Commons Sitting of 14 June 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Customs (Outdoor Officers at the Outports), Mr. James Stewart added.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£1,023,327, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Suspension of Evictions (Ireland)* [188].
Second Reading—Commons Regulation (Shenfield) Provisional Order* [183]
Select Committee—Erne Lough and River* [171], nominated.
Report—Coroners (Ireland) [No. 281]
Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.
Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Clay Lane)* [181]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Askern, &c.) * [152].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Post Office (Land)* [150], and passed.
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Horfleld, &c.) * [166], and passed.
Withdrawn—Entail (Scotland) * [84]; Contagious Diseases Acts Repeal * [7]; Volunteer Corps (Ireland) * [12].
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND) ACT, 1877—PRISON LABOUR.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the alarm and discontent felt by matmakers and others, who believe that they are subject to the competition of produce obtained by prison labour, would not be in great part if not entirely obviated if the governors of prisons were directed to dispose of such produce to the various Departments of Government only, and for Government use, and were restrained from disposing of such produce in the open market?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had communicated with the Prison Commissioners on this subject, and they stated that it was their desire that the production of prison labour should be, so far as possible, disposed of to the Public Departments, but that it was not possible that that should be done exclusively. He felt sure his hon. Friend, who was a distinguished political economist, would recognize the fact that it was a very important matter that prisoners should be employed in industrial occupation, and that the best price should be obtained for the produce of their labour in order to lighten the public expense. Keeping these points in view, the Commissioners would act in. reference to this matter in such a way as to disturb the labour market as little as possible. At the same time, it must be remembered that if these 14,000 prisoners, or thereabouts, were honest men at large, they would be more formidable competitors in the market than they were at present.

  ARMY—COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF COLONELS.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, What
  466
  compensation he proposes to make to those officers who, relying on the assurances given by Lord Cardwell and other members of Government in 1871, that their position, pecuniary or otherwise, would not be affected by the changes then made, have sunk the regulation price of their lieutenant colonel's commission (£4,500), and have remained in the Army with the prospect of future employment, but who will, according to the new regulation, be compelled to retire under the fifty-eight years of age rule, or under the five years' non-employment rule?
  MR. CHILDERS: When my hon. and gallant Friend reads the second Memorandum, he will find that the rule as to the compulsory retirement of colonels at 58 has been relaxed. Colonels who were lieutenant colonels before October 1, 1877, when retired after the 1st of July, will be allowed special rates of pension having regard to such prospects of succeeding to the honorary colonelcy of a regiment as may be affected by the, change. Provision for this will be made in the new Warrant.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH WIRES (METROPOLIS).
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will be good enough to state to the House whether the Postmaster General is responsible for the safety of the public as regards the dangers of the fracture of the telegraph wires suspended over the Metropolis and maintained by his Department; and, to what Department of the Government the public may look for interference in the case of proved and palpable risk incurred in consequence of wires not maintained by the Post Office Department, but suspended by other parties over the thoroughfares of the Metropolis?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I understand with regard to the wires maintained by the Post Office that the Postmaster General is not legally responsible, but that he is responsible in the general sense in which all public servants are responsible. But I believe the true and substantial answer to the Question to be, that the local authorities are really the persons responsible in this matter. It is their duty to look

  467
  after arrangements of this kind, bearing upon the safety of the inhabitants and the traffic of the streets; and to them it is, I think, that there should be any communication if difficulty is supposed to be likely to arise.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Postmaster General, If he will be so good as to inform the House how many wires stretched over the thoroughfares of the Metropolis have been taken over and put up or are maintained by his department; whether it is proposed from time to time materially to increase the numbers of those wires; what precautions are taken to obviate risk from the fracture of those wires, and to prevent the recurrence of accidents such as have already occurred; and, whether it would not be possible to introduce a general system of placing the wires, properly insulated, underground, or in positions in which the present dangers would be obviated, especially in such a city as London, the atmosphere of which, is liable to cause corrosion to the wires, and in which so very large a population is thus exposed to continually increasing dangers?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that in 1877, within a radius of four miles from St. Martin's-le-Grand, there were 1,720 miles of overhouse wire, and 3,350 of underground. The House will at once see how anxious the Department is to substitute, as far as practicable, underground for overhouse wires when I mention that by March last the mileage of overhouse wires had been reduced from 1,720 to 500, and the mileage of underground had increased from 3,350 to 4,388. The wires of no important trunk lines are now carried by the Department over houses, and it is from these trunk lines, where a great number of wires have to be maintained, that the chief danger arises. Every care is taken by the frequent inspection of the poles and overhouse wires to prevent any accident.

  BULGARIA (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).
  MR.LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the statement contained in the public journals that Prince Alexander of Battenburg has instituted courts martial throughout Bulgaria composed of officers, with
  468
  power to execute, or otherwise punish, those Bulgarians who oppose his endeavour to subvert the Constitution; and whether, if so, Her Majesty's Government has conveyed to Prince Alexander its disapproval of this proceeding; and, whether it is true that M. Zancoff has been arrested for publishing a statement in which he asserts that Prince Alexander has violated the Constitution?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have been informed that two Decrees were issued by the Prince of Bulgaria on the 7th instant, appointing special military tribunals with power to pronounce sentence of death, and also giving extraordinary powers to the Minister of the Interior to deal with offences of the Press. As, however, the Court of Cassation has since decided that the Turkish law on the Press is still in force, in so far as it is not contray to any existing Bulgarian law, General Ernroth has given up the powers granted to him by the latter Decree. Her Majesty's Government is in communication with the Bulgarian Government on the subject. Her Majesty's Government have received no confirmation of the report of M. Zancoff's arrest.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK ACT— DEPOSITORS' ACCOUNTS.
  MR. RODWELLasked the Postmaster General, If he will consider whether the rule of his office, which prohibits the giving information as to the state of depositors' accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank, might with propriety be relaxed in cases where such information is required for the purposes of justice?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the Post Office Savings Bank Act, 24 Vict. c. 14, s. 4, directs that the officers of the Postmaster General shall not disclose the name of any depositor nor the amount deposited or withdrawn, except to the Postmaster General or his officers. Where criminal or civil legal proceedings are pending in a Court of Justice, and an order or subpoena is served upon an officer of the Post Office for the production of papers relating to any particular account, it has been customary to produce such papers; but where no such proceedings are pending and inquiry is made of a tentative character to ascer-

  469
  tain if a criminal charge should be preferred or a civil claim advanced, it is not usual to disclose particulars of the account of a depositor. I think it will be obvious that persons in a humble station of life who are depositors in a Post Office Savings Bank are entitled to the same protection with respect to the privacy of their banking account that depositors in any private bank are ordinarily recognized as being entitled to.

  SUSPENSION OF EVICTIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the honourable and learned Member for Bridport, If he will withdraw the block which prevents the introduction and printing of the Bill to suspend Evictions in Ireland for a limited period, on payment of six months' rent, which Bill has been prepared by and will, with the leave of the House, be brought in by the following Members:—Messrs. Martin, Healy, Dr. Kinnear, Henry, Sexton, Moore, Biggar, O'Shea, M'Coan, Errington, Daly, Richardson, Macfarlane, Litton, Finigan, O'Beirne, Whitworth, Blennerhassett, M'Carthy, Denis O'Conor, Findlater, Molloy, The O'Donoghue, Callan, Marum, The O'Gorman Mahon, Lalor, Synan, Lea, O'Donnell, Gabbett, Arthur O'Connor, O'Kelly, O'Shaughnessy, and Nolan?
  MR. WARTONdesired to know from the Speaker whether the Question could be put to him, as it did not refer to any Bill or Motion of which he had charge, or, if put, whether he was bound to answer it?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is within the discretion of the hon. and learned Member to answer the Question or not as he pleases. The Question is quite in Order.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that as the Speaker seemed to think he ought to answer the Question, he would be delighted, as a matter of courtesy, to do so. His objection to the Bill was that he did not think it desirable to have two Irish Land Bills before the House at one time, and since the Question was put down, he had been furnished with an additional reason for objection. If the Government Land Bill had only five names on the back of it, what must this Bill be with 25?
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether it was not an abuse of the intention of the House in adopting the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule for any hon. Member to take upon himself to block a number of Bills so as to prevent their even being printed or read by the House; and whether that was not putting legislation into the hands of any particular Member who chose to make such use of the Rule?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member puts a Question to me which is not strictly on the point of Order. If the House thinks that the practice adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) is one which involves great inconvenience, it is for the House to express its opinion.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTURBANCES AT QUINLAN'S CASTLE, NEW PALLAS, COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has seen a report in the "Cork Examiner" of June 6th of a conversation alleged to have taken place between Mr. Nash and Mr. Goddard, during the recent eviction expedition at New Pallas, in which Mr. Goddard stated that he had come there at the request of Mr. Forster; and, whether this statement of Mr. Goddard is well founded?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I had not seen the report to which the hon. Member refers until this morning; but I may state that it is not true that Mr. Goddard went down to New Pallas at my request. I was aware of his going down, and—though I do not know that my opinion had much to do with it—I certainly did not disapprove of his going down. I am prepared to give my reason for that view if the House wishes it. In consequence of intimidation, none of the bailiffs of the district could be found to point out the houses where the evictions were to be carried into effect; and, in one or two cases previously, the police had been asked to supply that information. I had a strong opinion that it was not the business of the police to do that work; and I directed that no instructions ought to be given to them to that effect. On the other hand, it would, I think, have been most deplorable if intimidation had been successful in its

  471
  object. The landlord in question informed me that he was about to take two bailiffs down to the district, who were prepared to face the dangers before them, and I thought he was quite right in doing so.

  SOLOMON ISLANDS—MURDER OF BRITISH SUBJECTS—PUNISHMENT OF NATIVES.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What steps Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt for the protection of the lives of British subjects engaged in lawful business or commerce in the Pacific Ocean; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to cause to be punished the murderers of more than, forty British subjects, who have unfortunately been slain since the 1st January 1880 in that sea whilst pursuing their lawful avocations?
  MR. GORSTasked, whether it was not the fact that in many cases the murders of British subjects in the Pacific could be traced to outrages committed upon the islanders by White men?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the right hon. Baronet is, no doubt, aware that, though he selects the date of January 1, 1880, the state of matters in the part of the Pacific to which he refers is no new story. The Solomon Islands and the neighbouring groups where these outrages have occurred are independent of any civilized authority. When any of those horrible murders occur there is no jurisdiction which can legally try the murderers. Twice a savage who had been seized or given up as a murderer has been taken to Fiji and Sydney for trial, and on one occasion the authorities had nothing for it but to send him back untried to the island whence they took him, while in the other case they retained him in custody as a dangerous character. The only method by which these outrages can be checked or punished is by acts of war directed against the guilty villages, and Her Majesty's Government have carried out this species of retribution, the only one in their power at present, in a thorough and effective, but not, I think, an indiscriminate manner, as the right hon. Baronet will acknowledge when he sees the Papers relating to the cruise of the Emerald. A very
  472
  great number of the murders cannot be traced to the causes which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) suggests. Her Majesty's Government found this state of things existing, and are not more responsible for its continuance than any of their Predecessors; but they are not content to let matters stay as they are. The Colonial Office and the Admiralty are in communication, and we have this great advantage, that we have on the Board of Admiralty an officer who probably knows this matter by practical experienee better than any man living, and we earnestly hope that, difficult as it is—very difficult as it is—some solution is in course of being found.

  POST OFFICE—THE TELEGRAPH SERVICE (IRELAND)—MR. WILLIAM BELL.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that Mr. William Bell, one of the principal clerks on the surveyor's staff in the North of Ireland, holds the position of agent to a guarantee and assurance association, and if such agency is consistent with his position and duties, and for the advantage of the department of which he is a servant, remembering that the Post Office affords facilities for insurance; is it with his sanction Mr. Bell holds such agency; did Mr. Bell acquire this agency at the time when the general bond guaranteeing the fidelity of telegraph clerks expired and was not renewed by the Government; and, have any abuses been brought under his notice arising from officials holding superior positions in the service?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, he found on inquiry that Mr. Bell had held the situation referred to for the last 13 years. Before he obtained the situation he got the permission of the Postmaster General of the day to fill it, and under these circumstances the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would see it would be very hard upon Mr. Bell if he were called upon to resign. As indicated in the Question, he (Mr. Fawcett) thought it was undesirable that situations similar to this should be held by officials of the Post Office, and so far as he was concerned he should not give similar permission in the future.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]

    COMMITTEE. [EIGHTH NIGHT.]
    [Progress 13th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    PART I.

      ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.
      Clause 1 (Sale of tenancies).
      SIR ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETT, in rising to move, in page 1, line 19, after the word "thereof," to insert—
      "(4) Where the tenant has agreed to sell his tenancy to some other person than the landlord, he shall give the prescribed notice to the landlord, setting forth the name of the purchaser, and the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy;"
      said, that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had asserted that the right of pre-emption which was given to the landlord by the Bill was the great safeguard for his interests, and the best means of preventing an extravagant consideration being given for the tenant right. That was undoubtedly so. As long as the landlord, even if he had no desire to use it, had the right, where the tenant was willing to sell at a fair price, of stepping in at any moment and buying up the interest of the latter, and in case of dispute of getting the price fixed by the Court, he could do much to minimize the inconvenience which many apprehended from a system even of regulated sale such as this Bill provided. But in order that he should have a full and fair opportunity of exercising his judgment as to whether he would purchase or not, he ought to be furnished with the name of the person to whom the tenant wished to sell his tenant right in the farm, and also the consideration which it was proposed to give for it. It was quite clear that the price which the landlord would have to give would enter largely into the calculation whether he chose to exercise his right of pre-emption or not; and so, again, with regard to the purchasing tenant. The
      474
      landlord might be willing not to interfere if the person who presented himself as the future tenant was a man whom it was desirable to accept. On the other hand, he might be disposed to make a considerable sacrifice rather than accept as tenant a person with whom it might be agreeable to have business relations. The landlord had the right of appealing against the purchaser, and of objecting to him on the ground of insufficiency of means to carry on the business of the farm, and so forth. But the consideration given for the tenancy must be an important factor in determining the sufficiency of means to meet the liabilities of the tenancy. He failed to see how the landlord could come to any decision unless he was furnished with the name of the purchaser, and also with the amount of the consideration which was proposed to be given for the tenant right. He presumed that the only objection to the Amendment would be that to some extent the provision he proposed to insert was already contained in the Bill; but he did not see what harm could be done by inserting words which would make the intention of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister perfectly clear.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 1, line 19, after the word "thereof," insert "(4) Where the tenant has agreed to sell his tenancy to some other person than the landlord, he shall give the prescribed notice to the landlord, setting forth the name of the purchaser, and the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy."—(Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONE: Under the Bill, as it stands, when the tenant decides upon disposing of his tenant right he is bound to convey to the landlord the name of the proposed incoming tenant, and the landlord, if he thinks fit, has the power of objecting to that proposed tenant. It may, however, be convenient that some form of notice should be given to the landlord; but that is a question of minute detail, and I apprehend that it would be within the power of the Court to lay down rules. Under these circumstances, I think it would be better to leave the matter to the Court.
      MR. BRODRICKhoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Rowland Blennerhassett) would not withdraw the Amendment. He thought that the condition which the

      475
      Prime Minister had laid down would be most inconvenient in its operation. It was suggested that one of the most important and serious questions in the interest of the landlord should be left entirely to the Court; and the right hon. Gentleman refused to allow the Committee to assist him in defining what the rule should be. He declined to allow the matter to be set forth in the Bill; so that practically it would be possible at some future time, when the tenancy came to be sold, that there might be a question of doubt and of evidence what consideration had been offered to the outgoing tenant for the tenant right. He submitted that such an important question ought not to be left in any kind of doubt. A considerable item in deciding the reasonable nature of the bargain between the outgoing and the incoming tenant must be the amount to be paid for the tenant right, and the amount ought, therefore, to be clearly stated and made known to the landlord. Indeed, it should be a matter of public notoriety, capable of being referred to in a single moment. He sincerely hoped the Prime Minister would not force the hon. Baronet to withdraw the Amendment, but that he would allow this very reasonable point to be stated in the Bill. He thought some consideration ought to be paid to those landlords who had not hitherto had tenant right on their estates, and who had expended large sums in order to keep tenant right away. [Derisive cheers]. Hon. Members might laugh at this view of the matter; but he should like to know what would have been the position of the South of Ireland at this moment if the landlords had not foregone the rent, and given large sums of money, in addition, in order to assist tenants who had fallen into arrear in emigrating to America? If the Prime Minister declined to withdraw his opposition, he should certainly divide the House in favour of the Amendment.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, there seemed to be an impression on the part of those who supported the Amendment that it would be entirely in favour of the landlords. He was of opinion that it would be quite as much in favour of the tenant as of the landlord. In consequence of the clause giving the right of pre-emption to the landlord, it was desirable that there should be some means of testing the value of the holding, and the
      476
      best test was the price that was given for it from time to time. He believed if a registry were kept of the price and the amount of money which passed from one tenant to another on every change of tenancy, a standard would be arrived at by which the real value of the holding could be got at. He therefore did not think the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kerry (Sir Rowland Blennerhassett) was at all an unreasonable Amendment. Perhaps, as had been pointed out by the Prime Minister, the first part of the Amendment was unnecessary, because it was elsewhere provided that notice of the intention to dispose of the tenancy should be given to the landlord; but it was most desirable for all persons concerned that the price should be stated.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid he wished to put a question. As he understood the answer of the Prime Minister, the landlord, as a matter of course, would be made aware of who the purchaser was by receiving notice from the tenant, and that it was a matter that would obviously be regulated by rules which would be afterwards prescribed. But the Amendment went still further, and spoke of the "consideration to be given for the tenancy." Now, that seemed to him to be a very important point, and one which it by no means necessarily followed would be laid down by the authority of the Commission. The importance of it was this. As he understood, the check which the Government proposed was to secure that where more than the difference between a fair rent and a low rent was offered the landlord should himself have power to purchase or to serve notice of his intention to raise the rent. For that object it was extremely important that the landlord should know what sort of price was going to be given for the right of the tenant. The Government admitted that some provision should be made by which the landlord should be made acquainted with the name of the purchaser and the price to be paid, and under those circumstances he did not see why they should object to the introduction of the words "the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy." He wished to know if they did approve of these words or not? If they did, he failed to see why, according to the scheme of the Government measure, they should object to insert them in the clause. The Prime

