NEW CLAUSES.

HC Deb 21 July 1881 vol 263 cc1478-590

New Clause—

(Letting for labourers' cottages not to be within the restrictions of Act.)

"Any person prohibited under this Act from letting or sub-letting a holding may, with the sanction of the Court, and with power for the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise as the Court thinks just, let any portion of land with or without dwelling-houses thereon to or for the use of labourers bonâ fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding, and such letting shall not be deemed to be a sub-letting within the meaning of this Act, or to be a letting prohibited by this Act: Provided, That the portion of any holding so let does not exceed half-an-acre in each case, and that the total number of such lettings of portions of a holding does not exceed one for every twenty-five acres of tillage land contained in the holding,"—(Mr. W. E. Forster,)

—brought up, and read the first and second time.

Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out all the words after the word "may" to the word "lot" in line 3.—(Mr. Callan.)

Question proposed, "That the words with the sanction of the Court' stand part of the Clause."

MR. CALLAN

said, that last night he had suggested that his mind was not clearly made up as to the necessity of this Amendment; but, on further reflection, it now was. He took it that the two new clauses which stood on the Paper were introduced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in order to improve the condition of the labourers' dwellings in Ireland. The first of them was a clause to facilitate the erection of labourers' cottages. Now, the Bill of 1870, as it left the House of Commons, bore a striking resemblance in some of its essential features to the proposition which had been placed upon the Paper by the Chief Secretary; but there had been almost strange addition to the clause, which addition had the effect of placing further restrictions upon the tenant farmers in reference to the building of labourers' cottages. In the Bill of 1870, when it left the House of Commons, there was a provision which was afterwards struck out by the House of Lords, and for striking it out their Lordships had been very severely censured. They had been strongly censured more than once by the Chief Secretary for the course they took, and the right hon. Gentleman had constantly predicted that evil results would follow. Now, the reprint of the Bill, by order of the House on the 12th of May last, showed the portions of the Bill of 1870 that were struck out; and it would be found that in the clause which was omitted by the House of Lords there was no restriction whatever placed upon the tenant farmers in regard to the building of labourers' cottages save one, and that was that a sub-tenant of any holding of 25 acres or upwards should be relieved from the penalties of sub-letting or sub-dividing the holding, provided the portion to let was devoted to the use of the agricultural labourer, either for cultivation in the shape of gardens, or for the erection of cottage accommodation. It was provided by the clause that an allocation of part of the holding should not be deemed to be a sub-division or sub-letting of the land coming within the operation of the Act. He had thought when he saw the new clause upon the Paper that the Chief Secretary was introducing now words, or that it was brought in on the suggestion of those evil geniuses of the right hon. Gentleman, the permanent officials, who seemed to have warped and perverted the intellect of the right hon. Gentleman ever since he had been brought within the purlieus of Dublin Castle. If it were not accounted for in that way then it could only be accounted for on the supposition that the Chief Secretary wished to place additional obstacles in the way of the erection of labourers' cottages. When the Act of 1870 passed the House of Commons, and, indeed, as it now stood, the 18th clause directed that any landlord might, after six months' notice in writing to be served on the tenant, resume possession of so much of the holding as did not exceed the 25th part of the entire holding, for the purpose of erecting thereon one or more labourers' cottages, with or without gardens attached. Now, that clause had not been enforced by the landlords during the 11 years which had elapsed since the passing of the Act in no single instance. Then, how did the right hon. Gentleman propose to facilitate the erection of cottages on behalf of the tenant farmers? He proposed to place a restriction which would prevent any person from availing himself of this provision of the Bill and without the express sanction of the Court. That was to say that a tenant farmer, a man holding 50 acres of land, who wished to erect a couple of cottages on his holding, and to erect them at times that might be most convenient to them, would not be at liberty to do so unless he first obtained the sanction of the Court, and the Court would also have power to prescribe such terms in regard to rent and otherwise as to the Court seemed just. As the Bill left the House of Commons in 1870, the erection of a labourer's cottage, or such a sub-division of the holding, would not have come within the penal clauses of the Act. But what was the result now? The first thing the tenant farmer must do was to serve a notice upon the Court. As a rule, the tenant would be a poor ignorant farmer; be would know nothing about legal formalities, and would be altogether unable to conduct his own case. He would not know how to serve a notice, either upon his landlord or upon the Court; and he must, therefore, go to an attorney in order to secure the proper notice being served upon the Court, and also upon the landlord, for leave to erect a labourer's cottage, and this was what the Chief Secretary for Ireland called a clause for facilitating the erection of labourers' dwellings. Was there ever anything more preposterous than to say that under the operation of this Bill the tenant farmer must serve a notice upon the landlord and upon the Court, that he must then arrange for a hearing, wait for the convenience of the Chief Commissioner, or a Special Commissioner, who would make periodical visits to various parts of Ireland and would not probably complete his round more than once in three years, or else the tenant must go to Dublin and show that he required this cottage accommodation for the bonâ fide cultivation of the holding, after which the Commissioner, in his benevolence, could direct the applicant— Of his great bounty, To build a bridge at the expense of the county. The Court might authorize the tenant farmer to erect the cottage; but all the formalities that it would be necessary to go through would place additional difficulties in the tenant's way. At the present moment no such difficulty was placed in his way, and this was one of those new-fangled schemes which the evil genius of the Chief Secretary for Ireland had induced him to propose. He (Mr. Callan) pressed upon the Committee the necessity of adopting the Amendment in the interest of the labourers themselves, whatever their prejudices might be in regard to making the labourer independent of the farmer. The only object of the Amendment was to remove an unprecedented restriction which the clause placed upon the tenant farmer, and to require that he should not be compelled to go to the Court before he undertook the erection of a cottage. There were very few inducements at present to the farmers to build cottages for their labourers, and it was undesirable to throw additional difficulties in the way. He therefore hoped the Government would yield to the suggestion he had made; if not, he should certainly feel strongly tempted to go to a division.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he was unable to be present yesterday, although he had desired to be in his place to express his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for having inserted in the clause the words to which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had objected. He regarded those words as a safeguard to the labourers, and if they were struck out it would be open for any tenant farmer, on availing himself of the provision, to charge any rent he chose, either for the cottage or for the piece of ground he wished to let. He (Lord John Manners) had taken that objection when the right hon. Gentleman origin- ally proposed his Amendment; and he rejoiced to see that the right hon. Gentleman had now inserted these words, which, he believed, would afford a fairly satisfactory safeguard to the labourers of Ireland. That being the case, and as it had been clearly established in evidence before both of the Royal Commissions that no class in Ireland required exceptional protection so much as the labourers, he was not oppressed by the consideration that this restriction was against the principles of political economy. The whole Bill was opposed to the principles of political economy; and if it was right to protect the tenant against his landlord, in opposition to the principles of political economy, it was 10 times more necessary, in opposition to the principles of political economy, to protect the labourer against the tenant. In respect of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), that these words would prevent the tenant from erecting cottages, he denied that there was any force in the objection. It must, however, be borne in mind that the clause applied not only to the erection of cottages, but to the letting of land for growing potatoes, and for any other agricultural purpose. Therefore, it was necessary that these words should be inserted in the clause for the benefit of the labourer, and he should do the best he could to support the Government in securing their insertion.

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

said, it was quite impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the County of Louth (Mr. Callan). The object of the Amendments proposed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was to encourage the building of labourers' cottages. It was obviously to the interest of the landlord and the tenant that such cottages should be suitable for the cultivation of the holding; and as it was both for the interest of the landlord and of the tenant that the labourer should be there for the purpose of cultivating the holding, it was only common sense to suppose that both of them would do that which was best calculated to promote their own interests. Therefore, the natural inference was that they would join in seeing that proper buildings were erected in suitable places. The very words which the hon. Member sought to exclude formed the only protection the tenant had in enabling him to erect a cottage for a labourer. Suppose that a landlord, out of spite, wished to injure the tenant, and refused his consent to the erection of a cottage, the words which the hon. Gentleman wanted to omit would be a protection to the tenant. It must be borne in mind that sub-letting or sub-dividing a holding was prohibited in another part of the Bill; and unless the tenant had protection in the case of desiring to erect labourers' cottages, it would be impossible for him to do so against the consent of his landlord. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to protect the tenant in the way provided by the clause. The hon. Member for Louth seemed to think that some limitation was placed on the tenant which did not exist before. That was a great mistake, and was entirely erroneous. The yearly tenant never had such an interest in the holding as would enable him to erect a building against the desire and consent of his landlord. [Mr. CALLAN dissented.] The hon. Member for Louth shook his head; but if he made an inquiry into the subject, he would find that the only way in which a yearly tenant could do it was to obtain the concurrence of his landlord. This clause, if the landlord refused to give his concurrence, would enable the tenant to appeal to the Court for its intervention; and, therefore, the words which the hon. Member sought to exclude were those which gave mutual protection both to the tenant and to the landlord, and encouraged the object of the Bill so far as the erection of labourers' cottages was concerned.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was bound to say—and he said it with all due deference to the legal knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland—that he did not read the clause in the same way as the hon. and learned Gentleman did. He failed to see that the assent of the Court was necessary in order to give the tenant under the clause the right of building a labourer's cottage. As explained by the learned Solicitor General for Ireland, the tenant was bound by statutory provisions which prevented him from exercising his Common Law right, as a yearly tenant, of erecting a labourer's cottage; and the hon. and learned Gen- tleman said these words, "with the sanction of the Court," would give the tenant a statutory right to do so, and would replace the statutory provision which was originally contained in the Land Act of 1870. Now, it appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) that the words "with the sanction of the Court" were distinctly a limitation of the clause, which was an enabling one, and that they would operate injuriously upon the tenant farmer. They would manifestly be a drag upon him, because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knew—probably no one knew better—the tenant farmers regarded with considerable disinclination any formal proceedings in the way of an application to the Court to enable them to do anything at all. He had no doubt that many farmers, who might be desirous of erecting cottages for their labourers in obedience to this clause, would be deterred by the insertion of these words, simply because they would be unwilling to make the necessary legal application to the Court.

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

asked the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to explain what the Common Law right was that the tenant now possessed?

MR. PARNELL

said, he imagined the tenant had a right, from the mere fact of being in possession of the tenancy, to erect dwellings for the labourers to live in, unless he were distinctly barred by statutable conditions.

MR. MARUM

said, he was sorry to disagree with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan). If the Committee allowed the clause to pass in the way suggested by the hon. Member, it would read in this way— Any person prohibited under this Act from letting or sub-letting a holding may let any portion of land with or without dwelling-houses thereon to or for the use of labourers bonâ fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding, and such letting shall not be deemed to be a sub-letting within the meaning of this, or to be a letting prohibited by this Act. The clause would consequently read in a very contradictory manner. He believed that it was absolutely necessary to retain these words and to give the Court the power of interfering in the matter, not for the purpose of cutting down the labourers' wages, or for interfering with the rent of the holding; but they all knew that the tenant farmers of Ireland were not as just and as generous to their labourers as they ought to be. No doubt the circumstances of the tenant farmers themselves were bad, and prevented them from being generous; but, at the same time, it was quite certain that in this matter it was necessary to have some control over them on the part of the Court. He would, therefore, suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Louth that he was really pressing an Amendment which was altogether unnecessary.

MR. LEAMY

said, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had not expressed the opinion attributed to him by the learned Solicitor General for Ireland that the clause imposed restrictions which did not exist before. All his hon. Friend said was that it imposed restrictions which would not have existed if the Land Bill, as it left the House of Commons in 1870, had been passed. The chief difficulty which the Irish Members saw in the adoption of the words proposed by the Government was this—that an application to the Court could not be made without some expense, and there was great danger that the prospect of incurring the expense of a law suit would prevent anything being done in the way of erecting dwellings for labourers. The landlord would be a party interested, and he would therefore be entitled to go into the Court to show cause against any proposal on the part of the tenant farmer to erect a labourer's cottage; and, as a consequence, the tenant would pause before he proposed to put up such cottages from fear that he might have to face a law suit. He failed to see, further, that there was any power to advance the money necessary for the purpose of erecting cottages to the tenant farmers. [An hon. MEMBER: That power is contained in the next clause.] He (Mr. Leamy) gathered that the power was given to advance the money only where the tenant applied to have a judicial rent fixed. Under the clause they were now discussing there was no power to advance any money for this purpose. Therefore, the tenant was putting himself forward to build cottages for his labourers out of his own pocket; and, certainly, if he was willing to do that, he ought not to be compelled to go to the Court.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

thanked the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) for the interest he took in the welfare of the labourers; but he thought that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member would be altogether ineffectual for the protection of that class of persons. The clause as it ran, and as it was moved by the Chief Secretary, was that— Any person prohibited under this Act from letting or sub-letting a holding may, with the sanction of the Court, and with power for the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise as the Court thinks just, let any portion of land with or without dwelling-houses thereon to or for the use of labourers bonâ fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding, and such letting shall not be deemed to be a sub-letting within the meaning of this Act, or to be a letting prohibited by this Act. His hon. Friend proposed to strike out all the words which placed the farmer under the necessity, when sub-letting to the labourer, of having a fair rent fixed for the holding. In the clause, when so amended by his hon. Friend, there would be nothing to prevent a farmer from erecting on a farm of 250 acres some 10 labourers' cottages, and then charging the occupants of such cottages any rent that he might think fit, letting them as accommodation land from year to year. He thought the adoption of his hon. Friend's Amendment would offer a direct premium to the tenant farmer to deal with the land after that fashion. If the object of Parliament was to protect the bonâ fide labourer, nothing was more incumbent upon them than to see that the farmer had not the power in his own hands of dealing exactly as he chose with his labourers, and of preventing them from having cottages or land except upon such terms as he thought fit to prescribe. What his hon. Friend proposed to do was to provide that no rent should be fixed by the Court as between the labourer and the farmer. [Mr. CALLAN said, that was certainly not his intention.] His hon. Friend struck out the words "with the sanction of the Court." If that was not his intention, and his hon. Friend could present his Amendment in such terms as would satisfy the Committee that it would operate bonâ fide for the protection of the labourer, he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) should be happy to support it; but it certainly struck him that as it stood at present it would practically leave the labourer altogether in the farmer's hands, and they were precisely the hands in which it was not desirable that he should be left.

MR. CALLAN

said, he thought he had been misunderstood. His attention had been drawn to this 1st clause by the wording of the 2nd new clause, of which Notice had been given by the Chief Secretary, and which gave power to the Court, on application for a statutory lease, to impose conditions as to the erection of labourers' cottages. The clause ran thus— Where an application is made to the Court for the determination of a judicial rent in respect of any holding, the Court, if satisfied that there is a necessity for improving any existing cottages, or building any new cottages, or assigning to any such cottage an allotment not exceeding half an acre, for the accommodation of the labourers employed on such holding, may, if it thinks fit, in making the order determining such rent, add thereto the terms on which such accommodation for labourers is to be provided by the person making the application. The conditions were imposed in a subsection, or a second paragraph of the clause, which ran as follows:— Where, upon any such application, the Court requires the tenant of the holding to improve any existing cottage, or to build any new cottage, such tenant may be deemed to be a person to whom a loan may be made under the Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Acts for the improvement or building of dwellings for labourers, and if such person were an owner within the meaning of the said Acts; but any such loan may be made for a less sum than the sum of one hundred pounds. But in the clause they were now discussing there was no such advantage given to the tenant; and, nevertheless, he was required to obtain the sanction of the Court to the building of a cottage. His objection was, that there was no such sanction required in the provision made for the same purpose in the Act of 1870. It was quite true that the clause itself was struck out by the House of Lords; but it never was proposed that the tenant should be obliged to go to the County Court, which occupied the position of the Court now proposed, in order to obtain its sanction to the erection of a cottage. He should be willing to withdraw his objection to the clause if the Government would come to a compromise; but otherwise he should be forced to go to a division. What he would suggest was this—that if a tenant obtained the sanction of the Court to build a cottage, he should then come under the operation of the second paragraph of the 2nd clause. [An hon. MEMBER: That relates to reclaimed land.] He hoped no Irish farmer would be so foolish as to build a house where the land had not been reclaimed. As the clause was at present drafted, the tenant would not come under the operation of the second paragraph of the 2nd clause, which would enable him to obtain an advance in the shape of a loan, under the Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Act for the improvement of dwellings for labourers, as if such person were an owner within the meaning of such Acts. Under those Acts the tenant farmer would be able to obtain a loan for any less sum than £100. If the Solicitor General for Ireland would so re-draft the clause as to bring it under the second paragraph of the next clause, his objection, although to a considerable extent remaining, would be very much modified, because there would be a quid pro quo; and he would, in that case, withdraw the Amendment. But unless that was done he should certainly proceed to a division.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I understand the question before us is whether we should retain the words, "with the sanction of the Court." The noble Lord who addressed the Committee jubt now (Lord John Manners) thought the question went a little further than that, and that it included power to the Court to prescribe the rent of labourers' cottages and other matters. Now, the position we are in is this—we have already, in another clause, positively prohibited subletting without the consent of the landlord. We have given power to the landlord, under the 17th clause, to re-sell land for the purpose of building cottages for labourers; and the question is, in what way we should give power to a tenant to sub-let for a similar purpose. We think that the tenant ought to have this power, and it would be rather a strong measure to say that he should have the power to do it contrary to the assent of the landlord, and with the dissent of the landlord, without the sanction of the Court. That is what it will come to. He has already the power of doing it with the consent of the landlord; therefore, the question can only arise where the tenant wishes to erect a cottage, and the landlord refuses to give his consent. In that case we think that inasmuch as the Court comes in, in the case of a dispute between the landlord and tenant, where the landlord desires to resume, it is not unreasonable that the Court should also come in between the landlord and the tenant if the tenant is willing to build a cottage himself and the landlord objects. So much for the position of the landlord. But we also think that it would be for the advantage of the tenant to have power to apply to the Court, and for this reason—that I have a very strong opinion that the Court should have the power of prescribing the rent, and unless we bring in these words—"with the sanction of the Court," there would be very little advantage in leaving in the rest of the clause. The cottage or piece of land might be apportioned and let; but it might be let at an exorbitant rent, and the Court know nothing about it. Therefore, although other provisions are contained in the 2nd clause, this 1st clause is really required in order to make the 2nd effective. The hon. Member for Louth says that we have put into the clause words which were not in the Act of 1870. [Mr. CALLAN: I said in the Bill of 1870.] Certainly these words, "with the sanction of the Court," were not in the Bill of 1870. The hon. Member is quite right in that respect; but the Bill of 1870 contained no power to fix rents, and it is because we give that power here that we think it reasonable to give the Court, in extreme cases, the power of settling what the rent shall be for these small cottages. These are the reasons why the Government think it desirable to adhere to these words.

COLONEL COLTHURST

asked whether the case put by the hon. Member for Louth was not met by Clause 25, which gave power to the Treasury to advance loans to occupiers on the security of their tenant right for different purposes, and, among other things, for works of agricultural improvement? It was understood during the discussion which took place upon that clause, and it was certainly stated by a Member of the Government, that labourers' cottages were included in the term "agricultural improvements."

MR. CALLAN

wished to point out that, however prominent or influential any declaration from the Treasury Bench might be considered in the House of Commons, it would not be worth anything when it came to be put forward in any Court of Justice, either in Ireland or in England. In fact, any counsel who would presume to tell the Judge what expressions of opinion had fallen from the Treasury Bench during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, with the hope by such a statement of influencing the judgment of the Court, would not only be laughed out of Court, but he would certainly fall very low indeed in the estimation of attorneys, and would injure his professional prospects very considerably. What was this clause? The very title was—"Reclamation of land and emigration." He would ask the hon. and gallant Member whether the erection of labourers' cottages came within the term "emigration?" Suppose the clause were to pass and a farmer went before the Court and asked for the declaration of a judicial rent. The Court might impose conditions upon him as to rent and as to the terms on which accommodation for labourers was to be provided; but according to this the Treasury would not have power to advance the money even with the consent of the Court. Were the Court to make no order unless the application came before them, not for the purpose of building a house, but for the determination of a judicial rent? If the farmer went before the Court for a judicial rent, the Court might impose terms upon him on which he was to build and let cottages; but he was to get the money under the Landed Property and Improvement (Ireland) Act. But if the tenant, being on amicable terms with his landlord, did not ask for a judicial rent, but only asked for sanction to build a cottage, then the Court would not have power to make an order for the advance of the money from the Treasury. Such a condition of things was, then, a direct encouragement to the tenant to apply for a judicial rent. ["Hear, hear!"] He heard some hon. Gentleman cry "Hear, hear!" He only hoped that that hon. Gentleman would be so open to reason and to public opinion that his tenants would not be compelled to apply for a judicial rent. But he would like to have some assurance from the Government that the paragraph in the 2nd clause would provide for giving the sanction of the Court to build labourers' cottages. Such an assurance would, he was sure, be received with great satisfaction.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not know that he had quite followed the hon. Member; but he remembered the debate on the 25th clause, and he thought it was understood then, or stated, that the paragraph that was introduced to authorize the Board of Works to make advances to occupiers for reclamation, or any other work of agricultural improvement, would include the building of labourers' cottages among works of agricultural improvement. But, as the hon. Gentleman had pointed out, whatever might have been stated from or understood upon the Treasury Bench in the House of Commons would make no difference in a Court of Justice; and it was not unreasonable to ask that the Government should make this matter quite clear. On their behalf, he would undertake that they should do so upon the Report of Amendments.

MR. RAMSAY

said, that one difficulty in dealing with the clause arose from the dread that the Committee might be unduly adding to the number of small holdings, and in that way be increasing the trials and troubles of Ireland. His reason for suggesting that was, that the extent of the holding on which a cottage might be erected was set down at 25 acres. Now that they were discussing the principle of the clause——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The clause has already passed its second reading, and we are now upon the Amendments.

