply, to show that we have some reason to think that the labour of Parliament has not been altogether wasted in Ireland. I take the 15 years from 1854 to 1868, and I compare them with the eight years since the Land Act of 1870, and before the unhappy seasons of 1878 and 1879. In these 15 years, ending in 1868, the maximum number of evictions was 1,825; the minimum was 459, and the average 932. In the eight years between the Land Act and 1878 the maximum number of evictions had fallen from 1,825 to 592, the minimum number from 459 to 368, and the
    926
    average number from 932 to 467, or exactly one-half.
    Those figures are a great encouragement to us. There may be other facts, Sir, which are disheartening enough; but those which I have quoted are such as ought to teach us neither to despair nor even to despond. And there is a higher and a nobler encouragement still than this, and one to be enjoyed by all men who have faith in certain principles of action. It is said that our legislation has failed in Ireland. I do not admit failure. I admit the success to be incomplete. I am now asked how it is to be made complete. I say by patient perseverance in well-doing; by steady adherence to the work of justice. We shall then not depend upon the results of the moment. It will not be what to-day may say, or what to-morrow may say. It will be rather what fruits we shall reap in the long future of a nation's existence. In dealing with that we proceed upon a reckoning which cannot fail. Justice, Sir, is to be our guide. And, as it has been said that love is stronger than death, even so justice is stronger than popular excitement, stronger than the passions of the moment, stronger even than the grudges, the resentments, and the sad traditions of the past. Walking in that path we cannot err. Guided by that light—that Divine light—we are safe. Every step that we take upon our road is a step that brings us nearer to the goal, and every obstacle, even although for the moment it may seem insurmountable, can only for a little while retard, and never can defeat, the final triumph.
    The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I only rise, Sir, for the purpose of expressing my own strong sense, and I hope it will be the opinion also of the House, that it is due both to the importance of the subject and also to the great importance of the speech to which we have listened with so much attention, and I may say with so much admiration, that we should for the present postpone any discussion of the principles which are involved in this proposal of the Government. The matter is one of the very highest national importance; the considerations involved are of the most delicate character; and we may easily—

    927
    even after so full a description as has been given us—misunderstand in the first moment the application and bearing of some of the proposals which have been made. I hope, therefore, it may be the feeling of the House to abstain now from anything in the nature of discussion; although, of course, it may be right that questions should be put on any point that seems to require elucidation. For my own part, I limit myself to expressing the hope that we may very soon be favoured with the Bill itself, in order that we may have full time to consider it. I understand that the Government propose to commence the discussion on the second reading, which can hardly be short, on the first Monday after the Easter Recess. I give no opinion upon that; but we shall certainly require a good deal of time fully to master all the details of the measure. I am sure that the House will address itself to this great question in a spirit of calm deliberation, with a desire to do justice to its merits, and also to the economic and the social considerations to which our attention has been directed, bearing in mind that what is not economically true may be plausible but not really satisfactory. But I trust the House will consider that these are matters that are carefully to be weighed and discussed without passion or prejudice, and, at the same time, without any premature readiness to yield too quickly to anything in the nature of mere emotion and sentiment. I must personally thank my right hon. Friend for observations which he made in the course of his speech. I am sure that in the matter to which he referred there can be but one desire on the part of all who are interested in the discussion of financial questions, that we should do the best we can to insure regularity of proceeding and responsibility in Parliament. Certainly the application of the principles which he has indicated, if accepted by the House, will amply test the powers of financial administration. I abstain, however, myself, and I hope it will be the disposition of the House to abstain, from anything like lengthened discussion on this occasion.
    MR. SHAWsaid, it was not his intention to attempt anything like a discussion of the provisions of the Bill. He concurred entirely with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in deprecating a hasty decision on the
    928
    questions involved in a measure of that great importance. At the same time, speaking generally, the second part of the Bill had been explained so simply and fully that he must say he believed it would be looked upon by the people of Ireland as being of a satisfactory nature. He thought it might go a little further; but, looking at the whole case, and considering the difficulties which the Government had to contend with, it was a generous measure. The first part of the Bill was of such intricacy, and dealt with interests of so varied a character, that he would like to see the Bill before committing himself to an opinion upon it. He had always a certain suspicion of the sub-clauses in a Bill, having found that they often did away with the generosity of its general principle. He did not understand exactly whore the right hon. Gentleman had got the term of 15 years as a term for the re-adjustment of relations between landlords and tenants. He was sure that such a term had not been brought before either of the Commissions. He might appeal to Irish Members sitting in all parts of the House. That question was a question of business, and he thought that the landlords of Ireland would see the inexpediency of having too frequent repetitions of those adjustments, and would give a long term, which would be better for the interests of all parties concerned. The general weight of opinion was in favour of a longer term for adjusting rents than that proposed in the Bill. He hoped that the Prime Minister would consider that point before they came to the second reading. Again, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to deal with existing leases. Now, he thought that some of the leases made within the last 10 years were leases which ought to be interfered with in the interest of justice, and that there would be no real objection on the part of the community generally in Ireland to that. Cases had come before the Commission where such leases had been forced upon the tenants, who had no option; and he did not see why the Commission should not be empowered to deal with cases where manifest injustice had been done. No one who knew the western parts of Connaught could read the accounts of the ejectments against the poor people without deep sorrow. He knew that country well, and

    929
    believed that many of the people were not able to pay any rent at all; they were in a state of dire poverty. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would insert in the Bill some date prior to its introduction, say the 1st of January, or even an earlier day, so as to bring those ejectments within the operation of the measure. The Courts of Quarter Sessions were capable of deciding legal points; but they were not fit to deal with questions of valuation even with the assistance of any valuators who might be brought in. Surely there would be no difficulty in handing over to the Commission or the Land Court questions of the appointment of valuers and the supervision of valuation and of rents. In conclusion, he most sincerely hoped that that effort, which he recognized to be an honest and a great effort, by a great Minister, to settle one of the greatest questions, not political only, but social, which ever came before a Government, would be judged calmly and fairly on both sides of the House, and that it would prove effectual in bringing about a permanent settlement of the land tenure of Ireland.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he rose that it might not be supposed that he admitted the accuracy of the construction put by the right hon. Gentleman on a paragraph of the Report of the Royal Agricultural Commission. It was quite true that the Commissioners did say that it was the desire of the tenants throughout Ireland that there should be interference on the part of a Court with the arbitrary raising of rents; but that meant the arbitrary raising of rents on the tenant's own improvements. That was a very different thing from approval of the establishment of a Court to regulate rents on all occasions, upon which at present he expressed no opinion. The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, where he endeavoured to deal with and mitigate what was, no doubt, the chief evil of Ireland, he had heard with undisguised satisfaction. But he wished the right hon. Gentleman would point out in what manner the landlord was to receive compensation. He remembered that when the Act of 1870 was before the House, the right hon. Gentleman stated over and over again that any measure of the kind could not be carried out with justice unless compensation was made to the landlord.
    MR. LITTONsaid, that the people of the North of Ireland, when the Bill was placed in their hands, would approach its consideration with no unfriendly feelings. There was one point upon which he would reserve his opinion—namely, as to the 15 years' statutory term and the revising of rent. He would wish to see a longer period of rest before revision. He thought the principle which allowed the interference of the Court to be invoked at the instance of the tenant, and the provision as to free sale, worthy of the highest commendation. But he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to meet the legitimate aspirations of the people of Ireland as to something more decided and clear in the nature of fixity of tenure. The desire of all the tenants he had ever met was to be free from the insecurity which crushed every effort at improvement. No one ever proposed. fixity of tenure without admitting that it should be subject to the payment of a fair rent and to prohibition against subdivision. He would only add that ho and his hon. Friends would reserve to themselves the right, in a loyal spirit, to endeavour to improve the Bill in several important particulars in the interest, not only of the tenant farmers of Ulster, but of all Ireland.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he had no intention to say a word on the Bill; but he wished to ask two Questions. 1st, Whether his right hon. Friend would state what were the demands made by hon. Gentlemen behind him, which he characterized. as "public plunder?" 2nd, Whether any calculation had been made, or, if not, whether he would cause it to be made before the second reading of the Bill, as to the money value of the tenant right which was about to be conferred upon Irish tenants by the Land Bill, and for which they had paid nothing?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that he believed the measure just announced was a very good one. It seemed practically to be the "three F's." The great question was, as regards the principles, to guide the Land Court in determining what was fair rent. The right hon. Gentleman had passed somewhat lightly over that subject. A fair rent might be the commercial rent, less the tenant's improvements; and another view would be that the rents should have some relation to what was paid before, and that the in-

    931
    crease of that rent should take place only in proportion to the increase of value, and equitable reasons for increasing or diminishing that rent. He did not quite apprehend from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in what degree the position of the small tenant would be made one of complete fixity. As far as he understood, the eviction of the small tenant was to be obstructed and prevented; that would be fixity of tenure not directly, but indirectly conferred. He gathered from the general drift of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that the large tenant would gain most by the Bill, because, owing to the smallness of his compensation for disturbance and liability to be contracted out of the Act of 1870, the large tenant was practically almost excluded from that Act; whereas by the present Bill he would be put on almost exactly the same footing as the small tenant. It appeared to him (Sir George Campbell) that there were two kinds of tenure—one a status tenure, and the other a purely contract tenure. As to contract tenure, it would, in his opinion, be a mistake to interfere with it, except to give the right to get the value of the capital which the tenant put into the soil. As to the latter parts of the Bill, though the right hon. Gentleman said much about the mode in which money was to be advanced, he said nothing about the mode in which it was to be got back. He did not understand how the advances from the British Treasury were to be recovered, especially from Colonial Governments; and whatever was done in this direction should be done with great circumspection, and with a clear prospect of getting the money back again. The House would remember that the importance of saving, or, at any rate, of not losing, money had been sufficiently pointed out in the Budget Speech.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked whether it was intended that the provisions of the Bill as between landlord and tenant should come into effect during the existence of present agreements? In other words, would a tenant be able to apply to a Court for a reduction of the rent he had agreed to pay during the currency of the term for which he had agreed to pay it?
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in answering that
    932
    question. If the provisions of the Bill applied only where there was no existing agreement, the operation of the measure would be very limited indeed. In his opinion, any man would incur a grievous responsibility who would say anything, either in the House or out of it, which would have a tendency to prejudge the Bill, or which would tend to prevent the public of Ireland, whom it so greatly concerned, from giving just and impartial consideration to the merits of the provisions which the Prime Minister had explained. Without, therefore, attempting to discuss the Bill, he would only say that he thought it an honest and manly effort to deal with a complicated and difficult question. He, however, should like to know whether, when a tenant came to the end of an existing lease, he would have a right to go to the Land Court and ask for a re-adjustment of his rent?
    MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that he would not, in that case.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLthought such a tenant as worthy an object of the protection of the Bill as a tenant from year to year. He looked to the second part of the Bill with great hope as a means for working out the redemption of the Irish people. At the same time, he should have been very glad if it had been proposed to make the Bill to some extent retrospective, and believed it would not be either unjust or inconvenient to antedate its operation to the day on which the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last year was intended to have come into force. By that means it would be made to cover the cases in which, under the pressure of the exceptional distress of the last three years, the tenants had been deprived of their holdings.
    MR. LEWISpraised the very clear manner in which the Prime Minister had stated his proposals. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had disposed of more than one fallacy which had hitherto prevented fair dealing with this great question, and it was now to be hoped that neither the iniquity of the Irish Land Law nor the harsh and oppressive character of the Irish landowners would be taken for granted as undoubted facts. As regarded the second part of the Bill, he was inclined to think that the Government might have been more liberal in their advances. The