      477
      Minister had very fairly admitted that they could do no harm, and the matter was of such very great importance that it was a most desirable thing this direction should be given.
      MAJOR O'BEIRNEthought the name of the purchaser and the price to be paid should be given to the landlord with a clear statement of the amount that was to be paid for tenant right; but he believed it would answer every purpose to leave the matter in the hands of the clerks of the peace.
      MR. CHAPLINhoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would re-consider his decision. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this additional sub-section was unnecessary, because it was already in. the power of the Court to assign the reasonableness of the landlord's refusal to accept a particular tenant, and that the Amendment would confer upon the landlord additional powers as against the tenant. Now, that was not exactly the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Sir Rowland Blennerhassett). His hon. Friend did not wish that this should be a question on which the Court should be able to exercise any discretion whatever, and he (Mr. Chaplin) fully concurred with his hon. Friend. A certain sum of money was to be paid for the tenant right, and that sum of money ought to be named and known so as to settle the matter for future years. If his hon. Friend pressed the Amendment to a division he would certainly support him.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I am quite prepared to give full consideration to the point raised by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The question raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) is a very fair one. The Government have not the slightest objection to require that the landlord should be informed of the price; but what we want to avoid is the formality of a second notice, which means a second interval of time. I would suggest that the same object would be effectually attained by altering the Amendment, and allowing the words to run thus—
      "Where the tenant has agreed to sell his tenancy to some other person than the landlord, he shall, upon informing the landlord of the name of the purchaser, state therewith the consideration agreed to he given for the tenancy.'
      478
      That, I believe, would meet the point raised by my hon. Friend.
      MR. NEWDEGATEwished to point out another matter. In the case of the value of improvements under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the greatest difficulty had been experienced in ascertaining the validity of the awards, although in that case the consideration was for actual expenditure which was capable of proof. In the case of the tenant right which the House was now about to create there would be no possibility of proof as to the value which the Court would ascertain and be guided by. The whole transaction might be fictitious, and unless the specific consideration and amount of money were stated the Court would have no possible means of ascertaining whether the statement of value was fictitious or not. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would proceed upon the principle of the Amendment, and afford the Court some means of testing the justice of these claims for tenant right.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Kerry propose to withdraw the Amendment?
      SIR ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETT: Yes, Sir.
      MR. HEALYwas afraid that the Government scarcely knew what they were about to do. If the Amendment applied simply to Ulster, he should have no objection to it at all; but, as it applied also to other parts of Ireland, he would point out what it would do. The Government were of opinion that the price of the purchase would always be a matter of cash, and might easily be stated in the notice to the landlord. But it might be half-a-dozen cows, or six cows and a churn, or six cows and a firkin. In another case a man married off his daughter, and he sought to assign a part of his holding to his son-in-law. How were these considerations to be stated in the notice? The Amendment might be readily carried out in Ulster; but, in regard to other parts of Ireland, it would be a very serious matter. He would therefore advise Her Majesty's Government to confine the Amendment to the Province of Ulster. In the South of Ireland the operation of the Amendment would be found most inconvenient and objectionable, and it would certainly not be accepted without a strong protest.
      MAJOR O'BEIRNEbelieved that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was altogether mistaken in supposing that the Amendment would be difficult to work in any part of Ireland.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed,
      In line 19, to insert "Where the tenant has agreed to sell his tenancy to some other person than the landlord he shall, upon informing the landlord of the name of the purchaser, state therewith the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy."—(Mr Gladstone.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. HEALYmoved to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "where the Ulster Custom prevails."
      Amendment proposed, to insert at the commencement of the proposed Amendment, "Where the Ulster Custom prevails and."—(Mr. Healy.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
      MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYbelieved that the Amendment would be rather beneficial to the tenant than otherwise. Suppose that the tenant got a good price for his assignment. He got by the Amendment now proposed an opportunity of putting that fact upon record, and when he had once placed it on record that the tenant had got a good price for his interest in the holding, the new tenant would certainly have an equity against the landlord in regard to any undue increase of rent at a future time. With regard to the objection raised to the Amendment by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), he did not think there was very much force in it. He (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had seen a great many assignments of tenancies in one shape or another; but he never saw an assignment, even of the smallest tenancy, in which the condition was cattle, or anything of the kind. He had seen assignments in cases of marriage, but an assignment in such a case was for a very important consideration. Besides, he thought the landlord was entitled to know what was being given for the tenancy that was to be assigned. Unless he knew the price, how was he to know that the negotiation was a fair one? It was also to the advantage of the tenant in this way, that the tenant would
      480
      be able to state to the landlord what the maximum price of the property was, and it would be a fair test of the value of the land.
      MR. LITTONappealed to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) not to press his Amendment.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he had no objection to withdraw it.
      Amendment (Mr. Healy), by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. WARTONremarked, he had given Notice of an Amendment which appeared a few lines lower down on the Paper, to leave out "other person than the landlord," and insert "a proposed incoming tenant." He was afraid that if he did not move that Amendment now it would be too late to move it further on. He was anxious not to have the words "some other person than the landlord" standing either in the Amendment or in the Bill. He wished to make the Bill clear and explicit, and to guard against any possible danger hereafter. It was gratuitously assumed that when the tenant right was sold it would always be to the incoming tenant; and the Premier had himself used the expressions "the incoming man" and "the incoming tenant." The landlord also would have the right of pre-emption; but in adopting the words of the clause as they now stood, there might be the danger of creating a new interest altogether. The words were dangerously vague, and might let in some other person than the incoming tenant or the landlord—some third person—for instance, the usurer, who might have advanced the money for the purchase of the tenant right. He was anxious that nothing vague should be left for the decision of the Court; and they must not assume, because they all had in their minds that the person who bought must be the incoming tenant, that that would necessarily be the case. Ten years ago, when the Act of 1870 was passed, it was thought that no property or interest was given to the tenant; but so many unexpected results had followed the passing of that Act—results which at the time had been declared impossible—that in the present case he wanted to guard against some such construction as this being put on the words of the clause by the Judge of the Court, "I

      481
      find here the words 'some other person than the landlord,' and that means all creation except the landlord." That was a real danger that might arise, and he appealed to the Committee whether the words as they stood would not include some other person than the landlord, who was also a person other than the incoming tenant—some sharpusurer, who might purchase the property and interest given to the tenant, and who might bring his action and insist upon the Court putting him in the position of the buyer of the tenant right. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 1, line 20, leave out "other person than the landlord," and insert "a proposed incoming tenant."—(Mr. Warton.)
      Amendment negatived.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Original Amendment again proposed.
      MR. LEAMYwas much surprised at the Government assenting to this Amendment. The clause enabled the landlord, on the receipt of such notice, to purchase the tenancy; but supposing that the landlord, on receiving the notice, did not take any steps to purchase the tenancy at all, then the tenant, having given the notice, and finding that the landlord had no desire to purchase, would look out for another purchaser, and he would be obliged to inform the landlord who that purchaser was, and what he proposed to give. He thought that that would be imposing too great an obligation upon the tenant. It was quite sufficient that the tenant should give notice to the landlord of his intention to sell. The landlord might then come in and purchase, and if the landlord declined, why should not the tenant go into the open market? What was the position in which the landlord would be, if, having given notice to the landlord of his intention to sell, and the landlord not having given notice of his intention to exercise the right of preemption and purchase himself, the tenant should then put the matter in the hands of an auctioneer, and ask him to sell his interest in the tenancy? It would not be until the day of the auction that the tenant would know who the purchaser was; and unless the land-
      482
      lord had given notice that he would not accept a particular purchaser, then he (Mr. Leamy) submitted that the tenant was entitled to sell to any person who made a bid at the auction. Under such circumstances it would be impossible for the tenant to give previous notice to the landlord of the name of the purchaser.
      THE O'DONOGHUEthought that before the Government assented to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Rowland Blennerhassett), it ought to be made clear that it would not deprive the tenant of his right to sell in the open market by auction. As he understood it, the landlord, in addition to the power of exercising the right of pre-emption, would by this Amendment be able to deprive the tenant of the right of selling by auction.
      MR. SHAWthought it would be preferable that the Committee should have some Notice of this Amendment, so that they might be able to understand its full effect. He had no objection to the Amendment, and, as a matter of course, he thought that the landlord, in one way or another, must know the price offered for the tenant's interest. He did not understand that this sub-section in any way interfered with the bargain. The bargain would be an accomplished fact. The purchaser's name would be sent to the landlord, and with it the terms of the purchase. But his objection was that it would create a feeling of jealousy in the minds of the tenants. Irish tenants, as a rule, were very suspicious, and they did not like to expose their affairs to the landlords. Indeed, they had an objection against it that seemed almost superstitious; and if the Committee were to pass such a clause as this they might really raise obstacles against the amicable settlement of these matters. He believed that in the North of Ireland a provision of this nature would be more objectionable even than in the South. The Northerners were a very sturdy race, and they would not like to be required to write and tell the landlord what was really their own business. He might say, as a matter of fact, that on some of the best managed estates in those parts of Ireland where tenant right was admitted the agent made it a point to ask no question at all as to the price that was given. Indeed, he knew very well that he would not be told the truth if he did inquire, and he

      483
      knew, further, that he would only he interfering with what was really no business of his. All that the agent had to do was to satisfy himself that the incoming man was a good man.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was of opinion that the Amendment should be a separate sub-section, or tacked on to sub-section 3. If that were done a great deal of difficulty would be obviated.
      SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the matter would be allowed to stand as it was. He saw no objection to the Amendment so long as nothing but fair dealing was intended. He did not think that the tenant should be required to notify to the landlord all the circumstances which had passed between himself and the intended purchaser; but he saw no objection to his being required to give the name of the purchaser and the price. If a tenant sold his interest to another person, the landlord was the only person immediately concerned, and ought to know not only who the incoming tenant was, but what the consideration given for the tenant right was. He failed to see what objection there could be if the information given were truthful and fair; but he could understand that there might be very serious objection if a false statement was intended to be subsequently made as to the price which was really paid.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he had not changed his opinion in regard to the Amendment; but, at the same time, he believed there were a good many of his hon. Friends who had not spoken who were much opposed to it, and who were decidedly of opinion that it would have a very mischievous effect. He would, therefore, suggest that, as there was no Notice of the Amendment upon the Paper, it should not be pressed now, but that Notice should be given of it, and that it should be brought up on the Report, when it could be fully discussed. If he understood the question rightly, he gathered that one object of the Amendment was to prevent the landlord from raising the rent by charging 10 years' increase upon the purchase. If the landlord found the price at which the holding was being sold was very large, he might raise the rent and get 10 years' purchase, and the unfortunate purchaser would find his interest very injuriously affected. Under all the circumstances,
      484
      seeing that no Notice whatever had been given of the Amendment, and that hon. Members who represented Irish constituencies had not had an opportunity of considering it, he thought it desirable that it should not be pressed at the present moment.
      MR. GLADSTONE: The question has not been altogether raised without Notice; but the Amendment as it stood was accompanied by something which we thought objectionable—namely, a provision forcing upon the tenant the necessity of giving a second notice of a formal character. That objection has been got rid of by amending the Amendment, and the proposal contained in the Amendment is that the landlord should be made acquainted with the nature and effect of the consideration to be given. We are of opinion that in principle such a provision is only fair. You cannot deny the right of the landlord to be a party to the transaction and to be entitled to know what it is that the tenant is about to receive. There is also another thing which will require further consideration. It would never do for the landlord to have his right of preemption suspended until the tenant has made his bargain, and then for the landlord to come in and say, "I will exercise my right of pre-emption." My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland will fully consider this matter, and see whether it cannot be met by the introduction of some specification in another part of the Bill.
      MR. LEAMYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister objected to two notices; but did the right hon. Gentleman think that the one notice to the landlord of an intention to sell a tenancy would be quite sufficient? The tenant might form an intention of selling a tenancy before he found a purchaser, and before he could have agreed upon the price. Therefore, if he was to give notice of his intention to sell, he would be bound to give a second notice when he found a purchaser.
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick), is governed by that which has just been disposed of. I must, therefore, call upon the hon. Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace).
      SIR RICHARD WALLACEmoved, in page 1, line 19, after "thereof" to add—
      "And in case it may appear to the landlord desirable that the holding about to be sold should be amalgamated with an adjoining one, he may by authority in writing delegate to the tenant of such adjoining holding his right of preemption, who may purchase the tenancy in like manner as is herein prescribed for the landlord."
      The hon. Baronet explained that the object of the Amendment was to enable an adjoining tenant to exercise the landlord's rights of pre-emption and purchase the holding. A custom of consolidating small holdings by enabling the adjoining tenant to purchase existed on many large estates in the North of Ireland. There were a very large number of tenants whose holdings were not of a greater value that £5 a-year, and there were 450 whose holdings were only valued from between £10 and £15, and this custom of consolidating the small holdings had been found very beneficial to the hard working and thrifty tenant. It was of very great advantage to a small holding where the same amount of stock which had worked a small farm would be found sufficient to work the enlarged holding. And not only was this the case with regard to stock, but in many cases no additional ploughs or farming implements would be required. There was another point which told usefully in favour of this amalgamation. A tenant of a consolidated farm was often able to reclaim a quantity of land now entirely wasted in forming a boundary between two farms, which was of no service to the crops and might be removed with advantage. This was not at all a landlord's question, because the landlord would derive no benefit from it. He would only have the advantage of possessing a more thrifty, a more hard working, and a more industrious tenant, and it was only in the case of the adjoining tenant wishing to buy that the privilege would be granted. In the event of the adjoining tenant not wishing to buy the land, the usual custom of free sale would be carried out. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name, and he trusted that it would receive favourable consideration at the hands of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 1, line 19, after "thereof," to add the words "and in case it may appear to the landlord desirable that the holding about to be sold should be amalgamated with an adjoining one, he may by authority in writing delegate to the tenant of such adjoining holding his right of pre-emption, who may purchase the tenancy in like manner as is herein prescribed for the landlord."—(Sir Richard Wallace)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the Amendment, because the object which he had in view was sufficiently provided for so far as it was desirable by the Bill as it stood. One of the hon. Baronet's objects was to facilitate the enlargement or amalgamation of holdings. But if the hon. Baronet would look at the evidence given before the Bessborough Commission, he would find that Judge Flanagan and other witnesses stated that under the system of free sale the consolidation of holdings had increased much more in the Province of Ulster than in any other part of Ireland. There was also this advantage in leaving the matter to be worked out by perfect freedom of sale—that the process of consolidation would thus go on in a natural way and without causing any irritation. If, however, his hon. Friend was not satisfied to trust to that natural process by which consolidation, where desirable, would be effected, if he wished to promote it by the direct action of the landlord, then the Pre-emption Clause would enable the landlord to purchase the tenancy for the purpose of either occupying it himself or of adding it to any other holding. It was altogether undesirable that the landlord, by the delegation of his authority, should transfer this right of preemption to anybody else. If he wished to exercise the right he ought to exercise it by himself, and not by deputy; and if an adjoining tenant wanted to buy the holding next to his own, let him purchase it in the ordinary way.
      MR. CHAPLINexpressed a hope that, as in the case of the last Amendment, the Government might be persuaded to re-consider their decision. The effect of this Amendment would be, at all events, to consolidate judiciously some of the worst holdings in Ireland. He apprehended there could scarcely

      487
      be a difference of opinion on the other side of the House as to the desirability of this object. The right hon, and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland said the Bill would accomplish that object so far as it was desirable. Now, he (Mr. Chaplin) did not quite understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant by the words "so far as it is desirable." The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the natural process by which one tenant could buy out another, and said that in Ulster, where the system of free sale was carried out to a greater extent than in any other part of Ireland, the process had been beneficially exercised. But the Amendment did nothing to interfere with that natural process. What it did was to facilitate it; and it was limited solely to those cases where one small farm adjoined another. That was all that the Amendment did. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked—" Why cannot the landlord do it himself?" The landlord could not do it for a reason that he thought would have been obvious. Where was he always to find the money and the capital for exercising this right of pre-emption? Therefore, it was desirable, where the tenant was anxious to effect this consolidation, that the landlord should be able to delegate his right of pre-emption to the tenant. He could not conceive anything more hostile to the interests which the Government desired to serve in Ireland than to refuse an Amendment of this nature. There appeared to him to be not a single objection to it, and he trusted that upon re-consideration the Government would accept it.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think there is the least likelihood of the Government receding from their objection to the Amendment. On the contrary, we hope to win over my hon. Friend the Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace) to our view of the case, and to convince him of its reasonableness. I will take the case of tenant A going out and of tenant B holding a farm next to it and desiring to have the holding joined to his own. The landlord is also desirous that the amalgamation shall take place. Either the parties are willing or they are unwilling; and if both are willing, under the Amendment, as under the Bill, the transaction will go on. But this Amendment partakes of the nature
      488
      of compulsion, and gives the power of referring to the public authority. As I have said, if A and B are willing, then, under the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, just as much as under the Bill, the transaction will go on. The only case in which this Amendment would be material is where tenant B is unwilling. It may be that there are good reasons why the amalgamation should take place; but our point is that if tenant B is unwilling, it is far better that he should be dealt with by the landlord through the right of pre-emption, which is given under the Bill, than that the landlord should have the power of delegating to tenant A the right of purchasing. Where the process partakes of compulsion it is far better that it should be in the hands of the landlord than of the tenant. That is our point, and I hope my hon. Friend will see the propriety of acceding to it.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that upon well-managed properties it was the custom to give the preference of purchase to a tenant on the adjoining farm; and if he would not buy, then the holding went into the open market. That rule would be abolished by the Bill. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, which was quite consistent with the practice in the North of Ireland.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLtrusted the Government would not adopt the Amendment, which would give a preemptive right to the adjoining tenant.
      MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he was very reluctant to oppose the Amendment brought forward by the hon. Baronet, who, he was quite sure, would not make any proposal that was not a fair one. But he could not agree in the desirability of the Amendment, and expressed a hope that Her Majesty's Government would not give way. He was perfectly aware that in former years there was a feeling on the part of the Irish tenantry in favour of an arrangement of the kind proposed, and he believed he was right in saying that they actually wished their landlords to make an Office rule giving them a pre-emptive right. But that was in times before the American competition and the present agricultural depression, when the idea in the mind of the Ulster farmer was that he would be the man to remain on the land, and that when his neighbour went away he should