MR. CALLAN

said, he was quite willing to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the second paragraph of Clause 25 should be so altered as to make it clear that the building of labourers' cottages should be included among agricultural improvements. Under those circumstances, he was perfectly ready to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the matter should be made perfectly clear upon Report.

MR. A. MOORE

said, he thought there was some point in the objection that a farmer would be deterred from building a cottage if he had first to incur the trouble and expense of a law suit. But the object in view might easily be attained by altering the words "with the sanction of the Court," into "on appeal to the Court." He pre- sumed the main thing was to prevent these cottages being built to the detriment of the landlord; but the next words would prevent the cottages from being forced on a reluctant landlord where he had good reason to oppose them.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that what, to his mind, was of great importance was that the Court should know of what was being done, because, if they did not, they would not be able to exercise any powers of arbitration.

MR. CALLAN

said, he did not think they were quite clear as yet as to what was really the principal point. What he desired to have declared was, not only that where a tenant desired to make an application to the Court for the definition of a judicial rent, but that where a tenant desired to ask the sanction of the Court for the erection of labourers' cottages, in both cases such tenant should be deemed to be a person to whom a loan might be given under the Landed Property and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act. If that was to be made clear upon Report, it would answer his purpose.

MR. W. E. FORSTER:

It shall be.

Mrs. CALLAN

Then I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

, in moving an Amendment to strike out from the clause the words— And with power to the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise as the Court thinks just, said, he was bound to say that if there had been one thing more than another that he had heard with trembling during the progress of this Bill, it was when the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) some days ago thought it expedient and prudent that this provision should be inserted. The noble Lord had now publicly thanked the right hon. Gentleman for inserting these words, and had said—"You object to it because it interferes with the principles of political economy. But the whole Bill is an interference with the principles of political economy." Still, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not see why, because they offended against the principles of political economy in one respect, they should also offend against those principles in another. No doubt, by inter- fering between landlord and tenant, they could attain their object, and procure the fixing of rent; but by compelling the building of labourers' cottages they did not attain their object, because another consideration came in, in the shape of wages, which they could not touch. Nothing could be more mischievous or monstrous than to violate the principles of political economy on grounds such as these. Then there was another point. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by the words—"The Court is to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise?" What did "and otherwise" mean? A labourer might work in one part of the country one year, and in another part another year. But by fixing the rent of the cottage, were they not giving that man a certain interest in the cottage or allotment? And, if so, were they not giving him a permanent interest of some kind or other? If that was done in the case of the tenant, it must be the same in the case of the labourer. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland this question—If a farmer went to the Court and obtained permission to build a cottage, and said—"I will put in such-and-such a man who will pay such-and-such a rent," could the man so put in be afterwards evicted? The man might be a very respectable man, and when he had had a cottage built for him by the assent of the Court, and the rent fixed for him by the Court, it would obviously be very hard to leave him to the caprice of the farmer, and liable to be turned out. When they fixed the rent, could they help giving him an interest in the cottage? He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had the strongest possible opinion that this provision would prove a most unfortunate one. He was certain that the clause would be absolutely reduced to a dead letter, and that no farmer would go to the Court to ask permission to make the improvements, when he knew the condition in which they would place him. Nor was it all necessary that the Court should step in. They all knew what the agricultural labourers' movement was in England—it had shown that the labourer did not require protective legislation, for by union and strike there had been a sensible rise in the wages of the English agricultural labourer, who, by combination and agitation, had helped himself, without any interference from the Legislature. He thought the same thing would take place in Ireland, because there was a notice in The Times of this morning, which seemed to have come as a direct interposition of Providence in this matter. He found from that notice that at Cork, on the 20th, there was a congress of farmers and labourers of the district on strike. It was presided over by the parish priest, and 200 labourers attended. Some 20 farmers were present, the labourers presented a list of their demands, and the farmers seemed anxious to meet their views. They arrived at a basis of agreement, under which the labourers were to receive an advance of 1s. a-week, grass for two sheep, and, it being shown that while some farmers charged £12 an acre for the ground which the labourers held, and that £10 was the average price per acre, it was arranged that in no case should the farmer charge his labourer more than £8 an acre, and for inferior soil £7. All the employers present signed those conditions, and the men agreed to work for those farmers who subscribed the agreement. In that way the strike, so far as it affected that part of the country, was brought to an end. Was it not most gratifying, under such disturbed conditions, to find these two classes meeting together, and settling their differences in a business-like way, without any outside interference? They had seen what the farmers had got by agitation; they were now perfectly well able to protect themselves. If Parliament should now decide to step in and regulate what should be the rate of wages, they would do great harm to the interests of the public. He thought the rest of the clause was unobjectionable in every way. It might be a very good thing to allow the labourer to get, through the assent of the Court, a good cottage built for him; but he entreated the Government not to spoil the clause by bringing this immense engine of State interference into matters which would do perfectly well without it.

Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out from "and" to "just," inclusive, in line 3.—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the provision under which the Court would prescribe terms as to rent, &c. would only come into operation in extreme cases. The noble Lord seemed to suppose that the Court would fix a rent, and retain a particular labourer in a particular cottage; but if he read the clause he would find that that was not its meaning. The words of the clause ran thus— Any person prohibited under this Act from letting or sub-letting a holding, may, with the sanction of the Court, and with power to the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise as the Court thinks just, let any portion of land, with or without dwelling houses thereon, to or for the use of labourers bonâ fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding, &c. If the tenant said—"I wish to do as is done in England, and to provide my labourers with decent cottages, having these cottages for whoever may labour upon the farm," that would not, in the least degree, alter the tenure upon which the labourer would be in the cottage; it only provided that the farmer should not be frustrated in his intention. As to the provision with regard to rent, the tenant would have the power of the law to assist him in fixing his rent, and in making a bargain with his landlord, and the Government thought that the Court ought to have the same power, in extreme cases, of fixing the rent to be paid by the labourer, so that the man who had his own rent fixed as against the landlord should not be able to charge just what he pleased in the case of the labourer. He did not see how the clause was to work at all without some such provision. He did not wish to make this a labourers' case, as against the farmers; in point of fact, he did not wish to treat either party better or worse than the other; but, no doubt, there were instances in which very high rents had been charged. The noble Lord said—"You need not mind about this, because 200 labourers in Ireland have already settled the matter with the farmers who employ them." Well, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was very glad to hear that; and if such a state of things were general throughout Ireland this power never need be asked for. But the labourers of Ireland in general were not a powerful class. They were, perhaps, in some counties, and they were making their power felt in Cork; but in many parts of Ireland, and especially in those districts where most of the work was done by the farmer himself, and by his family, they were not a strong class—in fact, they were about as helpless a class as could be found anywhere. And, inasmuch as the Government were taking power to assist the tenant under this Bill, they could not well pass this clause without also taking power to prevent any injustice on the tenant's part.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his point. What he asked was, could the labourer be evicted? Because, if not, he would have a permanent interest in the cottage given to him; while, if he could be evicted, it was of no use whatever fixing the rent, as the farmer could easily say—"If you don't pay an increased rent, I will evict you."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the operation of the clause would be simply this—that the tenant would build a cottage, and the Court would fix a rent for it, or rather would say that the rent to be charged should not go beyond a certain sum. It did not follow that the labourer who first occupied the cottage would always have to stop in it. It would still be in the power of the farmer to say to him—"I do not want you to labour for me, and I do want somebody else."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the difficulty they were now in was exactly what might have been expected when a Bill of this character was brought in. The Bill interfered with one class in favour of another which, they were told, could not make their own bargains. In the course of discussion, the claims of another class who were said to be unable to make their own bargains had been raised, and in the Bill which the Government brought in originally to deal with tenant farmers an attempt now was to be made to deal more or less directly with the whole condition of the Irish labourers. This new interference was justified on precisely the same grounds as had been used in the case of the tenants, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had just said that the agricultural labourers were a weak class, and he presumed the right hon. Gentleman meant by that that they were a class incapable of making bargains efficiently for themselves. It appeared to him (Mr. A. J. Balfour) that they were now going in for the extension of a most dangerous principle. When they were discussing the 7th clause, he had pointed out that if this House thought itself competent to establish a tribunal for the fixing of fair rents, it was impossible to deny that they had a power which they might use of fixing what should be a fair day's wages. The Bill had not gone through Committee before the House had taken a step in that direction. If this proposal did anything at all for the labourer, it must be by raising his wages. Either it would benefit the agricultural labourer or it would not. If it did, it must be by raising his wages. The right hon. Gentleman had said it was most desirable that the labourers should have good cottages; no doubt it was. He had also said it was most undesirable that they should have to pay exorbitant rents for those cottages. No doubt, it was most undesirable. But if legislation was to keep the rents down, how far did the Government mean to carry that principle? At this very moment, within 200 yards of this House, there were whole classes of people infamously lodged and outrageously rented. What would the Government say when the classes much nearer home than the Irish agricultural labourer came to ask for an alleviation of their lot? This Bill, which was originally a purely agricultural Bill—purely a Bill for dealing with the relations between landlord and tenant—had now, by the inevitable logic of events, become a first step towards dealing with the social economy of the country. He could not understand the Government entering upon a course of this kind with a light heart. He perfectly understood the position of his noble Friend who had spoken from the Front Opposition Bench, because it was perfectly true that if it was justifiable to interfere with the tenant farmer, it was justifiable also to interfere with the labourer; and the landlords were not a bit more able to take care of themselves than were the tenants; but when they had admitted a vicious principle in regard to one class, they should be very careful before they extended it to another, especially when such extension was fraught with even greater dangers than the original proposition as laid before the House by the Government. The hon. Member for Louth yesterday asked the Government whether this clause was to be taken as redeeming the pledge given by them in regard to the agricultural labourer, for whom they had promised to do something. They replied that it was not to be taken as redeeming that pledge, so that there was still something else to come to ameliorate the labourer's lot. By a Resolution which was laid before the House some weeks ago, a hope of a most dangerous kind was held out by the Government before the agricultural labourers of Ireland, and now the Government embodied in their Bill a definite proposal for the amelioration of the condition of that class. At the same time, they said that these proposals did not absolve them from their pledge to bring forward other proposals; and, no doubt, the agricultural labourers of Ireland would expect them to introduce a Bill specially in their favour next year. ["Hear, hear!"] That proposition was assented to and cheered by hon. Gentlemen behind him who knew what the Irish labourers were likely to expect; and it was, therefore, impossible to doubt that they, with all the power of organization they possessed, and the votes at their command in that House, would urge upon the Government the claim of that class which was not satisfied by the most dangerous proposal the right hon. Gentleman now laid on the Table.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, the hon. Member had raised a tremendous issue upon an altogether false basis. The hon. Member forgot that these clauses which all hung together allowed the tenant farmers to build cottages and to borrow public money for the purpose, the State fixing the terms on which the money was to be advanced. In the case of the labourers' cottages already built money had been borrowed by the Board of Works and the terms were fixed. What could be more fair, when the State was going to lend money for accommodating labourers with dwellings, that the State should take care that the labourers were charged only a proper rent? This sort of thing was done every day.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

There is one question I should like to ask as to the effect of these words as they now stand. I am not quite sure that I altogether comprehend the observations of the hon. Member for the County of Galway as to whether it is to apply not only to the case where money is advanced by the State, but to every case. The question I wish to ask is this. The clause will give power to the Court to prescribe such terms as they may think just. Well, does that mean that the power shall be a power to be exercised once for all, or a power to be exercised from time to time? If it is a power to be exercised once for all, it really appears to be hardly necessary, because you have the words, "with the sanction of the Court," and the Court will probably look into the circumstances to see if the cottages would be such as would be properly dealt with, and would give their sanction accordingly. But if it is a function which is to be exercised from time to time you will certainly give a very extraordinary power. I think this is so important that we should have a clear explanation upon it.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he must press the right hon. Gentleman upon this point, and must protest against his deliberate refusal to answer the question put to him. If the Court was to fix the rent they must give permanence of tenure. If they did not give permanence of tenure it was not the slightest use fixing the rent, for in a month or six weeks after the cottage was occupied the farmer might say to the labourer—"I went to the Court in order to get it to allow me to build a cottage, and I have got the permission I want. Now, if you do not give me 2s. a-week more I will turn you out." If the rent was paid weekly, the farmer might turn out the labourer at any moment, the tenure being one of the most precarious he (Lord Randolph Churchill) knew of. They must give the labourer the right to the cottage as long as he laboured on the farm. The tenant had his farm as long as he cultivated the land; and, in the same way, if they gave the labourer a cottage they must give it to him as long as he laboured for the farmer. Do let the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) for once in a way get up and answer a plain, open question in a plain, open manner. Did he mean to give the labourer a permanent interest in his cottage?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I do not wish to heighten the tone of the discussion, therefore I will not remark upon the manner in which the noble Lord has put his question. He asks me to answer a plain and open question in a plain and open manner; and, in reply, I have to say I have already done so. ["No, no!"] Yes, certainly; I said we did not give any permanent tenure. It appears to me that there is a great deal of for get fulnes as to the position of the farmer and the labourer upon the matter of farm accommodation. At present a great many of the labourers' dwellings are very wretched cabins, and what we aim at is at giving better cottages. I do not at all believe that if you once get decent cottages at a tolerable rent the farmer will attempt to make that dwelling accommodation a question of wages. Of course, you cannot give the labourers fixity of tenure in their cottages, because that would defeat the very object of having cottages for the labourers employed on the farm. A labourer, after working upon a farm one week, might go somewhere else the next and engage himself in a different kind of work, so that your object would be altogether frustrated. We trust by rousing public opinion upon this matter to direct the current and effort towards the erection of better cottages for the labourers on the farms. We say, let the farmer have the power of subletting for that purpose, and let the Court, in these cases, say that a cottage put up for a labourer, and the land connected therewith, shall not be let at an exorbitant rent. No doubt, cases may occur in which the labourers may be turned out; but I do not think it will be with the decided and clear object of defrauding them and increasing their misery. But, for the purposes of convenience and custom, I believe anyone who has paid attention to the relation between farmer and labourer in Ireland will be of opinion that if we once get a fair and reasonable rent fixed for the cottages no advantage will be taken of it.

LORD ELCHO

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have started a new theory, that there was a sort of clanship between the farmer and the labourer that altogether negatived the idea of there being any reduction made in the wages. No doubt the labourers should be well housed, but it was objected that it would be fatal to fix the rent if they did not go further, and, at the same time, fix the rate of wages. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had not touched the question raised by the noble Lord, which was that supposing to-morrow the cottages were built and the day after the rent was fixed by the Court, within a month of such fixing the farmer could say to the labourer—"If you do not give me 2s. a-week more I will turn you out of the place." They could not got out of that except in the way that had been suggested. He (Lord Elcho) was anxious that this Bill should go through Parliament as inconsistent, and as absurd, and as contrary to all sound principles as possible. That was the only way to show hon. Gentlemen the lines upon which their work really went. Therefore, as a matter of fact, he should be glad to see the Bill passed, containing this absurd provision for fixing the rent of labourers' cottages, when, in reality, it was impossible to fix it. He would propose that the Government should go further, and should, later on, bring up a clause with the object of fixing the rate of wages all over Ireland.

MR. VILLIERS-STUART

said, he hoped that the Committee would not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. It would be an inconsistency on the part of those who supported the second reading of the Bill to do so, because the main purpose of the Bill was the suppression of rack rents. This was undertaken on two grounds—that of justice and expediency; justice, because it was manifestly unjust to let the tenant continue liable to have the capital he had put into the ground confiscated or appropriated without ample compensation; expediency, because there could be no peace in Ireland until the agricultural classes had been rendered contented by the redress of their grievances. He claimed the same protection against rack rents for the labourers, and on the same ground—on that of justice, because they, too, had put their capital into the ground; they, too, could complain that the fruits of that capital had been hitherto appropriated without adequate compensation; they had done all the hardest and heaviest of the work; they had drained the bogs; they had sub-soiled the moors, built the fences, and made the roads. It had been laid down as an axiom that the cultivator was entitled, in return for his labour, to live in decent comfort upon the land he tilled. Had the labourers received this recompense? He thought the unanimous verdict of everyone acquainted with the subject was that they had not; they had been kept at starvation point; they had been shamefully lodged, fed on the lowest description of food, and received a rate of wages lower in proportion than any other labouring population in Europe. He said, therefore, that the capital they had sunk in the soil—that was their labour—had been really and truly confiscated without adequate return to them; and, therefore, that on the grounds of justice their case came within the scope of the Bill, and quite as much and as urgently required attention as the class above them. The Bill was based not only on justice, but on expediency; on the latter ground, also, there was just as strong reason to deal with their case as with that of the tenant farmers. From the point of view of expediency, because the purpose of the Bill was to pacify Ireland. It was obvious that no pacification was possible without bringing about the contentment of the agricultural class. The existing provisions of the Bill only affected one half of that class, and would leave the other half worse off than before, unless some provision was now introduced on their behalf. It was evident therefore that pacification could not follow unless their case was efficiently dealt with. On the contrary, their discontent would be increased if they saw benefits and concessions heaped upon the class above them, while they themselves were left out in the cold. Indications of this were already showing themselves. Labour Leagues were springing up in all parts of Ireland, and there was real risk of a dangerous and trouble-some agitation, unless their case was sufficiently dealt with. Grievances long borne with patience would at last burst forth like a pent up flood, sweeping away all before it. He did not admit that there was any real antagonism between the interest of the farmers and that of the labourers; it was the interest of both that the grievances of both should be redressed. If the farmers were called upon to make any sacrifice, they would be amply compensated by diminished poor rates. No one who had not been a member of an Irish Board of Guardians could have any idea of how large a proportion of the burden thrown upon the ratepayers was caused by the wretched condition in which the labourers live; typhus fever and scrofula resulted from it. He himself knew a case where, in a cabin consisting of one room, a scarlatina patient occupied the only bed in it, and the milk of their cow was placed in pans under that bed, they having, apparently, no other place to put it; the cabin was doing duty both as fever hospital and dairy! A more effective way of spreading pestilence could scarcely be devised. Whole families were thrown upon the rates for months together from similar causes. Whatever was spent on improved dwellings would be amply repaid by diminished poor rates, and by the improved health and efficiency of the working classes. A good deal of evidence had been taken before the Bessborough Commission on the subject. He would not occupy the time of the Committee by entering into details; but one passage in it was so original that he thought they would forgive his quoting it. A clergyman stated as follows:— In reply to the question, how are the labourers in your district, he said to describe their habitation would be simply impossible. You will have an idea of it when I tell you the case of one poor man who settled on a bog in my district. His wife was confined to bed. A horse suffering from some disease—staggers, I believe—fell against the house, tumbling it down upon the old woman inside. The bog on which this cabin was built was described as follows:—"If you hopped upon it, my Lord, you would shake half an acre about you." There was abundant evidence in the Bessborough Commission to prove the urgent necessity for the intervention of the Court. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would cordially support the well-meant proposals of the Government, and not risk the defeat of the main purpose of the Bill, which was the pacification of Ireland.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

MR. BRODRICK

said, the next Amendment was in his name, and it was one small in its scope, but which, to the landlords, was of great importance. The right hon. Gentleman's clause provided that a tenant might let any portion of land for the use of labourers, provided that it did not exceed half-an- acre in each case, and that the total number of such lettings of portions of a holding did not exceed one for every 25 acres of tillage land contained in the holding. Well, the piece of land in question might mean anything. It might mean the best piece in the, whole holding—a piece in the middle of a field, or a piece in an extreme corner of a field, that it might be deemed desirable, in the interest of the holding, to devote to some other purpose. He thought, in such a case, that it was only fair that the landlord should have such a veto as that which he (Mr. Brodrick) proposed in his Amendment. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) would not suppose, because he had said a very few words in moving his Amendment, that he attached no importance to it. As a matter of fact, he attached a very great importance to it; and he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there were many hon. Members who opposed his clause, not because they objected to it on principle, but because it seemed to them to have a tendency to cut the landlord out from all share in the making of these arrangements for the building of labourers' cottages. The acceptance of this Amendment might remove that opposition; and as he did not think it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to shut out the landlords in the way he had described he would offer this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In line 4, after the word. "land," to insert the words "in a situation to be selected by the landlord, or, in case he shall refuse, by the Court."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

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

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he hoped the Government would be able to assent to this Amendment. It was one that could do no possible harm to the tenant, but which might conciliate the landlord, and tend to make the clause more effective and less objectionable. If a landlord made any difficulty as to the granting of a suitable site, the Court would interfere, and decide the matter for the parties. This Amendment would merely give the landlord a locus standi, and enable him to have his interest considered, as well as that of the tenant and the labourer.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Really, we cannot assent to this Amendment. The landlord has the power to resume the land, and the tenant is not able to say to him—"Do not take out the piece of my holding that I like the best." The Court decides the question, and, no doubt, in this case, if to take the piece of land proposed would be injurious to the landlord, the Court would refuse its sanction to the plan. I do not think we can put in words enabling the landlord to fix the place where the buildings are to be.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

was sorry to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said. If an owner was to have any enjoyment at all of his estate, he ought, at any rate, to be able to say where the labourers' cottages should be built. Unless he had this power, cottages might be put into extraordinary positions so as to be absolutely detrimental to the property. Surely, there was nothing in the Amendment that would be detrimental to the tenant, because he would be able to ask the landlord to point out a fit and eligible site for a cottage, and the landlord would be bound to provide that sight, and if he refused, the Court itself would decide the matter. At present, the Government seemed to desire to deprive the landlord of the enjoyment of his property, and to place that enjoyment in a tenant, without giving the former any compensation.

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

remarked, that the hon. and gallant Baronet had said that the landlord would be deprived of enjoyment in his property, and had declared that the landlord, when appealed to, would select the proper site. Well, the landlord, at present, would be able to do that, for if he wished any particular site to be selected he had only to go to the Court, which was to give its sanction. If the site was a proper one, it would be allowed; but, the Court being the controlling and arbitrating power between the two, if it was an improper site it would refuse permission. The tenant would not be likely to put a cottage where it would prove injurious to a holding.