    933
    difference between three-fourths and four-fifths was not very considerable; but it represented a sum that was more important to the Irish tenant than to the country at large. He, however, asked the House to look with suspicion on any proposition to lend money to public companies to carry out emigration. He quite recognized the distinction between the attempt to create a peasant proprietary and the desire to encourage the real and bonâ fide farmers to become the owners of their holdings. The latter class of men alone were useful; but to settle a number of miserable and poverty-stricken people on small plots of land was an unmixed evil. On the other hand, nothing could be better than to enable the actual cultivators of the soil, substantial men, with an adequate quantity of land, to become the possessors of their farms.
    MR. GIVANassured the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell) that the advances from State funds to Irish tenants, judging from the past, would certainly be repaid. He, however, regretted that greater pecuniary advantages should not have been offered to the tenants, who, in a great many cases, would not have sufficient capital in their hands to make the necessary improvements in their land. If the Government intended this measure to be successful, they ought to empower the whole of the purchase- money to be advanced by the State; and they might with advantage also authorize advances by the Board of Works for drainage and other improvements. Then, the term of 15 years appointed for fixity of rent appeared to him too low; he hoped the Government would see their way to extend it to 30 years. He also thought that a more satisfactory tribunal for the settlement of land questions might have been created. On the whole, however, he believed the Bill, subject to Amendments which might be made in Committee, would confer incalculable benefits upon the people of Ireland.
    MR. PARNELLquite agreed that it would not be fair either to the Government or the Bill to express any opinion on it until they saw the measure in print. He wished, however, to ask a question in reference to a point of practical experience in view of the present state of the West of Ireland. The
    934
    view he entertained as to the retrospective action of the measure, or rather, as to the effect the measure would have on tenants ejected already, or who might be ejected before the Bill passed into law, was that such tenants, provided. the Bill passed before the six months terms allowed for redemption, would have a right to come into the Court, ask to have their rent fixed, and sell their tenant right at the fixed rent; and he desired to know whether he was correct in holding that view? Without venturing to discuss the main provisions of the Bill, he regretted the Government had adopted the principle of emigration instead of migration. If they had given power to the Commission they proposed to form to purchase land in Ireland, the Commission would be able to find plenty of improvable land in every county where a congestion of the population existed for this purpose of planting or migrating the tenants from other districts. In Mayo, for instance, where the people existed in the most miserable condition on small mountains with bog farms, there was plenty of land which such a Commission could purchase, and stock with tenants after they had sold their interest in their own wretched holdings, under the provisions of the proposed Bill. That, at any rate, might have been given as an alternative to the emigration scheme. His own opinion was that every man in Ireland at present was required there for the purpose of developing the industrial resources of the country; and while he was unwilling to say that emigration should not take place from Ireland, he considered it ought to be a natural movement of the people, such as prevailed in Continental countries. There was another matter cognate to this subject to which he wished to allude—namely, the Irish labourers. Their condition was admitted to be most wretched, and they had no future before them. He should have thought the Government would have given the Commission power to buy land to settle labourers upon it in certain districts where they might find employment, and so render them less dependent on employers. He hoped the Government would give their earnest attention to these two matters before the Committee stage. With regard to the main features of the Bill, he would not at that moment give any opinion as

    935
    to whether the proposed arrangements for the Courts were workable or not. His opinion in times past was that it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the respective interests of landlord and tenant in the soil, and that any friction, however slight, would destroy the practical utility of such a scheme as that proposed. This was the opinion of the Land League, which believed the true solution of the Land Question was to enable the occupiers to become owners. Whether the right hon. Gentleman had solved the difficulties of this great question was a matter on which he did not wish to express an opinion.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that, after the very clear statement of the objects of the Bill made by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it was unnecessary that he should trouble the House with many remarks with respect to it. He was glad to know in the discussion that had taken place that there was an evident determination on the part of the House to secure a fair hearing and consideration for the proposals of the Government. He wished to answer one or two questions which had been put, as well as to remove one or two misconceptions which seemed to exist as to the provisions of the measure. He could assure the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that he was in error in supposing that the Government intended to promote emigration in opposition to migration. The hon. Gentleman said he would not object to emigration if the people left the country of their own accord, and the Government would certainly be greatly opposed to any plan of emigration which meant the contrary. The sole object of the Bill was to place before the people the plans by which Government thought their position might be improved. They hoped to greatly improve the tenure of the Irish tenant. In the next place, they hoped to facilitate the purchase of the freehold land by the Irish tenant; but that was not to be done suddenly; but they hoped to put a very large scheme into operation. There was one feature of the Bill to which the Prime Minister had forgotten to allude, and that was that the Government would be prepared to make an advance to the Irish tenant to buy a perpetual quit rent. Then they hoped to be able to encourage reasonable and
    936
    well-matured plans for the reclamation of waste land, and they hoped, although it was a very difficult matter, to put before the tenants in the more crowded districts the advantages of emigration, so that they should be able to choose between the plan of the improvement of their tenure, if they stopped, and the settlement upon waste land, and also a system of well-considered emigration. As to the question which the hon. Gentleman put with regard to a tenant against whom proceedings might be taken, he would say that if proceedings were being taken at the time of the passing of the Act the tenant would have the power to apply to the Court to fix a judicial rent, and if, as very often might be the case, that was a lower rent than he now paid, he would get the advantage of tenant right which might accrue from that lower rent, while, as to the six months for redemption, the Bill might turn out to be quite as retrospective as his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) had suggested. The Bill did not propose to interfere with existing leases. That was a matter which must be fairly debated; but, of course, the Bill would be a mockery if a mere agreement was to exclude the tenant from its operations. His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) made a mistake when he stated that in his opinion the small tenants would get very little advantage from the Bill. The fact was that they would get all the advantages from it which the larger tenants would. He would have fixity of tenure for the first 15 years, and fixity of tenure for the next 15 years, supposing he thought fit to apply to the Court. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), with his usual clearness, had referred to the benefit which would accrue from the fact that application to the Court was made optional rather than compulsory. He hoped, however, that that statement would not be understood to mean that the option was with the landlord, for that was not the case, for it would be optional with the tenant to apply, while it would not be in the power of the landlord to prevent his doing so. His belief was, he might add, that when the tenant knew his rent might be raised, he would not very often use the option of going into Court, though, if he wished, he might do so at any time. With re-

    937
    gard to the labourers, that was a question that had received the very anxious consideration of the Government; but they had not seen how they could introduce provision with regard to labour, in the alteration of land tenure, excepting so far as labourers could be put into a better position by well-considered plans for emigration or otherwise. As the principles of the Bill had not been attacked, he would not detain the House with any further remarks. His right hon. Friend had said that it was one of the most important measures with which he had ever had to deal. It had been considered as carefully as any scheme had ever been considered by a Government, and the details would be discussed with every desire on their part to make it acceptable to the House and to the country.
    MR. BIDDELLasked, whether the loans which were to be made to Irish tenant farmers would be in the nature of mortgages or not, and what rate of interest would have to be paid? His impression was that if the terms were at all liberal, many English tenant farmers would be glad to avail themselves of the opportunity of becoming proprietors of their holdings in a similar way.
    MR. CALLANthought it would be unwise for any Irish Member to express a strong opinion upon the Bill about to be introduced, especially after the experience which had been gained from the University Bill of 1873, which had at first been received with acclaim by the Irish Members. But he could not help expressing his regret, which he believed would be concurred in by the Irish people, that the subject of the fixity of tenure—the real want of the Irish agriculturist—was conspicuously absent from the Bill. But oven though fixity of tenure was absent, he would not have expressed an opinion were it not for the unfortunate statement made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with which, so far as the present Bill was concerned, he extinguished all hope of the question of the Irish labourers being dealt with. In 1870 the Government absolutely pledged themselves to legislate for that class of the community, and they wore bound, as soon as they could, to fulfil that pledge. He should, therefore, like the Government to say that, if not this year, a measure would be taken to give facili-
    938
    ties for the erection of agricultural labourers' cottages, and the allocation of sites for gardens.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. MELDONthought that, as far as he could understand the Bill, it contained many points which must commend themselves to universal approval. He particularly approved that part of the measure which proposed to leave landlords and tenants free to contract, this in his view being the chief point that should be considered in all legislation regarding the land. The Bill gave substantially to the tenants of Ireland that which they had long been agitating for, and he thought the measure, as shadowed forth in the speech of the Prime Minister, deserved their warmest support. Every person who wished to see the relations of tenant and landlord placed on a satisfactory basis would acknowledge that the matter had been admirably dealt with. He thought, however, that the proportion of the purchase money to be asked on behalf of the tenant was rather too small, when they considered that the Select Committee recommended a much larger proportion should be advanced. This, however, was a point of detail which could be dealt with in Committee; but he hoped a further concession on this point would be made by the Government.
    MR. VILLIERS-STUARTalluded in terms of praise to the able speech of the Prime Minister; and, while he considered it was too premature to express an opinion on the Bill, regretted that the Prime Minister had made no reference to the condition of the agricultural labouring class in Ireland. The condition of the Irish farm labourer, he said, was a disgrace to any civilized community. He hoped, therefore, that notwithstanding the difficulty of the subject, the Government would see its way before the second reading of the Bill to accept some clauses in Committee dealing with the question of the farm labourers. He had already handed in a Notice of a Resolution in their favour, which he proposed to move on the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. ERRINGTONcould not help expressing the great pleasure the speech of the Prime Minister had afforded him.

    939
    The Bill, so far as he had been able to examine it, appeared to be very good. When it was thoroughly understood in Ireland, he felt sure it would create general satisfaction.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERrepeated the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk (Mr. Biddell).
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENthanked the Government for the introduction of the Bill, and said, that though it did not go to the extent that some had demanded in regard to fixity of tenure, it went a great way, and would give satisfaction in Ireland. The proposals relating to fair rents and free sale were complete, and carried out to the full in this Bill. He thought that those Members who had advocated this principle of land legislation, instead of resorting to revolutionary measures, could now address their constituents, as he would do his, and justify the position they had taken up by showing that its success was in the Bill brought in by the Prime Minister that evening. He was personally indebted to the Prime Minister for this measure, and he was sure the feeling of the country would endorse its proposals.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he would not attempt to do more than reply to the Questions that had been asked. He hoped, however, that the opposition that had been threatened in Committee, because the Bill did not do all that was desired in reference to labourers' dwellings, would not be persisted in. The Government had very much at heart the sufferings of this large portion of the population, borne with unexampled patience for many years; but it would be inexpedient to overload this measure with a matter which could be dealt with separately, and he was sure the Government would apply their energies to the redress of those sufferings. With reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington), a leading provision of the Bill was that a tenant should not pauperize himself, and that a holding should remain in the hands of one person; and in the event of intestacy, if the next of kin were more than one, or if there were a charge for the benefit of widow or children, a sale would bring the property into the hands of one person, so that sub-division would
    940
    be avoided. The reply to the hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) was that the rate of interest would be about 3½per cent; paying off principal and interest in 35 years, by an annuity of 5 per cent of the sum advanced.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to further amend the Law relating to the occupation and ownership of Land in Ireland; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 135.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 120.]
  (Mr. Dodson.)

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [31st March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. PELL,in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that the title of the Bill was misleading. The assumption that any of the provisions of the Bill would prevent floods was ludicrous. The Act of 1861 had not been found to work well on account of the difficulty in getting a number of authorities into united action, and the same objection would apply to this Bill. It was said that this Bill could not be considered a Party one. Now, when he first entered the House he was told to beware of measures which were supported by the Front Benches on each side, and what had been done in regard to this Bill proved the soundness of that advice. The Bill contained novel and indefensible proposals. It was proposed that a Conservancy Board should take charge of the whole basin of a river; but how large an area was embraced in the whole basin of a river? The proposal of the Bill was shortly stated to tax large areas for works which were to be carried out in very small portions of those areas. It was the case of Union rating over again. In moral effect, in mischievous wastefulness, and in bad results, nothing could be worse than the

  941
  operation of the system of Union rating. They were now asked to repeat those mischiefs on a much larger scale. They had further experience in the same direction in the working of the sanitary laws. At first, all concerned worked earnestly to carry those laws into effect; but it soon became apparent that a particular class of property—namely, houses—were being improved at the expense of rural districts, and a great reaction took place. The present Bill proceeded exactly on those lines, and the results which had flowed from the working of Union rating and the sanitary laws would be again experienced. What were the steps to be taken? A certain number of persons, or any rural or sanitary authority, might take the initial step in the formation of a Conservancy Board in any basin of a river. The river might be 160 miles long; but, after an inquiry without depositions, and which might be held by the Inspector in a town-hall or in a public-house, a Conservancy Board could be formed in any part of the basin of the river, under an Order of the Local Government Board. He should have thought that the Local Government Board would have fought shy of adding that duty to their many other responsibilities. Their dominion now, however, would extend from sea to sea. For years past efforts had been made to get some county authority constituted, which would be able to handle such a question as the present. The towns and boroughs acted together; but it was not so with the counties, or the present attempt to tax the uplands for the benefit of the lowlands would not be made. A proposal to tax the whole of the Metropolis in respect of floods which caused damage to particular parts of the Metropolis was rejected in the Select Committee of 1879 by eight votes against three, and yet a similar proposal had been introduced by the Local Government Board into this monstrous measure. He denied that the uplands had done anything in the way of sending down water in their ditches and under - drains to justify their being taxed under this Bill. If this Bill was passed, they would pull down half the bridges in the country. They would interfere with the railways and the roads. Millowners and other proprietors would have to be heavily compensated, and even then they would not be successful in preventing floods when there was an
  942
  excessive amount of rainfall. On his experience as a farmer, he ventured to say that the floods of the last few years had done more harm to the best uplands than it had in the lowlands; and on the whole, while he admitted the evil, he thought the Government would have done well if they had dealt with the matter in a more modest measure. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved to defer the second reading to this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Pell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, he could not admit the statement of the hon. Member that the Bill was novel in principle, inasmuch as it was on the lines of the Bill of 1877, which only failed to pass on account of want of time. The present Bill, which had already passed the House of Lords, was a mere enabling measure which might be submitted to the ordeal of a Select Committee after its principle had been affirmed. There was a great feeling of antagonism between those who lived in the uplands and the dwellers in the lowlands, and his hon. Friend who had moved the rejection of the Bill spoke strongly as an uplander. But there was also to be considered the health of the working classes living in the towns, which was seriously injured by the floods which frequently invaded their dwellings. It was true, as the hon. Gentleman had said, that in the opinion of an authority as eminent as Mr. Rawlinson, the floods were not caused by the draining of agricultural lands; but his opinion was not held by many other professional witnesses who were called before the Committee. The rivers of late years had been less under control than they were in former times, and were becoming year by year less able to perform their proper function of discharging the accumulation of water. The millers would require to be watched, inasmuch as they were in many cases gradually raising the head of water to which they were entitled, and were so working an immense amount of mischief. When the Bill had passed into law, the different localities would give such shape to the Provisional Order, provided for under the Act, as was best suited to