      489
      be able to get his farm cheaper than if it went into the open market. But since emigration had set in all that was changed, and the feeling was now that the man himself would have to go, and hence the desire not to be prevented getting as much as possible for his holding. He did not object to the right of pre-emption on the part of the landlord; but to extend it to another person would, in his opinion, be an injustice to the tenant.
      SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the Government would not accede to the Amendment, which, it seemed to him, would have an opposite effect to that intended by the hon. Baronet who moved it. In his opinion, the preservation to the landlord of the right of pre-emption was just, inasmuch as it secured to him his just position with respect to the estate; but he altogether objected to the landlord's right being delegated to a third person. That would be, he thought, to open the door to plotting and contriving, in the case of transfers, to restrict the tenant's market. He was quite certain that was not the object of the hon. Baronet, who, he thought, would protect the right of the landlord better by not allowing him to delegate his pre-emptive right than by any other means.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was at first attracted by the reasons given by the Prime Minister for not accepting this Amendment; but he now saw that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman involved a fallacy. There could not be any compulsory pre-emption on the part of. the landlord unless at the option of the tenant who wished to sell. It was quite open to the tenant to go into Court and get under statutory conditions. No reason had, therefore, been advanced against the Amendment, and he hoped it would be agreed to.
      VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, the Prime Minister had argued that it would be possible for the landlord to get rid of his right of pre-emption by purchase. But suppose the landlord could not buy the tenancy through want of funds, and that for the good of the estate it was necessary to add it to the adjoining tenancy. Why would it be unfair to anybody for the landlord to pass over his right of pre-emption to the tenant of the adjoining holding in order that the two farms might be amalgamated? He was
      490
      quite unable to see any unfairness in that arrangement. The Committee had passed in this clause a section which enabled the landlord to exercise the right of pre-emption, and in exercising it he would buy at the true value; but if the landlord could not exercise that right for want of funds, and was, moreover, not able to delegate it to the tenant who wished to buy, it would result that the tenant who wished to purchase the tenancy that was to be given up and add it to his own would not be able to buy at the true value, but would be obliged to go into the market, where he would, no doubt, be run up and have to pay an exorbitant price, thereby subjecting himself to a heavy rack-rent.
      MR. MACFARLANEcould not agree with the noble Lord who had just sat down. It seemed to him that if the landlord were too poor to exercise his pre-emptive right, it was perfectly open to him to arrange with the adjoining tenant who was a willing purchaser. He presumed the money would not be required on the spot, and that the matter could very easily be adjusted. There was nothing in the world to prevent a landlord arranging with one of his tenants to provide the necessary funds. In his opinion, the Amendment was both useless and mischievous.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, nothing could be more mischievous than the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. He objected to the clause which gave pre-emption to the landlord altogether.
      SIR RICHARD WALLACEsaid, he agreed that the principle of giving the right of pre-emption to the landlord ought not to be pushed to an improper degree. He had listened attentively to the arguments which had been used against his Amendment, but felt it his duty to put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 210: Majority 103.—[Div. List, No. 247.)
      THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment appears to me to be substantially the same as that which has been negatived by the Committee.
      LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked whether it would be competent for him to move a similar Amendment on another part of the Bill?
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would be competent for the noble Lord to move such an Amendment at a later stage of the Bill, but not in Committee.
      Amendment proposed, in page 1,line 20, leave out sub-section 4.—(Mr. Lalor.)
      Amendment negatived.
      On the Motion of Mr. LITTON, Amendment made, in page 1, line 21, after "may," by inserting "within the prescribed period."
      MR. MARUMsaid, that as the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had on the Paper an Amendment in similar terms to his own, he was willing to amalgamate the two and leave the matter in his hands. He objected to the bad character of a tenant being specified as a reasonable ground of refusal of a tenant on the part of the landlord, as also to the exception on the ground of previous failure as a farmer. Hon. Members acquainted with commercial affairs would know that many men who had been in former years unsuccessful had made their experience the means of success in after years.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLwould not trouble the Committee by any general observations on the question of the right of sale of tenant, particularly as the experience of everyone practically acquainted with these matters would show him that in places where the sale of the tenant's interest was free from all restriction, not only were the landlord's and the tenant's relations the best, but the position of the tenants themselves was good. This benefit did not end with the tenant only, but, in proportion as the position of the tenant was improved, the security of the landlord was greater. He strongly urged on the Committee that as they had recognized the right to sell in the tenant, they should leave that right as free as possible, consistently with what was right and just to the landlord. He pointed out to the Committee that as they were reposing large powers in the Court, the best way of dealing with the question of the grounds upon which a landlord might refuse to accept a tenant would be not to specify the particular reasons contained in the section, some of which he regarded as objectionable, and then, as was the case in the section, add a general clause at the end to meet cases in which dispute
      492
      arose, but to drop the particular reasons, and to let the clause run as follows:—
      " Where a tenant has sold to some other person than the landlord, the landlord may refuse, on reasonable grounds, to accept the purchaser as tenant; and, in case of dispute, the reasonableness of the landlord's refusal shall be decided by the Court."
      As the section stood, the enumeration of specific grounds was not exhaustive, and would only have the effect of raising, as between a fair landlord and fair tenant, questions that otherwise might not get into the mind of either of them. Further, he submitted that the grounds mentioned were objectionable as they stood. The words "insufficiency of means, measured with respect to the liabilities of the tenancy," were of themselves, and without further particulars, perfectly vague, and would, therefore, be no guide to the Court. Then there was the reasonable refusal on the ground of bad character. Did this mean bad moral character, or that the landlord might reasonably object to a person professing objectionable views, or to one who was a member of a society or organization which was distasteful to him? This latter ground of objection would probably raise a number of unpleasant questions—sectarian amongst the rest. With regard to the next ground of objection—the failure of the purchaser already as a farmer—he asked, might not a case exist in which a man's previous failure had given him the very experience necessary for successful farming? But however much experience such a man had gained, the Bill, as it stood, would debar him from becoming a tenant again. Finally, there was the omnibus clause, which said "Any other reasonable and sufficient cause." As it appeared that in case of dispute the reasonableness of the landlord's refusal was to be decided by the Court, why should not the Court be allowed to decide the whole question of what constituted a sufficient reason for refusal? He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
      Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, leave out from "the" to "cause" in page 2, line 3.—(Mr. Charles Russell.)
      MR. LITTONremarked, that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk having exhausted the subject, he merely rose to say that he proposed to withdraw the

      493
      Amendment of a similar character standing in his name. At the same time, he took the opportunity of referring to a Petition which had been presented to the House by the hon. Member for the County of Londonderry (Sir Thomas M'Clure) which showed the interest and importance attaching to this matter in Ireland. The Petition to which he referred was signed by 420 Presbyterian ministers in Ulster, who strongly condemned the express indication of the grounds of objection on the part of a landlord to accept a purchaser. These specific statements appeared wholly unnecessary, inasmuch as in line 4 of page 2 it was provided that—
      "In case of any dispute the reasonableness of the landlord's refusal shall be decided by the Court."
      Under those circumstances, he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped the Prime Minister would agree to the Amendment before the Committee. Although the Court had power to decide in case of dispute, he ventured to point out that it would be guided by the previous sub-sections, which would in all cases rule the last part of the section. He felt certain that if the matter were left to the Court entirely the best decision would be arrived at.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, he thought there was no middle course between leaving out the section and putting in a great number of exceptions. Therefore, he hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment.
      MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. If the Committee would examine the particular reasons given in the clause they would see that they were in themselves perfectly just. He admitted they were open to amendment in the sense suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk; but they were undoubtedly just. On searching for precedents, he found that the practice in cases of this character was by no means uniform. There were, however, a number of cases in point where it had been the custom of Parliament not only to introduce general words, but also particular reasons. The 13th clause of the Land Act of 1870, which applied to restrictions with regard to compensation, gave two
      494
      particular and one general case. This seemed to furnish a strong argument in favour of the clause as it stood. In his opinion, it was desirable that these particular cases should be mentioned in the clause because the landlord would thereby be saved a good deal of uncertainty; it furnished him with certain reasons on which he could safely refuse. On the other hand, their omission would place him in a position of great difficulty. Further, this would lead to very great uncertainty in the decisions of the Court. The result of all this would be that the landlord would never be sure that he was safe in refusing a purchaser, because he would know that the Court would have to decide, and that no advice was given by Parliament as to the grounds upon which its decision was to be founded.
      MR. A. MOOREsaid, it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to draw out an exhaustive list of the reasons which would justify a landlord in refusing to accept a purchaser, and an imperfect list would do more harm than good. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, he should give his support to the clause, which was based upon a passage in the Report of the Bessborough Commission, where it was stated that under the Ulster Custom, the veto of the landlord upon certain, specified grounds was universally recognized, those grounds being the insolvency of the proposed incoming tenant, or the fact of his being a bad farmer, or of his having failed in farming. As these cases were recognized under the Ulster Custom, it was not likely they would be of very rare occurrence.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to express the great satisfaction I have received from the discussion of the present Amendment, which has not been regarded from a Party point of view. The question has been argued by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) very fairly indeed, and the same spirit of fairness has been apparent throughout the speeches which followed that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down is quite right in supposing that in the insertion of these words the Government had reference to the passage in the Report of the Bessborough Commission which he quoted. We have, however,

      495
      to a certain extent, regarded this question as one to be settled ambulando; and I am bound to say that after hearing the arguments so fairly stated on both sides it is our opinion that we should do wisely to waive this specification. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) has stated his fear that the omission of the clause will give rise to cases of uncertainty and variation of judgment in the decisions of the Court. But, Sir, I think we can give a practicable answer to that objection, and it is that the question is not a new one. The Courts in Ulster have long been in the habit of considering what are "reasonable grounds," without any special guidance from Acts of Parliament, and no inconvenient variation of judgment has been produced. On the contrary, the standard seems well understood, and where that is the case it is probably better to avoid the risk of disturbing the practice by any attempts at definition. There is, I think, great force in the observation of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk that if we enumerate at all we ought to enumerate exhaustively. But that certainly cannot be done. Upon the whole, I consider the balance of argument to be in favour of my hon. and learned Friend. I am bound, also, to say that the precedent taken from the Act of 1870, although it was ingeniously handled by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, is clearly in favour of this omission. It is clear that the opinion of Parliament, at the time when those words were inserted in the Act, was that the ground of establishing the reasonableness of a refusal had better be left to the Court.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, that nothing could be fairer than the way in which the Prime Minister had given his reasons for assenting to the view of the subject taken by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell); but he must endeavour to state why he thought it would be desirable to retain the present drafting of the Bill. He had listened attentively to the Prime Minister, and, as far as he could judge, he simply rested his argument for the withdrawal of this sub-section of the Bill on the way this matter was worked in Ulster. But he must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this clause did not at all apply to the Ulster tenant custom. That custom
      496
      was well known and clearly ascertained—it was, so to speak, a going concern; and, therefore, it was entirely unnecessary to lay down any fresh rule with regard to it. What was the objection urged, or that could be urged, to the retention of this clause of the Bill as it stood? It came before the Committee accredited by authority; it followed almost word for word the Report of the Bessborough Commission; it had received the sanction, amongst others, of the hon. Member for Cork, and had been arrived at after hearing a great variety of evidence. Nor did it rest upon that authority alone. They knew that the specification in question as well as the other sections of the Bill, had been elaborately considered by Her Majesty's Government—considered and reconsidered, and if he might venture upon a criticism of the form of the Bill, he would say that it was enormously over-drafted. However that might be, there was no doubt that this particular sub-section was the result of a great deal of consideration. But, of course, he admitted that it was competent to the Government, on further re-consideration of the matter, to submit new proposals to the House with reference to it. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk said, in dealing with these specifications, it was better not to touch the matter at all, if it could not be done exhaustively. But if that were the case the same argument would apply against any legislation by that House. It was not the intention of the sub-section that the landlord should be able to preclude a man from getting a farm because he had failed once as a farmer, or had once had a bad character. If a landlord put forward his objection and said—"I object to you, because you failed as a farmer 20 years ago," anyone would say his objection might be unreasonable. But, after all, the landlord was not left to judge of his own case, because the last lines of the sub-section said—"In case of dispute the reasonableness of the landlord's refusal shall be decided by the Court;" and, therefore, the sub-section contained within itself all the means of rendering it reasonable. Again, supposing the special grounds of objection were got rid of, would not the landowner be left largely without guidance, or rather absolutely without guidance? He contended that the landlord would be exposed to an

      497
      amount of odium almost intolerable, and which he would certainly have to encounter if he were compelled, unaided by the Bill, to put forward the objections which the Committee were now asked to strike out from the sub-section. He admitted that the arguments in support of the Amendment had been urged by the Prime Minister and all who had spoken on this question with extreme moderation. But the question had hardly been looked at from the landlord's point of view. At present the landlord had the right of making other objections that were covered by the words "any other reasonable and sufficient cause," so that the Court was furnished with a particular as well as a general guide; but if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk were accepted it would be without any guide whatever. It was clear, therefore, that the Amendment struck largely against the operation of the Court. On the whole, he thought it very important that the sub-section should be retained, both in the interest of the Court, who would be left entirely without guidance, and in the interest of the landlord, who would be practically exposed to great difficulties in putting forward as objections to a purchaser of the tenant's interest in his holding topics which now were deliberately removed from the Bill.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he considered it would be better and safer to leave this matter to the discretion of the Court. In addition to the three specific grounds at present stated in the clause, hon. Members opposite had already placed on the Paper Amendments specifying three other grounds which they wished to have stated. Yet one of the objections urged by his right hon. and learned Friend opposite against the omission of the clause was that the Bill was over-drafted, and went too much into particulars. Surely that argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was rather in favour of the proposal now made. The answer to all the objections which had been made was that the present practice worked extremely well, and that the Courts in Ireland had never had the smallest difficulty in ascertaining what was a reasonable ground for a landlord not accepting a tenant, and this was all the more evident in Ulster, because there were more assignments in that
      498
      Province than in other parts of Ireland. It would be much safer for the landlords themselves to leave a large and wide discretion to the Court.
      MR. BRODRICKsaid, he differed entirely from the concluding remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that it would be much safer to leave this matter to come before the Court. One of the strongest feelings amongst landlords in the South of Ireland was that, if the particular proviso relating to the means of the tenant were put upon them, it ought to be made incumbent on the tenant to prove sufficiency of means. Everyone knew that it was impossible for the landlord to prove insufficiency on the part of the tenant who, in order to buy the tenancy, might have borrowed the money and be really insolvent, having a large interest to pay. But the fact of leaving this to be settled by the Court was that the landlord would have no power to call upon the tenant to prove anything at all. There was nothing in the Bill which imposed on the tenant the necessity of proving that he had sufficient money to work the farm. He therefore most strongly objected to the omission of the sub-section. But he ventured to oppose the withdrawal of the 'sub-section on other grounds. There seemed to be a disposition on the part of the Government to leave everything they could not settle for themselves to the decision of the Court. When they were pressed to define the tenant's right, they said the definition in the Act being insufficient, and the House being unable to define it, they would leave it to the Court to settle what was to be the legal value of the tenant right. It was precisely the same with regard to the question of fair rents, and now, on the question of the reasonable ground on which a landlord might refuse to accept a tenant, the Committee were asked to put a child-like confidence in the Court, of the nature of which they knew nothing with certainty, and the composition of which they might find it difficult adequately to criticize when the present clause was passed. He therefore hoped the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk would not be accepted by the Government.
      MR. SHAWsaid, that, notwithstanding the Report of the Bessborough Commission, he was in favour of the exclusion of the sub-section. The proposal

      499
      would, on the whole, strengthen the hands of the landlords.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not in favour of time being occupied in dividing the Committee. He had, however, a very strong opinion against the Government giving way on this point. When the Question was put hon. Members on that side of the House would merely indicate their dissent.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 2, line 5, after "Court," insert" Provided that no action shall be brought against the landlord or any person giving evidence on his behalf, or against the tenant or any person giving evidence in his behalf, for or in respect of any statement made in any proceedings under this section."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the provision was quite unnecessary. It was settled law that for statement made in the course of any legal proceeding no action for defamation could, be maintained.
      MR. GIBSONpointed out that it was not at all clear that the sub-Commissioners, when sent down to make inquiries, would constitute exactly a Court of Justice. He thought, perhaps, under the circumstances, that the noble Lord would be willing to forego the matter at that time, and raise the question, if necessary, farther on, when the constitution of the Court and of the Commission was finally laid down and ascertained.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment; at the same time, he thought it right to state that it was at the request of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself that he had put the words on the Paper.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLagreed that it would be better not to raise the question on the present clause.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. H. R. BRANDsaid, he had only put down the Amendment he was about to move for the purpose of getting some explanation from the Government upon the subject of the exception contained in sub-section 6 with regard to the condition relating to the payment of rent. He was quite at a loss to understand the reason for these words appearing in the sub-section. It appeared to him that the tenant could get compensation for his improvements under any circum-
      500
      stances, and he was quite unable to see why the landlord should not get compensation for damages done by the tenant in case of eviction for non-payment of rent.
      Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 10 and 11, leave out "except the condition relating to the payment of rent."—(Mr. H. R. Brand.)
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)thought that these words might be omitted. There was no reason why a landlord should not be able to recover compensation for waste when he ejected for non-payment of rent as well as for the breach of other statutory conditions. The Amendment would, therefore, be accepted.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the Committee ought to have some further explanation from the Government before the Amendment was agreed to.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is too late. I said the "Noes" had it.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, he rose before the Chairman said that.
      THE CHAIRMAN: No doubt the hon. Member rose; but I did not hear him challenge the statement.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, there should be no question as to the absolute right of the landlord to be recouped out of the purchase money for damages sustained by the breach of statutory conditions on the part of the tenant. It might be that the word "may" was for this purpose as strong as the word "shall;" but there was no doubt in his mind that the latter word should be inserted in this case.
      Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11,leave out "may," and insert "shall."—(Mr. Gibson.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he saw no necessity for the Amendment. It could hardly be intended that the Court should be under an absolute statutory obligation to grant compensation under all possible circumstances; and the advantage of the word "may" was that whilst it left the Court free to refuse to act where its interposition would be inequitable, it was construed as imperative in all proper and suitable cases.
      MR. GIBSONargued that the Amendment was indispensable if, as it purported, the sub-section was really de-