MR. BELLINGHAM

said, he thought the Amendment was a very reasonable one; and he could assure the Committee that if he believed for a moment it would be injurious to the tenant he should be one of the very first to oppose it.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, the words of the clause were these— Any person prohibited under this Act from letting or sub-letting a holding may, with the sanction of the Court, and with power for the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise as the Court thinks just, let any portion of land, &c. What he wished to ask was this—Would the Court be able, when a tenant applied to it, to permit him to sub-let a portion of his holding, without giving notice to the landlord, or his agent, as to which part of the holding he wished to make the site of the cottage? It was obvious, as his hon. Friend had said, that a tenant might desire to place a cottage on a spot where it would be very detrimental to the estate, and destroy what, in Scotland, were called the "amenities" of the estate.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

If the landlord and tenant agree, this clause will not come into effect, because there would then be no prohibition against sub-letting. But if they do not agree, the Court will come in, and it will not for a moment entertain the proposal of the tenant without considering why the landlord objected, and deciding upon the merits of that objection.

MR. LALOR

said, that hon. Members seemed to talk a great deal about the landlord's property, and appeared to be under the impression that these cottages would be built by the landlord. It would be nothing of the kind. It would be the tenant who would build them. It had been the constant practice for the Irish landlords to prevent sub-letting or building cottages on their land. He know as a matter of fact, from his own experience, that the landlords had prevented the erection of these cottages, and he was positively convinced if they got the clause amended as they wished they would continue to pursue the same course. They would be constantly trying to prevent the cottages from being built, or else to get them put up in such a way that they would be of no use to the labourers at all.

MR. WARTON

said, the clause ought to contain rules for giving notice to landlords. Any lawyer who read the provision would advise tenants that they could go before the Court ex parte, and ask for sanction and obtain it. That was the true construction to be placed upon the clause, notwithstanding the Government made an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the Committee.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he failed to find in the clause anything providing means by which a tenant who proposed to build a cottage and the landlord might be brought together for the purpose of entering into an agreement upon the subject. The clause did not require that notice should be given to the landlord, and the result might be that a cottage might be built in a position where it would be injurious to the interests of the landlord as owner of the fee simple. If the landlord and the tenant failed to come to an understanding it would then be proper for the Court to decide.

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

said, that in this discussion they seemed to be beating the air and wasting time unnecessarily. The clause referred to those people who were precluded from sub-letting without the consent of the landlord; and if the landlord and tenant agreed the interference of the Court was not required. It was only required in the event of a disagreement. A tenant would go to the Court and say—"I come before you because the landlord will not agree to my erecting a cottage on such and such a site;" and, having ascertained what the difference was, and who were the parties to it, it would have them before it, instead of deciding ex parte, as some hon. Members seemed to think it would.

MR. BRODRICK

said, the point at issue was this—whether, after the tenant and the landlord had come into Court, the Court should not have power to fix the site on which the cottages should be built. The Chief Secretary said the landlord could resume possession of a part of a holding to build cottages, and that the tenant had then no right to refuse his consent in any way, or to give any idea as to where the cottages were to be built; "And," said the right hon. Gentleman, "let the tenant have fair play—let him be able to do the same thing." The difference between the two was this—the landlord, when he resumed land for the purpose of building cottages, had to pay the tenant for the portion he resumed, and if it was the best piece he would pay the best price for it; but the tenant, when he built a cottage, could build it on whatever part of the holding he chose without paying compensation.

MR. WARTON

said, the Solicitor General for Ireland had invented an imaginary dispute; but that was not at all required by the clause. Under this provision the tenant might come to the Court and say—"I want your sanction to build cottages;" and why, therefore, the Solicitor General for Ireland should invent a dispute that was not necessary to take place he could not for the life of him conceive. If this matter was settled now according to the Government view, he (Mr. Warton) should bring up a proposal on Report.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, it seemed to him that a case would never come into Court until the landlord and tenant had failed to agree. Probably the matter in dispute would be the site. When the case came into Court, the Court would say to the landlord—"Why do you object?" and he would reply "Because I do not think the site is a good one," and then the Court would hear reasons on each side, and would decide according to the best of its judgment. He trusted they would not waste any more time on this matter.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, that if they put in the word "site" it would settle the whole difficulty. The clause would run— Any person prohibited under this Act from letting or sub-letting a holding may, with the sanction of the Court, and with power from the Court to prescribe such terms as to site, rent, and otherwise as the Court thinks just, &c.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he thought the Amendment would be much more acceptable if, instead of saying the situation was to be "selected" by the landlord, it stated that the situation should be "sanctioned" by the landlord.

MR. CALLAN

said, that according to the past history of Ireland the landlords had thrown every difficulty in the way of building these labourers' cottages. The noble Lord (Viscount Folkestone) had intimated that if the selection of the site for the cottage were left with the tenant the building might be an eyesore. Probably it would be an eyesore to some proprietors; but it would be no greater eyesore than such a cottage as that which had been described by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Villiers Stuart)—a cottage in which a man and his wife and five children herded toge- ther. In a case of this kind the labourer had been asked from whom he rented his cottage, whether from the landlord or tenant, and his reply was that he got the cabin direct from a noble Lord owner and paid a rent of 18s. per year for it. The noble Lord who got his 18s. a-year for that miserable cottage perhaps did not look upon it as an eyesore; but he would consider as greatly out of place a decent cottage erected upon a healthful and pleasant site on his estate. No doubt, cottages would be eye-sores to noble Lords when they were built under the sanction of the Court; and it would, no doubt, be very distressing to noble Lords for the labourers to be removed from their oppression and from the operation of their neglect, and for these miserable serfs, the agricultural labourers, to become well-to-do cottiers. If a division was to be taken, let it not be taken upon a crotchet, but let them thoroughly understand that it was taken directly in the interest of the landlord party. The people of Ireland would regard it in that light; and, for his part, he looked upon it as nothing but a declaration of hostility on the part of the Irish landlords against giving this small boon to the Irish labourers. He hoped they would go to a division upon this question, and that the good feeling of the Committee would so overwhelm the landlord party, and that their defeat would be so disastrous, that it would have a lasting moral effect upon them.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I must say I hope that no division will be taken upon this question; and I do not think that anything that has occurred in the discussion so far should give anyone, whether representing the farmer or the landlord, any right to claim superiority over any individual Member or section of Members. If there is one person, or one set of persons, more likely to suffer than another from any attempt to claim an advantage of this kind, it will be the unfortunate labourer.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, he need not refer to what had fallen from the hon. Member below him (Mr. Callan), because he could with justice lay claim to this—that hon. Members representing English constituencies were as much interested in the fate of the labourers as any other hon. Members could claim to be. He did not under- stand, from the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Ministerial Bench, that it was possible or probable the landlord would have any voice in the selection of the sites of the labourers' cottages. He was certainly not a lawyer, but he must say it appeared to him that there was nothing in the clause which would render it necessary for the landlord to have anything to do with the matter. A tenant might, with the sanction of the Court, do whatever he pleased without the slightest reference to the landlord.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 166: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 316.)

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member who moved the last Amendment has another Amendment on the Paper, to add at the end of the clause these words— Provided also, that if the landlord is willing and undertakes to provide on the holding the accommodation required for such labourers, and proposed to be provided by such person under the provisions of this section, the landlord shall be entitled, subject to the limitations herein—before contained, to resume possession from the tenant of so much of the holding as may, in the opinion of the Court, be necessary, without being required to make any compensation to the tenant. I observe there is a difference in this proposal to that negatived on the 7th of June; but it is not a very substantial one. Therefore, I think the Amendment cannot be put.

MR. BRODRICK

said, there was a very broad distinction between his Amendment and that which had been proposed on the 7th of June. In the other case the tenant proposed to give up the land.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have looked carefully at the Amendments, and I find that they are so substantially the same that this cannot be put.

MR. BRODRICK

I shall bring up the Amendment on Report.

MR. ECROYD

said, the clause just passed applied only to the case of cottages to be erected by the tenant, but not to sub-tenants of cottages already existing. He thought the occupiers of cottages already existing, which, in many cases, were of a very inferior description, should, in regard to the privilege of having fair and reasonable rents fixed by the Court, be placed on equal terms with those who might have the good fortune to occupy the cottages to be built in the future. He would propose an Amendment to add certain words to this effect at the end of the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member's Amendment, which had been handed to him in manuscript, and which he had carefully examined, was not consistent with the clause, and, therefore, could not be put.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he had an Amendment to propose, providing that the total number of the lettings of portions of holdings should not exceed one for every 50 acres of tillage. It was proposed by the clause that the sub-lettings or allotments should not exceed the proportion of one for every 25 acres of tillage; but that, he contended, was far too high a ratio, and would unduly and improvidently multiply the cottier class, whose poverty had always been the reproach of the country.

Amendment proposed, in line 10, leave out the words "twenty-five," and insert the word "fifty."—(Mr. Ramsay.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I would point out that 25 is the limit in the Act of 1870.

MR. RAMSAY

said, be was not much influenced by the fact of the limit of 25 having been inserted in the Act of 1870. They had seen no such favourable results from the Act of 1870 as to induce them to proceed on similar lines. The statute had been a failure, and they could not be expected to have any faith in it. However, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. WARTON

said, he did not wish to say a word with regard to the 25 or 50 acres; but he wished to draw the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland to the construction of the clause. The clause, as it now stood, contained no provision whatever as to the number of cottages which there might be at present on a farm. It was just possible that there might be 10 or 12, or even more.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that an hon. Member had presented him with an Amendment in manuscript during the division; and he had not been able to say, on first looking at it, whether or not it was in Order. However, he had now discovered, on reference to subsections 5 and 8 of Clause 45, that it was not in Order, and could not be put.

New Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, after Clause 18, insert the following Clause:—

(Power of Court, on application for the determination of a judicial rent, to impose conditions as to labourers' cottages.)

"Where an application is made to the Court for the determination of a judicial rent in respect of any holding, the Court, if satisfied tha there is a necessity for improving any existing cottages or building any new cottages, or assigning to any such cottage an allotment not exceeding half an acre, for the accommodation of the labourers employed on such holding, may, if it thinks fit, in making the order determining such rent, add thereto the terms on which such accommodation for labourers is to be provided by the person making the application.

"Where upon any such application the Court requires the tenant of the holding to improve any existing cottage, or to build any new cottage, such tenant may be deemed to be a person to whom a loan may be made under the Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Acts for the improvement or building of dwellings for labourers, as if such person were an owner within the meaning of the said Acts; but any such loan may be made for a less sum than the sum of one hundred pounds."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)

New Clause brought up, and read a first time.

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

MR. A. MOORE

said, he acknowledged the kindly feeling of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in bringing forward this clause; but he did not think they were doing anything for the labourer—in fact, he was rather afraid that they were doing something against him. Though it went very far in the interest of the labourer, he was quite certain that this clause was not a very practical one, and he was afraid it would operate as a dead letter. He did not know that it was reasonable to desire to compel the great majority of the farmers to build houses for the labourers, or to undertake to borrow State money for that purpose. The farmer himself was so badly housed that it was impossible to think that the Court would impose this onerous duty upon him of the building of cottages for labourers. At the same time, the farmers were receiving such enormous boons under the Bill that it was quite time for them to make some sacrifice in the interest of the labourers. The tenant might be a new comer, and might have executed no new improvements—one day he might have no interest whatever in the land, and the next day he would be a leaseholder in perpetuity at a fair rent. No greater boon, short of absolutely giving the man the fee-simple of the land, could have been extended to the farmer. Therefore, seeing that the farmer had these privileges given to him, to the detriment of the labourer, was he not to do something for the labourer? He (Mr. A. Moore) should like to see the Court endowed with larger power, and to see it enabled to reserve a portion of the land for the labourers—to be able to say to the tenant—"We will give you the laud for a judicial term; you will have fixity of tenure; but we do not pledge ourselves to continue to you the possession of the whole of the farm. We may want part of it at some future time for the labourers, who have as much right to live in their own country as you have." He would propose that, say, a statute acre should be reserved in a farm of £50 valuation. Some provision of this kind should be made, so that, later on, when the land had to be taken for the labourers, the farmer would not be able to claim compensation. So long as they rendered it necessary for compensation to be paid to the tenant where land was resumed in the interest of the labourer, so long would they find nothing effected for the benefit of the labourer in the way of improved habitations. He was afraid that if something like this was not done they would find it almost impossible, without incurring great expense, to carry out their object; and they must remember that expense was really the key to this question. The landlord would not make great sacrifices in this matter, nor would the tenant; and he was afraid that the time would come, unless they were very careful, when there would not be a spot of land in Ireland on which to grow a potato or feed a cow, or build a cottage, for the labourer. He had no wish to stir up feud and hostility between the tenants and the labourers; he had as much good feeling for the one as for the other, and he thought it would be prejudicial to the interests of the country at large to set them at loggerheads. But he thought this was a case of paramount necessity, and, if this opportunity were allowed to pass without adopting some such proposal as this, he was afraid no opportunity would again present itself for doing anything for the labourer. The position was one of great difficulty and danger.

MR. CALLAN

said, he believed that of all the clauses which had been brought forward none would work more to the advantage of the labourer than that now before the Committee. Without this clause, all the apprehensions of hon. Members might, perhaps, be realized. He did not think that it would be the case, but it might be; but it would be utterly impossible for them to be realized were this clause included in the Bill. It was stated that where an application was made for judicial rent, the Court might impose terms, which were that accommodation should be made for the labourers. They had heard a great deal about giving fixity of tenure to the labourers; but, if that were given, the people would cease to be agricultural labourers, and would really be peasant proprietors. No one expected that a labourer attached to a farm should have durability of tenure approaching to perpetuity of tenure. Labourers should not be weekly or monthly tenants. However, the very fact of giving an allotment of half an acre of land precluded the labourer from being a weekly or monthly tenant, because, when they took into account the question of crops, they would see that where an allotment of half an acre was given they constituted the labourer, for all practical purposes, a yearly tenant. The Court would have power to make orders in this matter, and he supposed the orders they would make as to the tenure of the labourers would be that which prevailed on all well-regulated properties throughout the county be represented, which was that the labourer would establish his right at Candlemas, or the first week in February, and come into possession on the 1st of May, and he would be a bound man—the farmer and the labourer would be bound together for 12 months, except in such a gross case as, whether through breach of contract or some other failure on the part of either party, relief was obtained from the binding nature of the contract. If, on the 1st of February, the labourer renewed his bargain, he would re-plant his garden, sow his corn, or his cabbage and potatoes, and was really a yearly tenant. If they made such a contract general, it would exercise a beneficial interest on the labourers. There was one word, in the third line of the second paragraph, that he should like to amend.

THE CHAIRMAN

As soon as the clause is read a second time the hon. Member can move Amendments to it.

MR. CALLAN

said, that, at the proper time, he would move an Amendment; and, with a modification of the kind he would propose, the clause would, no doubt, work beneficially.

MR. H. THOMSON

said, that, under this clause, no tenant could obtain a judicial rent without running the risk of being compelled to build cottages. The landlord was not to be compelled to build cottages; therefore, he was placed in a different position to the tenant. In England, where cottages were found to be in an unsatisfactory condition, local authorities had power to compel them to be pulled down, and others to be built in their place. He believed, under the provisions of an Act passed during the term of Office of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), the local bodies had power to borrow money for the purpose of building these cottages. He believed the Government intended next Session to introduce a measure of local government for Ireland; and he would suggest that they should consider whether it would not be better to intrust these local bodies with the task of seeing that labourers' cottages throughout the country did not remain in an unsanitary condition, and give them power to borrow public money for the purpose of re-building these cottages, rather than to attempt to deal with the subject in the present clause. He had great doubts as to the expediency of this provision, and would far rather that the question should be dealt with next Session.

MR. BELLINGHAM

said, he accepted the clause on the principle that half a loaf was better than no bread. No doubt the Government would, sooner or later, have to take up the question of the sanitary condition of the dwellings of the poorer classes in Ireland, and deal with it in a broad and comprehensive manner.

MR. LALOR

said, he thought it was one of the greatest blots on the whole Bill—the exclusion of cottier labourers in Ireland from its benefits. There were 200,000 holdings valued at under £4 in Ireland; and he was sure that he was not exaggerating when he said that over a-half of that number were occupied by labourers. Well, he could see no reason why these unfortunate people, who were more to be pitied than any class in Ireland, should be made martyrs of, because that would be really the effect of saying that the tenant farmers should be relieved, and that the labourers should not. He did not see why one should not be relieved as well as the other. There certainly was no more over-taxed and over-rented people in the whole of Ireland than these men. It was only reasonable to expect that they should have their holdings at a fair rent. He therefore hoped that, when the Bill passed to another stage, the Government would see their way to removing the exemption that existed against the agricultural labourer, who was at present in possession of land, preventing him from receiving the same benefit from the Bill as the tenant farmer.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that when he looked at this question of labourers' cottages generally, he found one of the difficulties to be this—that if they made the condition very stringent against the farmers the result would be that the farmers would be very unwilling to build new houses for their labourers. If they offered a strong inducement, no doubt they would be more willing to do it. When the farmer came before the Court to have a judicial rent fixed, he should be compelled, if it were desirable, to accept conditions for the building of labourers' cottages. But the difficulty with regard to this subject seemed to be this—that there was no one to appear before the Court on behalf of the labourers generally. So far as that part of the matter was concerned, very likely either the landlord or the tenant would wish to have money laid out for the purpose of building labourers' cottages. The policy of the landlord had hitherto been to discourage the building of these cottages, because they naturally thought that the result ultimately would be that these people, when they became old, would be chargeable on the poor rates, of which they—the landlords—paid a large proportion. The benefit to the labourers would be this. If the Bill, which the Government thought and hoped it would, encouraged the farmer to spend money on improvements, there would be a greater demand for labour, and the labourers would be more independent, and would be able to make arrangements with the farmers on different terms to those which they had made before. Arrangements with regard to rent would be facilitated, and he had been told that a great unpleasantness in this respect had occurred in the past, and that in many cases the tenant farmers had acted in a tyrannical manner. If these waste lands were offered to the industrious labourers, the result would be that the pressure on the labour market would be removed. He did not like to take any decided view as to these clauses, because it was uncertain what their result would be. If they made the law too stringent against the farmer, he would neglect to make improvements; on the other hand, if they were too liberal towards him, it was possible that he would overcharge the labourer.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, they must remember what the Bill would have been without this clause which it was now proposed to insert in it. He was inclined to accept the provision with gratitude, though it might not be, in every respect, so satisfactory as they could have wished. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) what the process would be by which the labourer would be able to show to the Court that the cottage accommodation he required was not there already? How, he should like to know, was the subject to be brought before the Court?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

We must rely upon those into whose hands we place power. We must trust to the Court to do its duty. It is a very strong clause, and is one which casts on those who make the application for the fixing of a judicial rent the obligation of constructing cottage accommodation, if the Court thinks it necessary. That is a very strong condition, and the Government would not have proposed it if we had not thought it an essential condition. The Committee, I trust, will agree with us that we ought to go as far as this; but I do not think we ought to be asked to go any further. We may, one of these days, have a measure of County Government, and then, perhaps, we may do something more; but I do not look with great hopefulness upon the bestowal of power for the future on Boards of Guardians, and I think that we must rely mainly on the two parties interested in the cultivation of the land—the landlord and the tenant—probably more on the tenant than on the landlord in the future. We must rely upon their doing their duty. I must say before I sit down—the circumstance is of such rare occurrence—that it is gratifying to find the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) for once in agreement with the Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in New Clause, line 6, after the word "terms," to add the words "for rent and otherwise."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CALLAN

said, he was sorry the hon. Member who had just moved these words did not follow the context, and add "as the Court thinks fit." He would move to strike out the word "may" in the third line of the second paragraph, in order to substitute the word "shall." No doubt, the Solicitor General for Ireland would tell him that the word "may" was the same as the word "shall," and under other circumstances he should agree with him; but here he thought it was essential that the language should be made perfectly clear. If the words meant the same, the Government surely would have no objection to make the alteration.

Amendment proposed, in line 11, leave out the word "may," to insert the word "shall"—(Mr. Callan.)

Question, "That the word be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. A. MOORE

said, that power was given to the landlords by one of the clauses of the Bill to resume the holding for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, and it was provided that the application of the landlord to resume should not be allowed, except subject to the clause relating to the provision for labourers' cottages. Then there was another clause which dealt with the statutory term consequent on the fixing of a judicial rent, and at the end of this clause a peg was introduced on which to hang another clause. He wished to know if the clause they were now discussing was supposed to be the Supplementary Clause which was to be inserted in reference to the case of resumption by the landlord?

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

said, the only case in which the landlord could resume was upon requiring the land for the purposes of erecting labourers' cottages, and after compensating the tenant for his rights. This clause had reference to a different object altogether, and it was to provide that where an application was made for a judicial rent the Court might impose upon the tenant terms as to the erection of labourers' cottages.

MR. A. MOORE

said, the clause would never come into operation, because the Court would never of its own motion inquire into the matter. It was just as likely that the Court would stop to inquire how many cows the tenant had. He did not see what was to bring the clause into operation. Certainly the poor labourer could not, because he could not afford the expense of an application to the Court, and he did not suppose that the landlord would, because he could have no personal wish to put up another house upon his land.

Question put, and agreed to; Clause added to the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved, after Clause 42, to insert the following new Clause:—

(Service of civil bill processes and limitation of costs.)