  943
  their peculiar circumstances and conditions. He hoped that the objection of an increase of the rates would not prevent a very valuable improvement from being carried into effect. He had at first been in favour of throwing those rates entirely upon the owners; but he had since become convinced that it was more in the interests of the occupiers that they should share the burdens entailed by carrying out the proposed improvements, and should have a sharp in their management. He hoped that they would not be deterred by monetary considerations from sending this Bill to a Select Committee.
  MR. LEAKEsaid, he could not resist contributing some few remarks to the discussion, as he came from a district which was sorely troubled with a tortuous and overflowing river. The hon. Member who had just sat down opposed the title of the Bill as being misleading, but he failed to see in what respect it was misleading. There was no question that the country suffered from the overflowing of rivers and devastation by floods, and there was no doubt to grapple with this evil they must bring into existence bodies of intelligent and capable men, who would consult upon the matter and see if any appropriate remedy could be found. These would be the Conservancy Boards, which, according to the title of the Bill, would be created if it became law. Therefore, he saw nothing misleading in the title of the Bill, or in its objects. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) appeared to object to the Bill because it proposed to deal with a river throughout its basin, and he professed not to be able to describe the basin of a river. The House and the country would never be able to deal with these rivers till they dealt with them from the source to the sea. It was only jealousy between rival interests that had prevented remedial measures having been adopted long ago. The hon. Member said that it had been a mistake to build on the banks of rivers; but that was an assumption. When they built on the banks of rivers the sources and conditions were different from what they were now. The greater portion of its upper stream was scarcely flowing, but filtering through mosses and marshes; but now the farmers had brought into cultivation the uplands, and had multiplied the channels of the stream a hundredfold, and it poured on
  944
  the lower lands the rains and the drainage of the lands. The hon. Member said that the towns desired to tax a large area for their special benefit; but that was an unfair way of putting it. The science of living in community demanded taxation over an extensive area, and the benefit derived from that taxation could never be appraised so that every man should equitably have his precise share. It was only the other day that hon. Members from the other side of the House were asking them to contribute to highways all over the country, although he would never travel over one thousandth part of those highways. His constituents were also asked to contribute to the Parks in London, and yet very few would ever visit them. If they taxed a large area by the present Bill, that large area would have a voice in the adjustment of the taxes, as the Conservancy Boards would be representative. The consequence would be that the taxation would be equitably borne. It was objected that the uplands would be taxed for the benefit of the lowlands, and the term uplands conveyed to the mind an idea of moors and pastures only. But it was not so; there were uplands and uplands. What were they doing in his own district? Manchester had been standing in the way of Salford, relieving itself of surplus water simply because it was on an upland. Manchester, by building on the banks of the Irwell, had narrowed it from 116 feet to 87 feet, and no responsibility lay on the uplands for the damage done to the lowlands. All these unconscious infringements upon the rights of neighbours were past remedy and punishment; but, if they united in common with each other, something might be done to bring great streams to a better condition. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire asked whether the proposed Conservancy Boards could be expected to deal with occasional floods of great magnitude. Certainly they proposed to do so. The River Irwell at certain periods of the year sent down 24,000 cubic feet of water per second, whereas only 11,000 could pass through the city and borough without damage. This river presented a problem of high magnitude; but if they could get rid of petty jealousies and bring communities to a sense of their responsibilities, a duplicate channel might be made along a portion of the river where the course was tortuous, and the surplus

  945
  water carried below the population of the town. This would be a simple work for scientific men and determiner communities. The prevention of the devastation caused in one year by such floods would amply repay the cost of remedial works such as he had indicated. He concluded by cordially supporting the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that this Bill was a re-hash of a very bad measure which had been brought forward by a former Government, but which pressure of Business had prevented from being passed. He hoped that pressure of Business would also prevent the carrying of the present Bill. It was, no doubt, an enabling Bill, for it enabled the Local Government Board to exercise a centralized bureaucratic Imperialism over the whole of England, which had operated injuriously in regard to the Highways Act, and which it was undesirable to have extended to the matter of the conservancy of rivers. He objected to this measure, also, because it proposed to levy rates on the basis of the Poor Law Valuation, which was assessed on a different principle in every Union; and therefore any rates levied by a Conservancy Board over a district including many different Unions, until an Act was passed to enforce a uniform system of assessment, would be most unfair, and would inflict great injustice. It would be impossible to assess the rate fairly without a proper survey. He could not see the justice of rating the uplands and the midlands for what he called flood lands. He held that there were only two kinds of lands to be considered in dealing with that subject—flood lands and high lands. He believed that but for the exceptionally heavy rains which had lately prevailed, they would have heard very little of this measure. Before the late heavy rains the flood lands, instead of being injured, had been benefited, for they got some of their best soil from the uplands. Close to the towns on the borders of those rivers the land was very much deteriorated; but if the floods were taken away the value of that land would be greatly increased at the expense of the uplands, which would gain nothing by the Bill.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that the Bill was excellent in principle; but, when they came to examine it in detail, they found that it failed to carry out
  946
  what it professed. No doubt, this Bill had been framed upon the Report of a Select Committee of the House of Lords; but he should have more respect for the Report of that Committee if they had heard evidence from the localities especially affected. The Bill had been presented by the President of the Local Government Board without any sufficient introductory statement, and was now being forced on at a time when the greater number of the county Members were absent. If there was any Bill in which county Members were interested it was a Bill of this description. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that, if he forced on this Bill now against the wish of those interested in it, he might lose a good deal of time afterwards. Looking at the Bill from the point of view of those who lived in the Fens district, he would venture to say that they were utterly unprotected. They had spent on the faith of Parliament hundreds of thousands of pounds, which had benefited the country. But by this Bill authority was given to other lands to flood their lands which had been drained, and they had to pay for it. He admitted that the Bill was in some respect copied from the Bill formerly before the House; but his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) intended thoroughly to protect the owners of the Fens lands. There was no adequate provision for their protection in the Bill before the House. He did not think it would be judicious at present, considering the state of the House, to go to a division against the Bill. He thought they should content themselves with expressing an opinion upon the way it had been brought on, and if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee, they should consider whether they would not hear evidence upon it.
  MR. T. PAGETsaid, he should support the second reading of the Bill as an instalment, and hoped it would be made the foundation of something better in the future. Leicestershire was one of the counties that would be particularly affected by the Bill. In that part of the country the rivers had been very much obstructed, both by the discontinuance of the canals that formerly helped to clear the streams, and also by the neglect of the riparian owners. The whole question might well have been dealt with by the suggested county financial boards, the institution and proper functions of which might be profitably dis-

  947
  cussed in connection with the present measure.
  MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, that, when the late Government made a proposal with respect to the establishment of county financial boards, one of their main objects was that there should be in every county a rivers conservancy authority; but the objection urged was that the matter was too important to be delegated to county boards, and that special machinery was wanted for the purpose in view. The Conservancy Bill had been subsequently introduced by the late Government because they had been very much pressed by agriculturists and others to initiate legislation on the subject, and it was based on the Report of a Select Committee of the House of Lords. The greatest difficulty was to decide what area of taxation should be taken. In any case, as sufficient funds had to be provided, it was necessary that the area should be a large one, and it ought, if possible, not to be open to the objections taken to the area for sanitary purposes. It was quite true that many of the rural districts were unwilling to enter into sanitary schemes from a wise fear of being deluged by the projects of doctrinaires; but, in the present case, a wider area and funds on a larger scale were needed. There were, of course, uplands and uplands; some of them being practically table land, would not be taxed for the purposes of the Bill, while others, as being the sources of springs and streams, would be called upon to contribute. Another important feature of the Bill was that it superseded many of the old conservancy authorities, some of which were alike unable to do their work, or even to provide for their own extinction. There were various interests which he thought ought to obtain further protection; but, on the whole, he saw no objection to the Bill being read a second time, provided it was referred to a Select Committee. He regretted that it should have been brought on at the fag end of the Sitting, seeing that it was well worthy of a whole Evening's Sitting.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he certainly shared the surprise expressed by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) that his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) should have taken the attitude against this Bill he had done. He could not
  948
  help thinking that his hon. Friend, judging from his speech, was at a loss to find a valid excuse for deferring the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the question of river floods. Certainly nothing that had fallen from his hon. Friend, or, indeed, from any hon. Member, except the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants, could lead anyone to suppose that any damage had been done to the land in the country by floods. His hon. Friend seemed to suppose that the towns only would derive benefit from a measure of this kind; and he based his arguments upon the representations which were made a short time ago by a deputation which waited upon the President of the Local Government Board. Reference had been made to the damage done by floods to land worth £3 an acre. He (Mr. Magniac) was acquainted with some 3,000 acres that were let at £3 an acre, but the rent had not been paid this year because the land had been flooded. It was not desirable, however, that they should measure the loss by a money standard in that way. It was easy to say that £3 per acre for 1,000 acres would give a loss of £3,000; but in reality it did not represent the entire loss to the occupier. There were other losses which were involved in the flooding of the land of the country. He would not weary the House by going into details of these losses; but he had a long list of towns and places in which the entire districts had been placed under water; and from which persons living in the locality were described to him as looking over lake and river scenery rather than across green fields. A short time ago, a traveller by the Great Northern Railway would have been unable from one part of the line to see dry land at all. The whole country was under water. Towns had been flooded; industry had been stopped; and the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords, which hon. Members seemed to have ignored entirely, stated that one flood alone had caused damage to the amount of £800,000. There were other instances in which damage to the extent of £500,000 had been caused; and he was sure that if the losses occasioned by floods in the course of a single year could be all put together, they would be more than sufficient to pay for the preventive measures that would be necessary to check similar damage in future.

  949
  In point of fact, those who were acquainted with the rivers know that it would be requisite to undertake very small works in order to effect a vast amount of good. When once the water was set going it helped itself, and made its own channel. It was because the regular channels became obstructed in every direction that the water no longer was able to flow. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) said that floods were advantageous. No doubt, they were advantageous under certain conditions; but, under other circumstances, they were most disadvantageous; and if the hon. Member would refer to the Report of the Lords' Committee, he would see that although there were some advantages, yet, in the long run, the balance of advantage was largely against the land. Allusion had been made to the flooding of the streets of many towns. That was not a subject to be ignored, or passed over with a laugh, seeing that the damage occasioned amounted to hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling, and involved a large loss in wages to the artizans in the towns. The loss in this respect would come to a very large amount if it could be properly estimated. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire took the case of the upland drainage; but the hon. Member put the case much stronger the other night than he had done now. The House cheered the opinion of Mr. Rawlinson that upland drainage did not cause floods. Now, he (Mr. Magniac) had taken the trouble to ascertain what Mr. Rawlinson meant, because he felt perfectly certain that an engineer so competent, so experienced, and so skilled, would not be blind to facts that were passing under his own eyes. He had, therefore, taken the opportunity of asking Mr. Rawlinson himself what he meant by the evidence he had given before the Lords' Committee; and Mr. Rawlinson told him that that evidence had been entirely misunderstood. Mr. Rawlinson said—
  "The answers I gave to the Committee were direct answers to direct and precise and particular questions, and I repeat that in the case of extreme floods they are caused by heavy rains, extending over a series of weeks, and even months, and the drainage of the agricultural lands is not, in such cases, the cause of floods."
  That was an intelligible question which they all understood. As his hon. Friend the Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur
  950
  Peel) said, they did not expect the Bill to guard the country from the prevalence of exceptional and disastrous floods. He knew that there had been greater floods in the past than there had been recently; but exceptional floods might occur any year, which might not occur again for a hundred years. What he and those who were in favour of this Bill were desirous of doing was to relieve the country from these frequent and intermittent floods—intermittent floods that were occurring now almost periodically. It was these floods that they desired by this Bill to guard the country against. It had been urged that under the Bill numbers of persons would be required to pay rates for the purpose of effecting the improvements in the courses of the rivers, who would derive no direct benefit from those improvements. Here, again, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire had not put the case so strongly as he did a few days ago. It had, however, been put so forcibly, that he (Mr. Magniac) thought he was entitled to say a few words on the subject. In the first place, he did not think the Act of Henry VIII., which had been referred to, at all bore out the paragraph in the Report of the Lords' Committee. If hon. Members would take the trouble to refer to that Act, they would be of opinion that it was extremely doubtful whether it applied to the case at all. It did not say that persons who derived no direct benefits should not be required to contribute towards the rates necessary for effecting improvements; but it said that everyone should be rated according to the benefit which he derived. The question, however, was entirely one with regard to the construction or wording of an old Act of Parliament, and he should not like to pronounce an opinion upon it. The hon. Member said it was an entirely new principle to tax people who derived no direct benefit. Now, it was entirely a new principle to lay down such a proposition as that. Taxation might be the fulfilment of an obligation, as well as the fulfilment for a benefit; and the hon. Member knew perfectly well that, in the main, no local taxation conferred any direct benefit upon the individual who was taxed. It was the same with Imperial taxation. How could it be contended that indirect taxes levied on tea, or coffee, or the Income Tax, conferred direct benefit upon the individual taxed? What power was there