      501
      signed to prevent the infliction of injustice on the landlord.
      MR. SHAWsaid, he had understood that the Government were willing to accept the word "shall."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated with perfect truth that the intention of the clause was that, where there had been a breach of contract which had been injurious to the landlord, and he had suffered a money loss, the Court should compensate him. The whole question raised was whether it should be said the Court "may" or "shall" do it. It was one of those questions in which he was reluctant to interfere; it was a sacred matter, and to give an opinion where lawyers were concerned might be dangerous. Upon the whole, however, he was disposed to stand by the word "shall."
      MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, in the early part of the section the landlord was entitled to his rent out of the purchase money paid by the succeeding tenant, and by an Amendment already accepted he would be able to claim damages for the non-payment of rent. If they substituted the word 'shall" for "may," the result would be that the Court would have no discretion but to give damages for the non-payment of rent; whereas, if they left it vague, the Court would be empowered, if they thought it proper, to say to the landlord—" You have had quite enough, and you are not entitled to any damages." For these reasons he thought it better that "may" should remain, or that, when they came to Report, they should re-consider the Amendment they had just accepted.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)pointed out that the Court would not give damages for the non-payment of rent.
      MR. GIBSONasked if was intended that the Court might grant the landlord out of the purchase money everything except the arrears of rent? If the landlord was paid his arrears, he would understand that in addition he should not he paid damages for their non-payment.
      MR. MARUMbelieved the effect of the clause would be to give the right of action to the landlord for nominal damages for breach of contract.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FAEEER HERSCHELL)said, it would not
      502
      make the slightest difference whether "may" or "shall" was the word inserted. There was the highest legal authority for saying that the Courts were bound, if the circumstances contemplated existed, to do what the section described. With reference to the other matter, there seemed to be some misapprehension. It was quite clear that for the non-payment of money the Court could not give damages; there was no such thing as an action for damages for the non-payment of money.
      MR. H.R. BRANDasked the Attorney General for Ireland under what clause the landlord, who exercised his right of pre-emption, would get his arrears of rent out of the purchase money?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)replied that as soon as the purchase money was ascertained, and the time for payment came, the landlord would simply deduct the rent from the purchase money, and pay the balance.
      Amendment agreed to.
      DR. COMMINSmoved, in page 2, line 12, after the word "moneys," to insert the words "payment of any debt due to him by the tenant and." The Amendment would take away all liability to misconstruction. Without the insertion of the words he proposed it might be held that damages could be awarded for the non-payment of rent.
      Amendment agreed to.
      VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
      "Clause 1, page 2, line 12, after "moneys," insert "any arrears of rent which may, at the time of such sale, be due from the outgoing tenant to the 'landlord, and also any taxes payable by the outgoing tenant due in respect of the holding and not recoverable by him from the landlord, and also,"
      said, he did not know whether the Amendment just agreed to by the Committee did not materially affect his proposal.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, the latter part of the noble Lord's Amendment seemed different from the one just agreed to.
      VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Dr. Commins) seemed to have the same effect as that he had to propose. Perhaps the Chairman would say

      503
      whether he was of opinion the Amendment last agreed to would cover the point he (Viscount Folkestone) wished to raise.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, the latter part of the Amendment seemed different from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Commins.)
      VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, that if the first half of the Amendment was already covered, and that, therefore, the landlord could get his arrears, he would move the insertion of the words—
      "And also any taxes payable by the outgoing tenant duo in respect of the holding' and not recoverable by him from the landlord, and also."
      The Amendment had nothing to do with the principle of the Bill, and he was induced to move it because he found the same provision in the Act of 1870 under the clauses relating to compensation for disturbance. As he understood that the same rules relating to compensation for disturbance would now apply by this Bill to every tenancy determined, after the passing of this Act, he thought it but fair and just to the landlord that the provision made by the Act of 1870, under the clauses regulating compensation for disturbance, should appear in this clause. He apprehended the Government would have no objection to the Amendment. He did not propose it in any spirit of obstruction; indeed, he thought that if in future obstruction was imputed to the Opposition side of the House they ought to remind the Attorney General for Ireland that he had just now made a most animated speech against his own clause.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he did not think this Amendment was in the same position as that just agreed to, and for this reason. These taxes, in many cases, if not in all, were charged upon the land, and they might be distrained for after the new tenant had come into possession. There was nothing to make the landlord pay the taxes; but if they were not paid the incoming tenant would be called upon to meet them.
      VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he had taken the words out of Clause 3 of the Act of 1870; and, as far as he could understand, they would apply just the same now as then.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)remarked, that
      504
      compensation for disturbance dealt with cases where the landlord had put out the tenant, and taken possession himself. He, therefore, very properly claimed the right to deduct that which would otherwise fall upon the land in his own occupation. But here was a transfer of land from one tenant to another, both of whom were liable. The payment of taxes, therefore, ought to be arranged between themselves.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, there was, no doubt, that distinction between the cases which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated. It was plainly not proper that the outgoing tenant should go away with the purchase money in his pocket free from all deductions in respect to the unpaid taxes. But he would not say there might not be some better way of presenting this matter to view. His noble Friend was quite right in raising the question; but it was possible that it might be made in a more convenient form than that proposed. The matter was certainly one that must be carefully considered before the Bill left the House.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)observed, that there would be the right of action by the purchaser to get the money paid from the old tenant, who, by the very nature of the contract of sale, was bound to indemnify him against these charges.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      DR. COMMINSmoved, in page 2, line 14, after the word "conditions," to add—
      "And which shall be claimed in the suit or process for the recovery of such possession, and awarded by a jury upon the trial of such suit or process."
      The object of the Amendment was to prevent what might be a great grievance to the tenant. As the clause now stood, it would be competent for the landlord, when a sale took place, to make a claim for a real or imaginary breach of eon-tract without the slightest previous notice to the tenant. This, however, would be obviated by the Amendment, which also provided a proper tribunal for the assessment of damages—namely, a jury. Where a landlord claimed damages for breach of contract he should oblige him to bring his claim before a jury, having previously given notice to the tenant of his intention to do so. The section would

      505
      not be complete unless the words he suggested were added. Any differences existing between landlord and tenant could then be fairly tried, and adjusted by a tribunal capable of doing justice between them.
      MR. LITTONapprehended that, before the Amendment was considered, the Attorney General for Ireland should move to add "except the condition relating to the payment of rent."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved to insert in page 2, line 14, after "conditions," the words "except the conditions relating to the payment of rent."
      THE CHAIRMANsuggested that the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon should withdraw his Amendment until that of the Attorney General for Ireland was disposed of.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 2, line 14, after "conditions" to insert the words "except the conditions relating to the payment of rent."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLcould not conceive why the Attorney General wished to insert these words.
      MR. MORGAN LLOYDconsidered the words necessary.
      Amendment agreed, to.
      DR. COMMINSthen proposed his Amendment.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Amendment. The principle of the Bill was to leave the Court to determine these questions, and he thought they would be able to determine the point contemplated as well as others. The Government had every wish to do what was fair and just between the parties.
      MR. PARNELLthought it would be better to leave the consideration of the question raised by his hon. and learned Friend until they came to discuss the question of the constitution of the Court. He understood certain Amendments would be moved then with the object of raising the question of some other tribunal for the purpose of deciding these questions, and perhaps his hon. and learned Friend would see it would be more convenient to discuss this point at that stage of the Bill rather than on
      506
      the question of a particular duty which the Bill proposed to assign to the Court.
      DR. COMMINSthought the Amendment would be acceptable to the Attorney General if he withdrew the last line of it, so that it would read "and which shall be claimed in the suit or process for the recovery of such possession."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Amendment was quite unnecessary. If there was no claim there would be nothing to decide.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. HEALYmoved the omission of sub-section 7. The Court fixed the statutory term, and it would be neglecting its duty if it did not take into consideration, after fixing the rent, the amount of the increase of rent. This section provided that at a certain period the Court must take into consideration the improvements made by the landlord or his predecessors. Why should that not be done by way of fixing the increased rent? There was no reason why the landlord should have the power to keep hanging over the tenant the threat that at some future time he should come down upon him for a claim for the improvements he had made. The landlord should claim in the Court to have his statutory term fixed, and in the increased rent he would get the value of his improvements.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, the effect of the omission of this sub-section would be to compel the landlord to raise the rent for every improvement made on a farm. He submitted, however, to the Government that there ought to be some restriction as to the character of the improvements.
      MR. HEALYsaid, his object in proposing the omission was that if the landlord had made any improvements he should at once claim the value of them in an increased rent. If he did not do so he would always have it in his power to come down upon the tenant for them. Furthermore, if the landlord valued his improvements at £500, but the tenant only estimated their worth at £100, who was to decide between them?
      MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, it would be a mistake to omit this sub-section; but it certainly would need amending by the addition of the words "improvements suitable to the holding." He

      507
      noticed that an hon. Friend (Mr. Givan) had such an Amendment on the Paper. He was aware of an instance where a substantial tenant in the county he had the honour to represent was required by his landlord to permit the making of improvements, even in the way of buildings, and the consequence was that the farm was simply ruined to the tenant. He appealed to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) not to press his Amendment, but to allow them to concentrate their best efforts to carry the Amendment, providing that all the improvements should be of a reasonable and suitable character.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, it would not be well to omit the clause. It was only proper that both the tenant's and landlord's improvements should be taken into consideration. If a landlord wished to be repaid the money he had invested in the improvement of a farm, the clause would enable him to come into Court when the purchase money was paid in and have his reasonable claims satisfied. The clause was not intended to operate in a case where the landlord, by an increased rent or in any other way, had got a return for his investment; but if he had not received any compensation for his improvements, he would be entitled to come into Court and obtain out of the purchase money what would recoup him. The purchaser would know what he was buying and the seller would know what he was selling.
      MR. HEALYasked whether, in the case of the incoming tenant paying the outgoing tenant for the tenant right and the landlord for his improvements, there was anything to prevent the landlord immediately raising the rent or evicting the new tenant?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that in the case of a tenant, who had not the protection of the statutory term, there was nothing to prevent the landlord evicting him in the ordinary way, or raising his rent. But in a case like the one cited by the hon. Member, the landlord, by the very fact of his being paid for his improvements out of the purchaser's money, would be prevented charging any additional rent for these improvements. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had spoken of the advisability of inserting the word "suit-
      508
      able" before "improvements." If the hon. and learned Member would turn to the Definition Clause of the Land Act of 1870, which was incorporated with the present Bill, he would find that by "improvements," improvements suitable to the holding were alone contemplated.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, what his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford wished to demonstrate was, that where a tenant did not apply to the Court for a statutory term and a judicial rent, the landlord would have, under this sub-section, a right he did not have under the Act of 1870. That was to say, it would give him the right to get compensation for his past improvements whenever there was a sale of the tenant right, and, in fact, to place an additional restriction besides those provided under the Act of 1870. The hon. Member seemed to think it would be fair to except those tenants who did not claim the interference of the Court from the operation of this sub-section wherever it gave an additional right to the landlord not provided by the Act of 1870.
      MR. SYNANsaid, if the tenant sold the improvements of the landlord, it was only fair that the landlord should have some claim upon the money so realized. It would be well to strike out the word "tenancy," and in its place say "purchase money paid in respect of such improvements."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. FINDLATER (for Mr. GIVAN)moved in page 2, line 15, after the word "where," to insert the word "suitable." There could be no objection to the Amendment.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. The definition of the word "improvement" was very explicit.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. MULHOLLANDmoved in page 2, line 15, after "on" to insert "or for the benefit of."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, they had better leave the words as they were. The proposed alteration would not lead to the smoother working of the measure.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. BRODRICKmoved in page 2, line 16, after "predecessors," to insert—

      509
      "In title, or by the landlord, or his predecessors in title, jointly with the tenant, or his predecessors in title."
      The effect of the sub-section, as it stood, was this—when the tenant right was sold two classes of improvements were provided for—namely, that made by the landlord and that made by the tenant. One class of improvements was not provided for—namely, that made by the landlord and tenant jointly—that class of improvements in which, for instance, the landlord supplied the material and the tenant the labour. It would be most unjust to deprive the landlord of any claim in respect of such improvements, and he felt the Government would see the justice of the Amendment he now proposed.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he had no objection to the Amendment in principle, but thought it might be more suitably framed. The hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, allow it to stand over until a later stage of the Bill.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. GIBSON (for Mr. FITZPATRICK)moved in page 2, line 16, after "predecessors," to insert—
      "And the benefit of such improvements has been sold with the consent of the landlord, the landlord shall upon the sale of such holding."
      He thought sub-section 7 was, in many respects, one of the most important subsections of the clause; certainly it was the most important to the landlord in reference to his past dealings and future relations with the holding. This subsection pre-supposed by the sale sanctioned in the earlier part of the Bill that the landlord's improvements had been actually sold by the tenant, and it implied throughout that the sole equity of the landlord, whose improvements had been sold by an operation already agreed to, was that he might make an endeavour to substantiate a claim in the Court to be recouped for his improvements, so far as they were in existence and unexhausted. The sub-section further implied that if the landlord did not come into Court at a certain time, it would be assumed, or might be assumed hereafter, that his improvements had been sold under the 1st clause of the Bill. He did not think from what the Attorney General had said, as well as from some words which fell from the Prime Minis-
      510
      ter on a previous occasion, that it was the desire of the Government to prevent landlords, in the future, having an interest in the holdings of their tenants. This sub-section, however, was one fraught with grave consequences in that direction. That Amendment said this—the landlord, if he consented that his improvements should be sold to the incoming tenant, was enabled to come in and say—" I am satisfied; it suits all parties. It suits the incoming tenant; it suits the outgoing tenant; and it suits my pocket to be paid; and, therefore, I am satisfied that this arrangement should be made, both for the present and for the future." That was one view of the case; but there might be—and he hoped, notwithstanding what had been said, that the number would be still larger—a number of men who desired to retain an interest in their estates; and it was desirable that that class should be increased, and, therefore, he wanted to make it abundantly plain that the landlord might have an opportunity of saying—" I do not desire to be paid off, but I am satisfied to allow things to remain as they are under the old tenancy. I have made these improvements, and the law has given me the right of preferring a claim for them whenever I think proper." That was really the scope of this Amendment. As his right hon. and learned Friend would see, in consequence of the last Amendment, some re-construction of the clause might be necessary. He presumed his right hon. and learned Friend had read the Amendments the first of which he was now moving. They all hung together, and he thought that his right hon. and learned Friend would find that they all tended to carry out the view that he had expressed, and he hoped that he had explained them with sufficient clearness.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 2, line 16, after "predecessors," insert "and the benefit of such improvements has been sold with the consent of the landlord, the landlord shall upon the sale of such holding."—(Mr. Gibson.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he had nothing to object to or complain of in this Amendment. He thought that the proposition made by his right hon. and learned Friend was fair and right, and his only objection was of a mere

      511
      verbal character. His right hon. and learned Friend proposed that the improvements themselves should not be sold, except with the consent of the landlord. That was obviously the view of the Government in the matter. It was only right that there should be no mistake about this—that what the tenant had to sell was not the land or the houses, but the use of them, or the benefit of them, during the currency of his tenancy; and they did not mean that he should have a right to sell anything else. But while he agreed with the reasons on which his right hon. and learned Friend based his Amendment, there were two or three words in the Amendment which were objectionable. He suggested that his right hon. and learned Friend should leave out the words "benefit of" and make the clause run "such improvements." In short, if his right hon. and learned Friend would leave the matter in his hands, he would undertake to re-model the clause on the stage of the Bill.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he accepted the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend; and, as it would be necessary to re-cast the clause, it could be introduced at a further stage.
      MR. SHAWsaid, there was one point which must be made quite clear—namely, that where there was a want of consent on the part of the landlord, there should be some notice that on buying the holding the incoming tenant did not purchase the landlord's improvements.
      MR. MARUMexpressed a hope that the clause would be so drawn as not to interfere with the freedom of contract.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not think that any difficulty would arise. There must be a consent between the two owners, one of whom was the owner of a temporary interest in the holding, and the other the owner of the fee simple of the holding. It was not necessary that there should be any contract between the two parties; but a simple arrangement that the two things should be sold together.
      MR. PARNELLasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland what course of procedure he would contemplate being taken where the landlord did not give his consent to the benefit of these improve-
      512
      ments being sold? For instance, where a tenant wished to sell his holding, the Bill provided that he might sell for the best price he could get. If the landlord was entitled to come into the sale and claim the intervention of the Court, and ask the Court to say that the price which was to be given by the incoming tenant was too much, and refuse his consent to sell the landlord's improvements for the price offered by the incoming tenant, including the value of the landlord's improvements, would it be leftafterwardsfor the Court to determine how much of the purchase money should go to the tenant and how much to the landlord on account of the improvements? In other words, he wished to know if the landlord could stop the negotiations between the tenant and the person wishing to purchase, or whether it would be left to the consideration of the Court afterwards under sub-section 7?
      SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he understood that it was intended, on both sides of the House, to encourage the landlords in Ireland to continue upon their property, and to encourage them also in making such improvements as outfalls, drains, fences, &c. But it was said that the benefit of those improvements might be sold by the tenant. Was he to understand that if a landlord, being on the best possible terms with his tenant, added to the value of the farm by effecting certain improvements, he would thereby, in consequence of some sale of the interest of the tenant, be precluded from making a fresh agreement with some other person at a higher rent. He thought that ought to be made quite clear.
      THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that all that had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland appeared to be a contradiction to the answer given to his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The right hon. and learned Gentleman had certainly pointed out that the outgoing tenant could sell all the improvements of the landlord as well as his own; but if they were bought by the incoming tenant, then the landlord's portion would be deducted from the purchase money, but the improvements would become the property of the incoming tenant.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that what