"The making of rules and orders prescribing and regulating the mode of service of civil bill pocesses in ejectment, and for recovery of rent, is hereby declared to be within the provisions of the seventy-ninth section of 'The County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877,' and notwithstanding any other enactment, the service of such processes in the manner prescribed by such rules or orders shall be valid and sufficient. Whenever an action for the recovery of land, whether for non-payment of rent or for overholding, is brought in the High Court of Justice in Ireland, in any case in which the plain- tiff in such action could have sued for the recovery of such land in a Civil Bill Court, the plaintiff in such action shall not be entitled to any costs, unless the Judge before whom such action is tried, or the divisional Court to which such action is attached, shall by order declare the said plaintiff entitled to costs."

He wished to explain that there had been a difference of opinion among the County Court Judges as to the mode of serving civil bill processes in ejectments and for recovery of rent. They had been unable to agree among themselves, and the practice had not hitherto been regulated on any uniform principle, and the only object of the present clause was to remove what was merely an accidental obstacle to the working of the existing law. It had been intended that the County Court Judges should make rules on this subject under the clause referred to; but they entertained doubts as to ejectments being within its provisions. These doubts, therefore, it was proposed to remove by a declaratory enactment. The clause also provided that in actions brought for the recovery of land, whether for non-payment of rent or for over-holding, in the High Court of Justice in Ireland, in auy case in which the plaintiff could have sued for the recovery of such land in the Civil Bill Court, the plaintiff should not be entitled to costs, unless the Judge who tried the action, or the Divisional Court to which the action was attached, declared that the plaintiff was entitled to costs. This provision was founded on the analogy of similar enactments both in England and Ireland. It was confined, however, in the case of ejectments, because provision was already made that where an action was brought in a Superior Court for a sum under £20 the plaintiff should be deprived of his costs if he went into such Superior Court needlessly. All, therefore, that was now required was to provide for the case of ejectment for the recovery of land owing to the non-payment of rent.

New Clause (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland) brought up, and read a first time.

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

MR. ERRINGTON

said, he agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there was a very fair excuse for the introduction of this clause. It was, undoubtedly, the desire of the landlords that they should be deprived of the power of making an unfair use of the Court against a tenant, and they were quite ready to have the practice of the Superior Courts adopted in every case. He believed that cases had been of frequent occurrence where the landlord had proceeded in the Superior Court against the tenant, and where the landlord had recovered costs. He apprehended that the tenant would be liable for the costs of a Superior Court, where the action could be initiated in a Superior Court; but if the case did not come to judgment the question of costs would not arise, and the tenant would have no remedy. If that were so, he hoped there would be no difficulty in adding a second clause to the Bill in order to meet the case.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

thought the apprehension of his lion. Friend were not well founded. If the case did not go to judgment there would be no costs at all to be paid by the tenant.

MR. HEALY

said, he regretted the course which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had taken in the matter, and was sorry that it was considered necessary to insert such a clause. He should certainly like to get an assurance from the Government as to what they intended to do in the event of the Lords materially altering the clause in "another place." He wished to know whether, if the Lords threw out any material part of it, Her Majesty's Government, when it came back from the Lords, would adhere to the measure as it now stood? He should object to the second reading, and should take a division against it, unless he obtained a satisfactory assurance from the Government upon the question he had asked. They had the experience of last year before them, when the House of Lords threw out the the Limitation of Costs Bill, and also a very important measure relating to compensation for disturbance. He, therefore, wanted to know if the Government would adhere to the second portion of the clause in the event of any part of it being rejected by the House of Lords?

MR. GLADSTONE

Her Majesty's Government are very earnestly working and doing everything in their power to secure the Bill becoming law, and to secure its acceptance by the House of Lords. The hon. Member asks me what we propose to do in the alternative of a refusal. We hope that the Bill is not likely to miscarry. The hon. Gentleman asks us what we shall do in the event of its miscarrying. I think the hon. Member ought to be satisfied with that assurance. I think he will see that it would be most inconvenient to attempt to forecast a question which may indirectly be mixed up with many other questions. I hope the contingency which the hon. Gentleman has shadowed forth is not likely to arise. The Government will certainly do their very best to avoid it, and to give full effect to the provisions of the Bill.

MR. ERRINGTON

said, the House of Lords had much more excuse for the course they took last year than they would have in taking a similar course now. He did not think any great apprehension need be entertained as to the action of the House of Lords.

MR. LEAMY

wished to put a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. As the clause stood, it provided that where a landlord went into the Superior Courts, and could have gone into a Civil Bill Court, he should not, in the case of obtaining a verdict, be entitled to his costs. Now, where the landlord complained that a tenant was guilty of a breach of statutory conditions, he could proceed in a Superior Court quite independent of the Land Commission; and, if not, where was the Land Commission to come in? There was a general impression that the Land Commission were to be the parties to settle all questions between landlord and tenant, whether relating to statutory rents or otherwise. He wished, therefore, to know whether a landlord would be entitled to go into a Superior Court to sue out his action there against the tenant for non-payment of rent and get rid of him; and, if so, would the tenant have any right to apply to the Land Commission?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that the landlord could go to a Superior Court in place of going to the County Court, either for non-payment of rent or for a breach of statutory conditions.

MR. LEAMY

said, he was aware of that; but he wanted to know whether the landlord could bring the tenant into a Superior Court and have the case decided by the Superior Court, without the tenant being entitled to apply for the jurisdiction of the Land Commission?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he must have misunderstood the question. The jurisdiction of the Land Commission on all questions of dispute between the landlord and tenant could not be ousted for the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts; but where an action of ejectment for breach of statutory condition was brought in a Superior Court, that Court also would have jurisdiction to stay the proceedings on payment of damages.

Motion agreed to; Clause read a second time.

MR. PARNELL

, in moving the omission of the first portion of the clause from the word "the" in line 1, down to the word "sufficient" in line 6, at the end of the first paragraph, said, the Amendment, if adopted, would have the effect of leaving out all that portion of the clause which proposed to amend the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act of 1877. He was sorry that the Government had acceded to the suggestion made from the Front Opposition Bench the other night, and had gone into the question of amending that Act. He was perfectly willing that, as far as judicial rents went, the procedure should be regulated by the Commission, and that it should be as simple as possible; but in cases where the tenant and the landlord had not gone into Court, and no judicial rent had been fixed, and no statutory term entered into, he thought the tenant and the landlord should be left to seek a remedy under the old law as it stood before the introduction of the Bill. It was clearly not contemplated, when the Bill was introduced, to amend the law in respect of the service of processes. The provision made in the 42nd clause, in sub-section G, did not contemplate anything except giving power to the Commission to amend the rules of procedure in cases where judicial rents were fixed. Consequently, that provision was clearly an after-thought—foreign to the scope and general purpose of the Bill, and it was simply thought necessary to adopt it, because some difficulty had arisen in some parts of Ireland with reference to the serving of processes. He submitted that when they looked into the whole history of the Land Question, and when they saw that up to 1870 statute after statute was enacted by Parliament for the purpose of placing the tenant in a worse position to retain his holding, and to place the landlord in a better position to dispossess the tenant from the holding, he thought they ought to be exceedingly cautious before they applied fresh statutory facilities for the purpose of upsetting the old Common Law arrangements which existed between the landlord and tenant in Ireland, and still subsisted in England, and facilities which did not exist anywhere else for the getting rid of a tenant. The state of the law with regard to yearly tenancies rendered it exceedingly difficult for the landlord to dispossess his tenant. The only case in which it was possible for a landlord to eject a tenant by summary process was for the non-payment of rent. Nearly all the tenants in Ireland were tenants from year to year, and it was found so exceedingly difficult for the landlords to get rid bf them with sufficient celerity that a series of statutes had been passed by the Legislature for I the purpose of upsetting ejectments for non-payment of rent; and the state of laws that had no existence whatever, either in practice or in the Statute Book, relating to England, had been enacted for the special benefit of the Irish landlord, and the special disadvantage of the Irish tenant. Those statutes did away with the old Common Law protection the Irish tenant had enjoyed from time immemorial, and they enabled the landlord to bring ejectments against his yearly tenants for non-payment of rent. The provision which was sought to be introduced into the clause was intended to give another facility to the landlord in that direction, and it was certainly one which ought to excite a very strong protest from the Irish Members. It was a matter which he could assert the Government did not contemplate when they introduced the Bill, and they only consented to insert it at the instance of the Front Opposition Bench. In point of fact, there was a bribe held out to the Irish Members in the first part of the clause, but it amounted to nothing, because, in all probability, the Lords would throw it out. They threw out the Limitation of Costs Bill last year, and the consequence would be that the House of Commons would have the Bill coming back with the clause intact so far as it related to the part he objected to, but with the beneficial part of the clause struck out. Then, of course, they would be told that it was not desirable to sacrifice the Bill by insisting upon the whole of the clause as it stood originally. Therefore, this was entirely an illusory inducement which the Government held out in order to get the House to give these extraordinary facilities for serving processes in Ireland. He thought the Government were not treating the Irish Members and the Irish tenants fairly, in stepping aside from their course and stumbling into an alteration of the Bill which converted the measure into a Bill for amending the County Court Act of 1877, rather than a Bill for amending the laws relating to land tenure in Ireland.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "the," in line 1 of the proposed Clause, to the word "sufficient" in line 6.—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist with his Amendment. The present condition of things was not only anomalous and inconvenient, but it was discreditable to our institutions, and was opposed to the good of the country. The hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), the other night, on the first discussion which took place on this matter, pointed to what was said and done by the House when the Act of 1877 was passed. Attempts were then made to regulate these details, and when the question was about to be discussed, it was very properly pointed out that all matters of practice might be omitted and left over for the Judges to settle by rules. The clause referred to was, accordingly, intended for this very purpose, and his (the Attorney General for Ireland's) opinion was that it accomplished that object. That, too, was the opinion of his right hon. and learned Friend opposite, who had charge of the Bill of 1877. Her Majesty's Government thought the question was settled, and so did the hon. Member for Cork, but the County Court Judges differed upon the matter; and as it was always meant that the power should exist, this clause was proposed in order to give it. By the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1860, power was given to the Inferior Courts as well as to the Superior Courts to deal with the service of ejectment processes; but, owing to some obscurity of expression, the County Court Judges in this case also held different opinions. The provision was that ejectments for non-payment of rent should take place in a particular way, or in such other ways as might appear to the Judges to be sufficient. That left the whole question open to the Courts to determine what should be sufficient; and most of the County Court Judges, and some of the Superior Court Judges, held that this only applied to the Superior Judges, and not to the Judges of the Inferior Courts. The result was that an absurd anomaly and inconvenience in practice had arisen, and it was therefore desirable that the County Court Judges should meet under the Rules Clause of the Act of 1877, and settle what the practice should be in future. When this Bill passed, every man in Ireland would be able to get a judicial declaration of a fair rent, and if he did not get one, it would be because he did not want it. He confessed that he had not heard any answer to the argument advanced by his right hon. and learned Friend the other night which showed to demonstration that, without this clause, they left the good landlord without any opportunity of recovering his claims, whereas the rack-renting landlord, if dragged into Court to have his exorbitant rents reduced, would have all the advantage. He had felt that this state of things should not remain longer than was necessary a blot upon the Statute Book; and having brought every tenant within the scope of the Bill, so that he might have a fair rent fixed if he desired it, it was only just to make provision for the due service of process upon him where he declined to pay his rent. All the tenants said they were willing to pay the rent if the rent was fair. Every tenant would, in the course of a short time, have a fair rent, either because he went before the Court, or else because he considered the rent to be a fair one as it stood at present. This clause was to enable landlords to serve civil bill processes when necessary upon their tenants, to enforce payment of their rents. The whole object of process was to bring the claim to the knowledge of the defendant; and he certainly failed to see why, in serving these processes, they should be compelled to have recourse, as at present, to the assistance of armed forces. He hoped, under these circum- stances, that the Committee would accept the clause as it stood. Of course, as the Prime Minister told them, the Government were anxious that this clause, as well as the whole Bill, should be carried in "another place." It was impossible to say whether any part of the clause, or any part of the Bill, might not be struck out in "another place." All they could hope was that such a step would not be taken. He did not think there was the smallest likelihood of one part of the clause being struck out, and another part which was favourable to the landlords being kept in. All he could say was that the clause, as it stood, removed an absurd obstacle in the way of the serving of civil bill processes which was never intended to be placed in their way.

MR. HEALY

asked what was the procedure by the County Courts of England upon the same matter?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the rules framed under the English County Court Act made admirable provision for the service of all process. If personal service could not be had, service on a member of the family at the house was sufficient; and if the person to be served was absenting himself, service at the nearest place was sufficient. A series of rules, in short, had been laid clown giving the largest possible facilities, so that there should in every case be au effective service.

MR. PARNELL

said, he believed that the rules under the English County Courts Act were inserted in the Act itself.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

Pardon me, they were rules made by the County Court Judges under similar powers to those we now propose to confer upon the Irish County Court Judges.

MR. HEALY

said, it was the genesis of the thing that was objectionable to the Irish Members. The history of the clause was one of the most curious histories in connection with the Bill. As the clause originally stood, its meaning had been rendered so dubious, either by the draftsman, or by some error, that it gave these remarkable powers to the Land Commission— The Land Commission shall circulate forms of application, and directions as to the mode in which applications aro to be made under this Act; and may from time to time make, and when made may rescind, amend, or add to rules with respect to such circulation, and to the following matters, or any of them. One of these matters was "the mode of service of civil bill processes in ejectments and for the recovery of rent." All the previous sections, A, B, C, D, E, and F, contained the words, at the end of each, "under the provisions of this Act," but when they came to section G, there was nothing whatever about the purposes of the Act; accordingly, he had moved to repair this omission, and the proposal was accepted by the Treasury Bench. Everybody knew that this process-serving had been one of the chief sources of trouble in Ireland; and would they permit the people to be buckshotted hereafter simply because they would not stick up for this clause? The Government, in the first instance, accepted his Amendment, and actually put up the Chief Secretary, the Solicitor General for Ireland, and the Attorney General for England to support it. After having put up those three great Officers of the Crown they were met by a fusillade from the Front Opposition Bench, calling upon them to repeal the existing law and to make provision for the more effectual serving of writs and processes. It was getting late in the morning when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) moved to report Progress. When the Irish Members moved to report Progress, there were generally not more than 20 or 30 Members behind them, so that it was very easy to exhaust them. It was different when a right hon. Gentleman rose to report Progress from the Front Opposition Bench. He generally had a good round number of supporters behind him; and therefore, in the particular case he was now referring to, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, having had this declaration of war, at once gave up the ghost of a struggle. If the Government had been straightforward in the matter, he ventured to say that the clause would not have been heard of. There seemed to him to be a good deal of huckstering about it. It was altogether an arriere pensée, and if it had been suggested from those, the Home Rule, Benches, it never would have been adopted. It was an exceedingly clever suggestion, made in an exceedingly clever manner, by an exceedingly clever Member—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). Her Majesty's Government sprang forward to receive it at once and accepted the sop to Cerberus. It might be desirable to have a fair rent in Ireland without being equally desirable to facilitate the speedy service of ejectments. That was not the question they had to consider. The Bill was not introduced with that object, and was never intended to meet that case. It was not until the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin made the suggestion that the Government dreamt of making the Bill a vehicle for facilitating the serving of processes. He therefore thought the objections of the Irish Members to this proposal were most valid and legitimate. Of course, they knew the difficulties the Government had to contend with in the matter; but in opposing this addition to the provisions of the Bill they were altogether within their rights, and they were justified in making the strongest protest in their power against the course of action which the Government had pursued. It was not a kind of action that became a great Government; and the proposal to limit the bill of costs, in order that the Committee might be induced to swallow more speedy rocess-serving, savoured more of huckstering and bargaining than the desire to attain a really great object.

MR. WARTON

thought that really, after all, the question was not what the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) called the genesis of this clause, but the exodus of the Bill from the House. He looked upon the clause as representing a fair bargain; and he did not think that any honourable man, whether Liberal or Conservative, would wish to run away from a fair bargain after it had once been come to. He thought that nothing could exceed the fair and handsome manner in which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had met the arguments on that side of the House.

Amendment negatived.

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

MR. LEAMY

said, he understood that the rules in regard to serving processes for ejectment under the County Court Act in England were the same as were proposed in this case.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

I said they were made by the County Court Judges, and that the English County Court Act contains powers similar to those which we propose to give in this clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

moved, after Clause 42, to insert the following clause:—

(Annual report by Land Commission.)

"The Land Commission shall once in every year, after the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty one, make a report to the Lord Lieutenant as to their proceedings under this Act, and every such report shall be presented to Parliament."

New Clause,—(Mr. W. E. Forster,)—brought up, and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, that of course a Report of the proceedings of the Commission would be very interesting; but he thought that as it might be necessary to delay it until a late period of the year, Parliament ought to have an ad interim Report of what had been done during the Session. The Commission would get to work at once, and Parliament ought to be informed of the preliminary steps that were taken. He thought it might, if it went vigorously to work, make some progress between this Session and the middle of next. As the clause now stood, it gave a rather long interval, when it said that the Commission was to report in every Session after 1881. He knew very well what Commissions were, and how their Reports were sent in. There had been plenty of experience in reference to Irish Commissions. Their Reports rarely came in until July or the beginning of August, when Parliament was on the point of proroguing and nothing was really known of their proceedings until the beginning of the following Session. He should prefer that the right hon. Gentleman should mention a particular month in which the Reports should be presented, so that there might be a definite time fixed for the presentation of the Report before the end of the financial year. So far as the first Report of the Commission was concerned, it should be presented in June next, and it would then be seen what had been done after the financial year until the time the Report was presented.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I hardly think it would be desirable to call on the Commission to make a Report before a year has passed. It must be presented next year and once a-year afterwards. It would almost be absurd to require the Commission to make a Report between the present time and the end of the financial year. The time is much too short.

SIR JOHN HOLKER

remarked that, if he rightly understood the clause proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Report need not, and would not, be presented to Parliament until the year 1883.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

The hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The first Report will be made next year.

SIR JOHN HOLKER

said, if that was the intention of the Government it would be necessary to make some alteration in the clause. The clause said— The Land Commission shall once in every year after the year 1881 make a report to the Lord Lieutenant, and every such report shall be presented to Parliament. Consequently, no Report could be made this year, and it might be delayed until the end of the year 1882.

MR. LEAMY

expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would so amend the clause as to require the Report to be presented to Parliament in the year in which it was made. If the first Report was not issued until December, 1882, it was quite evident that it could not be discussed by Parliament until 1883.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

That raises the question whether it would be desirable to have a Report presented during the first few months of the working of the Commission. I cannot think that it would be. The real question is this—is the Report which is to be presented next year to the Lord Lieutenant to be issued so early that it can be presented to Parliament in the same year? Is it necessary that the Commission should be asked to comply with such an instruction? I hardly think it is.

MR. HEALY

said, he thought, on the contrary, that it was most desirable to have the first Report presented to Parliament next year, because it would cover what would probably be the most interesting months in the entire life of the Commission. There would be great anxiety on the part of Members of the House to see how the Commission was working. He did not understand that there was any difference between hon. Members and Her Majesty's Government. It was a matter on which he was sure the Government desired to meet the wishes of Members of the House, and he put it to the Government that the matter was one to which everybody would be looking forward with such intense anxiety that it was most desirable the Commissioners should furnish a Report even if it were incomplete.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

I suppose that nobody can want to conceal anything; but it is obvious that the Act, when passed, cannot come into operation, or anything be done, by it or under it, this year. Three months after the Bill has become law will bring us to the end of the year, and in those three months it is quite clear that nothing can occur upon which it would be desirable that we should have a Report from the Court. No great number of purchases or sales of farms, or any of the things that will come under the Bill, can be effected in that time, and in none of these cases can we expect to have a Report. We then come to next Session at the beginning of next year, when the Act will gradually be coming into operation. Surely it will not be necessary to occupy the time of the Commission two or three times a-year in making special Reports to Parliament. I cannot understand the extraordinary anxiety and jealousy manifested by hon. Members in regard to the character of the acts of the Commission. By the end of next year, in time for discussion in 1883, the Commission will be able to make a Report of their proceedings for a complete year, and I am sure that a Report for a year will be of much more use than any Report for three or six months can be. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government spoke strongly upon the point when the matter was before the Committee a few nights ago. There can be no desire to conceal anything, and we only propose to do what Parliament always does in regard to Commissions of this kind. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) will not interfere with the clause, seeing that no advantage can be gained. The Government are certainly of opinion that a Report for three or four months would be absolutely of no use either to Parliament or the public.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him if he said that it was a matter of much more importance than had been pointed out. It was not a period of three or four months that was involved; but, in point of fact, it was a period of nine or 10 months, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he would agree to this—that the Land Commission should, not later than June next and in every subsequent year, at such times as the Lord Lieutenant should direct, present a Report to the Lord Lieutenant, and that every such Report should be presented to Parliament. That would provide that in June next—a period of nine or 10 months—Parliament would receive an ad interim Report. And what would that ad interim Report tell them? It would, at any rate, tell them what the rules of proceeding were, and would give a list of the Assistant Commissioners, surveyors, and other officers. Of course, it would not be a Report on the nature of the work, but it would show what steps had been taken to get the Commission into harness, and he desired that no encouragement should be given to laxity by the wording of the Act. Perhaps it was not desirable, at the present moment, that they should fix the exact month in which the annual Report of the Commission should be presented, because the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had said he did not know whether the Report of the Commission ought to be presented in the financial year or in the natural year. But surely there could be no objection for Parliament and the country to know what had been done between this and June next. All he asked was that they should provide that in June next the first Report should be presented, and at such times subsequently as might be directed by the Lord Lieutenant. It would be necessary, however, to call upon the Lord Lieutenant to specify the particular month. He had no wish to say anything invidious; but he had had some experience of Irish Commissions—and he had no doubt the same was the case with English and Scotch Commissions—and he knew that the Reports from the Irish Departments were presented precisely at the time of the year when they were of the least use—namely, when the Session was about to terminate. What he wanted in this case was an ad interim Report in the month of June next, and then a Report regularly every year at a fixed date.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

My hon. Friend says that all the Irish Commissions present their Reports very late. That was not the objection that was urged against the last great Irish Commission—the Bessborough Commission. The complaint in that case was that the Commission was too rapid in its work, and that it presented its Report too early. As regards what my hon. Friend says about the Reports of this Commission coming in at the close of the Session that is not intended nor expected. It is proposed that the Commission should report at the beginning of the year, and if his suggestion were adopted it would not come in until the close of the Session. The only question is this—will it be wise to call on the Commission to furnish a Report which must necessarily be incomplete? My hon. Friend says that a Report ought to be furnished, giving the names of the Assistant Commissioners. I thought it was understood that the names and qualifications of the Assistant Commissioners should be laid before Parliament at the very beginning of the Session.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he could not imagine what objection there could be to his proposition. It was an extraordinary thing that the Government should not want a Report of the very earliest period that was practicable of the practical work done. Was anybody prepared to say that Parliament ought now to appoint a Commission of this kind, and that, in the course of 10 months, it would have done nothing upon which it was desirable the country should receive information? Probably the question had been suddenly sprung upon right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. He had not the slightest wish to interfere with the desire of the Prime Minister to defer, for the present, the fixing of the exact time for the presentation of the ordinary Report; but nobody would be satisfied if the country was to be kept in ignorance of what the Commission was going to do, and how it intended to set about it. There ought to be a first Report during the next Session of Parliament, in order to show whether the Commission was to be a reality or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary seemed to think that his (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) proposition was made in order to disparage the Commission. He had no wish to disparage it in the slightest degree. On the contrary, he thought it was a very good Commission; but the greatest slur that could be thrown upon it was being cast by the Front Bench at this moment, in asserting that the Commission would have done nothing worth showing to the public in the course of the next 10 months. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: I said nothing of the kind.] He certainly understood his right hon. Friend to say that the Commission was not likely to have done anything worth showing in the course of the next 10 months. He thought the Commission ought to be got into operation and full working order without delay, so that it might strike the popular imagination at once. It should be very different from an ordinary Commission, and very different from the Fishery Commissions, in regard to which it really did not matter whether they reported a month or two earlier or a month or two later. The Act constituting the present Commission was a great measure to meet the wants of the whole Irish people, and it was absurd to tell the country it was not necessary that they should know what was being done for a year or so. The Commission ought to be got into work at once, and within two or three months it ought to be thoroughly in harness; sales ought to be negotiated, and the terms of purchase settled, and the Commission ought to have a considerable amount of interesting matter to tell Parliament and the country by the middle of next Session. He did not make this proposal from any factious motives; but he made it because he believed that unless Parliament insisted on having a Report during next Session, at such a period as would give the House of Commons an opportunity of commenting upon the proceedings of the Commission, the result would be unsatisfactory, and even disastrous.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

My right hon. and learned Friend will certainly consider the matter before we come to the Report. That would really be necessary, because the Amendment now suggested cannot be made.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he thought that provision must be made for concluding all the appointments before the end of the year. Therefore a Report might, at any rate, be presented, giving the names of the Assistant Commissioners.