  951
  to connect any direct payment of Income Tax with any direct benefit derived from it? It was still more impossible to connect payments for the maintenance of highways, for relief under the Poor Law, and for the other numerous objects of local taxation with the direct benefit of the individual who paid the taxes. The hon. Member spoke of the Union Chargeability Act. That that Act had not succeeded in every respect was undoubtedly true. It might possibly be true that it was an expensive Act; but it was not in the least degree true that the principle of the Act was an unjust one, and the fact that the working of the Act might be improperly carried into effect was no reason why they should condemn the principle of it. It was alleged that the Artizans' and Workmens' Dwellings Act had failed to a considerable extent, and that those who were taxed for it got no benefit from it. But the artizans and working classes derived benefit from it, although other classes might not. Yet no one would grudge the payments made under the Act who knew the benefits that it had conferred upon the labouring classes. It was upon the same principle that the rates for highways were paid; and what was a river but a highway? They all knew that the principal and primary cause of floods were the bridges thrown across the rivers. But for whose benefit was it that these bridges had been constructed across the rivers? They were not made for the benefit of the lowlands alone, for how could the produce of those who lived on the uplands be carried to market if there wore no bridges? The mode of conveyance before the time of railways was by navigating the rivers and canals; and what would have been the value of the land in England if the farm produce could not have been conveyed by that means to market, and farming materials and manure taken by the same means to the farms? There was another matter which he was surprised to see had not been properly applied, although it had been mentioned in the course of the debate. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill mentioned his own county town—the town of Leicester, and the county town of Leicestershire. At the present moment that town was built upon an island in an artificially constructed lake—a lake constructed by railway embankments.
  952
  He should like to know what the value of the uplands would be at this moment if it were not for the railways. The value of the uplands was intimately connected with the condition of the lowlands, and it was utterly impossible to sever the two. If they were to go back to the principle of taxation for direct benefits, they must go back to the purest principle of taxation, upon which their—he was almost going to say barbarous—ancestors acted. At any rate, those who preceded us, who had not had our experience, and who had, probably, not had the advantage of co-operation, were the only persons who ever resorted to the principle which his hon. Friend recommended for adoption now. In a neighbouring country we saw the principle suggested by the present Bill put in operation every day. In France, the Government did not hesitate to provide the means for the construction of magnificent roads and bridges by general taxation. Only a few days ago, hon. Members were arguing that the roads and bridges should not be made at the expense of the localities, but that the cost should be borne by the whole country. He trusted that the House would take a wider view of its obligations and responsibilities in reference to the proposal now made, than that which had been shaped out by his hon. Friend. They had before them the example set by the House of Lords, who had sent down the present Bill. A Select Committee of their Lordships' House had already inquired into the matter and reported upon it; and hon. Members had, therefore, an assurance that the measure had been thoroughly considered by the House of Lords. There were Members of their Lordships' Committee who represented important districts of country, and the House of Commons might, with advantage, follow the example set by the House of Lords, and allow the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, where they knew it would be thoroughly sifted and well considered. Only that night they had been listening to a strong argument, the whole of which was directed towards the merging of individual rights and interests for the general good of the country. They were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that the position of public affairs rendered it necessary that the owners of land in the Sister Kingdom should give up a large

  953
  portion of their rights for the public good. Was it possible that the owners of land in this country took so narrow a view of their obligations and duties that they would prevent the passing of a measure which they must feel convinced would do an immense amount of good, and the want of which was a complete scandal to the country? No one could have seen the state of the country during the last 18 months without feeling very much ashamed that it should have been allowed to get into such a position. Perhaps, before he concluded his remarks, he might be permitted to say a word or two in regard to his own Bill. He understood that it was intended, in the event of the present Bill being read a second time, to refer it to a Select Committee. He hoped that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would, in the event of that course being taken, see his way to referring the second Bill also, so that the two measures might be considered by the same Committee. He thought there were in the Bill which he (Mr. Magniac) had had the honour of introducing, a certain number of clauses which might with advantage be added to the Bill of the Government. He should like to say, with regard to the Bill of his right hon. Friend, that he looked upon the rating clauses contained in it as impracticable. He did not think that it would be possible to carry them out in practice. If any hon. Member would take the trouble to look at the clauses of the Bill, and examine them carefully, he would find, in regard to the question of rating, that the division of rates between the owners and occupiers and the uplands and the lowlands would necessitate a multiplicity of accounts being kept, which, he believed, would render it difficult, if not impossible, to work the measure. There was another principle in the present Bill which he also looked upon as a very dangerous one indeed. The principle of the valuation of lands had hitherto been carried out by assessment committees, by gentlemen of the strictest impartiality and integrity, and who possessed a sufficient knowledge of the subject to enable them to put a proper value upon the lands submitted to them. Under the provisions of the present Bill that duty would be taken away from the assessment committees and handed over to the overseers, who would have autho-
  954
  rity, without appeal, to make a valuation of lands. He certainly believed that the rating clauses of the Bill would require to be very carefully considered, and he could not conceive a place better suited for their consideration than a Select Committee of that House. It would be quite possible for the hon. Members who would be appointed upon such a Committee to put the clauses of the Bill in order. He trusted that his right hon. Friend would accede to the general desire that there should be one Conservancy Board for each river, and that he would not allow the responsibilities of the Conservancy to be frittered away among a number of small and insignificant authorities, who would very likely be in conflict with each other as to the manner in which the work should be carried out. He hoped the House would consent to read the Bill a second time, in order that it might at once be referred to a Select Committee, so that it might come back again to the House in sufficient time to be passed in the course of the present Session.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he did not agree in the views which had been expressed by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Magniac), although he had no doubt that the hon. Member had devoted great attention to the subject. He thought the concluding remarks of the hon. Gentleman answered his earlier ones. He certainly hoped, if the Bill before the House was to be referred to a Select Committee, that the Bill of the hon. Member would be referred to the same Committee. If the Bill were to be taken as it stood, and were to be read a second time on the understanding that the second reading would amount to a confirmation of the principle of the Bill, he should prefer to vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) in favour of the rejection of the Bill. It was only yesterday that a deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite the President of the Local Government Board, and towards the close of the interview the right hon. Gentleman was asked whether he considered that the rating clauses constituted an essential part of the principle of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman stated, in reply, that there was no principle in the Bill at all; that it was a most immoral Bill. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He

  955
  thought it was a most immoral Bill. It was not only unjust; but he believed it would prove to be perfectly uneconomical, and, what was much more important, that it would be quite unworkable. But if the Select Committee to which it was suggested the Bill should be referred had power to overhaul the clauses which insisted upon the taxation of the uplands for the lowlands, then that, he considered, would altogether alter the question. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House as much as he told the deputation yesterday, because the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman certainly altered the complexion of the case. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Magniac) had mentioned two or three facts which tended rather to strengthen the case against himself. The hon. Member said he knew a case where 3,000 acres of land had been rendered valueless in consequence of river floods, and he added that by the present Bill, or some similar measure, that land would be very much improved. He (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) presumed that it would be altogether reclaimed, and surely the 3,000 acres in question ought themselves to bear the expense of reclamation; £3 an acre would afford a very large margin for an expenditure of that nature. A charge of £1 an acre put upon the land would cover the expense of the necessary outlay; and if, as the hon. Member said, the outlay would only be small, why was it not undertaken at once by the owner without waiting to throw the expense upon the district generally? The hon. Member had referred to cases where damage to the extent of £500,000 and £800,000 had been done by the flooding of land. Surely the land that was liable to become flooded could afford to pay a charge of 1s., or 5s., or even of £1 an acre, and save itself from the consequences of these floods without taxing the uplands. The facts adduced by the hon. Member were the strongest arguments against himself. He (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) had placed upon the Paper an Amendment following the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire; and although he had placed it upon the Paper, and believed strongly in the opinion which it expressed, he was still far from thinking that there was no necessity for a Bill of some kind. He thought there was
  956
  great necessity indeed for legislation; but, at the same time, he was of opinion that if they passed such a Bill as this, even those who most wished for legislation, and certainly he himself was one of those, would find it unworkable. It was, therefore, his desire, if they were to have legislation, that they should have it in another form. He was himself the owner of riparian land, which was not protected from floods as much as he should like, and which would certainly be much improved if it were not liable to be flooded. But he had never thought of asking for a rate or tax from the uplands in order to save his land from floods and render it worth so much more per acre. He would as soon ask for assistance to carry out building, drainage, or other improvements. Perhaps there were hon. Members in the House who had had to work some of the Acts of Parliament similar to the Public Health Act. If so, they would know how utterly impossible it would be to work a measure of this kind when the basis of taxation was unjust and unequitable. The Public Health Act had broken down owing to its provisions being spread over too wide an area, and the House had, in a very prominent instance, reversed that policy. An attempt had been made to compel one parish to pay the expense of the water supply for another parish. But the Act was subsequently amended by striking out the clause under which this was sought to be done; the cost was charged to those who were benefited by the water supply; and the consequence was that the Act, which was before unworkable, was now able to be worked. Again, in the case of the Metropolis, a Select Committee which sat in 1877 reported that the cost of preventing floods ought to be thrown on the whole of the Metropolis; but another Committee found that the river-side owners ought to prevent overflow, and an Act was passed which embodied the latter principle. The House was now asked, contrary to the principle of that Act, to spread the rates, for the purposes of the present Bill, over an unduly extended area. Therefore, he thought, in view of the fact that the Acts relied upon as precedents had. broken down, it would be better to reverse the policy of extending the rates, and place them upon the property which would be benefited. If the right hon. Gentleman

  957
  would say that he would give up that point, he should be glad to see the Bill go to a Select Committee, together with the Bill of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac); but if, by agreeing to the Bill being read a second time, they were to accept the proposed principle of rating, he should certainly vote for the Amendment before the House. The only true principle in matters of this kind was that the water itself should mark the extent of the area to be rated. As the Bill of the hon. Member for Bedford contained some special exemptions in the case of land not benefited by the provisions of the Bill, he thought it would be of great advantage to refer it, at the same time with the present Bill, to a Select Committee.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he was an occupier of land through which a river ran that was subject to floods, and he could, therefore, speak with some knowledge as to the desirability of an alteration in the present system. Nevertheless, he could not agree with the principle of rating the uplands for the benefit of the other lands. By admitting this principle, they would be stultifying the proceedings of Parliament. For the hon. Member for Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) had pointed out that when the Metropolitan Board of Works took means for preventing the floods in the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, the principle of rating the whole Metropolis had been rejected. He contended, that if there was reason in saying that the drainage of the uplands swelled the floods in the lowlands, there was much greater reason in saying that the slated roofs and paved yards and streets on that side of the River Thames tended greatly to increase the floods in the river bed. Yet it was held by that House, and by citizens of London generally, that it was not equitable and not right to rate the larger area of the Metropolis in order to secure the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark. If that principle held good in the Metropolis, surely it ought to apply throughout the country at large. Therefore, he appealed to the House, on behalf of a large number of his supporters, that the uplands should not be rated to improve the lowlands of the counties; but that measures should be taken for properly cleansing the watercourses and removing obstructions, at the cost of those benefited by the change.
  958
  This Bill had been truly called an enabling Bill, for it enabled 20 owners, or owners and occupiers, holding or occupying property to the annual value of £2,000, to apply at any time to the Local Government Board for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. The first step after this was that an Inspector would be sent down into the district to report. He would, no doubt, be easily convinced of the necessity of applying the Act, and a Provisional Order would be made, to be followed by an Act of Parliament, all of which would, no doubt, be opposed by the upland ratepayers. Thus a continued harvest of legal expenses would be reaped from the ratepayers of the upland districts. The House had had the picture of the enormous floods which had taken place held out to them as a sort of scare, in order to get the Bill read a second time that night; but he contended that if the rivers in their present form were scoured to the very bed, it would not very materially diminish such floods as the country had been subject to during the last few years. Again, if our rivers were to be widened and deepened, almost every bridge in the Kingdom would have to be taken down and re-built, and that not only on the highways, but on the railways of the country. For these reasons, he felt bound to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire.
  MR. PUGHsaid, he was glad that on a previous occasion, when the Bill was before the House, he had voted for the adjournment of the debate. The debate of that evening had been very useful, although he did not consider it adequate to the importance of the questions involved in the Bill. The rating of the upland proprietors for what he believed to be the chief portion of the necessary works was, in his opinion, a monstrous proposition; and it was difficult to understand how anyone could come forward in that House and advocate such a measure. He was anxious that the Local Government Board should have the confidence of the country; but he felt it would be discredited in the eyes of the people if the principle of the Bill were adopted. The people were now groaning beneath the burden of taxation; and he was certain that there was not a Member for a county in England or Wales who would dare to go down to his constituency and say to a