      513
      he had stated was that the landlord would come into Court and insist upon having the value of his improvements paid out of the purchase money, and in that case, of course, the improvements became the property of the incoming tenant. But that was only where the landlord acceded to the tenant's request that not only the use or tenancy of the improvements, but also the fee simple of the improvements should be sold. In the event of the tenant asking the landlord to sell his improvements, and the landlord not giving his consent and declining to join, what would happen would be that the tenant would sell what he had always been in the habit of selling—namely, his interest in the holding as improved. He did not sell anything but his interest in the house or the land. In short, whatever he sold was his own interest in the holding as it stood. In that case, no part of the purchase money would be taken in respect of the improvements of the landlord. It was only in the exceptional case where the landlord said—" I prefer that you should sell my improvements along with your tenancy and recoup me my money," that the landlord would have the right to demand the value of his improvements out of the purchase money. If he took that course, the landlord's portion would have to be deducted from the price. But he thought those cases would be exceedingly rare. Such, a sale of improvements would be a very rare case indeed; but whenever it did occur, and the landlord agreed to sell his improvements along with the rights of the tenant, of course the tenant would only receive that to which he was fairly entitled, and the remainder would go to the landlord. The Government had already accepted the principle contained in this Amendment, and they proposed to recast the clause for the purpose of more clearly embodying those views.
      MR. H. R. BRANDthought it ought to be made perfectly clear, before they went on with this Amendment, that the landlord was not to be driven into the Court in order to protect his interest. He did not speak of estates on which the landlord had made improvements and charged interest upon them in the shape of increased rent, but of the cases mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite on the second reading of the Bill, where the landlord had
      514
      made improvements in the past and charged no interest for those improvements to the tenant in the shape of increased rent. In what position would the landlord be placed in such a case? He would be obliged to force the tenant to sell; in fact, to give the tenant notice to quit, in order to compel him to sell his interest so that he might establish what were landlord's improvements and what was the landlord's interest in the farm. He contended that the landlord could not in every case afford to sit still, because, if he did sit still, in the course of time the improvements which he had made and not charged for would be merged in the interest of the tenant. Therefore, the effect of this clause would be to force the landlord to evict the tenant in order to get him to sell his interest.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, it would be obvious that the natural course a landlord whose estates were under-rented would take would be to get the value of his improvements in the form of a fairly increased rent.
      LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) to say that he moved not only this Amendment, but, practically, the two following ones. He wished to have this matter made perfectly clear.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, that the three Amendments were all welded together.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid,.the only question was whether the purchaser bought the landlord's improvements or not. If he bought them he would not be liable to any future claims the landlord might set up for improvements.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he had an Amendment upon the same point, but after what had passed he would not persevere with it.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, the next Amendment was consequential upon the one he had already proposed, and he would, therefore, withdraw it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. BRODRICKmoved, in page 2, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words "an adequate compensation," and insert" full repayment both of the capital

      515
      value and a fair interest thereon." He thought that this Amendment was one that would commend itself to the judgment of the Committee. Where improvements had been made on a holding by the landlord, or by the landlord and tenant jointly, in respect to which adequate compensation had not been paid, it was desirable that provision should be made for the repayment of the capital value, together with fair interest. It was desirable, he thought, to put this matter very carefully before the Court. Adequate compensation might be simply the interest on the capital expended; but, on the other hand, it might be held that adequate compensation had not been paid without an increased rent beyond the interest on the capital expended. It was desirable to put this case as fairly as possible before the Court, and he did not think any injustice would be done to the tenant.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 2, lines 16 and 17, to leave out "an adequate compensation," and insert "full repayment both, of the capital value and a fair interest thereon."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he could not accept the Amendment. The real value of a thing was what it would bring, and certainly not the capital expended, and that, too, with interest upon it. In other words, the landlord joined in the sale and offered the improvements as they stood for their true value as ascertained by sale.
      MR. SYNANthought it would be an extraordinary course to compel a tenant to go into the Court in order that he might ascertain what should be paid to the landlord for improvements. He hoped his hon. Friend would not persevere with the Amendment.
      MR. CARTWRIGHTsaid, he did not quite understand the position in which the clause was placed. The Government had accepted some portion of the Amendments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson); but the words had not been put down on the Paper, and some confusion had arisen among hon. Members on that side of the House as to the position in which the Committee stood with reference to the clause. He thought that it would be undesirable to continue the
      516
      discussion until they saw the words of the clause.
      MR. HENEAGEunderstood that the Amendment moved was that all the words after the word "in," inline 16, to the word" contrary," in line 20, should be omitted. And it was in the middle of the words to be omitted that his hon. Friend opposite proposed his Amendment.
      THE CHAIRMAN: None of those Amendments were proposed.
      MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), as to what is the position in which the Committee now stands, I may say that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite proposed his Amendment my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland pointed out that in our view the words would perplex and intercept the real effect of the Amendment. My right hon. and learned Friend accepted a subsequent Amendment with a qualification, and undertook to frame a clause. The effect will be that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire, and others who have not gathered the upshot of what has passed, will have full opportunity of dealing with the matter when the clause is re-framed.
      MR. BRODRICKsaid, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment; and, if necessary, he would reserve to himself the right of again proposing it on the Report. He wished to explain one portion of his proposal which had been misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman. His proposal was not that the landlords should receive out of the purchase money the capital and interest upon the capital expended, but that where the landlord had not been paid the capital and interest he should have power to make a claim for compensation out of the purchase money.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. E. W. HARCOURT, in moving, in page 2, line 26, at the end of subsection (7), after the word "tenancy," to insert—
      "And where the holding is at the time of the sale let at less than a fair rent, the Court shall, on the application of the landlord, fix a fair rent, and the difference between this and the actual rent shall be capitalized for the term of the prospective tenancy, and shall be deemed to be a debt payable to the landlord out of the purchase moneys of the tenancy,"

      517
      said, this was a matter of a very simple character. Although he should be sorry to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon it, he should like to have some assurance that the matter it related to would be dealt with in some way or other. It was a question which regarded what might be called the good landlords, who might, as often happened in England, let their land at 25 per cent below its value. It was desirable that the value of this indulgence should not go into the pocket of the tenant, and that when he sold his interest he should not make a claim for that which really did not belong to him. Therefore, he sought to capitalize that sum, whatever it might be. Supposing a farm was honestly worth £125 a-year, but was only let for £120 a-year, it would be unfair that the tenant should be allowed to claim an advantage for the circumstances which had not been brought about by any action of his own, and which, in point of fact, simply amounted to a remission of rent on the part of the landlord. The tenant ought to be called upon to pay a fair rent in all cases. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to say that the tenant had a right to the temporary enjoyment of the landlord's improvements; but this was something more than the temporary enjoyment of the landlord's improvements, because it was money put into his pocket by the landlord for a series of years, and it was not right that the tenant should have the power of selling the value of this indulgence to an incoming tenant. He therefore begged to move the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 2, line 26, at the end of sub-section (7), after the word "tenancy," to insert the words "and where the holding is at the time of the sale let at less than a fair rent, the Court shall, on the application of the landlord, fix a fair rent, and the difference between this and the actual rent shall be capitalised for the term of the prospective tenancy, and shall be deemed to be a debt payable to the landlord out of the purchase moneys of the tenancy."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONE: We cannot agree to this Amendment. If the landlord thinks fit to let his land at less than a fair rent, it may be a very generous and a very proper act; but he must not
      518
      complain that we make no provision for such a case in this clause. He cannot eat his cake and have his cake. Further, I may say that the adoption of this Amendment would very seriously extend the action of the Court in matters which have not yet been contemplated. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment; and when we have considered the action of the Court, and the distinction between ordinary tenancies and statutory tenancies, he may again bring forward a proposal on the subject. But I am bound to say that the principle of the Amendment, affecting, as it does, a man who has been voluntarily receiving less than a fair rent and entitling him to put that down as a debt against the tenant is one which we could not accept.
      MR. E. W. HARCOURTsaid, his Amendment was not retrospective but prospective. Suppose a man had been for the last 20 years letting a farm to a tenant for 25 per cent below its value, what they virtually said was—" If a sale is to take place, you shall be required to let that land for 15 years more at the same price."
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthought his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) had raised a very important point—namely, whether a free sale should be a free sale, or only limited to what the Government appeared to have in their mind—that was, the right of selling a reasonable expectation of continuing in the holding, whatever it might be worth, or whether they were to give the tenant a free sale, to be manufactured out of the generosity of the landlord. There were several properties in Ireland which let considerably under what the Court would consider to be a fair rent. They would force all the landlords in Ireland who had let their property at a low rent to go into the Court at once, in order that they might obtain, in an indirect way, an increased rent. He understood the object of his hon. Friend to be this—to protect the landlord who had treated his tenants with great generosity, and who for years had allowed his tenants to have the land very much under the market value. For instance, he believed there were many cases in which Griffith's valuation had been, taken with regard to pasture land, and on many pieces of pasture land

      519
      Griffith's valuation was absurdly low. If they gave the tenant the right to sell at that low rent, they would give him a right to sell something which had been conferred upon him solely through the generosity of his landlord. If his hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted the landlord would be able to go into Court and say—" I require the Court to find out what is the fair rent of my tenancy, in order that I may know what difference there is between a fair rent and the rent I have actually charged, because it is indisputably lower than the rent I could get in the open market." The Court would then fix a fair rent, and the tenant would not be able to sell that particular margin between a fair rent and the rent which he had been paying, and which was not a margin he would have acquired by any act of his own. If they did not accept this Amendment they would not enable the landlord to keep out of Court, but they would absolutely force him for his own protection to go to the Court, or else the tenant would be able to sell what did not belong to him. He did not know whether this was the exact point urged by his hon. Friend; but it was certainly a question of very great importance, and if the Prime Minister did not see his way to agreeing to the principle of the Amendment, he hoped that his hon. Friend would go to a division, and take the opinion of the Committee upon the subject.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)understood the point raised by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) to be that of a landlord letting a farm to a tenant or tenants very much under its value. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) had spoken of the generosity and kindness of the landlord; but whatever the landlord's motives might be, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) assumed that the present tenant ought not to lose any portion of the full value of the interest which he had in the holding. The noble Lord was afraid that when a tenant came to sell his tenancy he might sell to the purchaser a part of the landlord's generosity; but he could not sell without giving the landlord notice that he was going to sell, and the landlord, when he found that his reason for treating the tenant with forbearance and generosity was at an end, and was to
      520
      be interrupted by the transference of the holding to a stranger, could at once raise the rent; and probably he would not have to go to the Court for that purpose at all, because, if he knew that the rent was very much too low, he apprehended that the tenant would be equally conscious of that fact. Either an arrangement would be come to, or the landlord would go to the Court and get a fair rent fixed. Of course, it was not reasonable that a tenant should be able to sell the generosity of his landlord; but it must be borne in mind that when the time for selling came the landlord would have full notice of the change, and would then give notice to the tenant and to the purchaser of the fact that he intended to raise the rent, and if they could not agree as to what was a fair rent for the holding, then it would be in the power of either of them to go to the Court. But the hon. Gentleman wanted to go far beyond that, and to provide that when the rent was ascertained for the future, the Court should capitalize the future forbearance of the landlord, and pay him the amount out of money which was coming to his old tenant. The effect would be to charge this old tenant with the full money value of the difference between a fair rent and such lower rent as the landlord might then be ready to take from the purchaser. In fact, it would be enforcing the payment of so much of the fair rent, not in the ordinary or natural way, but by anticipation in the shape of a fine or capital sum payable by the original tenant. To that the Government could not accede.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, the conclusion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland's speech entirely gave the go-by to his argument at the beginning of it. It was said that his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) had attempted to give the landlord an opportunity of eating his cake and keeping it; and of obtaining all the cudos he could get for his generosity, and then demanding payment for it. If his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would carefully study the language of the Amendment, he would see that the words were these—
      "And the difference between this and the actual rent shall be capitalized for the term of the prospective tenancy."
      He (Mr. Plunket) had been about to

      521
      Suggest to his hon. Friend that he should withdraw the Amendment in favour of the one which stood in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitzpatrick), which proposed to give effect to the same principle, but in better words. The words of the present Amendment were a little too general. However, the principle had been controverted by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, who had argued against the idea altogether. He would, therefore, state what the real object of this proposal was. They must assume an estate, of which there were, indeed, a great many in Ire land, whereon the rents had always been kept down to a very modest figure. The landlord would never have thought of raising the rent upon any of his tenants; but, under this Bill, any one of the tenants, by selling his interest in the holding, might at once put it upon the landlord either to raise the rent or to purchase the holding himself, perhaps at an exceedingly inconvenient period, or else to submit to lose the difference between this very low rent and what would have been a fair rent. The object of this Amendment was simply to enable the landlord to escape the loss of the difference between the low rent he had charged and that which the Court would assign to be the proper rent that ought to be paid, and the Amendment would allow him to escape that loss without undertaking the invidious task of raising the rent on the incoming tenant. That was the whole object of the Amendment, and—
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Paying by anticipation.
      MR. PLUNKEThoped his right hon. and learned Friend would allow him to continue his argument. For the sake of argument, he assumed that the rent was very low indeed. The tenant proposed to sell his interest in the holding. It must be assumed that there was a considerable difference and margin in the rent that was charged and what would be declared by the Court under the Bill to be a fair rent. Now, unless they had some such Amendment as this, the landlord would have no alternative except either to submit to the loss of this difference altogether, or to raise the rent against the incoming tenant—and it would not do for his right hon. And
      522
      learned Friend to interrupt him and say it was paying by anticipation. What difference was there between that and doing what he would do—namely, raise the rent against an incoming tenant? The object was that the landlord should have, not a very low rent, but a fair rent against the new tenant, and that he might be enabled to charge what would be practically a fair rent without going through the invidious process of raising the rent of any particular holding.
      MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not be called upon to divide upon the Amendment. The clause was a prospective one, and it might inflict injustice upon the tenant by compelling him to pay a larger sum than he ought to be called upon to pay. He quite failed to understand the difficulty about raising the rent. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that if there was an exceptionally low rent it would be very easy to raise it. The only question was, what would be the most convenient remedy? and he confessed that he did not think the Amendment would answer any such purpose.
      COLONEL BARNEthought it was just as well that the tenant farmers of Ireland should understand that by this Bill the whole of the rents of Ireland would have to be raised to their full value. The landlords of Ireland would be compelled, under a heavy penalty, to raise their rents to their full value. He was told that many large estates in Ireland were let very much under their full value; and as by this Bill the landlords would be compelled to raise their rents, hon. Members who were going to support the Government in this division must clearly understand that they were about to vote for raising the rents of the tenants of Ireland to their full value.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, who rose amid loud cries of "Divide," said, the Committee had made wonderful progress that morning, and he saw no reason for the impatience they were manifesting, especially as this particular Amendment was a very important one. A landlord let his land admittedly very low. The tenant gave notice to quit, and intimated that he was going to sell the holding. The landlord wished to exercise his right of pre-emption. He was obliged to make it appear in evidence that the land had been let at a

      523
      very low rent indeed, because it stood to reason that land must be worth more when it was low-rented than when it was over-rented. If the landlord did not wish to have a person coming in of whom he did not approve he was obliged to exercise the right of pre-emption, and unless some such provision as this were inserted in the Bill the landlord would have to pay an enormous penalty for his generosity in the past. They could not get out of the difficulty in any other way. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] He knew very well that nothing more vexed or annoyed the Prime Minister when he was speaking himself than for anybody to shake his head. In consequence, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had carefully avoided doing so; but he observed that the Members of the Government were constantly in the habit of doing that which they objected to in others. And most of the important Members of Her Majesty's Government, and especially the Solicitor General, were in the habit of sneering, shaking their heads, and turning up their noses whenever anybody expressed an opinion in which they did not coincide. Now, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not feel inclined to allow a division to be taken until the Government had entered into a clear explanation of what would be the effect of not adopting some provision like the present one for the protection of the landlord. If the landlord desired to make himself safe, he must compel the tenant to pay an increased rent, and the tenant could take him into the Court to have it fixed. Thereby the Government were actually producing the very result they professed to be anxious to avoid, because if the landlord did not exercise his right of pre-emption he would have to pay an enormous fine for having let his land at a low rent. He should very much like to hoar the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) argue this question.
      MR. E. W. HARCOURTsaid, that as he was certainly not convinced by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had said he should go to a division. In the first place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not quoted exactly what he (Mr. Harcourt) had advanced. He did not wish to capitalize the difference between a fair rent and a low rent, what he wished was that a landlord should
      524
      not suffer on account of the lenity with which he had hitherto dealt with his tenant, and that if he were to be compelled in the future to let his land below its value because he had done so in the past he should receive some equivalent for an obvious injustice. If the landlord, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, endeavoured to set himself right by applying for a rise of rent, he would immediately subject himself to the statutory conditions.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 212: Majority 112—(Div. List, No. 248.)
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
      The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
      The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTIONS.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC—RESOLUTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON, in rising to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice, said—Mr. Speaker: Sir, I am quite aware that this Session is a very unfortunate Session for anybody to bring forward almost any subject, because, as we all know, the time of the House and the attention of the country are mainly occupied over that Irish Question which has now been the subject of discussion in this House for so long, and which will probably continue to occupy it for some time to come. But although that is quite true, and although I believe everyone thinks that Ireland is now the great subject on which we ought to deliberate, and the subject to which the Government should turn their attention and deal with, and fulfil the hopes and expectations of those Irish Liberals by whom, to a large extent, that Government were placed in power, yet, while admitting all that to the full, I cannot think it would be wise entirely to neglect all other subjects, because, after all, our fellow-subjects and fellow-citizens in Ireland only number about 5,000,000, whereas the people of this Island number somewhere about 35,000,000, and it cannot be out of place to call attention to