MR. PARNELL

said, he hoped that between the present time and the Report the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would consider whether it was not desirable to ask the Commissioners to furnish Parliament with an annual Return of the tenancies, in respect of which an application had been made to fix judicial rents, showing the amount of the old rent, the amount of the new rent fixed, and the Poor Law valuation. Such a Return would furnish Parliament with a considerable amount of most valuable information as to the working of the Commission and so forth. He was afraid that it was not a matter which the Commission would undertake of its own accord, because, of course, it would take a good deal of time and trouble to draw up such a statement. It would, nevertheless, be an exceedingly interesting statement for Parliament to have as the result of the working of the Commission.

MR. LAING

would ask his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to consider whether it was not desirable to provide some means for bringing the conduct of the Commissioners and their decisions under the notice of Parliament if impugned. Misconceptions might prevail which it would be most desirable to clear up.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seemed to think that the provisions of the Bill and the mode in which they were carried into operation were of very slight importance, and not calculated to interest, in the smallest degree, even Irish Members of Parliament or the Irish people. Now, it seemed to him that before next January several questions of great interest and importance would come under the cognizance of the new Land Commission, which it would be desirable for the public to know. For instance, it would be desirable to know to what extent applications had been made to the Court to fix judicial rents; also, what arrangements were made with tenants who wished to get rid of their holdings, and various other questions upon which the Commission, by that time, would be able to form an opinion. Many questions of procedure would be settled by the beginning of the year; and it would, therefore, be perfectly competent for the Commission to present a Report even as early as next January. Although, of course, they would not be able to go into any lengthened details, they might be able, at least, to give the number of applications made to them, and to form an opinion as to the extent to which the present tenant farmers considered themselves oppressed, and what remedy they were likely to get under the Bill. He thought the few months from the time the Bill passed into law until the 1st of January would afford more valuable information than any similar number of months that were likely to succeed. He presumed that the Government desired to allay agitation, and to satisfy the minds of the tenant farmers of Ireland; and they would be much more likely to do so by showing what had been done, and what was likely to be done, than by keeping matters entirely in the dark. If thorn was any delay in issuing the first Report of the Commission, one of the most important objects of the Bill would be entirely lost.

MR. HEALY

said, that one remark which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy, and which he (Mr. Healy) had taken down in shorthand at the time, was a most extraordinary one. It was that nothing could be done by the Commission this year. If that was true, it was very strange that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should propose, as he did, to limit his Arrears Clause to the 31st of December in the present year. Notwithstanding that fact, the Chancellor of the Duchy said that nothing could be done this year. If that were so—he did not intend to discuss the Arrears Clause now—it would certainly be desirable to extend that clause. He believed that another clause had been inserted in the Bill which was only to have effect three months after the formation of the Commission. Of course, they know the Bill would not pass before the 1st of September, and it would be necessary to meet several times to discuss preliminary matters, so that it would not be until October that it could be got into full working order. Perhaps, under these circumstances, it would be desirable to extend the Arrears Clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I am not prepared to admit the assertion that the Bill will not become law until the 1st of September. I hope that it will; and I do not think that it will require much further prolonged discussion. Of course, the arrears question must be decided before next Session, whatever may be done in regard to fixing judicial rents. That question must be disposed of before the time mentioned by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), and information may be given upon it to the House. I shall be happy to consider all the suggestions which have been made before the Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I have now to move the following clause, which makes provision for dealing with arrears of rent:— (Where it appears to the Court, on the joint application of the landlord and tenant of any holding valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland at a sum not exceeding thirty pounds a year— That the tenant has paid the whole (or such sum as the landlord may be willing to accept as the equivalent of the whole) of the rent payable in respect of the year of the tenancy expiring on the gale day next before the passing of this Act, and that antecedent arrears are due, the Land Commission may make, in respect of such antecedent arrears, an advance of a sum not exceeding one year's rent of the holding, and not exceeding half the antecedent arrears, and thereupon the Court shall by order declare the holding to be charged with the repayment of the advance to the Land Commission, by a rent charge payable half-yearly during the fifteen years from the date specified in the order, and calculated at the rate of eight pounds ten shillings a year for every hundred pounds of the advance. The charge declared by the order as aforesaid shall have priority over all charges affecting the holding except quit-rent and Crown rent and sums payable to the Commissioners of Public Works or the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland, and the landlord for the time being of the holding shall pay to the Land Commission the sum for the time being due on account of such rent-charge. Every half-yearly amount of such rent charge shall be deemed to be an addition to the half-year's rent of the holding (whether a judicial rent or otherwise) due from the tenant to the landlord, and may be recovered by the landlord accordingly. On the order of the Court being made as aforesaid in relation to any holding, all arrears of rent due in respect of that holding on or prior to the gale day next before the passing of this Act shall be deemed to be absolutely released. The landlord and tenant may agree that any rent paid by the tenant during the twelve months immediately preceding the passing of this Act shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to have been paid in respect of the rent due for the then current year, and not in respect of arrears of rent. Where arrears of rent in respect of a holding are due to some person or persons besides the landlord, the advance made by the Land Commission under this section shall be rateably distributed by the Court amongst the persons entitled thereto. An application for an advance under this section shall not be made after the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one. The Land Commission may make advances for the purpose of this section out of any moneys for the time being in their hands for the purposes of this Act. The Land Commission shall at such time after the expiration of each period of twelve months as the Treasury may from time to time appoint, make up an account showing for the said period of twelve months the amount of all such payments due to them in respect of rent-charges payable to them under this section as they have failed to recover at the expiration of the said period (in this section referred to as payments in arrear), and the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland shall, out of any moneys at their disposal pay to the Land Commission any sums appearing from such account to be due to the Land Commission. Any such payment by the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland shall not discharge any person indebted to the Land Commission in respect of any payments in arrear, and it shall be the duty of the Land Commission to take any proceedings they may be advised for the recovery of payments in arrear, and to repay to the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland any sums so recovered.) I do not think it is necessary that I should detain the Committee by explaining this clause, because on a previous occasion I was allowed to enter fully into it. There is, however, an addition to it in reference to the security of the Church funds.

New Clause,—(Mr. W. E. Forster,)—brought up, and read a first time.

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

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he did not know what course his hon. Friends were going to take in regard to the details of this clause; but he would venture to lay before the Committee a few observations on the general principle involved in the clause itself. In the first place, he wished it to be distinctly understood that the course the right hon. Gentleman had taken with regard to the arrears of rent due by the Irish tenants was not a course which had no precedent in regard to the dealings of the State with the Irish landlords. In fact, the records of Parliament afforded, on more than one occasion, a remarkable example of the willingness—the more than willingness—the almost generous eagerness which the State had manifested in going to the relief of distressed Irish landlords. Allusion had already been made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) to the Bill to relieve the Irish landlords from certain loans formerly advanced out of the Consolidated Fund, and to that Bill a Schedule was annexed of a very interesting character which recalled to the minds of many persons one of the stormiest phases of Irish history. In that Schedule a Return was given of two large amounts of money which were advanced by the State to a certain portion of the Irish people. One of these advances was a sum of £279,451 2s. 7d., for the purpose of enabling the authorities in the local districts in Ireland to carry out the provisions of the Irish Tithe Commutation Act. The money was advanced for the purpose of relieving the Irish landlords and the clergy of the Irish Established Church; and he found that of the suns of £279,000 advanced, only £51,724 had ever been repaid, and that £227,726 remained unpaid to the Treasury to this day. It was now proposed that it never should be repaid; but that it should be entirely forgiven by the State. He now came to the second case, which was a still more remarkable one—he referred to the Act 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 100. By that Act the sum of £1,000,000 was advanced for the purposes of the clergy of the Irish Established Church, who were unable to get in their tithes—to get over the period of distress into which the non-collection of the tithes had plunged them; £900,000 of that sum was actually advanced, and he found that the amount repaid was nil; and it was now proposed to forgive the Irish clergy that sum of £900,000 also, which was advanced to them and to the Irish landlords for the purpose of getting them out of their difficulties. Under these circumstances, he thought hon. Members should disabuse themselves of the idea that the State was acting in a spirit of unprecedented generosity towards the Irish tenants. On the contrary, if they compared the £900,000 advanced to the Irish landlords and the Irish clergy, which had never been repaid, and was now proposed to be forgiven, with the action of the State, as manifested in the clauses of the present Bill, the comparison would be remarkably favourable to the generosity towards the landlords rather than towards the tenants. What was the principle which underlay the present Bill? Perhaps he would more accurately express himself, if he said what was the want of principle which underlay this clause? It was that it put all landlords and all ranks on exactly the same moral basis. If he were surrounded by English squires and farmers, and dilated upon the great depression of agricultural operations for the last two or three years, if he said that land was rapidly going out of cultivation, if he said that agriculture no longer produced the amount of profit it formerly produced, his remarks would meet with the most sympathetic approval of the Gentlemen he addressed. If he went further, and said that the great cause of this depression of agriculture was what was called a relentless foreign competition, if he were to point out that the true remedy for the present state of affairs was to keep out foreign corn and cattle by protective duties, he would be regarded by these country gentlemen and farmers as the advocate of sound Conservative principles; but when he turned round from a description of agricultural distress, as applied to the case of England, and came to the case of Ireland, he would find that the same Gentlemen who were quite willing to admire the darkness of the picture in the one case were ready to deny the reality of the distress in the other case. What was the fact with regard to arrears of rent in Ireland and England? There were very few arrears owing by English farmers. ["Oh!"] Well, he did not know much of the relations of English landlords and tenants; but he did know that no rent was due to him by any farmer, either English or Irish. What he meant was this—that no arrears of rent were due to English landlords, because English farmers and landlords, like men of business, accepted the situation; they examined into the state of affairs; they said—"We must deal in this matter as manufacturers and their country customers deal with one another; we will make a balance-sheet of the situation; as we can't get the whole amount we will take a composition." Accordingly, English farmers had been quite willing to remit as much as 20, 30, 40, 50, and, in some cases, even as much as 70 per cent of the rent which was due to them by their tenants. If the Irish landlords had acted in the same spirit of good sense—he would not say in the same spirit of generosity—there would have been none of these disputes, and none of the distress and turmoil which had distracted Ireland for the last two or three years. What he wished to bring before the Committee was, that, as a matter of fact, there ought to be no recognition of the arrears of rent in Ireland at all, in the majority of cases, because rent which had fallen into arrear was rent which the circumstances of the time had made an exorbitant and an impossible rent, and which, therefore, the landlord had no moral, if he had any legal, right to recover. What was the proposal of the Government? It acknowledged that during the last two or three years there had existed in Ireland great distress and agricultural depression; but it proposed to make no reduction whatever in the arrears of rent; it simply allowed landlords and tenants to come to an agreement by which the payment of the arrears should be deferred. What was really wanted was a composition and not a postponement; in fact, what they required was a wiping out of the arrears. He had spoken about a Bill that was now before the House. He would make an allusion to another Bill, and he needed only to read its title to show that, after all, this marvellous and unprecedented generosity which was now being dispensed to Irish tenants was a matter which was allowed to pass sub silentio when displayed towards other people than the Irish—he referred to the Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension Bill. This was a Bill that actually gave a public body the right to defer for three years the payment of certain sums, and the persons who were to be thus relieved were clergymen of the Church of England. He had no objection to the relief of clergymen of the Church of England any more than he had to the relief of any other body; but he considered that the minds of hon. Gentlemen would be entirely diverted from the merits and demerits of the present question if, in the first place, they regarded this proposal as unprecedented, and if, in the second place, they regarded the proposal as one giving to the Irish tenants anything like a generous treatment that had not been given to any other class of the community.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

said, there were several objections to this proposal. In the first place, it made no distinction whatever between the scheduled districts and other parts of Ireland. They all knew that bad seasons were felt far more acutely and severely in the scheduled districts than on the East Coast of Ireland, which was never scheduled under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act; in fact, there was as much difference between the material prosperity of counties Wicklow and Carlow and the county Leitrim as there was between the material prosperity of the tenant farmers of Sussex and Kent. This clause treated all the tenant farmers of Ireland alike; they were to pay 8½ per cent for the money advanced to pay the arrears with. He considered such a percentage as that excessive; indeed, he thought the tenants ought to be able to obtain advances of money at the same rate as the advances were made to the landlords under the Relief of Distress Act—namely, to be required to pay nothing for two years, and then for 35 years to pay only 3½ per cent. The next objection he found to the proposition was that the money was to be paid twice a-year. It was not the custom to pay rent twice a-year—certainly, in the county of Leitrim and many other counties rent was only paid once a-year, and he did not see why tenants should be called upon to pay this interest half-yearly. This year the potato crop in many of the districts of the West of Ireland was almost completely destroyed by the severe frost which took place early in June; indeed, so great was the failure of the crop, that several Petitions had been presented to Parliament praying that the tenants might be exempt from paying the seed rent for another year. He was perfectly convinced that if some alteration were not made in the rate of interest, the tenants of Ireland would look upon the Bill as one to secure certain rack rent for 15 years. The people would be quite unable to pay interest after the rate of 8½ per cent, and there would be only one plain course for the landlords to adopt, and that was to evict.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he was sorry he was not in the House when the Chief Secretary for Ireland moved this clause. He understood, however, from the hon. Gentlemen who sat near him, that the right hon. Gentleman contented himself by simply moving the clause; that he did not enter into any explanation of it, inasmuch as he had explained it a few days ago. There was one point upon which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had with held all information, and that was what was the amount of money for which the Government expected the Consolidated Fund was likely to be liable for. It was rather surprising that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who acted, in this instance, as the mouthpiece of the Government, should have made this proposal to the Committee, and, as he understood, refrained from giving even an idea of the probable amount of money the Consolidated Fund would be called upon to advance, assuming that all the landlords and tenants in Ireland entered into the arrangement. His (Lord Randolph Churchill's) sources for arriving at an estimate on this point were, of course, very limited indeed; but with some things hon. Gentlemen were well acquainted. They knew perfectly well that the agricultural rental of Ireland was something like £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 a-year. In the calculation he was about to make, he would prefer to take the lower figure—namely, £15,000,000. He was perfectly certain he was not making too high an estimate if he said that one-third of that rental was unpaid in 1879—whether it had been forgiven for the time, or absolutely remitted, he did not know. He was quite prepared to take the same estimate for the arrears of rent in 1880, because the Committee would recollect that although 1880 was a good year, as far as crops went, the people of a great part of Ire- land had not recovered from the distress of 1879, and that distress prevented them taking advantage of the good year of 1880 as much as they otherwise would have done. He did not think he should be guilty of exaggeration if he estimated the arrears of 1879 and 1880 at between £8,000,000 and £10,000,000. What did the Government propose? They proposed to pay half of these arrears, or between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. He thought the Government would be prepared to say that was a perfectly absurd estimate, and he should be glad to hear them say so; but, at the same time, he should be glad to receive the figures by which they arrived at that conclusion. If the estimate was not absurd, how did they propose to get the money?—because he supposed that in moving this clause they were prepared to find all the landlords and tenants taking advantage of its provisions. He did not say that everyone would avail themselves of the existence of the clause; but, supposing they did, how did the Government propose to get the money? That ought to be the first consideration before the Committee assented to the proposal. Of course, they might look at the matter in another way. He would put it to the Committee, did not this proposal come very hard on those tenants who resisted the agitation which had been carried on against the payment of rent; who resisted the intimidation by which that agitation had been carried on; did it not come very hard upon those tenants—and there were many of them—who, possessing a thoroughly honest nature, had gone to their landlords, or their landlords' agents, by night, by secrecy, by any method which their ingenuity could invent, to pay their just debts; did it not come very hard upon them to find that the persons who had stuck out, who had refused to meet their liabilities, no matter what their position was, should now be receiving the protection of this proposal? He asked the Committee if they could conceive anything more thoroughly demoralizing than that a proposal should be made by the Government of Great Britain to place a premium on what had been, in 99 cases out of every 100, nothing more or less than an absolute repudiation of liability, and not only an absolute repudiation of liability, but now, by the proposal of the Government, a successful repudiation? Why did the Government make this proposal in favour of the Irish tenant, who, either from inability or unwillingness, had refused to pay his rent. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had said the tenants of England owed no arrears. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) ventured to say that the English landlords in the House were quite prepared to get up and with one voice contradict the hon. Gentleman. The arrears in England in 1879 were extremely heavy, and he did not think any landlord in the House would say he saw much prospect of getting more than two-thirds of the rental of that year.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he was sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he had not quite exactly represented what he said. What he said was—"There were no arrears of rent in England;" but he went on to say, "because the landlords were willing to forgive them, and did, in the most cases, forgive them."