  959
  body of tenant farmers what he (Mr. Pugh) had heard to-night—"Your landlord's property will be benefited, although you will not be; still, we are anxious to see you represented on the Board. It will be an honourable position, and, I am sure, you will not object to paying the rates." He was certain that no county Member would stand up during the Recess and proclaim that doctrine, for, if he did, his fate would be sealed at the next Election. The right hon. Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had referred to the Sanitary Acts as a precedent; but in the large areas created by them, there was supposed to be a certain community of interest in regard to sanitary matters. Something was done all through the area; but the House, if they wished to draw a fair analogy between the sanitary law and the present Bill, must take the former as proposing to do some sanitary work in an urban district, and declaring that the rural districts, in which no such work was to be effected, should contribute to the cost. Why did the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) ask them to pass the Bill? "Oh!" said the hon. Member, "because of the 'Artizans' Dwellings Act;'" but hon. Members must have a better argument than that with which to go down to their constituents. They could not go down into the country with such a story as this—"See the Artizans' Dwellings Act in London—look at the effect of it; you will be benefited in like manner by this Floods Bill." But, to go to the root of the matter, what was the ground on which it was said that these uplands ought to be taxed? He had read the evidence taken before the Committee of 1877—he would not trouble the House by referring to it further than to make a passing allusion to some of its points—and he had examined into the composition of the Committee, and, no doubt, there were upon it many noble Lords of great ability. But no one who road the evidence candidly could help coming to the conclusion that the noble Lords who took a leading part in the examination of the witnesses entertained the opinion that the uplands should be taxed for the benefit of the lowlands. That would be found throughout. They were bound to get some reason for this; and it came to an absurdity when witnesses answered, as Mr. Bailey
  960
  Denton did—"Oh! I will toll you why the uplands should be taxed;" and then went on to give long answers occupying considerable paragraphs, utterly barren of the slightest reason why the uplands should be asked to contribute towards the expense of improving the lowlands. As a matter of fact, he had no reason to give. It was generally believed that the evidence given before the Committee was in favour of the principle adopted by the Government; but, he ventured to say, it was nothing of the kind. There were many witnesses whose evidence weighed on the other side. ["Divide!"] If hon. Members would listen to him for a few minutes he would be as brief as he possibly could; but the matter was one which ought certainly to be fully debated. The hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel) was examined; then, there were four engineers, one of whom gave a reason why, to the mind of a civil engineer, this principle should be adopted—and it was very much the reason of the hon. Member for Hampshire—namely, that otherwise they would not be able to raise sufficient money. No doubt, it was to the interest of engineers to see great works carried out; and they were always anxious to see large and expensive operations undertaken. It was natural, and he did not blame them for it; but, at the same time, he did not think civil engineers were the people to consult as to the incidence of taxation. As to engineering works, consult them by all means; but as to the incidence of taxation, there were a great many witnesses who could give more trustworthy evidence. Then there was a town clerk examined, and a member of a local board; and here he exhausted the list of those who had said a word in favour of the principle he was discussing. He mentioned Mr. Rawlinson, than whom, perhaps, there was no one more competent to speak upon this matter. There was another witness who was examined who was very competent to form a judgment on the matter, and he should have thought this gentleman would have had the confidence of the Local Government Board. It was Mr. Ridley, one of the Enclosure Commissioners; and he and Mr. Grantham, a civil engineer, were of opinion that the model upon which legislation should be based in this matter was the Thames

  961
  Valley Act. Then, there was one remarkable thing which the House must bear in mind—namely, the large number of people perfectly competent to give an opinion on this question who were never asked by the Committee to state their views. There was, for example, Mr. Lloyd, who was connected with the River Severn, and had had large experience of the navigation of that river; and one would have thought that if any witness had been called from the banks of the Severn, this gentleman certainly would have been examined on this point. The area of the watershed of the Severn was 4,437 square miles, and extended from Plynlimmon to Bristol. He generally found, however, that the persons asked to give an opinion were those living on the banks of such rivers as the Ouse. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac), let them consider what the upland proprietors could have done with regard to the river the hon. Member was connected with. If he understood the hon. Member aright—and he thought he had comprehended him—he had pointed out that there were on that river several mills—that there were obstructions above and obstructions below. [Mr. MAGNIAC: The hon. Member has mis-stated what I said.] He (Mr. Pugh) was sorry if he had misrepresented the hon. Member; but he did not think the misrepresentation was to a very serious extent. He might have made a mistake in using the word "mills," and it might be "weirs" that the hon. Member had mentioned; but, at any rate, he was correct in saying that the hon. Member had pointed out that there were obstructions above and obstructions below. On what ground, again he asked, could the uplands be taxed? What did the owners of the uplands do that they had no right to do? If an upland proprietor sent water down upon the lowlands unnecessarily, he ought to be stopped by the legislation, or taxed for the purpose of removing or remedying the evil; but if the owner of the upland used his land in a reasonable and proper manner, he was neither legally, equitably, nor morally liable for the injury caused by the rain-water falling from his property to the lowlands. Did the owner of the uplands divert streams in order to send water into another river? Certainly not; and this was an entirely novel principle of the right hon. Gentle-
  962
  man the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman would have to show the House some conclusive reason why they should go beyond the principle they adopted in 1871. In conclusion, he wished to say one word as to his own position in this matter. He was by no means interested in exempting upland proprietors from taxation, for though he was an upland proprietor himself, he was also a lowland proprietor, and had suffered very much from the evil complained of. He had no objection to a Bill being brought in to remedy these evils; but he did not wish to see the owners of the uplands taxed. He had for many years spent a great deal in banking up the river near which he resided, not only for his own benefit, but for that of his tenants; still, it had never occurred to him to charge any of his tenants, nor to ask his neighbours up above him to contribute towards the cost of the embankments. The rivers were embanked for the benefit of the proprietors, and when the lowlands were improved by these embankments, the rent would be raised; consequently, it was unfair to ask the owners of the uplands to bear part of the expense of that which was to benefit someone else. He hoped the House would not assent to the principle he had condemned.
  Mr. DODSON and Mr. STORER rose together, and Mr. SPEAKER called upon the former to continue the debate.
  MR. STORER: I wish to move—["Order!"]—I wish to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. DODSON: I am in possession of the House, and I hope, before I sit down, the hon. Member will be persuaded not to make the Motion he now appears anxious to bring forward. I have stated already the course which the Government propose to adopt, and as this is the second night on which we have discussed the measure, I trust that the House will now be allowed to come to a decision as to whether or not it shall be read a second time. The straight issue has been put before the House that the Bill shall be read a second time this day six months, and the Government is willing to take that issue. After the lengthened debate we have had, I do net propose to detain the House very long. The object of the

  963
  measure is, as has been stated, to establish, as far as possible, with the consent of the inhabitants of the river basins, one Conservancy Board, which shall have the general control of a river throughout. I say that that is the object of the Bill so far as circumstances will admit, because we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that on many of our rivers there are different authorities already in existence, and that we cannot replace or dispose of them; but where there are these bodies, there our object would be, at all events, by means of a Conservancy Board, to harmonize their action and supply any defects in the continuous management of the river. Then, as I have said before, this is an enabling Bill; it does not impose anything on the localities. The measure is one giving power to the inhabitants and the local authorities to help themselves and to establish a Conservancy Board for the management of their river, if they wish it; and the Bill is purposely framed to be of so elastic a character as to give to them in each river basin power of framing a scheme suited to their own wants and wishes. That is the general object of the Bill; and I must say this—which I think will be generally admitted—that after the evidence which has been taken by the House of Lords, upon which the Report of the Committee was founded, and after the experience we have all had of what has taken place in the country, few people will be found hardy enough to deny that some kind of power is wanted for the better management of many of the rivers of the country. The Bill has been very much criticized in its details. It is essentially a Bill of detail, and it is for that reason that I suggest that it should be referred to a Select Committee, so that each of its clauses may be submitted to examination. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), and some other hon. Members, have asked me this—" Will you give us an assurance if it goes to a Select Committee, this thing and the other thing will bo open to consideration?" I have no power to say what shall be open to consideration when the measure is before a Select Committee, and when it is before the Committee of the Whole House. Of course, every clause and every line and every word of it will be open to discussion. The hon. Gentle-
  964
  man, who moved the rejection of the Bill, said—"You are embarrassing," or, "You may embarrass under the powers of this Bill the various Unions which are parts of different counties;" and he said—"You have not one valuation basis; therefore, you will make the rating unequal." I admit the force of my hon. Friend's argument, and I am glad to hear it from him. The valuation is unequal in the country. I should be glad to see it reformed, and I hope those who make the objection I refer to will support the proposal that may be made for bringing about such reform. But it is as well to consider this point—that under the Bill nothing can be done until application has been made for a Provisional Order, and that Order has been obtained. That will take another year to obtain, and in the meantime, if fortune favours us, we may pass a Valuation Bill. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) raised another point. He said the Fens in which he was interested were not protected. If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 4, and Clause 6, and red-letter Clause 3, which follows Clause 19, he will find that careful precautions have been taken. Expensive works have been executed in the Fens, and it is quite possible that further burdens ought not to be cast upon them. These clauses were inserted very much with a view to this particular case. Then he does not oppose the second reading, but wishes the Bill to be referred to a Committee in order that evidence may be taken. I cannot assent to that proposition. The evidence upon which this Bill is founded is that which has been taken already by the House of Lords; but it must be remembered that before a Provisional Order can be passed, applying the powers given under this Bill to any river basin, evidence must be taken in the locality by means of a local inquiry; then the schemes afterwards founded on that local inquiry must be embodied in the Provisional Order, and if the Order then becomes opposed, it must be referred to a Committee, before which evidence is taken like a Private Bill. That is far better than any general evidence that can be taken on a Bill of this kind, because the evidence before the local inquiry and before the Committee will have regard to the circumstances and necessities of the particular river. I

  965
  do not know that I need take up every point of objection to the Bill—some have been already answered by other speakers; but the hon. Baronet said there were no exemptions under the Bill. I pointed out that there are powers of exemption, in referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid, Lincolnshire. These powers apply to highlands or lowlands; and the clause provides that any lands which it appears ought not to be subject to rates, or not to the same extent as other lands, may be exempted. Then, again, the argument assumes that everything to be done under the Bill was simply the improvement of the lands of certain proprietors; and it is stated that the Bill is only for private improvements. Upon that I must ask the attention of the House to Clause 6 and to Clause 20. Under these clauses there is power provided through the Provisional Order, or through the Conservancy Board, by which, where works are specially improvement works for the benefit of private owners, the cost shall be charged to those private owners, and not to the district. The fact is, that the management of a great river extends far beyond private interests and the property of one or two riparian proprietors. It is a matter of common interest to all the inhabitants of the river basin. At all events, it is so with certain limited exceptions, and as such I must say that I do not see that there is any injustice in providing, with proper safeguards, for the management and control of a river by means of a rate levied over the whole or an extended portion of the basin. No doubt, there are different interests—some more direct than others; but if the circumstances seem to require it, powers are given for the exemption of lands wholly or partially. Some allusion has been made to county boards. I am as anxious as anyone can be to see a good system of county government established; but I must point out that county boards do not meet the case of the rivers, because, if it is desirable as far as possible to secure uniform mid continuous management of a river, you cannot confine the board of management to the representatives of one county, for many rivers flow through different counties, and, in many instances, form the boundaries of counties; and. it would be impossible to work that satisfactorily by means of county
  966
  boards. Now, Sir, the Bill has been compared with the Bill introduced by the late Government. It is founded on the same lines—the same Report as the other Bill—but it mainly differs from the Bill of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon in this way. It aims at making the boards directly elective boards; whereas the former Bill constituted boards partly of life members, partly of members indirectly elected. Then, whereas the last Bill divided the entire cost between owners and occupiers, the present Bill aims at charging the bulk of the rate on the owners and those who have permanent interests. Accordingly, the scheme suggested is that the cost a construction of new works, and the cost of improvements, shall be charged entirely upon owners, while the cost of the current expenses of maintenance of existing works shall be divided between owners and occupiers. The reason why we call particular attention to that is this—I do not know what may be the view of other hon. Members, but I think in our system of rating in England we have not sufficiently attended to the advantages or disadvantages of placing some of our rates upon owners, and dividing others between owners and occupiers. That is the practice both in Scotland and in Ireland; and it is a practice which might, perhaps, be adopted with advantage in this country. It is difficult in the case of old rates to make a change of that kind; but when we are providing that people may rate themselves for a new purpose, it is worthy of consideration whether you should not give them power to proceed in that manner. At this time of the evening I will not detain the House; and after the discussions which have taken place in this House, and in the House of Lords, and considering that this is not the first time a Bill of this kind has been discussed in Parliament, and, further, that the Report of the Committee has been in the hands of Members for several years, I do not see that it is necessary to continue this debate any longer. I hope that we shall agree to the second reading; at all events, we might take an issue en the challenge of the hon. Member, and if we succeed, as I hope we shall, in passing the second reading, allow it to be referred to a Select Committee to go through the clauses, and in Committee of the Whole