  525
  a matter which affects the whole of those people. Before I go any further I must first explain what, I dare say, most Members of the House are now aware of, that I have altered the terms of the Resolution which stood upon the Paper in my name for a long time. That Resolution, Sir, was drawn up last year. I gave Notice of it at the end of last Session, and I did hope to move it, if the Government this Session did not deal with the Liquor Question. But, as everybody is aware, the circumstances which existed then are now entirely changed, and it would be folly on my part to call on the Government to engage in any great legislative scheme which would arouse strong opposition at this period of the Session, and especially considering the other work which lies before them. Therefore, taking all this into consideration, and taking counsel from some of my Friends, "men of light and leading," I have come to the conclusion that it would be better to alter the Resolution and to make it general in its terms—to make it a Resolution which simply says that this is a matter which ought to be dealt with at the earliest practical opportunity. That is the meaning of my Resolution as it now stands. It declares, in effect, that the matter is pressing and is waiting to be dealt with, and that it cannot brook longer delay after the time shall have come when the attention of the Government can be turned to anything else than Irish affairs. For I cannot but think that my Resolution, and the subject we have before discussed with which it deals, form a very great grievance. I think I can explain very shortly to the House what that grievance is. The grievance is, that there is a law in this country by which irresponsible authorities are enabled to license places for the sale of intoxicating drink wherever they please to do so, and the fact is, that having that power they exercise it to a very large extent, I have no doubt with the best intentions—but the result is not satisfactory. These irresponsible bodies have power to establish places for the sale of drink wherever they see fit, and the consequence is that they do establish them, and intoxication arises from the sale of drink. Now, that intoxication, as I am sure the House will agree with me, is a matter which concerns us all, not merely out of what is called a regard
  526
  for sobriety, but because it involves consequences more or less serious and severe to the welfare of the whole community. I suppose it will not be denied that this drinking is the main cause of the pauperism which exists in this wealthy country. I often see with, delight the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett), in trying to induce saving habits among the people, by establishing means whereby they can invest their savings in the Post Office and so forth; and I often think it is very hard on him that, while he is doing all he can to establish Post Office Savings Banks and other institutions to encourage thrift, he should be counteracted, and have all his efforts neutralized, by the Government allowing 150,000 persons to get all the money of these poor people by selling them drink in licensed premises. That is one part of my case; but there is another. The other evil that arises from the sale of drink and the fostering of these drinking habits is the crime of the country. I do not think I need quote many authorities on this point, for the House by this time must be almost tired of hearing them; but I should just like to show that this is not a new grievance; it is not one that I have discovered, or that my friends have discovered for MR. This grievance, the crime of the country being caused by the drinking habits of the country, is more than 200 years old. Listen to what Sir Matthew Hale said, so far back as the year 1670—
  "The places of judicature which I have held in this Kingdom have given me an opportunity to observe the original cause of most of the enormities that have been committed for the space of nearly 20 years; and, by due observation, I have found that if the murders and manslaughters, the burglaries and robberies, the riots and tumults, the outrages and other enormities which have happened in that time were divided into five parts—four of them have been the issues and product of excessive drinking, of tavern or alehouse drinking."
  Now, that was said 200 years ago by the Chief Justice, and the Chief Baron had exactly the same complaint to make a few years ago, when he said that "two-thirds of the cases of law which came before the Courts arise from drinking." I think I have now proved that pauperism and crime arise from this drinking system, and we know also that lunacy is mainly caused by the drinking habits

  527
  of the people. There is another evil which I may also mention. We have a Bill now before this House, and it is unquestionably a most important Bill, for dealing with the question of electoral corruption. But everybody here knows that there would be very little electoral corruption if it were not for the drinking shops. I do not like to quote too many authorities—not authorities of the past—but still I should like to quote on this point—that drinking is caused by the facilities for getting drink. I should like to quote what one of the most important Committees ever appointed in this House said about the matter. That Committee was presided over, some 25 years ago or more, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers), and this was the way in which they summed up the matter—
  "Numerous Committees of your honourable House bear unvarying testimony both to the general intemperance of criminals and the increase and diminution of crime in direct ratio with the increased and diminished consumption of intoxicating drinks."
  That is a strong indictment, by one of the most influential Committees that ever sat in this House. I will now quote from the opinions of Members of the Government; and I see one sitting near me on the Treasury Bench, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, who holds the Office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright). He said once, concerning those who deal in drink, that "they dealt in articles which produced crime, disorder, and even madness." That is a very strong indictment. Then his Colleague the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) said, a few years ago, that "if something were not done the very stones would cry out." Again, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) spoke only a few months ago, and spoke most powerfully upon this matter. He said—
  "The character of the evil is of that sort which increases rather than diminishes with the prosperity of the people… The whole industry of the country is at the mercy of this unhappy vice… He was most deeply anxious to see if anything could be done to remedy it."
  The Prime Minister himself said, in language never to be forgotten—
  "It has teen said that greater calamities are inflicted on mankind by intemperance than by
  528
  the three great historical scourges—war, pestilence, and famine. That is true for us, and it is the measure of our discredit and disgrace."
  I think I have advanced almost enough to prove the greatness of the evil and the greatness of the grievance, and I hope I shall not be accused of exaggeration. I know it is the proper thing for everybody to say—"Ah, but there is an intemperance in language as well as in drink." [" Hear, hear ! "] That is considered very clever, and always draws a cheer from somebody or other. But my opinion is that when a vice produces all the evils—the accumulated evils—of crime, disorder, and madness, it is almost impossible to exaggerate the magnitude or the mischievousness of that vice. And even moderate men, when they go into this question, speak in language which would astonish many people, and would never be used by me of my own accord. There is the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter). The House knows very well that he is not a fanatic, and I do not think he is an enthusiast, or likely to be called so. But what did he say about drink? Why, that alcohol, which is the essential of drink, is "the devil in solution !"If I had said that the House would have been shocked; but I only quote it to show what moderate men say when they go into this question. And now we come to an important point in the case, and that is, what is the attitude of the State towards this alcohol, and what ought to be its attitude? I am not going to deny that it is very delicious stuff. [" Hear, hear ! "] The hon. Member who cheers agrees, at all events, with that remark. It would be absurd, knowing how largely it is used, and how many a poor man gives up his honour, his fame, his health, his happiness, and all that makes life worth having, for the sake of consuming it—it would be absurd, I say, to deny that it is a fascinating drink. The State knows that, and knows truly enough and well enough that it is a very dangerous article to be dealt with. And so the State says—"We will do what we can, while allowing it to be dealt with, to prevent its doing more harm than we can help to the brains and character of those who consume it." And therefore the State endeavours to minimize the danger. The State has endeavoured, and is endeavouring, to insure moderation in the use of this fascinating but dangerous

  529
  article. Now, then, let me quote one word—one short sentence—to show exactly how this matter stands. It is put very well in a speech from which I will quote made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) in the course of last year. In that speech he described this liquor system, and this is the way in which he did it—
  "We have given to a certain body of traders—the licensed victuallers—a monopoly of the Bale of intoxicating liquor. We have given it upon an implied condition, that condition being that the moderate consumption of these articles shall be permitted, and that an immoderate use of them shall be restricted and forbidden; but what is the result? Why, it shows that the existing system is not one which works satisfactorily, and that the implied condition under which a valuable monopoly is granted to a certain body of traders is not observed by them."
  That shows that the system which we force on the people is a system which has failed—it "is not working satisfactorily." Well, but that is not because the State has not tried to make it work properly. It has made very great and praiseworthy efforts in that direction. It has considered very carefully the how, the when, and the where this drink is to be sold. It has considered how it is to be sold, and it has taken the greatest pains in inquiring into the character of those who sell it; and if anyone wishes to know what are the many virtues of the licensed victualler, he has only to go to one of their dinners, presided over by some of the hon. Members I see before MR. If anyone will only do that, he will be sure to know all about it before he comes away. I agree with what was once said by the right hon. Member for Birmingham about the danger of running down the characters of the licensed victuallers. The right hon. Gentleman said—"A great deal of harm has been done by running down the characters of the licensed victuallers." No doubt a great deal of harm has been done in that way; but my conscience, at all events, is perfectly clear. I have always said they are the finest body of men in the country. Indeed, that is my case. If anybody were to show that they are a lot of disreputable people, the answer would be clear—" Let us put fresh men into their places." But I say—"No; they are good men. They have done their best. It is not the men, it is the system that has broken down."
  530
  I remember a speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in which he said—
  "If I thought that by putting on an apron and going behind the bar myself, I could carry on the trade more satisfactorily than it is now carried on, I should think it the most religious and patriotic act I could perform to go and serve behind the bar."
  Precisely so; but he has never done it. He had never done it, because he knows they are as good as he. What terrible punishments there are for licensed victuallers' sins! What a vast deal of trouble the State has taken to determine when drink should or should not be sold ! Certain days are allowed—certain, hours are allowed for opening, and certain hours fixed for shutting. It is a meritorious act to sell at 11 o'clock at night; it is a crime to sell at one minute past 11, so minutely has the State gone into all these matters. Then the State has taken great trouble as to where the drink is to be sold. There are provisions as to rental, and as to what sort of a house it is to be, and the magistrates are told to inquire carefully into the requirements of the neighbourhood. And yet, with all these precautions and all these minute and detailed injunctions as to how the trade is to be carried on, the whole thing—as the noble Marquess said in the speech from which I have just quoted—the whole thing has been nothing more than a ghastly failure. I do not know where we are to find men to set the system on its legs in a new fashion, and to carry it on in a satisfactory way. We have all seen, some time ago, and the working men of this country have seen, what the noble Marquess said last year—that the whole thing is unsatisfactory, and that the licensing system is doing a great deal of harm. Thence has come the agitation which has troubled so many hon. Members of this House, and which makes some of them afraid to look their constituents in the face, this agitation for legislation in the direction of prohibition. We cannot deny that the agitation comes mainly from the working men, for we have not had many supporters from the upper and middle classes. The working men say—"We have seen that the licensing system does a great deal of harm; but we see many places where there is no licensing system, because there are no licensed houses. In those

  531
  places drinkshops are not set up, and there we find that a great amount of benefit has resulted from their absence." Liverpool is the headquarters of alcohol, so far as I know. [" No, no ! "] Well, somebody says "No ! "Everybody thinks his own place the worst. Everybody says to me—" Oh, my good fellow, come down here; this is an awful place!" But Liverpool, at all events, is bad enough. What do the working men see there? They see great districts—one belonging, I believe, to Lord Sefton, and another to my hon. Friend the Member for the Flint Boroughs (Mr. Roberts)—places where the landlords say—" No drinkshops shall be set up"—places which are oases in the desert of drink. What is the result? Why, that even in Liverpool the working men are content to go long distances in order to get houses in those districts, so as to be away from the contaminating influence of the drinkshops. Then there is a district in the suburbs of London, called Shaftesbury Park, which is carried on by a benevolent company, and one of the cardinal rules of which is that no drinkshops shall be set up there, and that is one of the most popular places for the dwelling of working men in all London. Wherever you go throughout the country you find parishes where the landlords, having the control of the whole thing, and being able to prevent them, prohibit them—prohibit the setting up of drinkshops. And what do you find there? Are the people puny, Buffering from the want of drink? Are they wretched, half-starved, gloomy, and spiritless? Not a bit of it. They are happy and comfortable, and they thank their beneficent landlords who have kept a great nuisance out of their way. I saw recently that a Gentleman who was formerly a Member of this House, and who is well known to many of us—I mean Mr. Thomas Hughes—has established a sort of model colony in America, and he is taking out to it the best educated people he can find. I have always heard that educating people cures drunkenness, and, therefore, that an educated people could safely be trusted to have as much drink as they like. But my Friend Mr. Hughes says—"Not a bit of it. This is a free country, where everybody can do what they please; but mind, don't let us have any sale of drink." I do not find fault with the magistrates. They
  532
  do the best they can, and certainly they do the best for themselves. As they have the power of stopping the drinkshops, and preventing them from being established except where they please, they take care not to set them up at their own doors. If a magistrate finds that it is sought to obtain a licence for a house too near his own, he immediately writes letters to all his friends on the bench—"Dear So-and-So,—Whatever you do, be on the bench on such a day. A licence is applied for a house next door to me." He gets all his men "whipped up," and the house for which the licence is asked is, of course, "Boycotted." All I ask for to-night is this—that you should give to the poor man the same privilege which the rich man has now—the privilege of protecting himself from these abominations. I do not know—it is not my business to know or to prophecy—whether, if you gave the people this power, they would avail themselves of it; but I do know that many who know the working people better than I do are convinced they would. Dr. Guthrie, one of the most eminent Scotchmen who ever lived, and who knew his country and its poor thoroughly well, said, years ago—
  "I am convinced that if the people of this country had the power, the very poorest in the lowest neighbourhoods would, by an almost unanimous voice, sweep away the drinkshops set up among them."
  I say they ought to have a right to do it. So far as I am concerned, all I have asked for is, that you should give the poor man the right which the rich man has, and that from the magistrates, with whom I do not find any fault, you should take away the irresponsible power now intrusted to them. And, Sir, as the House knows, I have often, perhaps, wearied them by explaining this policy to them, and in former days I had very little success. I was always defeated by my excellent Friend Mr. Wheelhouse, whose convincing arguments always led a large and enthusiastic body of Followers into the Lobby with him, to prevent the people having this power which I ask for them. But a change came over things a little more than a year ago. There came a General Election—the General Election of 1880—and a remarkable Election it was. Remarkably good. [" Question! "] I am coming to the Question. I am going to say

  533
  why it was good. It was good, because when we counted up the Returns after the Election, we were able to say, not what was once said in this House with regard to the United States of America, that "the great Republican bubble has burst," but that "the great Publican bubble has burst." We had always thought, up to that time, that Beer was king, and that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) was its prophet. But this was all changed after the last General Election. The verdict of the country was taken. No doubt, the principal question at that Election was as to our warlike policy; but I am quite sure that what had a great deal to do with the result was the determination of the electors of this country that this war against all that is good and virtuous and respectable in this country should also be put a stop to as well as all our foreign wars. Do not say that my language is too strong, for I always give my authorities. I have quoted the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), and I will now give the opinion of one who was once a brewer and a Member of this House—namely, the late Mr. Charles Buxton. He said—
  "The struggle of the Church, the school, and the library against the public-house and the beershop is only one development of the war between heaven and hell."
  I believe the people of this country were animated by a desire to do something to put a stop to that war when they returned the present Government to power. I, having been fortunate enough amongst other people—or unfortunate enough—to get a seat in this House, moved this Resolution, which I may, perhaps, read to the House, last Session—
  "That, inasmuch as the ancient and avowed object of Licensing the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors is to supply a supposed public want, without detriment to the public welfare, this House is of opinion that a legal power of restraining the issue or renewal of licences should be placed in the hands of the persons most deeply interested and affected—namely, the inhabitants themselves, who are entitled to protection from the injurious consequences of the present system, by some efficient measure of Local Option."
  Now, that simply meant, as the House sees, that, in my opinion, no irresponsible body should have the power of forcing drinkshops on an unwilling neighbourhood. I copied that Resolution from the words used in the Report
  534
  of a Committee of Convocation—a most interesting document that appeared some years ago, in which gentlemen who had studied the question deeply said they had found out that wherever there were no drinking-shops—they having been put away by the will of the landlord of the place—they found sobriety, law, and order, and happiness that was most gratifying. I brought forward that sentence from the Report of the Committee as my Resolution, and I said it simply stated that people in other places ought to have the power of putting themselves in the same happy condition that some landlords had put their tenantry into. I know that some hon. Members in this House who voted for that Resolution thought it went further than that, and that it implied that there ought to be a new system of licensing, new licensing bodies, and so forth. Well, if it meant that, I am very glad. I do not affirm it or deny that it meant so much; but all I say is, that I know it meant what I wished it to mean—namely, that the power of preventing the forcing of drinking-shops on any place should be given to the people; and I want the House to understand that it does not run counter to any Licensing Bill or scheme that anyone may bring in. I should be delighted to see a good Licensing Bill; and what I ask is that, along with that Bill, we should have the simple power of saying—" Do not put all your machinery to work, if the people do not want it to work." I have heard people say that I ought to talk about compensation. [" Hear, hear ! "] Yes; hon. Members opposite want compensation. It is said it would grease the wheels, and make the thing go much more smoothly, if I were to talk about compensation; but I do not think that is my business. We should have the account presented to us before we pay it. The House is quite ready to consider, and respectfully study, the claims of the licensed victuallers, whenever they tell us what they want compensation for. I am for compensation, if it is fair, and if it is proved to be fair, and only then. All that we must consider when we get to the Bill. Do not let anyone say they will not vote for my Motion, because there is no compensation in it. That is a matter which we must hand over to the Committee, when the wise men come to have their say