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

admitted that there had been great remissions of rent all over England; but in spite of the remissions the arrears in England would be, in the aggregate, enormous. Now, what he wanted to show to the Government was this. The question of arrears did not seem to touch the tenure of land in Ireland; and he desired to know what was the difference between the arrears of rent in Ireland and the arrears of rent in England that the Treasury and the Consolidated Fund should come to the help of the one and not of the other? No one in their senses would deny that the agricultural distress had been severe; but it had visited both countries alike. Why, therefore, were the Government going to treat one, in respect of that distress, differently to the other? The Government could not give any satisfactory answer to that question. Of course, there were exceptional circumstances to be taken into account. No doubt, there was distress in the West of Ireland which amounted to a famine; and if measures had not been taken the famine would have been a disastrous one. Had the Government come forward with a proposal to apply this assistance to the district which actually suffered in that famine, their case would have been so strong that it would have been difficult to argue against it. But they did nothing of the kind; they included the whole of the farmers of Ireland in this proposal, and left the English farmers out entirely. He defied anyone to say there was any difference between the circumstances of the farmers in Leinster and the circumstances of those in Wiltshire and Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, and that there were reasons why the State should come to the assistance of the farmers in one country and not in the other. What an extraordinary impression they would produce on the minds of the English farmer. The English farmer had great difficulty to pay his way at present, and what did he see? He saw that in Ireland there had been a successful movement, not in favour of a lower rent, but against the payment of any rent; he saw that that movement had been supported by means and by machinery which, in many respects, could only be denominated as atrocious; and he saw that, in spite of all these circumstances—circumstances which had led to an actual suspension of the Constitutional liberties of Ireland—the Imperial Treasury came forward with a proposal to pay the debts of the Irish tenants. Did the Committee think that a proceeding of this kind would have no affect on the minds of the English farmers? Did they think it would have a stimulating effect upon the Irish farmers? There could be only one answer. If they remitted rent, if they were going to assist the tenants to pay rent, why did they not assist them to pay other debts? What did Professor Baldwin say? In his Report he said the tenants in Ireland were steeped in debt, not to the landlord, but to the tradesmen, in many cases to four times the amount of their annual rent. If the Government wanted to give the Irish tenants a fair start, why did they not say that the shopkeeper who supplied the meal, and the corn merchant who supplied the seed, and all the different tradesmen to whom the tenant owed money, should be benefited under this clause? What distinction could be drawn between the debt which assumed the shape of rent, and the debt which assumed the shape of an ordinary debt to a shopkeeper or merchant? That was another question he hoped the Government would find it in their power to answer. There was no precedent in the history of the country to show why the whole of the people should be taxed to pay the debts of a particular portion. It might be argued that the Disestablishment of the Irish Church formed a precedent. In that case, the majority of the people were called upon to pay particular tithes for the support of an alien Church, and it was quite natural that that should assume an aspect which would encourage the State to come to the assistance of those who were forced to pay for the support of a religion in which they did not believe. There was no analogy between that case and the present. The tenants of Ireland contracted to pay certain rent; but, from one cause and another—in certain parts of Ireland owing to distress, but in other districts of the country owing to an agitation in favour of a repudiation of rent—it had not been paid. There was absolutely no analogy between an advance made in respect of tithes and an advance made with regard to rent. Ireland had passed through a greater crisis than the present, and no such proposal had ever been made before. There were arrears of rent at the time of the great Famine in 1848. Those arrears were enormous, amounting to three, four, five, and, in some cases, six times the amount of the present arrears, and there were properties in Ireland where those arrears were still on the books. Did the English Government come forward at that time, although the circumstances were 50 times more imperative than now, and make a proposal of this kind? No one could pay any debts at all, either to the landlord or shopkeeper; but none of the great Ministers of the day dared to make such a proposal as was now submitted to Parliament. He would like to go into details. What was the position of a landlord who succeeded to a property at the present moment? This landlord had no interest whatever in the arrears; they belonged to the past, and it was nothing to him whether they were collected or not. But now he was to be charged with a new duty, inasmuch as he was to accept the proposed arrangement, and he was to collect the arrears before he could touch the money he himself was really interested in. There was another question he (Lord Randolph Churchill) wished to put to the Chief Secretary; and he would not have been disposed to put so many questions had the right hon. Gentleman vouchsafed any explanation when he proposed the clause. Why was a tenant at £30 a-year, if he were as meritorious as to require State assistance, and to have a demand upon it, to have this aid, and a tenant at £31 10s. not to have it? What was the difference in the degree of meritoriousness between a tenant at £30 a-year and a tenant at £31 10s.?—What was the reason which had actuated Her Majesty's Government in fixing this arbitrary limit? They had protested all the way through against these arbitrary limits, and had said they would not hold water. They could not defend it on any ground of justice, and by this limitation of £30 they would be let in for a sum of, as he had already put it, about £5,000,000. Did they think that the tenants at above the £30 limit would be inclined to sit still and see those at £30 or less having their arrears made good, while they, who were equally pinched and equally meritorious, got nothing at all? There was a goodly number of farmers occupying holdings at a valuation above £30—he should say about 60,000 or 70,000 altogether—while there were many of them who were very heavily rented. Would they be content to struggle on and meet their full engagements, while over the road, or in the next village, those who happened to come within the operation of the clause were receiving State aid? Would this class of higher rented tenants be inclined to look quietly on and admit the justice of the English Government? It was very extraordinary, when they considered the way in which Her Majesty's Government were in the habit of putting forward these proposals on the ground of Imperial justice. Justice? Yes; justice perverted against the landlords. When they came to the question of real justice—equal justice—it was perverted into sordid expectations from the Imperial Exchequer, and in that case "the Divine light of justice" was measured by pounds, shillings, and pence, and so became anything but Divine. Lastly, he wished again to raise the subject he had raised before as to the actual position of the Church Surplus. Did the Government, he asked, intend to advance the money under this clause on the security of the Irish Church Surplus? If they did, he desired to warn them that they would be making advances on a security that did not really exist, or, at any rate, on a security that was already mortgaged up to its eyes. If they chose to accept the arrangement come to by the Treasury last year, they would not be advancing the money on the security of the Irish Church Surplus, but on that of the Consolidated Fund. Out of this dilemma they could not get. He trusted that on these points Her Majesty's Government would at least offer some explanation. But, whether they offered it or no, he was at least certain of this—that they could not furnish information that would prove that this proposal with regard to the advance of public money for the payment of arrears of rent was not the most demoralizing and disastrous proposal, not only to Ireland, but to England, which could possibly be made by a responsible Minister of the Crown.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I think I may begin the statement I have to make by giving the Committee the grounds on which Her Majesty's Government ask its consent to this proposal. It is not that we think it is demanded by justice, although we certainly do not think it contrary to justice; but, still, we do not hold that it is necessarily based on the grounds of justice. We have made this proposition in order to promote what we conceive to be a message of peace to Ireland, and as the most expedient and prudent measure we can take to compose the differences which unhappily at present exist in Ireland. If the Committee are of opinion that the risk which is run—and I do not deny that there is some risk, although I do not think there is so much as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) seems to suppose—if the Committee think that what will thereby be gained in respect of the better government of Ireland is not worth that risk, it will, of course, be for the Committee to reject our proposal. But I would point out to the Committee that there is nothing that is at all compulsory about this proposal. There is no compulsion in it whatever. It is merely an offer on our part to advance, in the first place out of the public funds, but with the security of the Irish Church Surplus, money that may be needed, as we believe, for the purpose of composing the very great and very serious differences that have been pregnant with so much to evil to Ireland. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has asked Her Majesty's Government several questions. First of all, he asked a question about the amount of money that will probably be advanced under this clause. I am unable at the present moment to give the noble Lord any absolute statement as to what the amount will be, any more than I am able to say what will be the amount that will be required for the purchase of the holdings; but I am quite sure of this, that the calculations put forward by the noble Lord are very much beyond even the possibilities of the case. His first calculation was that the agricultural rental was £16,000,000 sterling; but Mr. Ball-Green, who is as good an authority as is to be found on this subject, has put the gross value of the agricultural holdings of Ireland at £10,200,000. The Committee must take the matter on the accountant's figures which we have been furnished with. As far as I am able to estimate the amount—and I may say that I have gone into the question as carefully as I could by the aid of the figures in the Return which has been laid before the House, showing the different numbers of agricultural holdings valued at £4 and under, and going upwards from £4 to £10, £15, and so on—I find that, taking the number of holdings under each heading, and estimating them as between the minimum and maximum, the total value of the holdings that will be affected by this proposal is about £5,000,000 sterling. But here I must point out that to suppose we should have to deal with anything approaching this amount under the clause now before the Committee is one of the most exaggerated statements that could possibly be made, and is really almost equal to the exaggeration of the hon. Member for the Borough of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who has said that the reductions that have been made by the landlords in England had been cent per cent. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I said that there had been such cases.] It is for this Committee to go into this question as business-like men, and not to allow themselves to be led away by over-estimated figures. My own belief in the matter is that, on the whole, even at the present moment, in Ireland the nominal rent has been quite as fully paid up in Ireland as it has been in England. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members say "No, no!" I dare say there are some hon. Members who are inclined to disagree with that assertion; but, at any rate, as to anything approaching the estimate given by the noble Lord, I am fully convinced of its exaggeration. It is not for me to give the cases on which I base my statement, because I should thus be exposing the private affairs of individuals; but I may say that I have gone into a number of cases in which there have been as large arrears as in any part of Ireland, and after thoroughly looking into those cases and fairly considering the condition of the tenants in Ulster, Leinster, and a great part of Munster, I have arrived at the calculation that in all probability the maximum drain on the Treasury, or, I should say, on the Consolidated Fund in the first place, and on the Irish Church Surplus afterwards, will not amount to more than £700,000, or even so much as that. Taking into account the fact that this proposition extends all over Ireland, perhaps the main reason why I think the figures I have stated are within the mark, and that hon. Members have exaggerated, is this. When we are talking about arrears, or hearing arrears talked about, either in the case of tenants who cannot pay them or tenants who will not pay them, or of landlords who do not get them, we are talking about all the rents that are owing at the present moment; but it should be remembered that the very essence of our proposal is that before it can come into operation any tenant who is to be aided by it must, at least, have paid his last year's rent. That, I say, is the very essence of the proposition. In the case of the Province of Ulster, with the exception of certain parts of Donegal, the arrears form a very trifling consideration; and in the best parts of Leinster they are also very trifling; and in a large part of Munster they are very trifling likewise. This brings me to another of the questions put by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock; and here I may say that the noble Lord has rather a peculiar manner of putting questions. The noble Lord never loses anything of the force of his questions by any want of peremptoriness in his way of putting them. The noble Lord has said that Her Majesty's Government make no difference between the tenant who is struggling hard to pay his rent and the man who has not only neglected to do so, but who has tried all he could to avoid payment—that is to say, we have not attempted to make a distinction between the tenant who cannot pay and the tenant who will not pay. I believe that to do this by actual enactment, and to give to the Court or to anybody the power to perform the duty of ascertaining who could pay and who could not pay would be to impose on the Court an impossible task. But I believe that our proposal, taking it on its wide principle, and having regard to its general features, without attempting to take in every particular and isolated case, does make some distinction; and I say so for this reason—that when I first ventured to bring the matter before the Committee, I stated that I believed there were a large number of the tenants who could pay and who would not pay now, who had paid up to the middle of last year. I believe that what I may call the fraudulent refusals—and in saying this I do not wish to provoke any feeling of antagonism, but, in my opinion, there was a good deal of fraudulent refusal—is to be traced to the refusals that were made last year. As I have said, I do not make use of the expression to excite any angry feeling; but it is the only mode in which I can express my meaning. Those who held the last harvest, and are able to pay, will not be helped by this proposal; but, on the other hand, there are a great number of tenants who are utterly unable to pay in consequence of the bad harvest of 1879. There can be no doubt about this; and, consequently, the question arose whether Parliament should not step forward under these difficult circumstances and try to make a proposal which, on the one hand, should discourage the landlords from evicting their tenants for non-payment of arrears that have accumulated in bad times, and should, on the other hand, discourage those fraudulent tenants who can pay but who will not. I do not mean to say that if we carry this proposal there will not be one or two hard cases on one side or the other—on the one side, in the case of tenants who, owing to distress through bad harvests, are unable to pay their last year's rent; and, on the other hand, of the bad effect produced by fraudulent tenants, who will be enabled to obtain a sort of advantage in the matter of the arrears due before last year; but I do not think there will be many of these cases on either side. These objections would apply very strongly to the question of a compulsory enactment; but, after all, we are merely making an offer, which is put on the one hand to the landlords, to whom we say—"If you can agree with your tenants as to the last year's rent, we will advance you half of what was owing during the previous two years, and we will advance you that at a very cheap rate." I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) that it is not a cheap rate; and I should also point out that we say to the landlords—"We give you terms of repayment which go over 15 years." It is true that these repayments are to be at 8½ per cent per annum; but that, of course, includes both principal and interest. The landlord may say—"If I were to evict I might get the whole," and some few landlords might prefer to take this course; but, generally speaking, the landlords would not think this course to their interest. In return for this, the landlord has to wipe off all the previous arrears. He gets, in the first place, last year's rent from the tenant, and he also gets an advance of 50 per cent for the two previous years, walla long time for repayment. And now, on the other hand, let us see how it will operate with regard to the tenant. The tenant, after paying the last year's rent, enters into an obligation to pay what is really a very small sum, in addition to his rent for 15 years, and receives an entire acquittance for all his previous arrears. Now, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has said that this is a demoralizing proposal. I cannot see that there is anything demoralizing in it. It would, doubtless, be demoralizing, and very demoralizing, if we forced the parties to accept the proposal—if we said to the tenant—"We will step in between you and the landlord;" and said to the landlord—"You shall not be able to claim more than 50 per cent of the debt due to you." That would be demoralizing. But when we look at the facts, and know that the landlords cannot, without inflicting great misery on their tenants, and without danger to the country generally, carry out, by force of law, the obtaining of the whole of their arrears, we feel we are right in saying—"If you will accept our pro- posal, we have a good thing for you and also for the tenant;" and I cannot see how anyone can be injured in any way whatever. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has said—"Why should you do this for Ireland, and not do it for England also?" My answer to that is that in England we have not to encounter the same set of circumstances. It is our duty to look at matters as they stand. We have now been for months engaged on the framing of a Land Bill for Ireland. Everybody admits that we have been conducting this Bill on different principles and in a different manner from those on which we should conduct a measure dealing with questions between landlord and tenant in England. I suppose every hon. Member of this House will say he is quite aware of that. The question really is—Is it, or is it not, desirable that we should run what is not a large risk for the purpose of taking away what is a great practical danger that attaches to the administration of Ireland? We propose to give to the landlord the power to get from the tenant a certain portion of his rent; and our chief object in this is to tempt both sides to approach each other—to try and get them, instead of carrying on this fight that is now going on, to agree together in the proposition we have ventured to make on behalf of the taxpayers. Our object is to bring these disputing parties together, and to induce them to agree. We hold out a considerable temptation in the shape of an inducement to each. To the landlord we hold out the inducement of last year's rent as an advance, and to the tenant we offer the inducement, if he can make up that year's rent, of his being able to go on and make a new beginning. I repeat that if the proposal were, as some hon. Members have said it is, a proposal which demolishes by law the debt that is due, I do not think we should be justified in making it; but it is not that, it is merely a proposal to bring both parties together, in order that they can come to an agreement, and to effect this by the advance of a sum that will not be very large out of the public funds. Even looking at it as a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence, I believe it to be a thing very well worth doing.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I am very sorry to do anything that may have the effect of detaining the Committee from arriving at a conclusion upon this clause, not only because I feel that we are all anxious to go on with the work as quickly as possible, but because I observe that the longer this measure is before us the more extraordinary do the ideas of the Government with regard to it become, and the more extraordinary are the proposals they make. I was much struck by one thing, I do not know whether many hon. Members were present in the House last night, or yesterday afternoon, when an observation was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on a different subject—I refer to the Motion shortly to be submitted to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) with regard to the Transvaal policy of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that that Motion had been postponed, among other reasons, on account of the course of the Land Bill; and he added that if the Land Bill had been a measure of ordinary legislative importance—such a Bill, for instance, as that of 1870—he should, undoubtedly, have given precedence to the Motion challenging a Vote of No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government which had been asked for by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire. But this, he said, was not an ordinary measure. The Land Bill with which we are now concerned is a Bill, he said, which closely, and in all its stages, touches the peace and good government of Ireland. The expressions which the Prime Minister then used were so remarkable that, for the moment, I could not quite see what their true bearing was; but I think that when one looks at the gist of the Bill and at the proposals that are from time to time being made by the Government, one is better able to understand the meaning of those remarks. Although the Bill took a long time in its conception, although it went through two or three different phases before it was produced, yet, still, when it was laid on the Table, it was absolutely free from the inconvenience of having any immutable principles; and it was to be carried on with reference, at every stage, to the social condition and circumstances of Ireland. Proposals were introduced as it went along that were not among those which were originally contemplated by the Government, but which were entirely afterthoughts. Among them we have this very remarkable proposal as to the mode of dealing with the question of arrears of rent. That proposal has been made in the simplest possible manner by Her Majesty's Government, without even so much as thinking it necessary to explain the nature of it.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

When I brought it forward I said I would not delay the Committee, as I had fully explained it a fortnight ago.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

The right hon. Gentleman is assuming that the state of things is the same one fortnight as it is in another, which is certainly something on the side of stability. But, at all events, my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) has put a number of what seem to me extremely pertinent questions; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland rose to answer those questions he began with the most remarkable admission I think I ever heard made by a Minister. Here is a proposal which strikes us as being one of a very curious and very remarkable character, and one which, unless it is demanded by justice, can hardly be reconciled with the principles of political economy; and yet the very first admission the right hon. Gentleman makes is that this clause is not demanded by justice, but is demanded because it is a message of peace to Ireland. Well, it is bad enough to hear that this proposal is not demanded by justice. That fact deprives it, in one sense, of any great force; but when we are told it is a message of peace to Ireland I cannot but remember the remark once made by a Member of this House who said—"When I hear a man talk of his conscience, I always button up my pocket." When we hear of messages of peace to Ireland, I am reminded that we have sent a good many such messages. Well, Sir, it did not seem to me, when the Chief Secretary began to answer the questions of my noble Friend, that he succeeded in answering them in the most satisfactory manner. In the first place, there was the question as to the amount. On that my noble Friend said he would take it for granted that the Government had gone into the subject and would be able, at all events, to give us some figures. In fact, he, in his ignorance, even suggested certain figures which occurred to him, and which, he supposed, were naturally brought about by the demands likely to be directly or indirectly made upon the Exchequer. One would have thought that the Government would have been prepared with some statement on this subject; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary entirely negatived the noble Lord's suggestion. He said the amount in question was very much less than had been suggested, and gave us £700,000 as the maximum figure that might be expected to be really demanded. I do not know on what ground he computed it; but, considering the time when the demand is made on us, I think we might have expected a little more precision in the information we get as to what it is that we are actually doing. But the right hon. Gentleman has said there is no cause to trouble ourselves because there is no compulsion; that it can only operate where both parties are agreed; that it was only desired that the landlords and tenants should come together and agree. But, after all, the sort of compulsion which is offered to the landlords is of this kind—Will you have it now or wait till you get it? That, undoubtedly, is the kind of pressure applied to the landlords with regard to the arrears due to them. And here is the mode in which it is thought right by Her Majesty's Government to guarantee the payment of a certain proportion of arrears. They say—"If you will only come to terms with regard to a certain payment to be made in respect of the last year's rent, and if we can see ourselves clear with regard to the arrangements between the landlord and tenant, the Land Commission may make an advance of not exceeding half the antecedent arrears." It is remarked that this would be very hard, inasmuch as it would be in favour of those dishonest tenants who can pay and refuse to pay, and that it would be hard to those persons who sometimes have made an effort to pay at great personal risk; but, then says the right hon. Gentleman—"You must bear in mind that this clause will not come into operation unless the tenant has paid the rent due for the last year past." But I do not see that it is so. The clause says that the tenant must have paid the whole of the last year's rent, "or such sum as the landlord may be willing to accept as the equivalent of the whole." The landlord, who, after all, is very like other men in these matters, has to make the best terms he can, and in order to get some relief for his distress out of the Exchequer he may be willing to accept a merely nominal proportion of the rent due for the past year as a means of recovering some of the arrears of rent due for the preceding years. That, I must say, is a very unsatisfactory proposal, and, moreover, it lays down a most dangerous precedent. Then, again, no answer whatever has been given to the very pertinent question of my noble Friend, who asks why this provision is made to apply to all parts of Ireland whether distressed or not. We could understand, under certain circumstances, that the Government should say there has been exceptional and abnormal distress and the people are in such a condition as to require special indulgence. But they do not say anything of the sort. They put this proposal forward as a general measure—as a measure for the purpose of clearing off arrears. My noble Friend says there is no precedent for such a proposal in English history, and he goes back to Pisistratus as the latest precedent. But my impression is that there does exist a precedent for it in what, at any rate, passes for the History of England, in the story of "Tom Thumb the Great," where hon. Members will find the proposal that all debts should be paid by the State. Of course, these are remarks which by some may be considered absurd. But why do I make them? Because we are dealing with a proposition which, we are told, does not rest upon any principle of justice, or, as far as we can conceive, upon any principle at all except that of living from hand to mouth. And I venture to say in all seriousness that, to my mind, this is one of the most dangerous features of this legislation, the whole of which appears to me to be based on an endeavour to make things pleasant without regard to the consequences, the principles of political economy being set aside in order to meet the particular circumstances of the day. We are now asked to decide upon a question of great importance without reference to those principles; to lay down doctrines which will, no doubt, before long be applied in other directions, and, at the same time, we have been met by the most unsatisfactory statement of reasons which, upon so important a subject, it has ever been my lot to hear delivered by a Minister of the Crown.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he wished to point out that the rateable value of the holdings in Ireland—£30, at the average of£1210s. each—amounted to £4,500,000, and it was not for one moment to be supposed that the whole of the sum of £5,000,000 named by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would be paid. In that part of Galway with which he was connected, probably the most distressed district in Ireland, about £40,000 would come under this clause, while the rest of the county would be represented by £70,000 or £80,000. But it was not the Consolidated Fund that became liable in the first instance. There was the security given by the landlords and the Church Surplus Fund. He did not know the actual amount of the fund available at that moment; but he believed that £3,000,000 of it had been devoted to national school purposes, and £1,500,000 lent to the landlords in Ireland at a low rate of interest, besides, as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock reminded him, a further sum for intermediate education. Notwithstanding these amounts, he did not think there could be much less than £3,000,000 in the fund; a very much larger sum than the Government would have to find for arrears. He, and his hon. Friends really wished to extend the limit fixed in the clause in order to make the proposal of the Government apply to holdings of more than £30 a-year, and the noble Lord said that the Exchequer was being pledged for a large sum of money. He (Major Nolan) believed it was pledged for nothing of the kind; he maintained that Ireland was getting nothing whatever from the National Exchequer by this proposal of the Government, and altogether repudiated the arguments which had been used against it. As a rule the Treasury made very good bargains in dealing with Ireland, and he did not regard the present case as any exception to the rule. Without going into the general question of the advantage or disadvantage of advancing money for the purpose of wiping out arrears, he thought the Government were bound to take some steps in that direction, and had merely risen to protest against the tone which had been given to the debate by the noble Lord opposite.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, as he understood the position it was that there had been a number of bad seasons, that the tenants in Ireland were very much in arrear with the rent due to the landlords, and that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was a modes vivendi by which those arrears might be wiped out in order that the tenants might, so to speak, have a fair start. The object which everyone had at heart was that the tenant should have this fair start, and the chance of re-establishing himself as an independent member of society. Before proceeding to the consideration of this proposal, he might remark that it was not his intention to go into the question of the Church Fund beyond saying that, as it was one of extreme importance, he hoped, before the debate closed, or, at any rate, very shortly, some clear statement would be forthcoming from the Government as to what was the amount really available from that source. At the same time he was quite ready to admit that the matter was a delicate one, and that it was difficult to arrive at a practical conclusion as to what was the actual surplus. Now, his first objection to the clause proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was that it did not appear to draw any clear distinction between the tenants who might be perfectly able to pay and those who were not able to pay, and that, consequently, it opened the door to a great deal of fraud on the part of tenants who might shelter themselves under the clause, and who, having money in the bank, might say to themselves when the Bill was passed—"Now, if I can get off by paying half the rent I will do so." He said that whilst the object of Her Majesty's Government was to help the poorer tenants who could not pay, they were, at the same time, holding out an enormous temptation to those who could to take advantage of the clause. He was bound to say that it ought to carry with it some limitation which would prevent its abuse by the persons to whom he had referred. Undoubtedly, the same advantage ought not to be offered to both classes of tenants, for the object was to relieve only those whom bad seasons had made unable to pay their rents. That being so, the circumstances seemed to demand something in the nature of a Bankruptcy Clause, which, without carrying with it the least slur, should be applied to tenants who availed themselves of the benefit of the Government proposal for dealing with their arrears of rent, which had been incurred by no fault, of their own, owing to the act of God. Then he came to the consideration of the question as to whether this clause would enable them to start afresh in life with a clear balance sheet. When it was said that the fact of paying 10s. in the pound was not to be considered as an act which cast the slightest stigma on the character of these tenants, the Committee ought not simply to take into consideration the rent due to the landlords, but the debts due to other people. There could be no doubt that the large majority of the small tenants, established by the operation of the Act of 1870, had got into debt, not only with the shopkeepers, but with the money-lenders in Ireland, who had dragged them into a net from which they could never hope to escape. This was no matter of speculation, it was one of proved fact. No one could read the evidence which had been given before the Commission without being struck by the amount of indebtedness on the part of these poor farmers. He would simply allude to two passages from a Paper signed by Professor Baldwin and Captain Robinson, who said the tales told them by some of the small tenants were so incredible that they took the trouble, whenever they could, to verify them by referring to the books of the shopkeepers. At the commencement it was customary to pay the debts contracted at the harvest. In good years credit was freely given, not only for meal and flour, but for clothes and other articles. There was no doubt of the fact that an examination of the shopkeepers' books proved that a large amount of the credit given was for goods actually consumed. They went on to say that a succession of bad harvests had prevented them paying their accounts regularly; and in that way debts had accumulated, until many of the small farmers had to go for loans to the shopkeepers, who insisted that they should always take something from the shop as part of the money borrowed. In that way they said many small far- mars had accounts owing to the shopkeepers amounting, in some cases, to 10 times the amount of their annual rent. Now, he asked the right hon. Gentleman what relief these poor people would get from this clause? All it proposed was to enable the landlord to agree that, as far as two years' rent was concerned, they were to pay 10s. in the pound. But he would like to go further, and say that there ought to be machinery of some kind by which these debts could be wiped out. Even if they were clear of the rent due to the landlord they were not relieved of their debts, amounting, in some cases, to 10 times their rent, to the shopkeepers and others. The clause, then, afforded them no practical relief, inasmuch as they could not start afresh in life with a clear balance sheet. Therefore, he repeated that if they were going to help people who had been prevented, by bad harvests, from earning the money that they would otherwise have received, they should, at all events, provide some machinery by which those people might be relieved, not of one year's rent only, but of the whole of their debts, by passing through a Court of Bankruptcy and paying their creditors so much in the pound, without the slightest stigma attaching to their character. By that means alone could they be helped and enabled to start afresh; and, therefore, he trusted that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would find some method by which that object could be attained.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am bound to remark on the extraordinary doctrines laid down in the speech which has just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and which I at once admit has every claim on the attention of the Committee, as contrasted with the series of sneering sarcasms which made up the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sorry for some of those sarcasms, not on account of the object of them so much as on account of the speaker. I was sorry to find that we had not outlived the days when a Gentleman of the highest possible position in this House thinks fit to sneer at the number of messages of peace we have sent to Ireland, and the number of messages of peace we shall have to send there in future times. What, Sir, has the right hon. Gentleman observed no fruit from these messages of peace? Is he aware that at this moment religious strife and animosity are almost at an end in Ireland? Is he not aware that there is no country in Europe which, during the last 30 years, has advanced more in wealth and prosperity than Ireland, and that, with the exception of one class of offences, there is no country in Europe in which so great an advance has been made with respect to obedience to the law? The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appears to be less advanced than the right hon. Baronet himself, and he is totally unaware that I speak not only in conformity with unquestionable facts, but in conformity with facts which were the commonplaces of discussion during the whole of our debates on the Coercion Bill, as that measure is called by a number of hon. Gentlemen. It was then recognized that in that country where murder used to stalk abroad half a century ago, so as to shock the sense of the civilized world, the percentage is now less than in England. In Ireland, where no jury could be relied upon to convict upon the clearest evidence, the number of convictions for criminal outrages are now in a larger proportion than the convictions in this country. There are, apparently, Gentlemen in this House so ignorant of the history of their country, and forgetful of those portions of this debate which they ought to have recollected, and which I am only ashamed to refer to, because they are but commonplaces and truisms which schoolboys ought to know. Forsooth, we have history raked up, and Pisistratus is brought into the field, and in the rear of Pisistratus Tom Thumb. I am going to add to these a Gentleman about whom the right hon. Baronet knows something—his late Chief (Lord Derby). When Lord Derby was Chief Secretary for Ireland, he came to the House of Commons for this very purpose of paying from the Consolidated Fund the money due from the Irish peasants.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