  967
  House, or on the Motion for going into Committee, further discuss it in the shape in which it comes from the Select Committee.
  MR. STORERthought the very importance of the subject was the very reason why the Government should not push the Bill through at that late hour. Hon. Members on that side of the House had had no opportunity of speaking, and if they spoke then their speeches would not reach their constituencies. Many county Members on both sides of the House were ignorant that the Bill was to be taken then, and, in consequence, they were absent. He, therefore, moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. BRODRICKseconded the Motion, observing that there had only been two and a-half hours or two hours and three-quarters of discussion on the Bill; and, therefore, he hoped the House would consent to the adjournment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Storer.)
  MR. GORSTfelt sure the Government would not object to the adjournment, for the debate had not lasted long, considering the importance of the subject. The last three speeches had been made by Members on the Government side of the House, and Members on the other side had not had an opportunity of speaking, and it was quite clear that the House was not then in the frame of mind to continue the discussion. There could not be a more conclusive proof of that than the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh). It was an interesting and effective speech, and yet many hon. Members on his own side of the House, who were his own political and personal Friends, were so anxious to go to bed that they could not listen to his speech with patience. If they treated their own Friends in that way, would they listen to any Member on the other side of the House? There were several Members who had a right to an opportunity of speaking, and he hoped the Government would not object to the adjournment.
  MR. NEWDEGATEreminded the House that the principle of this Bill was identical with the principle of the Bill of the late Government for which they all voted. He was strongly in favour of that Bill, and every objection
  968
  he had heard to this Bill was an objection to details. He had not heard a single attempt to oppose the principle of the Bill; and the Government had pointed out that there would be another opportunity for discussion when the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. He rejoiced that it was to be referred to a Select Committee, for in the district he represented, though it was on the Hog's Back of England, the floods of the river Tame were very dangerous, charged as the water was with the filth of Birmingham. The floods were due to the railways and to the action of the canals which confined the water, and also to the mills, and the towns were literally in danger. Their sanitary condition was imperilled through the want of such a Bill as this; and he concurred with hon. Members on that side of the House in appealing to the House to confirm the principle which had the sanction of the Front Benches on both sides of the House.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) would not prevent the House coming to a decision upon the second reading of the Bill. It was understood the Bill would be further discussed at a later stage, and if hon. Members would only consider, they must know they were now coming to the end of the first volume of the Parliamentary Session, and that there was a very great deal of work to be done. Surely, after a portion of two nights had been given up to the debate upon a Bill of this kind, it would not be reasonable to further postpone the second reading.
  MR. PELLdid not wish to take any part in obstruction; but he knew that in the case of this particular Bill there were several hon. Gentlemen desirous of speaking upon the principle involved. Twenty minutes past 1 o'clock in the morning was certainly not a proper time to take the second reading of a Bill of this importance.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped the Government would allow the debate to be adjourned. It was improper to bring up for second reading at this time of the morning a measure to which a whole night ought to be devoted. As there were a number of Gentlemen on both sides of the House desirous of speaking on the second reading, and as this was one of the few Departmental Bills of the Session, it was only reasonable they

  969
  should have the measure properly and fully debated.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 118: Majority
  67.—(Div. List, No. 181.)
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORhad no intention of opposing the Bill; he should vote for it, because he regarded it as a very excellent measure. But he noticed, with respect to it, what he had observed in connection with a great many good measures. This was a Bill which had been prepared with great care and skill; but it would seem that those who had drawn it up had an idea that river basins and water sheds were only to be found, and drainage was only necessary, in that portion of the United Kingdom called England. There were river basins and water sheds in Ireland, and there was a necessity for drainage in Ireland at least as great as that in England. Not only on account of the water power which the rivers represented, but also on account of the interests of navigation and agriculture which were involved in the question of drainage in Ireland, it was only fair the Government should give them some assurance that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to Ireland. If the Government would do that, he believed he could answer for the support of all his Colleagues from Ireland. It appeared to them exceedingly hard that they should have to support measures which they recognized as good, but from the advantages of which they were excluded. Nothing could be more easy than to extend the provisions of the Bill to Ireland, and there was no country which would be benefited as Ireland would be by such a scheme as that now proposed for England. To show how easy it would be to confer an immense benefit upon Ireland by some such scheme as this, he would mention that the summit altitude of the Shannon at Mullingar was only 320 feet above the level of the sea; that the summit altitude of the Grand Canal was only 270 feet above the level of the sea, and where it joined the Shannon in the West and joined the River Suir, which carried off its water into the sea, near Dublin, in the East, it was only some 167 feet above the level of the sea. These figures represented a fall of 4 feet per mile. The
  970
  running off of the waters was, therefore, exceedingly slow, and to this was to be attributed the flooding of large tracts of level land. He was astonished to see the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, who last year proclaimed his interest in Queen's County, so oblivious of the condition of things in Ireland—not only in Queen's County, but in King's County and Kildare. In these counties thousands of acres were under water for weeks and months every year, hundred of thousands of crops were destroyed, and enormous misery and disease was, as a consequence, suffered by the people. If the basins of the Shannon and Suir were largely extended, and if some such conservancy authority was established for the river basins in Ireland as in England, an enormous boon would be conferred on that country. He therefore trusted they would be able to obtain from the Government an assurance that they would consent to the extension of the provisions of the Bill to Ireland.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, there was only one objection to give such an assurance, and that was that the Bill was founded upon the very lines of an Irish Act—the Arterial Drainage (Ireland) Act.
  MR. HEALYasked, if it was not a fact that the works under the Arterial Drainage Act had been suspended by a Treasury Minute, and that the loans had been stopped?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Certainly not.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 42: Majority
  76.—(Div. List, No. 182.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  MR. DODSON: I have to propose now that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and I hope that the House will agree to refer the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) to the same Committee.
  MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, he had a Motion on the Paper, after the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, to move an Instruction to the Committee in reference to the duties and powers at present exercised by Boards of Conservators under the Salmon Fishery Acts; but he

  971
  presumed that he would be able to make that Motion on the nomination of the Committee.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should also desire to move an Instruction to the Select Committee that they should consider the advisability of extending the provisions of the Bill to Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member does not propose to move that Amendment now?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: No, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: It will be open for the hon. Member to move an Instruction to the Committee on the nomination of the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee.

WAYS AND MEANS.—REPORT.
Resolutions [4th April] reported.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished to put a Question to Her Majesty's Government, which, probably, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, or one of the Lords of the Treasury, would be able to answer. He believed that his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote), alluding to the question of the second reading of the Irish Land Bill, had expressed the strong feeling entertained on that side of the House, and, he believed, on the other side too, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government should undertake not to proceed with the second reading on Monday the 25th, directly after the Holidays. It would obviously be a great inconvenience to Members coming up on the first day of the House re-assembling, and, no doubt, those Members who did come up would be glad to consult with each other before committing themselves to any particular line of action. He, therefore, hoped that the Prime Minister would agree to the general wish that on the first meeting of the House after the Easter Holidays a matter of this great importance should not be taken?
SIB WILLIAM HARCOURT: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, all I can say at present is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be here at 2 o'clock this day, when the House meets, and what the right hon. Gentleman has said will be conveyed to him. I would prefer that the opportunity
972
of answering the Question should be reserved for my right hon. Friend.
Resolutions agreed to.
Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the said Resolutions, and that Mr. PLAYFAIR, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH do prepare and bring it in.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 36.]

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.
(Major Nolan, Mr. Corry, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. Gray, Mr. Tottenham, Mr. O'Shea, Mr. Collins, Mr. Litton.)

[BILL 102.] COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 (Alterations of section six in the Act of 1860 and section four of Act of 1871.)
MR. M. BROOKSsaid, he entertained a strong objection to the clause. It proposed to repeal several Acts of Parliament which had been passed between the years 1868 and 1871; but the Committee would be surprised when he told them that it was proposed by this clause to enable Tramway Companies to carry tramways over ordinary roads at any level, even at a level 5, 6, or 7 inches higher than the level of the road, and thus render the roadway almost incapable of ordinary traffic. When the Bill was before a Committee, General Hutchinson, of the Board of Trade, stated that the laying of rails on the roads in this way would be productive of the highest inconvenience, and would prevent the ordinary traffic of the roads being carried on. Under those circumstances, and at that late hour, he submitted that the Committee ought not to pass this clause. The measure had been brought forward almost without Notice, and he firmly believed that if the opinion of the House had been taken upon it, it would have been rejected. Ho would, therefore, move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. M. Brooks.)
MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, by

973
whom the questions raised had been fully considered. It was considered that sufficient precautions would be taken to meet the objections of the kinds urged by the hon. Member opposite, by requiring that the consent of the Grand Juries and the Lord Lieutenant in Council should be obtained, and they had altered and amended the clause with that view. He trusted the clause would be allowed to pass.
MR. M. BROOKSdid not think that a Bill that provided for the turning of ordinary roads into railroads should be allowed to pass at that hour (2.25). If the Bill passed, it would reduce by one-half the width of every road upon which the tramway was proposed to be constructed.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.— [BILL 30.]
(Mr. E. Stanhope, Mr. Albert Grey, Mr. Stanley Leighton, Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)

SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he had noticed that when he was, yesterday, making the observation that the National Church of the country was a great Institution, for the management of which that House was responsible, there came from some parts of the House indications of dissent. He now repeated his opinion that the Established Church of the country was essentially a National Institution for which Parliament was responsible; that the clergy of the Church were also national officers; and that the House was responsible for the management of the Church and for the regulations under which the clergy enjoyed their benefices. If there was any foundation for the statement that the Church was not a National Institution, then he ventured to ask why was that House continually troubled with the affairs of the Church—why were its internal affairs not managed in the same
974
way as the internal affairs of other Churches? It was rather late in the day to hold the opinion that the Church was not a National Institution When the Irish Church Act was carried through Parliament, the Representatives of the people, by a very large majority—with regard to an Institution which held at that time a position identical with that of the Established Church in this country—treated the Irish Church as a National Institution, its officers as public officers, and dealt with it accordingly. If that were so, it was clear that the affairs of the Church of England were affairs that must come under the observation of Parliament, and of which Parliament must take cognizance. He experienced some difficulty in approaching the consideration of this matter, because the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) had stated that this was not the actual Bill which would be discussed; that, in the first place, the Bill was to be cut in two, and that, in the next, some of the clauses were to be struck out. It was impossible to say what part of the Bill was really under discussion at that moment, and what part of it was to be postponed to a future occasion; and, therefore, he thought there were objections of the strongest character against assenting to the second reading of the measure. The House should not, blindfold, give its consent to the principle which it embodied. There were several points upon which he desired information. For instance, was it the intention of the Mover of the Bill to provide compensation in view of the important pecuniary interests involved? Again, further explanation was needed with regard to the 17th clause, authorizing exchanges and resignations for pecuniary considerations.
MR. E. STANHOPE: I stated yesterday that the clause would be withdrawn.
MR. ILLINGWORTHurged that, although the Bill might have been discussed in "another place," it had not received sufficient consideration in that House, and, therefore, they were not justified in assenting to the principle of a measure of which they knew very little. Notwithstanding that the Bill had been described as a small Bill dealing with a very large question, he should venture to move that, in the opinion of the House, it was inexpedient to pass any measure which gave legal sanction to the