  535
  about it. I have said nothing about compensation either in this Resolution or in the last, and I think it is well that I did not do so; for what did my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade say at Birmingham last week?—
  "In our English Legislature there are numberless precedents in which legal rights have been, proved to he in conflict with public morality and public interest, and have been restricted and limited, and I am not aware of any such case in which compensation has been given to those who have been thus treated."
  My Resolution was carried last year, as the House knows, and I think it would not be out of place for me to give, very shortly, some remarkable facts connected with the majority on that occasion. Scotland gave me a majority of about 8 to 1 in favour of the people being intrusted with the power I ask for them not only in Scotland, but in the rest of the United Kingdom. Ireland gave me a majority of nearly 2 to 1; but Wales, better than all, gave me a majority of 12 to 1. Now, I think that was very satisfactory, and showed that there really was a great feeling in the country on this matter. And, more than that, what was very satisfactory to me was that no less than 19 Members of Her Majesty's Government voted with me on that occasion, and I hope I shall have a few more to-night. No less than four Cabinet Ministers voted with me in favour of this just and righteous Resolution which I propose. I will not say how many voted against me, because I am sure they would not like to have it recorded. Well, but I must candidly admit that the Prime Minister did not vote for me on that occasion, and I am very sorry he did not. But he gave his reasons, and I will tell you what those reasons were. I had, having been unfortunate in the ballot, been obliged to bring on the Resolution on a Friday evening, and, as the House knows, Supply is the first Order on that day, and the Prime Minister was reluctant to vote on a question on going into Committee of Supply. He thought it would be inconvenient not to take Supply, therefore he declined to vote for my Amendment. He said—
  "The forms of the House require my hon. Friend to bring on his Motion as an Amendment to Supply, which enables me to deal with him very much as if the Previous Question were raised."
  536
  But he said in the course of his speech, and I want the House to pay attention to this—
  "I earnestly entertain the hope that at some not very distant period it may be found practicable to deal with the Licensing Laws, and in dealing with them to include the reasonable and just application of the principle for which my hon. Friend contends."—[3 Hansard, ccliii. 362–3–4.]
  Now, that was very satisfactory to me; and I have no hesitation in saying that though the Prime Minister conceived it to be his duty to go into the Lobby against me, his speech was worth 20 votes of other hon. Members. I do not think that during the whole of last Session, or since he has been returned to power, he ever made a speech that gave greater satisfaction to a greater number of his supporters out-of-doors than that in which he gave a promise at some day not very far distant to give them this reform they have so long desired. The House, I believe, understands the position in which the matter now is. By their vote on my Resolution last year, the House solemnly declared that there was a great grievance unredressed—the grievance which I have already described. Twelve months have gone by since that Resolution was passed, but still the evil is in full force. What, I will ask, has the country not suffered during the past 12 months in consequence of the evil going on unchecked? Why, the newspapers are filled every day with the records of crime, and outrage, and misery, and pauperism. This House is employed, rightly employed, I am sure, in doing what it can by legislation to put a stop to the outrages we so often hear of in Ireland. That is all very well; but I venture to say that in one week throughout the United Kingdom there are more outrages committed through this drink evil than there are committed in Ireland in six months. ["No, no!"] I am astonished to hear an hon. Member say "No, no!" I am sure the hon. Member never reads the newspapers, and knows nothing of what is going on in the country. This evil arises from drinking, and drinking from the public-houses. I think that is logic, and I will give just one instance to show how these places are licensed. There is a place called Tynecastle, within, the constituency of the Prime Minister himself. It

  537
  is a district largely occupied by working men, and is just beyond the Edinburgh municipal boundary. Someone sought for a licence for a corner house, and 80 per cent of the adult inhabitants of the district petitioned against it; but the Court granted it. They then went to the Confirmation Court—in these matters they go through sieves, as the House knows. Although out of 71 householders within 60 yards of the place 61 had signed a petition against, yet the Confirmation Court confirmed the licence, and the public-house was established at the doors of these working men who had protested by such an enormous majority that they did not want it. That is not a fair state of things. I say these men are not fairly treated. They could be safety and wisely intrusted with the power of deciding whether or not they would have public-houses amongst them. Well, Sir, the House passed my Resolution, and it may be said "that is a step towards a Bill." That is perfectly true. People have said to me—" Well, I suppose now you will bring in a Bill; "but those were people who did not exactly know the House. This House is in a curious condition now. There was a time when it was, I believe, fairly possible for a private Member to get a Bill of any importance through; but that was before the creation of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). I think there is a text which says—"One sinner destroyeth much good." We may paraphrase that by saying—" One blocker paralyzes much good legislation." [An hon. MEMBER: Blockhead!] No, not "blockhead"—the House knows what I mean. The House knows that I have no chance of passing legislation, and so, after I passed my Resolution, it was quite evident that the time was coming when the Government would have to take the question up. As I told the House, the Prime Minister in his speech very clearly and fairly foreshadowed that time. I have said, and I repeat it, that I think it would have been absurd to have held the Prime Minister and the Government hard and fast to their promise during this Session, because the state of Ireland, as we know, is so acute that it must be dealt with without delay, and it takes the whole time of the Government, looking at the Opposition, to do it. For myself, I say that I do not
  538
  believe that even the question of Ireland is of more importance than that of this drink traffic, because my intellectual power is not sufficient to enable me to conceive of anything more important to the State than getting rid of the causes that produce the accumulated evils of war, pestilence, and famine. All that I can do, however, is to urge on the House and on the Government that they will not allow any undue or unnecessary delay to take place in dealing with the matter. The demand for legislation on the subject, as this House well knows, has grown steadily from year to year. Many hon. Members can remember how those who advocated this were ridiculed at first; but now, whatever hon. Members on the other side may think, all must admit that it is a question that excites more interest than any other amongst the masses of the people of the country. The people out-of-doors are, naturally, a little sore that the question cannot be dealt with. It seems to them a little hard that this House will hardly ever turn itself diligently and steadfastly to anything unless there is confusion and tumult out-of-doors. It is, in my opinion, one of the saddest things in our political life. It has always been so, and so, I believe, it will always continue. But it would be a noble thing if, in this matter, we could listen to the voice of the people, though we know that they are not the sort of people who will commit outrages to get what they want. I merely wish by this Resolution to give an earnest to the Government that the House will cordially support them in dealing with this evil, and in giving that measure of self-government which will be honourable to the Parliament that bestows it, and a boon and a benefit to the people who receive it. I beg to move the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to give legislative effect to the Resolution passed on the 18th day of June 1880, which affirms the justice of local communities being entrusted with the power to protect themselves from the operation of the Liquor Traffic."
  MR. BURT: I rise, Sir, to second the Resolution moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). In doing so, I have no intention of detaining the House more than a minute or two. On previous occasions I have had an opportunity of explaining

  539
  my views very fully on this question to the House; and, even if I had intended to speak at length, I think that, after the very able and exhaustive speech my hon. Friend has just delivered, I should have considered it unnecessary to do so. I simply rise to testify to the very great interest that is felt by a large and intelligent section of the community in this Temperance Question. My hon. Friend has spoken of the evils of intemperance. He has dwelt on those evils at some length. Now, Sir, I think we shall all admit that these evils cannot be exaggerated. It is very fortunate that we have now arrived at a stage when these evils are fully recognized by an increasing number of the community; and it is also satisfactory that the public mind is entirely alive to the importance of dealing with this subject by legislative enactment. I think, Sir, that there never was a time when it was more necessary than it is now to deal effectively with this subject. It must, however, be admitted that in the present state of Public Business we are not in a very good position for devoting our attention to a matter of this kind. Other questions, not, perhaps, more important, but more clamorous for attention, are calling upon us and forcing us to deal with them. There is only one point on which I would like to say a single sentence. We shall undoubtedly hear to-night, as we have frequently heard before, of the iniquity of "robbing the poor man of his beer." Well, the hon. Member for Carlisle has referred to the fact that we have a very large number of parishes and districts in the United Kingdom where public-houses do not exist. The landlords in these places have shut up the public-houses. There is no option, local or otherwise. The landlords are determined that there shall be no public-houses on their estates. Well, I do not complain of that; I think it is a great advantage to the community. This absence of public-houses is a real benefit to the inhabitants that reside in these localities; but I would ask of the hon. Member who speaks of the tyranny of depriving the poor man of his beer whether it is more tyrannical or iniquitous for the majority of the inhabitants, after due deliberation, to determine on closing the public-houses than for a single individual to declare that no public-houses shall exist on his
  540
  estate? I am very glad that my hon. Friend has modified his Resolution, and I trust that now, recognizing as I do, and as I am sure he does, the difficulty the Government must experience in giving any pledge to immediately deal with the subject, we shall, nevertheless, have from the Government some assurance that they appreciate the importance of the question, and that they will without unnecessary delay grapple with it in such a way as to include this principle of allowing the inhabitants the right to say whether these public-houses shall exist in their midst or not. I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to give legislative effect to the Resolution passed on the 18th day of June 1880, which confirms the justice of local communities being entrusted with the power to protect themselves from the operation of the Liquor Traffic."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
  MR. DALYsaid, he had listened with a great deal of attention to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and as regarded his opening observations he (Mr. Daly) had no exception to take to them; but the hon. Baronet, in asking the House to affirm this principle of local option, had failed entirely in making out his case. The hon. Baronet should have done something more than display the disadvantages of intemperance. He was bound to give them some indication of the gulf into which he asked the House to plunge by endorsing his Resolution. The hon. Member who seconded the Resolution (Mr. Burt) had adverted to estates which were held by a proprietor who made it a condition that there should be no alcoholic liquors sold on his property. The hon. Member forgot to mention that the persons who went to reside on those estates went there with a knowledge of the conditions precedent to such residence, and very likely those who elected to go there were teetotallers, and selected the residences in consequence of the prohibition. That was a very different thing from giving power to a small majority to debar the large minority in any locality from the power of obtaining what they had been in the habit of using. The Resolution before the House primarily required that the House and the Government should adopt a violent and extraordinary change in

  541
  the system of licensing public-houses. Before asking the House and the Government to adopt any such principle, the hon. Baronet was bound to show that the drunkenness he deplored was attributable to the present licensing system; but he had failed to do that. He was bound to prove a great deal more, and that was that the system which he wished to substitute for it would decrease intemperance; but that also the hon. Baronet had failed to prove. Although the Resolution of last year was carried by a small majority, the House was now asked to adopt a completely different proposal. The Resolution of June 18 simply affirmed the principle that a legal power of restraining the issue or renewal of licences should be placed in the hands of the inhabitants themselves; but now the House was asked to affirm that the principle of that Resolution ought to be embodied by the Government in a Bill. Even if the House adopted the present Resolution, he, for one, failed to see how it could be carried into practical law. He complained of the utter vagueness of the proposition. What did the hon. Baronet mean by "inhabitants?" Did he mean persons of every age, sex, and condition, or did he confine himself to adults? On that point the Resolution was vague and indefinite. He (Mr. Daly) had heard it stated that the principle was the same as that of the Permissive Bill; but, if he recollected rightly, that Bill provided that prohibitory legislation of this kind should be adopted only by the ratepayers, and then only by a majority of 2 to 1. A majority of the inhabitants might mean one, and would it be reasonable that a minority so nearly resembling a majority should be coerced by that majority? Before the House came to a decision upon the Resolution they should be put in possession of much fuller information as to what was intended. If they were to be governed by majorities, it should be by majorities in those classes who would be affected by closing public-houses. If the doctrine of majorities was to be adopted, he would ask upon what logical grounds Home Rule could be withheld from the Irish people? It was not fair for those who would not be affected to prohibit a man from having a glass of beer. If they were going to treat this as a workman's question, it should be decided by workmen, and not by those who had no inte-
  542
  rest in the matter. One of his objections to this scheme was that it would be totally unworkable. It would take all the intellect of the Cabinet, combining as it did so many illustrious men, to embody the Resolution in any fair scheme of legislation. Even supposing it should become law, it would infallibly lead to demoralization; because it would be a direct inducement to a man who wished to keep his house open and to retain his position, to give loose and indiscriminate credit for drink, and it would also, to a great extent, lead to a disregard of police regulations. By a dexterous manipulation of the ratepayers, a monopoly would be created, and the monied man would push the smaller man out of the way. Any legislation of that kind would do a great deal of harm to the few, ostensibly on the ground of doing good to the many. A licence as at present existing was a real, good, and substantial property. In the city (Cork) which he had the honour to represent, he had frequently adjudicated on the question of licences, and he spoke from knowledge and observation when he said that it was next to impossible for anyone to obtain a new licence. The hon. Baronet very adroitly shelved the question of compensation; but the question of compensation for injury to a licence had been affirmed over and over again. It was notably affirmed in Dublin in 1877. The present Recorder of Dublin, a learned man and good lawyer, refused to grant the renewal of a licence, on the ground that there were already licences enough in the locality to meet all requirements. That decision was appealed against, and the Court of Queen's Bench reversed the decision, Chief Justice May stating that existing vested interests could not be extinguished, even with a legitimate object, without compensation. The hon. Baronet stated that, under the present system, licences were granted by an irresponsible body. That was a very wide flight of the imagination. The magistrates had to be satisfied not by mere oral testimony, but by the testimony of witnesses on their oath; and, so far from being irresponsible persons, the magistrates were bound to discharge their duty without fear, favour, or affection. All who wanted to prevent the renewal or the transfer of licences were at full liberty to appear before the magistrates and oppose applications for

  543
  those purposes; and if they could satisfy the magistrates of the truth of their objections, the magistrates were under the obligation of their oaths to refuse the applications so opposed. So far from the magistrates being an irresponsible body, the very contrary was the fact. He thought it incumbent on the hon. Member for Carlisle to show that the magistrates had not properly exercised their powers before he asked the House to take any step towards taking those powers out of their hands. The hon. Baronet had made no attempt to prove any such a proposition, yet it was necessary he should do so before he could be said to have laid the foundation for a measure which would destroy an institution and create another in place of it. Another point to be noted was this—that at present the licensed victuallers were interested in keeping their trade in their own hands, and that they had large associations whose object it was to protect their own interests and keep others out of the ring. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; but in that very fact they had a security that drunkenness could not be forced on a locality by the needless multiplication of public-houses. They came to the practical side of the question when they considered the amount of compensation which would have to be given, and for that, as he had stated, there was the high judicial authority of Chief Justice May. That would be a question which the Government would have to consider, if it ever determined to give effect to the principle. He would not undertake to say how much compensation would have to be given. An enormous sum was vested in the trade, and many millions would have to be paid. He thought it would be wrong in the Government to hold out the slightest hope that a principle so utterly vague and indefinite would be carried into effect. He regarded the proposal as one altogether impracticable, unworkable, and dangerous, and he should give it all the opposition in his power, because, at the same time, he thought it would be unwise and impolitic.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that if the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had confined himself to the object put before them by the Seconder of the Resolution (Mr. Burt) there would have been no opposition; for the desire of the Seconder
  544
  was to see legislation brought to bear, if possible, on the putting down of intemperance. The Resolution, however, contemplated local communities taking the place of the magistrates of the land; but the hon. Baronet had not shown what was to be the formation of the body that was to be take the place of the magistrates.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONexplained that he only proposed a veto which would be exercised by not licensing, not by licensing.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERcontinued, that it had not been shown how local communities were to exercise the veto—whether the power would be vested in all the residents, whether the veto would depend on manhood suffrage, or whether the women would have a voice. Anyhow, those who were most likely to have the interests of temperance at heart would be most likely to absent themselves from the poll; they would not go to the poll to meet the rowdies and the roughs opposed to temperance. Besides, the decision would not be arrived at independently, for it was very certain that the public-house people would get at those who had votes, and would use every means in their power, by granting credit and other benefits to those who frequented their houses, to secure their votes for the renewal of licences. Licensing was a judicial matter, and ought to remain so, and judicial functions could be exercised wisely only by those who were in permanent and independent positions, and ought not to be intrusted to those who were elected periodically. By implication the Resolution cast a slur upon the magistrates; and, in his opinion, the magistrates had done their duty. A consequence of this was that there had been a diminution of intemperance in the last 30 or 40 years, and the number of public-houses had very much diminished. The Resolution would leave the decision of the question to those directly interested one way or the other; but the magistrates held the balance between the teetotallers and the drinkers, and considered the interests of the whole community. The question was, would temperance be promoted if the Resolution of the hon. Baronet were put into a Bill and that Bill became law? It was possible that in some little gardens of Eden a majority might decide to do without drinking-shops; but it was not certain that

  545
  other places would not take the opposite course of increasing their drinking-shops. [" Oh, oh ! "] He presumed that by local option those people would have the right to vote for an increase as well as a decrease. What did the Resolution mean? It seemed to him that it meant the Permissive Bill pure and simple. It was very certain that if the State found the sale of spirituous liquors was injurious to the State, it would be the duty of the Government at once to suppress, not only the sale, but the manufacture of those liquors. He did not think that any hon. Member would say it was the duty of the State to put down altogether the manufacture of spirits, beer, and such like things, because a few people used drink to excess. If, then, it was admitted that the manufacture of those things was to go on, on what ground could it be said that the sale of them was not to be permittted? To him it seemed to be utter nonsense to say a man might manufacture an article, but must not sell it. He was as much in favour of temperance as the hon. Baronet was in favour of doing away with the fearful effects of intemperance in this country. He was happy to say that the evidence given before the Committee of the House of Lords two years ago showed that temperance had increased and that intemperance was decreasing in the land; but he was sure that the hon. Baronet was not going the right way in suppressing public-houses altogether. The right way was, first, to educate the people as to the vice of intemperance, and then, as they must have public-houses, he believed the second thing was to make them better. Public-houses now were palaces compared with the dirty dark gin shops of 20 or 30 years ago; and he was entirely at one with the hon. Baronet in wishing to root out the disreputable ones that remained, replacing them with fine, open public-houses, with large glass windows, giving plenty of light, where people could not get drunk without the chance of being observed. In doing that more would be done to promote temperance than could be done by means of the Resolution. He opposed the Resolution because it did not define the mode by which the hon. Baronet proposed to do away with the vice of intemperance. The principle of local option was altogether wrong, however applied. After
  546
  all, it was nothing but tyranny—the tyrannizing of a majority over a minority. It was wrong in principle, useless in practice, and entirely opposed to the views of the people of this country.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSON, in sup-porting the Motion, said: I do not think, Sir, that the prospects of the Resolution before us will be much damaged by the speech that we have just listened to. With a great deal of that speech, so far as the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Aylmer) deplored the drinking habits of this country, we must, of course, all agree. It may, too, be true that, in the long run, we must look more to the spread of education for the prevention of intemperance than to any legislative action of this House. We must, in the meantime, however, bear in mind that we have not yet got a perfect system of education, and it is therefore necessary that something should be done by legislation. Until the whole people of this country awake to a sense of the evil effects of intemperance, it is necessary that we should do something to counteract its effects, which must be acknowledged to exist, at any rate, by any person who has read the evidence of the various Commissions which have inquired into this question. Now, Sir, nothing struck me more in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Maid-stone than the language which he used about drinking-shops. He dilated on the advantage of having them as large as possible, as well as gaudy and attractive; and, in the same breath, he talked about the necessity of their having large glass windows in order to enable the police to see what was going on inside. He preferred that men should be gathered into such places rather than the lower class of houses, and declared that by being under the eye of the police they would be prevented from doing wrong. But surely it is not necessary to vindicate the existence of public-houses on such grounds as that. Whether large or small, attractive or otherwise, they exist in many places in too great numbers, and, I am afraid, will continue to do so, unless something is done to prevent their continual increase. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that, no doubt, if the Resolution were acted upon, and a new law were made, there would be found in this country some gardens of Eden, where