That was quoted by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill).

MR. GLADSTONE

Yes; but the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, in quoting it, overlooked the fact that Lord Derby stood as an opaque figure between him and Pisistratus. I cannot observe in the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock that submission to Party discipline which would make me at all certain that, when he rose in his place, he would not indulge in the same ingenuous criticism, whether Lord Derby or anybody else was the subject. I might have expected—I do not say on personal grounds, but on the grounds of political consistency and reputation—that from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) the memory and acts of Lord Derby would have received milder treatment. It is not necessary to dwell at length upon that subject, particularly as I must say the right hon. Gentleman has shown a desire to push forward this Bill, and not to occupy the time of the Committee in discussions which, when once started, are apt to be prolonged and propagate themselves. I do not find any fault with the right hon. Gentleman making objections to, or pointing his remarks to the exceptional nature of, propositions of this kind, because such remarks are of value as tending to prevent the needless multiplication of precedents for proposals which can only be justified by extraordinary circumstances, and because they have a tendency to insure sobriety of judgment on the part of those who may have to consider whether circumstances have called for such exceptional privileges. But, if the right hon. Gentleman was merciless on Lord Derby, I cannot help thinking that the late Home Secretary was still more merciless to the right hon. Baronet, because he made it a subject of complaint that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not go a little farther and make a clean sweep of all the tenants' debts which they were unable to pay, taking a flight much more apt to be taken by ex-Home Secretaries, and—he might say so in the absence of his right hon. Friend—actual Home Secretaries, than by Gentlemen who had spent a long time at the Treasury. But the right hon. Gentleman put some points upon which I will endeavour to give him as much satisfaction as I can. First of all, he asked what is the amount of the Church Fund, and said we ought to know whether we are taking a "leap in the dark" or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) has recently made a careful examination of this subject, and his authority will be recognized by the House itself, and also by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. No doubt, the question of the assets of the Church Fund is one upon which there may be so far a difference of opinion, that it is not a mere matter of arithmetic; but, at the same time, without entering into details, and looking at the figures as stated by my right hon. Friend, and admitting that it is possible or probable that these claims might reach to £500,000 or something more, but believing that they will fall, under any circumstances, very far short of £1,000,000, there is no reason to doubt that the Church Fund will be able to make good the advances which it may be found proper to make. There are two points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir Assheton Cross) which formed its main substance. The first was, that the plan of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was fundamentally faulty in failing to draw a distinction between men able and unwilling to pay, and the men who were willing but unable to do so. Admitting, to a certain extent, that in every scheme of this kind there is some liability to criticism on that ground, I must say I think my right hon. Friend has taken the best and the only security in his power in this case; indeed, I should say he has taken a double security. In the first place, great power is placed by this clause in the hands of the landlord. By the offer on the part of the State to advance him a sum of money, the landlord will have very considerable power in distinguishing and detecting the man able to pay, but not willing to do so. The landlord will be able to track him out in detail where we should not be able to do so. But, Sir, there is another security which my right hon. Friend has stated. He has proceeded on this basis—that the Irish people are, as a people, habitually, in ordinary times and circumstances, good rent-payers and not bad. That being our persuasion is that the period within which that class has been multiplied—namely, the class of men able to pay and not willing, is represented by the last year. It has been in 1880 that that class has, at any rate, swollen into dangerous proportions; and therefore it is that my right hon. Friend requires that they shall satisfy the landlord for the rent of that year, before this plan can come into operation. His plan, therefore, is framed on the supposition that with that preliminary condition he will exclude from its benefit the bulk of those persons who we all agree ought to be excluded, and include those who belong to the category of persons unable to pay. This is what I have to say upon one point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire. With regard to the other point, speaking of those persons who were entitled to be qualified recipients of the bounty, or whatever it might be called, he lamented that we did not relieve them of their other debts which were of a serious character. Now, Sir, the objections to such a proceeding are, in my opinion, immense. In the first place, the verification and establishment of these debts would be a matter of extraordinary difficulty, and would offer infinite scope and opportunity to fraud; in the second place, as compared with the great facilities with which we establish the fact of the rents which are in arrear. My right hon. Friend was taken to task for saying that this proposal was not demanded by justice. No doubt, this is not a demand either of abstract justice or humanity. It is made the subject of legislation only because it is mixed up with a larger question of policy—namely, the question of rent, which in Ireland threatens private peace and public and private security. We have spent the Session upon it, because it is a question of the highest importance to the tranquility and welfare of Ireland. But, Sir, there is another reason yet for leaving the question of debt to settle itself. By interposing to get rid of arrears of rent, we secure the man in the possession of his land, and, securing him in the possession of his land, we leave him furnished with the means of working out, by his own industry, future profits, which will be the means both of keeping him in honourable relations with his landlord, and enabling, him, likewise, to pay off the debts enabling he owes to others. Does the right hon. Gentleman, for one moment, believe that that description of a tenant's owing 10 times the amount of his rent is anything but the most purely exceptional case? I dare say I shall have Professor Baldwin thrown at my head, so to speak; but Professor Baldwin, I presume, has not had auricular confession on this subject from every tenant in Ireland; and I must say, although, undoubtedly, Professor Baldwin is a man whose word I would take on any question of fact, I am not sure that his views are such as make him the very highest authority on a subject of this kind. The question, however, as raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, is a very fair one, and I do not, for a moment, question the opinion that a proposal of this kind ought to be most severely criticized, that nothing but the most exceptional circumstances can justify it, and that it is only suitable for great crises like the present. We have been endeavouring, by an almost supreme effort, to bring about a great and rapid change in the social condition of Ireland. It is upon that ground alone this proposal can be justified; but, resting upon that ground, we hope to receive the approval of the Committee.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, there seemed to be an obvious flaw in the arguments of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Prime Minister, with regard to the omission from the clause of the means of discrimination between those tenants who could pay and those who could not pay the amount of their arrears of rent. This was not the first proposal made by the Government since their accession to Office with reference to arrears, because last year they introduced a provision into the Compensation for Disturbance Bill which put a certain limitation and restriction on the power of the landlords for the realization of arrears. Moreover, it was proposed in that Bill to enact that in every case the tenant should prove his inability to pay his rent, and not only that, but the Bill was specially restricted to certain parts of Ireland—those portions on the West Coast which were in a state of the greatest distress. These were the cardinal features of the proposal of last year; and, therefore, he asked Her Majesty's Government why they had been altogether omitted from their present proposals? The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant said that it would be an impossible task to attempt to discriminate between those who could not pay, owing to the distress which had fallen upon them in consequence of bad seasons, and those who, although they might be able to pay their rent, were unwilling to do so. If that was impossible, why, then, was the House of Lords abused for throwing out the Bill? What had happened since last year was this. There had been abundant harvests, accompanied by extensive agitation, and the Government now proposed to grant special facilities for the settlement of arrears of rent, without any safeguard in the way of the tenant having to prove his inability to pay what was due from him; and not only did the proposal include those portions of Ireland specially provided for last year, but it was made to extend to every part of the country. The omission of the requirement that the tenant should prove his inability to pay was in itself remarkable; but the Government also proposed that with regard to every part of Ireland, in no single case where the arrears of rent were for a longer period than two years, should any demand be made on the tenant. ["No!"] Hon. Members said "No!" but that was most distinctly expressed in the clause. He should be glad to be corrected if he was wrong; but the clause said that the Land Commissioners might advance a sum not exceeding one year's rent of the holding, and not exceeding half the antecedent arrears; consequently, it appeared that if the arrears exceeded two years' rent no advance was to be made. If the antecedent arrears exceeded two years' rent the Land Commission would not advance more than one year's rent; and one year's rent would be half the amount of rent for two antecedent years. It would seem that the right hon. Gentleman had not quite understood what the effect of the clause would be. He was speaking within the mark when he said that a large proportion of the tenants in the West of Ireland were more than two years in arrear, and the clause would, therefore, be totally inoperative with regard to the rest of the arrears. As he had said before, he should regret to misconstrue the clause; but the construction he had placed upon it appeared to him to be the right one. He contended, therefore, that this section would be inapplicable to the part of Ireland where it was most necessary that relief should be given to the tenants; while, on the other hand, it would work in Ulster, Munster, and Connaught—Provinces in which the Chief Secretary had admitted that the great mass of the ten- ants were not much in arrear. If the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was correct with regard to these portions of Ireland, why, he asked, did not the Government limit the operation of the clause to the parts of Ireland that were, undoubtedly, in arrear; or why did they not confine it to those parts of the country which were scheduled in the Bill introduced by the Government last year? If the Government accompanied this clause with the proviso to which he had referred—namely, that the tenant who availed himself of the benefit of it should have to prove his inability to pay, there would be a substantial safeguard that the money advanced would not go to these tenants who repudiated their contracts, and were able to pay their rent. Again, with regard to the security for those advances, the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the advance which had been made to settle the Tithe Question. But he believed it had been shown that £700,000 were still due to the Treasury under this head; and, therefore, he would remark that a more unfortunate illustration as to the security for advances of this character could not have been presented than an allusion to the sums advanced some years ago for the settlement of the question of Tithes. He sympathized with Her Majesty's Government with regard to the subject of arrears, because he felt that any proposal that could be made for dealing with it would be open to just objection; but, undoubtedly, unless they did enact sonic restriction and safeguard, great injustice would be done, and the object of the clause defeated. He suggested, therefore, that the clause should only apply to those parts of Ireland which were scheduled last year; and, further, that every tenant to whom it was applicable, should satisfy the Court that he was unable to pay his rent. In saying that with these provisions he thought the clause might be operative, he took the opportunity for suggesting that if he had been wrong in his estimate that the advance made by the Land Commission could not exceed one year's rent, and that the arrears must not exceed two years' rent, the clause should be altered in such a manner as would make the intention of the Government perfectly clear.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

pointed out that, according to the statement of Professor Baldwin, a usurious rate of interest was in many cases charged to the small farmers. In one case 10 per cent was charged, and in another as much as 43 per cent, the latter charge being made by a man who kept a whisky and grocery shop at which the poor people who borrowed money were induced to buy at his own prices.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman looked into the facts, he would find that although there had been usurious charges they were for debts in detail, and the Government had not to deal with them at that moment. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) seemed to think that the poor tenant who owed more than two years' rent would not be helped at all. But that would not be the case; he would receive as much help as any other tenant under the operation of the clause. But the noble Lord also said they ought to have in this Bill the limitation which was placed in the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last year. Surely, the noble Lord recollected that there was nothing dwelt upon with greater iteration and emphasis than that no one could by any possibility find out who were able to pay. His opinion was that if they had put the proposal referred to in the present Bill, it would have given rise to several days' debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), speaking on the proposal last year, said—"The most extraordinary part of the proposal was probably that relating to tenants with the ability or inability to pay." But that was precisely the proposal which the noble Lord wanted the Government to make now; and it was quite certain that it was much easier last year than this to obtain the desired information, because the distress at that time actually existed. Then, again, there was the enormous difficulty of putting this matter to the Court, to which already a great amount of work had been assigned; and if they were resolved on dealing with the question in the manner suggested, the Government would have to establish another Commission for the purpose. In view of these difficulties, and knowing also the opposition which would come from Her Majesty's Government on the opposite Benches, the Government thought it better to frame a self-acting clause, which would draw a much more complete and certain distinction between those tenants who could pay and those who could not. The reason why the Schedule of the Bill of last year was not made use of in this case was that a considerable change had taken place since last year in the position of some of the districts. There were some districts named in the Schedule which would not require help under this clause, while there were others that were not included which it would be most unfair to leave out.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he had listened with great attention to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he had heard him state that this would be a self-acting clause. He apprehended that the object of the clause was, as the Prime Minister had stated, to secure peace for Ireland; in other words, to secure that the tenants who were now in arrear to their landlords for rent should not be disturbed in their holdings. But he contended that its result would be precisely the reverse. It was well known that there were thousands of persons in Ireland waiting for the passing of the Bill to put in force processes against the tenants, knowing well that the security which they would have in their holdings would be a valuable consideration which would be the means of their obtaining payment of their debts under sale. It was notorious also that the passing of this Bill would be followed at once by a larger number of sales and evictions than had taken place in Ireland for many years previously. What would be the operation of this clause? It removed, so far as the tenant was concerned, the claim of the landlord—if the landlord acted upon it—and it made the position of the other creditors of the tenant so much better. It gave the creditor power to issue process with the full certainty that he had to deal with the unincumbered interest of the tenant in the proceeds of his farm. The inducements offered to the creditors of the tenant were enormous. The right hon. Gentleman, however, said that the last harvest had paid the debts of these unfortunate tenants to the shopkeepers; but it was curious to note, not that Professor Baldwin, but a host of witnesses who came before the Bessborough Commission had shown that the fact was precisely the reverse. He would not trouble the Committee with many extracts; but there was one witness who said, on the 27th of October, 1880—which was some time after the last harvest, or, at any rate, sufficiently so to enable the poor tenant to realize that he had money or money's worth behind him—his evidence was to the effect that he had no doubt that numbers of farmers were not then in possession of their farms at all; that they were only nominal tenants; that the farms were really in the hands of the usurers who had possession of everything on the farm. The witness went on to say that the tenants were working as day-labourers, and that there were three or four who had told him that their poverty was far greater than that of the labouring man, because they were the slaves of the money-lenders, having to do everything they wanted, and being, in fact, entirely at their mercy. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) believed that no one would deny that the evidence given with respect to usurers before the Bess-borough Commission revealed a condition of things that it was sad to contemplate. Another witness, John Barry, said he knew of cases in which persons had given bills of sale which were in the hands of one or two men, and neither the banks, nor any other creditors could touch them. Was it contended that the giving of one year's rent to these poor people would relieve them of embarrassments of this kind? Would not the proposal of the Government place them more and more in the hands of their masters, the money lenders? His right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had been taken to task for suggesting that the Imperial Exchequer should advance 10s. in the pound to pay off the debts of these poor tenants. But his right hon. Friend had proposed nothing of the kind. He had simply urged that the Law of Bankruptcy should be simplified, and made easy of access to these persons, in order that they might start afresh with a clear balance-sheet. That, he (Mr. W. H. Smith) was certain, was the only true way of dealing with this question. The proposal that for 12 months under exceptional circumstances the tenants should not be turned out of their farms was a matter worthy the consideration of the Government and the Committee; but to leave them with these debts hanging around their necks was altogether unworthy of that House and of any Government.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he was sorry to have to make another remark; but the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman surprised him more than anything he had ever heard. It came from that quarter, too, where the strongest possible arguments were used against any suspension of eviction or of processes by landlords for the recovery of rent; and it was this, that there should be a suspension of payment of all debts of the tenants, whether to the landlord or other creditors, for the year 1880.

LORD HENRY SCOTT

said, he had not had the privilege of hearing the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition; but he felt it his duty to express his opinion that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly incapable of sneering at anything that tended to the welfare of Ireland. On the other hand, when the Prime Minister said that at the present moment religious strife had almost ceased in Ireland, that there was obedience to the law, and that the number of convictions for outrages was in larger proportion to the crimes than they were in this country, he maintained that every fact that had come to light with regard to the condition of Ireland for some months past was in absolute contradiction of that statement. Had the Government, in consequence of the introduction of this Bill, been able to withdraw a single soldier or policeman from Ireland? He said that their military occupation of the country had not been the means of bringing one single offender to justice, for when they were brought to trial no jury could be found to convict them. He regarded the Government proposal as the most immoral ever made to the House of Commons. The Government invited the tenants in arrear to compound their debts at 10s. in the pound; the State offered to lend the money, and the Government asked the very persons to whom the arrears were due to repay the advance. Had the tenants said—"If you will lend us half the amount of arrears we will find the other half," he could have understood the Government agreeing to that proposal; but to invite them to pay 10s. in the pound, and then ask the persons to whom the money was due to guarantee it, was a monstrous proposition.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

wished to say one word, because he had an Amendment to the clause on the Paper. He should not, however, occupy the time of the Committee in discussing that proposal, and would merely state that it applied to a certain class of cases existing in Ireland at the present time which the clause introduced by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would not meet. He was persuaded of the necessity of making the Government proposal for dealing with the question of arrears as comprehensive as possible, and he was sensible that upon this depended much of the success of the Bill. He alluded in his previous remarks to that class of persons, now unhappily numerous, who had been ejected from their holdings, but whose period of redemption had not yet expired. According to the last Returns before the House, it appeared that for the quarter ending June as many as 5,000 persons had been evicted. The period of redemption in these cases would expire in two, three, or four months, as the case might be. He put it to the Government—how would this clause affect these cases? It offered no inducement whatever to the landlord to join in with the tenant in an application to the Court. The landlords had got rid of the tenants, and had no inducement to enter into terms with them, nor were they likely to join in any application to the Court with a view to their coming under the operation of the clause. Therefore, he suggested that in such cases power should be given to the tenant to go to the Court without the landlord; and if the tenant could make out a case for the intervention of the Court, such intervention should be given.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

pointed out that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) could not be introduced into this clause, because if the tenant made out a good case it must be that he could not pay, and the Government had decided that every tenant, whether he could or could not pay, might come under the operation of the clause. It was left to the landlord to determine whether the man could pay or not; and, therefore, the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk was at variance with the lines laid down by Her Majesty's Government.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 97: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 317.)