975
sale, under any circumstances, of the right of appointing ministers to parochial or other benefices. Had a Bill embodying that principle been brought before the House, it might have been said that it had a general concurrence of opinion in its favour. But he wished to know why the House was asked, so to speak, to nibble at the question, instead of manfully grappling with it as a whole? The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire would be obliged to admit that the Bill only touched the fringe of the question, and that it was leaving untouched, and, in fact, renewing, Parliamentary sanction to the sale of advowsons. The National Church of the country was in a somewhat anomalous position. At times its adherents were disposed to assert that it was not a National Institution, and that its management should be confined to those who were its avowed adherents. At other times, and to serve other purposes, it was loudly proclaimed to be the National Church, and that all other Denominations, and all citizens were alike obliged to bow to that fact. He held, in the case of any alteration of the law affecting the Church, that it must be treated as a national question, and that Parliament must be consulted, and that the citizens of the country, whether they belonged to the Church of England, or other religions, or no religious body, were entitled to express an opinion as to what should be the direction of legislation with regard to the National Church. It could not be urged in that House that the measure had received the consideration of the country, or of the Representatives of the people, or that it would not be a departure from sound precedent if it wore admitted to a second reading, especially as hon. Members were informed that the Bill would be re-cast immediately afterwards. He regretted very much to stand between hon. Members and their beds at that hour (2.15); but he could plead that the fault did not lie with him. He thought that pressure had been attempted to be brought upon Members of the House in order to force on the carrying of this Bill against which he did not hesitate to protest. Again, the Bill proposed to give increased powers to the Bishops. That, of course, raised a most important question; and if it were laid before the public, he thought there would be found
976
a great majority of the people who held that, so far from giving increased powers to the Bishops, there was deep dissatisfaction with the way they used the power they had already. Take, for instance, the question of patronage. The Archbishop of Canterbury was reported to have said that he regarded Church patronage as a public trust. Nevertheless, they were told that, in exercising the patronage that had fallen to his lot, he had used it largely in favour of his own relatives and friends. The question was one of great importance, and he believed there were strong reasons for believing that the Archbishop committed frequent acts of nepotism in so exercising what he regarded as a public trust. He had received a pamphlet from a clergyman which drew public attention to what the writer considered to be a gross abuse of power on the part of the Archbishop. If these statements were well founded, he, for one, objected to further powers being conferred upon the Bishops. He did not think the Archbishop was alone in the use he made of Church patronage; on the contrary, he believed there were many Bishops who thought they did well in regarding relationship as having the greatest claim upon them for the best offices at their disposal, and that there were many just complaints from the best men in the Church that they were forgotten and thrust aside in favour of the fortunate gentlemen who happened to be relatives and friends of the Bishops and Archbishops. Further, it appeared to him that even if the sale of the right of next presentation were barred by this Bill, there would be the same traffic by evasion as now in the offices of the Church, the only difference being in the way the trust would be exercised by A or B. On these grounds, he thought the House would act rightly in insisting that if there was to be a new Bill much more limited than the one offered for their notice which they were now asked to read a second time at that untimely hour in the morning, it should go through the ordinary stages of a Bill in Parliament. In reality, this measure had made next to no progress, and the more it was known the more objectionable would it appear to people out-of-doors. What was held by the great mass of the people of this country was that the

977
English Church was gradually approaching Disestablishment. Parliament had disestablished the Irish Church, and when the English Church was dealt with in the same way, Episcopalians would have their freedom—they would have liberty to manage their own affairs; but, in the meantime, they must make up their minds to bear the many inconveniences that an Established Church brought in its train, one of which was this exercise of patronage. The whole question of the sale of advowsons was, he must say, too huge a matter for a private Member to attempt to deal with; but, if that was so, there was little advantage in entering upon the settlement of so small a portion of the subject as the sale of the right to next presentations. It would be useless to deal with this matter until public opinion expressed itself in such a way as to enable Parliament to carry through a measure to terminate an evil under which the Church was groaning. Why could not the larger question be dealt with at once? Would any Member of the House, or any person in the country, say that it was not an evil which ought to be terminated? No. Then, if there were a majority of Members in that House, and a majority of Members in the House of Lords, who deplored the continuance of this system of the purchase and sale of livings in the Church, why did not Parliament undertake the work in real earnest, and deal with the whole evil? Where was opposition to come from? He apprehended it would not come from the Dissenters, but he believed the difficulty lay in the enormous amount of the money value of the advowsons. He wished to ask this question of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope). If he was prepared to go the length of this Bill, why should not Parliament go one stop farther, and declare patronage to be altogether a matter of trust and not of property? The hon. Member would deal with next presentations, looking upon them as other than property; and he did not propose to give the slightest compensation to those deprived of the right of sale. Clearly, that was interfering with the right of property of the present owners of advowsons. He asked if the hon. Member was entitled, without lying under the imputation of interfering with the sacred rights of property, to take 25, 20, or 10 per cent from the value of
978
advowsons? Did not the principle, once admitted, strike at the root of any claim which might be made by the owners of advowsons in the country? If that was so, the whole thing was settled; because, once this difficulty out of the way, there would be absolute unanimity in the House, and in "another place," in favour of grappling with the question, instead of taking it piecemeal, as the hon. Member proposed to do. There were several great inconveniences in attempting to deal with a matter of this kind at that hour of the morning, and not the least of them was that no reports of the discussion could now appear in the newspapers; and hon. Members had a right to complain, considering the importance of the matter, that at that hour an attempt should be made to push the Bill to another stage. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient to pass any measure which gives legal sanction to the sale under any circumstances of the right of appointing ministers to parochial or other benefices,"—(Mr. Illingworth,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) has said in respect to the National Church, that every person in the country, and, above all, every Representative of the people, whether he is a member of that Church or not, has a right to express his opinion and to give effect to his views. That is the view the hon. Member for Huddersfield has long entertained on this subject, and, year after year, he has brought forward, with the strong approbation of the Nonconformists, a proposal to remove the scandal in the Church of the sale of next presentations. Churchmen have admitted that the scandal exists, and ought to be redressed. The hon. Member for Bradford says the matter is not dealt with in this Bill, and, technically speaking, that is true; but we had what is equivalent to a second reading discussion on the Bill the other night on the Motion of the hon. Mem-

979
ber for Huddersfield. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, in the Resolution he brought forward, practically propounded the second reading of this Bill, in principle——
MR. ILLINGWORTH: Might I be allowed to explain? The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), I believe, dealt with the whole question of the sale of patronage, and did not limit his Motion to the sale of next presentations.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Certainly, the Resolution the hon. Member for Huddersfield brought forward was mainly, if not entirely, directed to the sale of next presentations. ["No, no!"] I beg pardon; but I think I am right. Now, I have read what, I dare say, a great number of Members have not read—that is, the Report of the Committee—and I am, therefore, entitled to say that I know that the scandals are connected with the sale of next presentations; and, to the best of my recollection, the instances given by the hon. Member for Huddersfield were exclusively of that character. I, therefore, think I am right in saying that, practically, we had the discussion of the second reading of this Bill on the hon. Member's Motion. I will not, at this late hour, argue the question of the difference between the sale of next presentations and advowsons; but, in my opinion, there is a great difference between the two; but, at all events, here is a Bill which promises to do the very thing which, year after year, the hon. Member for Huddersfield has demanded shall be done. The hon. Member for Huddersfield had put on the Paper a Notice of opposition to this Bill; but, since the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire drew his attention to the changes which it is intended to make in the measure, he has removed his Notice. As, then, it is admitted that the Bill is to remove a grievance, and as the hon. Member for Huddersfield has, practically, assented to it, it is only fair and reasonable to ask hon. Members on this side of the House to pass it. The hon. Member for Bradford says there are certain clauses in the Bill giving larger powers to the Bishops; and he, very fairly and properly, from his point of view, objected to those clauses; but, I understand from the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, that he does not in-
980
tend to include those clauses into this part of the Bill—[Mr. ILLINGWORTH: This part?]—I mean into the Bill we are now discussing. I understand that all the clauses in question are to go out of the Bill—we have nothing to do with the question whether or no they are to be introduced into another Bill. As I understand it, the present measure is simply one for the sale of next presentations and the abolition of donatives, and one or two strictly collateral and subsidiary matters. That was what my hon. Friend said he was prepared to support; and he gave a pledge—and, if he were here he would say better than I do—that this Bill has plain and simple objects, and contains provisions that have been demanded by the hon. Member for Huddersfield on behalf of the Nonconformists of this country, and that will amend matters connected with the Church that Churchmen have admitted ought to be amended. Under the circumstances, I do hope—for though I entirely appreciate the point of view of the hon. Member for Bradford, I do not think the Bill can be considered as raising any of the great questions which I know he has taken a deep interest in—the House will understand the hon. Member is willing to confine the Bill to the objects stated, and will allow it to be read a second time.
MR. WILLISwas sorry to address the House at that hour of the morning upon a matter of such great moment to the Church, of which he happened, by virtue of a seat in that House, to be a member of the Governing Body; but he opposed the Bill, not upon the ground that it proposed to abolish the sale of presentations to livings, but because it proposed to substitute a method of appointment in lieu of it, which would prevent that complete reform that was absolutely essential to the due development of spiritual life in the Establishment. He objected to this Bill principally with respect to two matters—first, the formation of the corporate body, which was to have the power of acquiring advowsons and many gifts of various kinds, for the purpose of putting into the hands of a body constituted of the Bishop of the diocese and three or four other persons, whose characters were not strictly defined, the power of appointing to livings to the Church of England—and most of the

981
scandals in the Church of England resulted from the way in which men were appointed to livings; and, secondly, because, without regard to the feelings and opinions of those who worshipped in the Established Church, men could be appointed to discharge spiritual duties who were in no way in sympathy with the people to whom they administered, and who, if a vote of the congregation could be taken, would not for a moment be allowed to discharge those duties. He was not arguing for Disestablishment, and he thought he was as familiar with the grievances of members of the Church of England as any person who happened not to be a communicant, and did not attend its Services. The complaint was not of the sale of livings—many men had bought a living, and had shown themselves useful members of the Church—but the point was, that, entirely in disregard of the principles of the Church of Christ, in the Establishment a man was appointed to discharge offices the duties of which he neither desired nor possessed the required qualification to discharge; and if there was any person whom he would resist to the last having power to appoint a minister of the Church of England, it would be the Bishop of the Establishment, in respect of whose appointment the worldly features of the Establishment were more conspicuous than in any other of its arrangements. In a town with which he was acquainted, there was a Church of England clergyman, a very good man, who was beloved and esteemed by all his congregation. He was an elderly man; and if they were to ask time congregation the thing they most desired, they would say that it was that he might survive his Bishop, who, the moment he retired, by death or otherwise, would appoint a person in his place who might introduce doctrines, teachings, and practices which the congregation abhorred and disliked. It was a monstrous thing to give to one man such power as this, and he (Mr. Willis) would not be a party to the passing of a measure which would gather up in the hands of the Bishop the whole right of presenting to livings in the Church of England. It was disgraceful to call the traffic in livings merely "Simony." It was giving it too good a name. There was nothing so bad in the conduct of Simon; for when Simon saw the gifts which resulted
982
from the possession of the Holy Ghost, he desired to possess it, and when he found he had made a mistake as to the method of acquiring it, he said—"Pray for me that none of these things happen to me." He should be glad to hear that the clergymen in the Church of England prayed at all. ["Oh, oh!"] He would repeat it, for he was perfectly in earnest; and it was immaterial to him whether he pleased those who were listening to him or not. He was speaking, he hoped, under a sense of responsibility, having resolved, as soon as he got into the House, not to argue for Disestablishment merely, but to secure, if possible, for those who loved the doctrines and teachings of the Church of England, and who were its living members, a voice in the management of its affairs, and in the selection of its ministers. Let them sanction this Bill, and it was a further obstacle in the way of reform. Once they got a body, like the Bishop and two or three others, to control the livings of the diocese, there was a new obstacle in the way of true reform in the Church of England. There was an hon. Member who sat on the Bench opposite who practised in the Profession he (Mr. Willis) belonged to—the hon. Member for Mid Lincolshire (Mr. E. Stanhope)—and he had known that hon. Member to be a man desirous of promoting the best interest of the Church of England; but to think that that Bill would ever satisfy this hon. Member's notions of what the Church of Christ ought to receive, was the regret he (Mr. Willis) felt. Let them think for a moment what the Bill proposed to do. It proposed to determine the methods by which persons should be appointed; and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire thought the interest of the Church of England would be met if they could appoint a man to discharge the duties of pastor against whom they could not charge any one of the three offences that could preclude him from holding a living, and who was not incapable of reading the Lesson; and the hon. Member proposed that before this person could be appointed, two or three people should sit to inquire whether he was physically fit. He urged that members of the Church of England should have the liberty which the Church to which he belonged enjoyed, of selecting their own pastors, and that this most improper