MR. HEALY

, in moving to increase the valuation of the property to which the clause would apply from £30 to £50, said this alteration would increase the number of tenancies coming within the operation of the clause by 37,000, and he hoped the Government would consent to that enlarged limitation.

Amendment proposed, in line 3, leave out "thirty," in order to insert "fifty."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

regretted that he could not accept the Amendment. The large majority of the tenants in Ireland were at and under £30 valuation, and he believed that £30 practically did all that was necessary. The proposal would have the effect of bringing in an immense increase of tenancies, and he believed that £30 valuation was, on the whole, more than £40 rent. The limit of £30 would, on the whole, act with the least risk, and he must adhere to it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

, in proposing to substitute £10 for £30, said that he did this because £10 valuation would cover all tenants who had any real difficulty in paying their rent. He found in a Return of the horses kept by agricultural tenants in 89 distressed districts scheduled last year that there had been an increase of agricultural horses, and in horses for amusement and recreation, to the extent of 7,333. That was the net increase, after deducting the decrease; and he maintained that if in those alleged distressed districts of Ireland the agricultural tenants could increase their horses for agricultural and other purposes to that extent, they could be in no great distress, and ought to be able to pay their rents. The real fact was, that in many cases the tenants, although they pretended that they could not pay their rents, were buying horses for their own amusement; and a friend of his had told him he had ascertained that one of his tenants, while he said he could not pay his rent, was at the same time keeping three hunters. That being so, he did not see why the taxpayers of England and Scotland should be called upon to pay an advance of money in order to enable the farmers of Ireland to keep hunters. He had another Return showing the increase of agricultural horses since 1875, and he found that in every single county in Ireland there had been an increase in the number; and the total amount of the increase was no less than 31,871. Did that indicate any great distress? It indicated one continuous course of prosperity up to 1877. Last year, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland introduced his Distress Bill, the right hon. Gentleman stated that up to 1877 there had been no question as to the prosperity of Ireland. Another Return showed that last year in the distressed districts of Ireland there was an increase of every item of live stock except pigs. There was an increase in horses, in sheep, in cattle, and in mules and asses. Looking at these facts, he thought the tenants of those districts could well afford to pay their rents. The clause under consideration applied to the whole of Ireland; but he thought it would be right to restrict the action of the clause to tenants paying £10 a-year, because there was no doubt that they were in great distress. If the House adopted the £10 limit it would include 415,133 tenants, or two-thirds of the whole of the tenants in Ireland; and it would include the labourers, who were already crying out that nothing had been done for them. It was they who suffered so extremely. To show what the tenants were doing with these horses, he had a report of a monster meeting of tenants held at Boyle last evening, and he found that at that meeting there were 10 bands present, together with 200 horsemen. That was in one of the distressed districts. Then he found, also, that in the Poor Law Union of Boyle in 1879 the horses kept by the tenants increased by 123. This showed that the tenants could, if they chose, pay their rents, and he urged the acceptance of his proposal.

Amendment proposed, in line 3, leave out "thirty," and insert "ten."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. MACARTNEY

observed, in reply to the hon. Member opposite, that the Government had so framed the clause that the weight of it would fall on the landlords of Ireland, and not on the British taxpayers. Supposing a tenant owed four years' rent, and was paying £25 per annum, the sum due to the landlord would be £100; but under this clause he must pay £25 in cash. Then the landlord received a loan from the State, which he had to repay in 15 years, at the rate of 3½ per cent. That disposed of £50 of the £100, and the other £50 had to be wiped out, the landlord giving a receipt in full for the amount of rent from the 1st of July, 1880. It was, therefore, the landlord who lost half his rent, and not the British taxpayer who suffered. The property of Ireland was very good security for the State, without even the collateral security of the Church Fund; and that Church Fund, he believed, would be sufficient to pay the whole demand made by the landlords.

Amendment negatived.

MR. PARNELL

said, he rose to propose an Amendment which would extend the benefit of this clause to tenants who had been evicted since the 1st of May, 1880, in case the landlords agreed to re-instate them on terms to be mutually arranged between them for the payment of arrears. He thought his Amendment would facilitate mutual agreements between a great many evicted tenants and the landlords where the tenants had been allowed to remain as caretakers. He found from a Return that about half of the total number of evicted tenants since the Government had come into Office had been allowed to remain as caretakers. If, by the adoption of some such provision as this, such tenants were able to offer a compromise to the landlords in the shape of a payment of a portion of the rent due, the Government then advancing another portion, he believed that in a great number of cases these tenants would be re-instated, and would probably pay fair rents for many years to come.

Amendment proposed, In line 15, after the word "advance," to insert "wherever in the case of any tenant evicted for non-payment of rent since the 1st of May 1880, the landlord agrees to re-instate such tenant on terms in this section set forth, this section shall apply as if such agreement had taken place between the landlord and tenant of the holding still in occupation."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said it was quite true that this proposal would not materially increase the liability of the Government. Everybody regretted the number of evictions, but the number was not so large that it could materially affect the amount of liability. He understood the hon. Member to say that in case of eviction, when the landlord was willing to re-instate, he would enable the terms of this clause to apply to the tenant and the landlord. There could not be any objection to that, because it might enable some of the hard cases to be met.

MR. BRODRICK

hoped the Government would not be too much in a hurry to accept the Amendment. There were some landlords who had evicted their tenants with considerable difficulty, and he could imagine that in those cases great pressure might be put upon them to re-instate those tenants. He thought, considering that this was supposed to be a permissive measure, and that the landlords in these cases might have placed other tenants on the holdings, the effect of the proposal would be to encourage pressure being put upon the landlord to turn out the new tenant and re-instate the old tenant whom he had evicted. He really thought the right hon. Gentleman had not realized the full effect of this. He was not prepared at that time of the night, and because the Amendment had been more or less sprung upon the House, to argue it; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman should consider the proposal again, and not commit himself too hastily.

Mr. W. E. FORSTER

thought the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) had no reason to be alarmed. If a landlord re-instated a tenant, he would do so with the whole of the six months' repayment. Of course, the proposal could not mean that when a landlord had actually put another tenant into a holding he should then evict him. The landlord could not turn out the new tenant and put the old tenant in; but even if he did turn the new tenant out, that would not re-instate the old tenant.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he proposed to move an Amendment to line 19, to omit the word "landlord," and to insert the word "tenant." This was with the view of meeting the objection that had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Tyrone—namely, that the hardship of this clause would fall entirely on the landlord. So far as he could see, the objection was well-founded. It was true that the charge for the payment of the loan was to be considered, if necessary, an addition to the judicial rent, and possibly, in some cases, the loss would not fall on the landlord. But, unfortunately, there were cases in Ireland where the rent was not paid, and he would ask the Committee to consider the position of the landlord if the tenant did not pay his rent at the appointed time. At present there were some means of recovering the rent, if not paid; but there were always difficulties about it, and these difficulties would be increased by the Bill. It was nothing but fair to the landlord, seeing that the advances would be made in the interest of the tenant, that the tenant's interest should be responsible for payment, and it would save some confusion besides.

Amendment proposed, in line 19, to leave out the word "landlord," in order to insert the word "tenant."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'landlord' stand part of the Clause."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he really could not accept the Amendment. It would mean that the Commission would make advances of money to one man and take the payment back from another. The money, after all, would be advanced to the landlord, and he must be responsible for repayment. He would be a party to the charge, and it would remain a charge upon the land.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he must challenge the statement that the money would be advanced to the landlord. The theory was that the tenant owed the money to the landlord, and the money was advanced to the tenant in order that he might pay the landlord.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, what would be actually done would be to make an advance in the interest of the landlord. The whole idea of the thing was that the landlord would be tempted by the advance of ready money to make the tenant an allowance.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, it would be making the landlord security for a debt owed to himself.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his objection. It was all very well to say he could not accept the Amendment because the money would be advanced to one man and repaid by another; that only opened the question, to whom would the money be advanced? It would be in reality an advance to the tenant. It was not the landlord but the tenant who was in difficulties—the tenant owed the arrears. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given attention to the speech of the Prime Minister, he would have noticed that the Prime Minister said the advance would be in the interest of the tenant and no one else, and, that being the case, why should the landlord be called on for payment? Surely, the hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Benches opposite could not argue that the tenant had no security, for the whole gist of the Bill was to show that the tenant had a value in his occupancy. There could be no difficulty in making the advance a charge on the tenant's interest in his holding, if the Bill was worth the paper it was printed on.

MR. PELL

said, that at the very commencement of the clause it was provided that the money should be lent on the joint application of landlord and tenant, so that the tenant would be quite as much a party to the matter as the landlord. Though in the later part of the clause the drafting became obscure as to whom the money was to be advanced, yet it was clear that the application for the advance would be made quite as much by the tenant as the landlord.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 175; Noes 73: majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 318.)

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he had an Amendment to propose to line 21. It was in the same direction as the one he had just moved; and he hoped the Government would accept it, and they ought to accept it in their own interest, for he presumed they would wish that the clause should be taken in hand by the landlords, in order to enable the tenants to get rid of their arrears. Therefore, at the end of the section and after the word "rent-charge," he proposed to add the words "out of rent received from such holding." There was nothing unreasonable in that proposition, nothing beyond what was fair to the landlord. The Government could not wish to make the landlord responsible for advances made in the interest of the tenant in cases where he received no rent at all. He need not again remind the Committee of the difficulty of recovering rent in Ireland. If he were an Irish landlord, after the experience of the small support the Government gave for the recovery of rents from tenants who were well able to pay, nothing would induce him to avail himself of the clause as it stood.

Amendment proposed, in line 21, after the word "rent-charge," insert the words "out of rent received from such holding."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he could not be expected to accept this. No one would take advantage of the clause if he did not wish it. The conditions would be known upon which the advance would be made, and one of those conditions was the payment by the tenant of one year's rent down.

MR. BRODRICK

said, there was one small point to which he would draw attention. It was assumed that the landlord would get one year's rent down and take instalments from the tenant. But suppose the landlord had just died, and the executors of the will refused to make the bargain unduly to prejudice the incoming landlord, who had no reason to care for the arrears. The landlord then might start with the charge upon his estate, the tenant might have a bad year and be unable to pay, and the incoming landlord would be forced to pay to the State out of his own pocket a sum for which he received nothing.

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

said, in point of fact it would be the tenant who would pay the money, the landlord would be only the agent to collect it. The advance would be made to the landlord by the State, an increment would be added to the rent which the landlord would receive from the tenant and hand over to the State.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he could not reconcile that with what the Chief Secretary for Ireland said a few minutes before—that, in his view, the advance would be made to the landlord. Now, it was said that the landlord was to be only the agent for payment. But if the advance was made to the landlord, the landlord could not get out of his engagement he had entered into, nor could his successor; but his successor might have had no benefit from the Act. In other words, the landlord would be compelled to act on the conditions of a transaction from which he derived no benefit whatever. He would be more than an agent—he would be an agent obliged to fulfil all the engagements of the person for whom he acted.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, the landlord had been spoken of as the man who received the rent; but the object of his Amendment was to meet the case of the landlord who did not receive his rent. He did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, nor to occupy time; but he wished to appeal to the Government to make some modification in the direction he had indicated. Where the landlord did not receive his rent, at all events, he might be allowed to defer payment of the interest or the loan until such time as he could take legal steps for the recovery of his rent.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the fact was that the clause would not come into operation until the landlord and tenant came to an agreement.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, it had not been in any way explained what was to occur if the tenant did not pay his instalments. Many bad seasons and years might occur similar to those which had recently occurred. The State would look to the landlord for payments; but suppose the landlord could obtain no payment from the tenant, what was to be the landlord's position?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, in that case, the landlord would certainly have made a bad bargain.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, it was all very well for the Chief Secretary for Ireland to speak gaily of the landlord's bad bargain; but if the rent were paid without the additions, would the landlord have the right to effect a sale of the tenant's interest?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Certainly.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HEALY

said, he wished to amend the date for making the applications from December 31, 1881, to May 1, 1882. He did so because the whole scheme of the Bill would take some time to get into working order, and he thought that December would be found much too soon to make the application. There was a remarkable admission from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when he stated his opinion that the Commission would scarcely do anything under the Bill during the last three months of the present year. Under the circumstances, then, he thought the Government might allow the extension of time he proposed. There was really no principle involved in this slight extension of time.

Amendment proposed, In line 40, to leave out the words "thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one," in order to insert "first day day of May one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that, in fixing the date, the matter was considered a good deal with the object of fixing a date at which another gale day did not come in. That would not be affected if the date were prolonged to February 28th, and he would agree to that date.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that, with the object of inserting the date he had mentioned, he would move the omission of "December 31, 1881."

Amendment proposed, In line 40, to leave out "December thirty-one one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one," and insert "February twenty-eight one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)

Amendment agreed to.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

proposed to omit the last sub-section of the clause, and said his objection was not so much as to what it did do as to what it did not do. He thought the Committee would expect that the money should be provided from the Church Fund; but now, it seemed, it was to be provided from some other source. He understood that the Government had undertaken to consider the point raised by the hon. Member opposite with regard to the Church Fund; and he would ask whether, having undertaken to consider a so much larger question, it was worth while to insert this very small provision, and so, to a certain extent, pre-judge the question?

Amendment proposed, in line 43, leave out "the" to the end of the clause."—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the result of this Amendment would be that the security of the Church Fund would not be taken. The Government looked forward to the fund being made available, and he could not, therefore, accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

was glad to understand that his point was not exactly out of the question; but one other objection he had to the clause was that £11,000 chargeable to the Irish Church Fund was to be remitted. He should like to know what was really the purpose of the Government, for last night there was an ominous announcement made in "another place."

Amendment negatived.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

, in reference to the Prime Minister's remark that the landlords would have a difficult duty to perform in regard to the tenants, urged that the landlords ought to be left quite free; and unless the words he would propose to insert were adopted, the tenant could go into the Court to get the rent fixed, with arrears hanging over him, saying that he had proposed to the landlord to take advantage of the Bill, but that the land-land had refused to do so, and so had acted unreasonably.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add "Provided always, That, with reference to any of the par- ties to this Act, the Court shall in no case consider the conduct of any landlord or tenant in refusing to do any act, or enter into any agreement, for the purpose of bringing any holding under the provisions of this section, to be unreasonable."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

did not see that the Committee could put themselves in the position of the Court, and it would be almost ludicrous to say that the Court should decide what was reasonable or unreasonable, and then for the Committee to define what was unreasonable.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

It seems to me rather a severe measure to refuse to accept this Amendment, because I understand my noble Friend to propose that whereas this clause is held out by the Government as being entirely voluntary on both parties, he wishes to take care that it shall be really voluntary. Under certain circumstances, the landlord might find himself a loser; and when it was asked what the landlord should do in that case, the right hon. Gentleman said he would have made a bad bargain. In such cases the tenant is entitled to say that the landlord is unreasonable. I submit that this clause is really only put into language which we understood to be the intention and meaning of the Government.

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

said, both sides were agreed that the landlord should be a voluntary agent in any action under this clause, and unless he chose to join in such action, an application could not be made. The Court, under the 8th section, would have to consider all cases of unreasonable conduct on the part of the landlord and of the tenant; and if the Bill defined to the Court one instance in which it was to be divested of its discretion, the Bill must go on and define it in every instance. It was much safer and better, having constituted the Court, to place confidence in it that it would exercise the discretion with which it was invested honestly and fairly, and to leave undefined what the Court might or might not define as unreasonable according to the facts.

MR. CHAPLIN

thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had answered himself in his own speech; but the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that, having appointed the Court to consider a vast number of matters, whether reasonable or unreasonable, it would be out of place to step in and take questions out of their view. The whole object of the Amendment was to place these questions entirely beyond the Court, who were to have nothing to say on the subject. He understood the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to be that the Court could, if they considered the conduct of the landlord unreasonable, make the acceptance of this clause compulsory upon him. That was an important question which could not be decided that night. It was a complete departure from the object of the clause as they were led to understand by the Government in the first instance. There had been no explanation from the Government, and, in order to give the Government time to consider this new phase of the matter, he would move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he thought the hon. Member would hardly mean to insist upon his Motion.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

hoped Progress would be reported to give the Government time to consider this question. One reason for the Amendment was the object it had effected—namely, to show the cloven hoof. This was the beautiful voluntary arrangement of the Government. If the landlord did not accept the clause, the matter was to be referred to the Court, to say whether he was right or wrong. Then, the Government desired it to be purely voluntary; but it was nothing of the kind, and he was glad that that had been discovered.

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

thought the noble Lord was under a misapprehension, and did not realize what were the cases in which the conduct of the landlord would come before the Court. It would be difficult to suggest any application which the landlord could make to the Court, which it would be possible for the Court to refuse on the ground that the landlord had not entered into this arrangement, because the reasonableness of such proposed arrangement or conduct did not come before the Court at all unless the landlord joined in the application. If the tenant alone made an application to the Court it would be refused, not on the ground that the landlord had unreasonably refused to join in it, but on the ground that the landlord did not join in it, and therefore the provisions of the section did not apply and could not be acted on. It was always dangerous to put a provision of this kind in one place and not in another, and no case had been suggested of any application to the landlord to which this clause had any reference. The Government need not be charged with any sinister motive.

MR. WARTON

hoped the Motion would not be pressed, because he did not think the Amendment would be out of place in this case.

MR. PARNELL

said, he could not pretend to even guess whether the refusal of the landlord to consent to a proposal of the tenant with regard to arrears could be considered by the Court as unreasonable conduct; but he should like to put a case which had not presented itself to the noble Lord. The Amendment did not alter the Bill in the slightest degree in regard to the Court refusing an application of the landlord, on the ground that his refusal to agree to the tenant's proposal was unreasonable. Nor could it be said to alter the position of the landlord. This clause provided that in the event of the landlord and tenant agreeing to an application, the Court should make an advance to the tenant of one year's rent, in order that he might pay the landlord one year's rent; and he did not think the noble Lord was right in asking on behalf of the landlords that the Bill should be altered. The Bill gave the landlord benefits and also the tenant, by advancing one year's rent as arrears; and if the landlord refused to make this arrangement with the tenant he was taken out of the operation of the Bill. With regard to the action of the Court as to what was unreasonable, it simply empowered the Court to give an advance of one year's rent, and he did not see how any claim could be set up by the landlord if he was liable as the Bill stood to have his conduct considered unreasonable.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would promise that the Government would consider this matter on Report. Ho wished to point out that if a tenant was unable to pay, and the landlord applied to the Court, the tenant could apply to the Court to stay ejectment, and the Court could stay ejectment whether there was a judicial term or not. If a tenant did not pay, the landlord would evict him; but the tenant could plead that he could have paid the rent if the landlord had made an arrangement such as that proposed by the Government.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he believed the clause would be almost obligatory, because although it said that the landlord and tenant might agree to go into Court, if the landlord objected to do so he would be held up to public opprobrium. Still, he accepted the clause, because it was advantageous to the country; and he believed nothing could be more detrimental to the country than to leave the tenants with a kind of millstone round their necks, with five or six years' of arrears which they could not possibly pay. He thought the landlords would accept this clause, although at a loss.

MR. CHAPLIN

explained that he had not moved his Motion to delay the Bill, but because he was most anxious that this point should be cleared up before further progress was made. If the Committee would recollect how many cases had happened since 1870, he thought they would admit the propriety of the course he had taken. When he first read the words "the joint application of the two," he thought them satisfactory; but his views had been entirely swept away by the two speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which appeared to indicate that in certain circumstances the Court might be called upon to decide on the unreasonableness or reasonableness of the case before it, and if that were done it would entirely alter the Bill. If the Government would consent to do this, either at the present stage or on another stage of the Bill, and make it perfectly clear that under no circumstances would the conduct of the landlord be called into account as to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of his decision, then he would withdraw his Motion. It should be a purely voluntary arrangement on the part of the landlord with which the Court should have nothing to do.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, it was entirely the intention of the Government that neither party should be in any way prejudiced by anything that happened in regard to this offer. He did not think that the landlord or the tenant should be put in a worse legal position, and, if necessary, be would prepare words putting that point beyond question. But, for his own part, he did not think it was necessary. It was not intended, under the section, that the offer should be more than a voluntary one, and the Government did not wish that either party should suffer because of a non-acceptance of the offer.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he would raise the matter again on Report.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would consider as to whether there was any doubt as to the intention of the Government having been fulfilled. That intention was that neither party should be damaged by not accepting the offer.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he was ready to accept the assurance that the Government would make it quite clear that the offer was to be a voluntary one, and would insert words to that effect, if necessary, and begged to withdraw his Motion.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he would withdraw his Amendment. Of course, if there were not some words of limitation the Court would hold that it had jurisdiction.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, there was only one other Government clause; but as he understood the Prime Minister would prefer to move it himself, he would agree to the Motion.

MR. HEALY

said, it would be convenient to have the Bill re-printed with the Amendments, so far as it had gone, for there would be but a short interval for consideration before Report.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.