983
practice of allowing a man to buy an advowson and present some other man to it, should be abolished, and the life of the Church be thereby increased. He was astonished that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, who was a true Churchman, should even have thought of legalizing such transactions. Nothing, he believed, could so effectually prevent Disestablishment as the giving of self-government to the members of the Church. The present state of the Church was creating many sects within it, and unless this system of creating divisions was done away with, nothing could save it from being freed from the control of the State. In order that men who were interested in the question, and who were resolved to discuss it upon purely Christian grounds, and to show the injustice that had been done to spiritual life in England from the creation of the Establishment till now, might have an opportunity of discussing it in the House, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Willis.)
MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would withdraw the Motion, believing that he could set at rest the difficulties in his hon. and learned Friend's mind. The hon. and learned Member, perhaps, had not quite followed what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had said as to the procedure to be adopted in regard to this Bill. What was intended was this. He accepted, a few days ago, a proposal made by the Government that the House should, pro formâ, go into Committee, and then cut the Bill into two parts, the first to contain the proposals mentioned by the Home Secretary, and all the rest to be put into the second. Every single proposal to which the hon. and learned Member had referred was contained in the second part, and was distinct from the first part, upon which the Prime Minister had said he would look with special favour. Therefore, he thought the hon and learned Member might rest assured that the points to which he had alluded would not come under discussion in the first part of the Bill, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not be disposed to continue his opposition.
984
The last thing intended was to limit discussion on this Bill; all that was intended was that after the discussion the other day on the Resolution of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), when a general feeling was expressed as to the desirability of pushing forward this Session certain clauses of the Bill dealing with the urgent portions of this matter, the House should have the earliest possible debate on the amended Bill, and should lose no chance of effecting a reform which every man in the House really desired to have carried out.
MR. THOROLD ROGERSstated that he should vote with the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire either on the second reading or on the adjournment. He did not say that there had not been in the history of the Church of England instances in which Bishops had appointed bad men; but he could not look with approval on the alternative of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Willis)—namely, popular election. In his own borough there was a popular election going on at the present time; there were committee meetings—he believed in publichouses—there was all the usual machinery——
MR. WILLIS,interrupting, said, that was farthest from his thoughts. He only proposed that those who elected should be such as had joined themselves to the Church and become communicants.
MR. THOROLD ROGERSthought that if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), which he thought an extremely judicious one, was got rid of, then we might get the popular machinery such as was referred to; but he was not persuaded that that was a better alternative. In his opinion, if the clergy were nominated by the Bishops, and the Bishops had some such power in regard to the benefices as the Benchers had over the lawyers, we should have better ministers, and get rid of a great deal of rubbish. If the Bishops had greater power in regard to discipline, he believed an ancient sore would be removed, and a better result would be arrived at than was now obtained by the machinery of the law.
MR. MONKobserved, that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire said the Bill might be cut into two parts, and that he did not wish to avoid discussion;

985
but as the House did not know which part of the Bill was to be pressed forward, he would recommend the hon. Member to withdraw the Bill. It would be easy enough then to bring in a new Bill, which, he presumed, would contain only two or three clauses. He might bring in two Bills; but if this was not to form two Bills, but one Bill—[Mr. E. STANHOPE: This Bill cut into two parts.] He understood that by the Forms of the House the hon. Member had no power to cut the Bill into two parts after the second reading had been carried. At all events, he himself wished to have an opportunity of expressing his opinion of it before that operation was performed. He agreed with very much of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Willis), and he did not wish to give his vote in favour of the second reading without having an opportunity of discussing so important a measure.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I hope the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) will withdraw his opposition and allow us to divide on the Main Question. This matter is not now brought forward for the first time; it is 10 years since the House first passed a Bill upon the subject. If the hon. and learned Member for Colchester opposes this he must take the responsibility, and I must throw the responsibility upon him of rejecting this measure, which, in former years, we supported. I entirely approve of the course my right hon. Friend has taken. It is quite in the power of the Committee, if the House gives it the power, to divide the Bill into two parts, one of which, I hope, will be passed in the course of the present Session.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 62: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 183.)
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. EVANS WILLIAMSbegged to move that the House do now adjourn. He had never taken part in any obstructive Motion; but he did not think it was right that a Bill of this kind should be considered and discussed at that hour of the morning (3 o'clock). Many hon. Members who were now
986
forcing on the present measure had strongly insisted upon the adjournment of the debate on the Bill which was last before the House, because it was felt that at such an hour it could not receive adequate discussion. They had now been for more than an hour considering the present measure, amid the impatience of hon. Members opposite; and because the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) expressed his surprise at the course which was being taken, he was at once classed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) with the opponents of the Bill. It was impossible to discuss the measure fairly at that hour of the morning; and he would, therefore, move the adjournment of the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Evans Williams.)
MR. E. STANHOPEwished to point out that the other day there was a very long discussion upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. E. Leatham), and a very substantial decision was arrived at upon the main portions of the question involved in the present Bill. It must be perfectly understood by hon. Members opposite that it was these main portions only that it was intended to proceed with. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Radnor (Mr. Evans Williams) would not persevere with his Motion for the adjournment of the House, but that he would allow a division to be taken upon the Main Question.
MR. ILLINGWORTHrose to correct a misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope). The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. E. Leatham), in his Motion the other day, assailed the whole question of the sale of patronage, including that of advowsons; and it was altogether a mistake to assume for a moment that by assenting to a more limited Amendment he was insuring for himself the support of a large body of the Members of that House and of the country. It was felt that this limited Amendment only dealt with the fringe of the question, and that by manifesting a proper amount of courage it would be perfectly feasible to deal with the whole subject. It was altogether a misapprehension to

987
suppose that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had received any sanction from hon. Members on that side of the House who were indisposed to the traffic in livings, for the limited proposal which he now made. His (Mr. Illingworth's) own opinion was that the hon. Member would make more progress by withdrawing the present Bill and introducing another, informing the House first what the nature of the provisions was which he proposed to insert in the other Bill. What the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire now asked the House to do was to assent to the second reading of a Bill of 17 clauses; whereas, in reality, the Bill to be presented to them subsequently, and which they would be asked to accept, was a Bill of three or four clauses only. If that were the case, he contended that it was an unusual and an unreasonable proceeding to call upon the House at that hour of the morning to accept a Bill presented to them under such circumstances. He certainly hoped that all the powers of obstruction hon. Members on that side were able to exercise would be exhausted before they would consent to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member, and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary not to lend his assistance to a proceeding so extremely distasteful to Members on that side of the House, and which had so little to recommend it. It was felt by himself and his hon. Friends that if they yielded the point now, instead of reading the Bill which the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had introduced, they would in reality be consenting to read one which was altogether different, and in regard to the provisions of which they knew nothing. There was one point more to which he wished to advert. When his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Willis) spoke, as he had done, in proper terms against what he termed the principle of popular election, he (Mr. Illingworth) did not think any hon. Member would suppose that that principle was offered as an alternative. What would happen if the Bill was read a second time? They would be precisely where they were at this moment. He should be sorry to see the Church of England go through the degradation of having to resort to popular election; but it would, in reality, only be applying further the principle governing the
988
Established Church at the present moment—namely, that the people should not be debarred from a share in the management of its affairs. What was the Church of England contrasted with a sect? The Church consisted of those who were willing and those who were unwilling members. The willing and the unwilling were bound together by Acts of Parliament, and so long as those Acts remained they must permit the interference of all. Only the other day a clergyman, pleading on behalf of the funds of the Church Pastoral Aid Society, stated that in a district in the East of London there was a population of 60,000 inhabitants, and that 57,000 out of the 60,000 did not attend any place of worship at all. Yet, according to law, the whole of these 57,000 were members of the Church of England, and could not be deprived of the right of interfering in her affairs. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Willis) had erroneously spoken of them as the "Governors" of the Church of England; but, undoubtedly, they had the right of interfering in her affairs and in sending Members to legislate for the Church in the House of Commons. He was compelled to acknowledge that this was a most undesirable condition of things for any Christian Church to be placed in; but he believed there was only one remedy for it. When the Church invited or accepted the position of an Establishment, it placed itself under the power of those who, if not absolutely hostile to its communion, were, at any rate, indifferent. He further urged that no Christian Church could be in a position to discharge its duties to the people which had bartered away its freedom. That was the present position of the Church of England. [Mr. R. N. FOWLER: Oh!] He did not at all wonder at the impatience of the hon. Member for the City of London. It was rather an illustration of the way in which any discussion of this kind was received. The hon. Member must, however, allow him to say that he was stating the objections which he entertained to the present Bill, and those objections went to the very root of any Church Establishment. What he urged was, that for better or for worse, the inconveniences of the Church must be borne so long as it remained a National Establishment. When its adherents took

989
the management of the affairs of the Church into their own hands, they would be in the position of the Disestablished Church in Ireland, which now managed its own affairs without any interference or aid from the State. Upon these grounds, he thought they were not called upon to read the Bill a second time—neither upon the ground of the form in which it was proposed to take the Bill, nor in regard to the details which the measure involved.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he could not forget that the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), who had just sat down, was, in former years, conspicuous for his envenomed hatred of the Church of England.
MR. ILLING WORTHrose to Order. He wished to ask if the hon. Member was entitled to use any such expression towards another hon. Member, that he had displayed envenomed hatred towards the Church of England? He entirely disclaimed any such intention or desire, and by way of explanation he would say that, personally, he should not care if every individual in England was an Episcopalian.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he would substitute the words hostility towards the Church of England.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: To the Church Establishment; that is all.
MR. R. N. FOWLER,said, the manifest object of the action of the hon. Member was to prevent any reform of the Church of England at all; while it was the object of the Bill to introduce reforms that were much needed.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 56: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 184.)
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. BRIGGSsaid, he did not think it unkind to hon. Members to interfere between them and any debate which might follow; and he had, therefore, risen for the purpose of moving that the debate be now adjourned. Hon. Members opposite must have seen that the Nonconformist Members of that House took a great interest in this question. But many of them had gone away under the impression that the question would not be brought on. This was unfortunate, because, as hon. Members were aware,
990
when questions that concerned the Nonconformists did come on in that House, they usually took very good care to be present. He might say, further, that hon. Members on that side did not mind stopping up until any hour of the morning when the cause was a good one; but they thought it was too much for the Front Bench to keep them there for a considerable time unnecessarily, when they might be enjoying that repose to which they were legitimately entitled. He trusted that after another division or two, they might be able to bring the debate to a conclusion. [An hon. MEMBER: Obstruction.] He quite accepted the word. He gathered from the other side of the House that there had been some obstruction; but if the debate had been allowed to terminate a short time ago, they would never have had to listen to that cry. He hoped the debate would now be allowed to terminate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Briggs.)
MR. E. STANHOPEremarked, that after the kind of opposition with which the Bill had been met, it was perfectly useless for him to persevere in the attempt to get the Bill read a second time that night. It was right, however, that the House and the country should know the position in which he was placed. A member of the Church of England, supported by the whole of the Church of England Members, and by many Nonconformists, had brought in a Bill for the purpose of reforming certain grave abuses in connection with Church patronage, and his endeavour to carry it to a successful issue had been met with every obstacle by a certain small section of the Nonconformist Members, and by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). Never again would they be entitled, in any subsequent debates upon Church Patronage, to allege that an honest effort had not been made to deal with its abuses.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDdenied that he had opposed the Bill. He had voted for the adjournment of the debate and the adjournment of the House, in view of the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford being proceeded with at that late hour.
MR. MONKsaid, the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Mid

991
Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) was one of the most monstrous he had ever heard. The hon. Member had charged him, in concert with Dissenters in that House, with opposing the Bill. He had done nothing of the sort. He had not said one word against the Bill, but had merely stated his desire to know what part was to be preserved and what part was to be rejected. There was a good deal in the Bill which he entirely approved, and he should not have voted against the Bill had it gone to a division. He wished to know whether the parts of the Bill to which he took strong objection were to be preserved or not?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought it better that the debate should not be continued. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had agreed to the Motion for adjournment, and, on the whole, he thought it would be best to accept that position.
MR. R. N. FOWLERreminded the House, in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), that the hon. Member had a Notice down calling attention to the crowded state of the Order Book, and indicating certain Motions which he intended to move in consequence. Among other things, he proposed to give certain facilities to private Members for bringing their Bills before the House. The House would probably remember, when his Motion came on, the kind of opposition he had given to this very important Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire.
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

AGRICULTURAL TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL.— [BILL 10.]
(Mr. Chaplin, Mr. James Cowan, Mr. J. C. Lawrance, Mr. Birkbeck.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
MR. CHAPLINsaid, if the House would agree to the Motion for going into Committee, he would not proceed any further that night.
MR. M'LAGANsaid, the principle of the Bill had been generally approved; but as the House was so burdened with
992
Business, he thought the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. M'Lagan,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. CHAPLINsaid, although, on the whole, the proposal of the hon. Member for Linlithgow was not one which he should have preferred, it was not unreasonable. The Bill undoubtedly dealt with a serious question, and he could understand that many Members should think it ought to be referred to a Select Committee. Under those circumstances, he should not oppose the Motion of the hon. Member.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he had also a Bill relating to this subject, which, instead of being placed before the House that day, had, without any arrangement on his part, been deferred till a later day.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee bad come upon the House very suddenly. In the absence of any more responsible Member of the Government, he thought they were hardly in a position to enter into an agreement to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; and, therefore, in order to avoid misunderstanding, he should move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Courtney.)
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 25: Majority
11.—(Div. List, No. 185.)
Debate adjourned till Monday 25th April.

MOTIONS.
  BANKRUPTCY BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law of Bankruptcy."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
    Debate arising;
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
    Resolved, That whenever the House shall meet at Two of the clock, the Sitting of the House shall be held subject to the Resolutions of the House of the 30th day of April 1869.—(Mr. Hibbert.)
    House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock in the morning.