  547
  public-houses would not be allowed. I suppose he meant gardens of Eden from which the serpent had been expelled. It is not, however, desirable that these gardens of Eden should alone exist at the option of the local landowner; but it is desirable that the people generally should have a voice in the matter. But it is the proposal that such a voice should be exercised which alarms the hon. and gallant Member. He spoke about the elections that would take place if the Resolution were carried into legislative effect, and said that respectable people would abstain from voting. That is an argument that I will not attempt to controvert. It is sufficient for our purpose that the greatest advocates of the present system should state openly that the people who would be likely to vote for the continuance of too many public-houses would be "rowdies." The hon. and gallant Member told us also that the inhabitants at large of the various localities were not fit persons to be intrusted with such judicial functions as the selection of public-houses. He forgets that every man here owes his right to sit in this House to those very people to whom we would give the right of saying whether they should have public-houses or not. I do not think that he will say that the publicans are persons who ought to be elected by a more select constituency than that which returns the Members to this House of Commons. Moreover, the hon. and gallant Member opposed the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) because it is indefinite. It is because the Motion is indefinite that I am ready to support it. I say so for this reason. The hon. Baronet throws on the responsible Government the onus of settling the executive detail of the principle of giving localities some part in determining whether public-houses shall exist among them or not. He does not state in what way the principle is to be carried out; but he throws on the Government the responsibility of introducing a scheme for carrying out his Resolution. It was curious that while the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Daly) would not allow the inhabitants of the various part of the country to decide whether they would have public-houses or not, or how many they should have, he considered that it was quite right that the public should be protected
  548
  against the encroachment of unnecessary public-houses by the organization which is established by the licensed victuallers themselves for the protection of their monopoly. He appeared also to think that it added greatly to the claim that organization had on our respect that they were a very wealthy body and able to employ lawyers to defend them. Well, there is another wealthy body also—it is a body that I do not belong to—which may very fairly be set against the organization of the licensed victuallers in the matter of wealth. It is a body over which the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle has for many years presided, and if we are merely to admire the wealth that is used to protect us from an increase in the number of public-houses, we may pay as much respect to the body represented by the hon. Baronet as to that on behalf of which the hon. Member for the City of Cork has spoken. For my part, I have never voted for the Permissive Bill. I could not vote for the Bill, nor its details. It contained a cut-and-dried method of dealing with the difficulty that I did not approve of. I therefore listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Baronet, to see whether he intended to declare for the Permissive Bill and the Permissive Bill only. But there was not a word about the Permissive Bill in it, and I understand that he throws over for the time that measure, leaving it to the Government to take in hand the execution of this Resolution if adopted. I am, under these circumstances, free to give him my support. There is no doubt in my mind on the general question that there are too many public-houses in this country. Only the other day I drove a few miles out of London, and was struck by the enormous number of public-houses on the road, which I may state ran through a very wealthy suburb. There was hardly a moment when we could not see three or four public-houses. For a short distance I do not hesitate to say that there was as many as one public-house to every seven houses on the road. There can be no doubt that that is a state of things that ought to be remedied. Well, Sir, the hon. Member for the City of Cork objects to the Resolution because it is vague and indefinite. I have already said that I think it is deserving of our support, because it does not lay down

  549
  the exact means by which it is to be carried into execution; but it is in itself definite enough. It clearly affirms that it is desirable to give legislative effect to the Resolution carried by the House in June last. It is true that the hon. Baronet did not say a single word as to the constituency which was to determine whether any, or how many, public-houses should exist or not, and I think that he was well advised in taking that course, because if we pass this Resolution we shall throw on the Government the onus of deciding that question. If the Government is worthy of our confidence in other respects, they are worthy of it in this, and if they once accept this principle of local option they may surely be trusted to put their measures for its execution into the best possible form. Allusion has been made by hon. Members to those estates upon which landlords do not allow public-houses to be erected, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork makes the assumption that the people who reside upon such estates have gone there with a full knowledge of the rules that prevail there, and that they are all teetotallers. But anyone who knows anything of these estates knows that it is by the mere caprice of the landlords that these rules are established; and yet the people on the estates, many of whom have been born there, continue to remain there. They are not necessarily teetotallers, but they remain because they find out the good effect of the rules that have been made by their landlords. But supposing what is said is true—that the people have gone there with a knowledge of the circumstances—that does not touch the Resolution, which simply says that, just as certain landlords have the power of saying what public-houses should be on their property, so the people should have the right of determining what public-houses should be established in their midst. I think it right that some such power should be given. The hon. Member for the City of Cork thinks otherwise, and says that the hon. Baronet did not show any connection between drunkenness and the present system of public-houses scattered over the land. Now, I think that he did show the connection, and that it is perfectly manifest that the more drinking houses there are, the more people will be tempted to go into them. A man may pass the third,
  550
  fourth, or fifth house and be tempted into the sixth. The hon. Member also said that the hon. Baronet did not show that the diminution of the number of public-houses would have any tendency to reduce drunkenness. I think that that is merely the converse of the other proposition. If the great number of public-houses has a tendency to promote drunkenness, the diminution of their numbers must have a tendency to diminish it. Then, as to the ratepayers, we were told by the hon. Member for the City of Cork that they would in many cases not be in favour of a decrease in the number of houses. But there is not a word about ratepayers in the present Resolution, and there was not in last year's. If the hon. Baronet had distinctly said that it was the ratepayers alone who were to decide the question, I freely admit that I should not have been inclined to support it. I do not think that the ratepayers necessarily represent the opinion of the people at large. You must find a larger constituency if you are to have local option. I think, indeed, that the proportion for the necessary majority fixed by the Permissive Bill when it was before the House formed one of the most objectionable features of that measure. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, however, desired that the question should be decided only by those interested in the matter, by which he said that he meant the people who use the public-houses. But it would be difficult to find in any given constituency exactly who are the people who use the public-houses, and who are those who do not. But whether that be so or not, the Resolution only enables a constituency to say whether there shall be or shall not be a certain number of public-houses. It says nothing about total prohibition, and there is nothing to show that total prohibition, will, of necessity, follow if it be passed. If the hon. Gentleman considers for a moment, he will admit that it is not only the people who use the public-houses who are interested in this question, but also their connections, from whose benefit the money spent on drink is diverted. It is the wife, the sister, the children, the parent who is injured, and altogether the grievance has a wider basis than the hon. Member thinks. Then we are told about the turmoil at elections which will arise if the Resolution be carried into

  551
  effect; but we were told the same thing when the Ballot Act was introduced. Ballot boxes were to be stolen, polling booths broken into, and all sorts of disorder were to be rampant. A different state of things, however, has been found by experience to prevail, and so it would be at elections to give effect to local option. After one or two of them had taken place, very few people would be anxious to bring in the old state of things. But the hon. Member also told us that it would be doing harm to the few to do good to the many if we passed this Resolution, and it were carried into effect. It is, however, not an uncommon principle in our legislation to make the few give up something that they enjoy in order that the great majority of the people may be profited. Take the case of the railways for example. Where a railway is made, the landlord, where it is necessary, has to give way. He does so upon compensation being awarded to him; and, for my part, I would not support any measure that did not give fair compensation for any injury to vested interests. That compensation, however, should come out of the funds of the localities themselves. It would be for those localities which put down public-houses, because they did not want them, to bear the expense of their action. It is possible that they might not be willing to carry out the powers given to them if they had to pay for exercising them; but that would be their affair. I would not force the carrying out of the principle of this Resolution on the people; I only wish that the people should have the power to settle this matter for themselves, especially if they are willing to pay for it. As I said before, I never voted for the Permissive Bill; but I look on this as a totally different question, and I think that this Resolution may be carried out without in the least introducing the objectionable features of that measure. This is the first time that I have spoken at any length upon this question. I have felt impelled, after having had the honour of sitting in this House for nearly 12 years, to give the reasons why I shall in future support the principle now before us. I support that principle because I consider it is just and equitable, and that its adoption is very greatly desired by those most concerned in the matter—the working people of this country—who suffer
  552
  most from the vice of drunkenness. I believe that there is a strong and growing public feeling that the time has arrived, when, if possible, this vice should be met by some determined effort on the part of the Legislature. I should not feel justified in opposing such an attempt as that made by the hon. Baronet, who has shown himself ready to surrender his own predilections, and, in the desire to put a stop to the evils he deplores, has been willing to withdraw a Bill which he might fairly have hoped at some time to have had the credit of carrying through this House, in order to obtain the support of the Government of the country, and to allow them, in accepting the principle of local option, to settle upon their own responsibility in what manner the evils of drunkenness ought to be dealt with.
  MR. HICKSsaid, that it appeared that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) thought that after so many hours of the day had been devoted to land the evening should be appropriated to water. He (Mr. Hicks) was not there to deny the evils of drunkenness; but, while he was prepared to support any reasonable measure that would contribute to the sobriety of the country, he was not prepared to sanction any Bill that was founded upon the principle of total abstinence. The question was as to how an admitted evil was to be remedied. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had said that the licensing system was in the hands of an irresponsible body; that this power had been exercised to a great extent, and that drunkenness had resulted; but he had failed to show in what way the magistrates had failed in their duty, nor had he shown how the evils to which he referred were to be corrected. That was especially important, in view of the fact that crimes traceable to the existence of public-houses had decreased since the alteration of the law in 1872, which vested the granting of licences for beerhouses in the magistrates, instead of leaving it to the Excise authorities to grant such licences on the petitions of intending beershop keepers, supported by the signatures of inhabitants of the neighbourhoods in which the beershops were intended to be established. The unpaid justices had been abused for their conduct. Yes; they had been abused when-

  553
  ever this question had been brought forward, though not so much so on this occasion as formerly. In the exercise of that power, the magistrates had proved that they were willing to do all in their power to carry out the intentions of the Legislature, with the result that the evils complained of had very greatly abated. From Returns he held in his hand, it was clear that these attacks on the justices were most unfair, and that the magistrates had enormously decreased the number of licences, and they certainly had done their duty. These Returns showed that, as regarded beer licences granted by ratepayers, there were—

  1864

  1865

  1866

  1867

  1868

  Bedfordshire

  17

  49

  51

  84

  32

  Cambridgeshire

  63

  207

  218

  283

  296

  Essex

  65

  83

  118

  92

  187

  Lancashire

  1,806

  1,993

  1,957

  1,945

  1,977

  Hants

  4

  5

  3

  6

  6

  Total of England

  7,855

  9,134

  10,133

  10,576

  10,539

  [Interruption.] He did not catch the words of the hon. Member, but he hoped the following figures would interest him. As regarded new licences granted since the passing of the Act of 1872 by justices for old houses, beershops, and grocers, they found—

  1874

  1875

  1876

  1877

  1878

  Bedfordshire

  19

  3

  1

  1

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  15

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Cambridgeshire Grocers

  Essex

  9

  15

  10

  5

  0

  Lancashire

  43

  22

  25

  31

  19

  Old beershops

  33

  6

  8

  0

  13

  Hants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total of England

  1,069

  533

  518

  512

  431

  Last year the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) alluded to Liverpool. Well, in 1864, with a population of 450,000, there were 1,937; in 1879 the population was 600,000. The proportionate increase of licences would give, say, 2,500. Instead of that they found a decrease. So much for Liverpool. He thought he had proved conclusively his case in defence of the justices. As regarded the Resolution, intemperance could not be stopped by a penal statute; and he would never be a party, under the cloak of liberality, to strike a blow at the liberty of the subject.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I may remark, Sir, that it is to me very pleasing to find ourselves engaged in a question which, though of great importance, and in which
  554
  both sides of the House take a great interest, is one we can discuss without heat and without passion. We have nothing to gain by making any mistake upon the question which the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle has submitted to the House. Notwithstanding this coolness of temperature, I observe still that the difference of opinion which prevails leads to statements that are exceedingly contradictory. The hon. Members who have spoken on that side of the House have, I think, not dealt fairly with the Resolution of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. They have treated it as if it contained some grievous, and almost poisonous, element, and they have discussed the question entirely in a manner which, I think, overlooks the fact that we are not now considering the Permissive Bill of past time, but a very simple Resolution, which, I hope, we can all understand. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly) has drawn rather a fearful picture of the cruelty of allowing majorities to tyrannize over minorities. The hon. and gallant Member for Maid-stone (Captain Aylmer) has painted the whole question in very dark colours; and the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), who has just spoken, has said he would not be found putting his seal upon what he calls total abstinence; but I venture to say that all these observations, for the most part, have no real, just, and accurate reference to the Resolution which is now before the House. The Resolution does not go further than referring, in fact, to the mode of granting licences—that that mode should be in accordance with the wishes and the wants of the people. It binds the House to nothing more than a condemnation of the present system of licensing, and a suggestion of the possibility that a better system may be found. Now, I took this view of the question on the last occasion it was under discussion, and I have always been of opinion that the Permissive Bill of my hon. Friend was, as long as it was before the House, the main obstacle to any progress in what is called temperance legislation. I am of opinion now, as then, that it contained principles and aimed at objections which the House of Commons was not likely, I think, in our time to admit; and, therefore, I did all that I could, both in the House and out of it, to recommend that that Bill should be with-

  555
  drawn, and that the whole question, in a broader spirit and upon a broader basis, should be offered to the House, in order that we might proceed as we do with regard to other political legislation—that we should proceed by such steps as the necessity and the opinions of the public permitted. Well, that Bill has been withdrawn, and I hope we shall not see it again. But the proposition now submitted to the House is one of a character which I think every Member of the House may support who believes that anything could be done by Parliament to discourage intemperance amongst the people, and, if it be possible, to get rid of what we all feel to be a great disgrace upon the character of a considerable portion of the nation. I do not complain for a moment of my hon. Friend having renewed to-day the Resolution which he brought before the House last year. When he withdrew the Permissive Bill, and brought forward a Resolution in favour of local option, he immediately doubled his vote in this House, and so soon as that question was referred to the constituencies, as it was a year ago, we are all aware that a great advance took place, and when the question was again submitted to the House of Commons there was a considerable majority on both sides in its favour. Well, we are now at this point, that we agreed last year—whether we take the same view to-night I do not know—but the House of Commons last year determined that, in its opinion, the present system of licensing was not a good one, at least, that it was not the best, and that a change might be effected which would be greatly advantageous to the people. We have, then, this Resolution before us, and which reads very much like the one of last year. The general meaning, at all events, may be held to be the same; and it comes to the same decision—that the present system is not the best, and that public opinion, as expressed at the late General Election, and as, I believe, it will be expressed at any future General Election, is in favour of a considerable change in regard to the legislation touching the sale of intoxicating liquors. Although the Resolution, as submitted to the House to-night, is, in effect, quite the same as that discussed last year, I do not make any complaint, because he has
  556
  asked the House again, to affirm what the House affirmed a year ago. My experience in matters of political agitation—and this is, in some sort, a political question—leads me to great charity in dealing with persons who are engaged actively as leaders of political agitation. It is necessary, and it is desirable, no doubt, that gentlemen in that position should seize all fair opportunities of bringing forward the subjects in which they are interested for public and Parliamentary discussion, and it is only with this discussion that you can have a growth of opinion outside, and an advance of opinion inside, the walls of Parliament. Therefore, I do not object at all to the course my hon. Friend has taken in asking us again this year to re-affirm the proposition which he submitted to the House last year; but I am not quite sure that he has not rather a further purpose than this—not to ask us to agree to anything like a Permissive Bill—but he would wish to compel the Government, and I do not mean to use the word compel with an offensive meaning at all—but would like to compel and urge the Government to take up this question, which, he says, cannot be dealt with by a private, independent, and unofficial Member, to take it into their hands and bring it in from this Bench, and it will have a greater chance of passing through Parliament. That is quite true. We all know perfectly well that it has been said that the time of Parliament taken up by independent Members is generally time wasted by independent Members, and is efficiently disposed of by the Government. ["Oh, oh!"] That is not an opinion formed to-day. It is not because I sit here that I say that. I do believe that from the condition of the House, which has been growing worse for many years past, it is almost impossible at the end of the Session to count up anything that has been done except by the help and direct action of the Administration. Now, the Resolution of last year did not bind the Government to any course upon this matter. Members of the Government, as the House will recollect, voted, some in one Lobby, and some in the other. It was not then, and it is not now, in any sense a Party question, and I hope it will never become a Party question. I am quite sure that in a matter of this nature, in which the public are so much

  557
  interested, in which the morals of the country are so greatly interested, it would be a great misfortune if Party spirit should ever enter into and mar a great work which it would be possible for Parliament to accomplish. I say the Resolution of last year did not bind the Government at all, but was really an expression of opinion on the part of the House. I am not sure that although my hon. Friend has taken out of the Resolution the words to which objection has been made he has calculated, in asking the House to re-affirm the Resolution of last year, that he will bring pressure on the House and the Government to introduce at an earlier period some measure on this difficult question. He knows that in ordinary cases, if the Member who is not a Member of the Administration brings in a Resolution of this or any other kind, and carries it through the House, that he may be expected very soon after to bring in a Bill, and to endeavour to carry the Bill through the House; but carrying a Resolution on a particular evening is a very small labour indeed compared with carrying a Bill through all its stages. Therefore, my hon. Friend shrinks from engaging in what we know to be almost and entirely an impossible task. Then I think the Government is not bound to take charge of any measure which may arise or follow this Resolution. I must insist on this, because, especially in this Session, every Member must perceive that it is absolutely impossible for the Government to deal with a question of this nature. The Session is already blocked by a measure of extraordinary urgency and of extraordinary importance—by a measure which, although many Members of the House have, I doubt not, great doubts with regard to its wisdom in some points, yet, notwithstanding that, there is a feeling in the House that it must be passed, and the sooner it is passed the better it will be, not for Ireland alone, but for the United Kingdom in general. [" Question ! "] An hon. Members says "Question!" I am only illustrating the position in which we are placed, and arguing that even though the House were to agree to accept the Resolution this year, as it did last year, it would not bind the Government for this Session, or next Session, to introduce any Bill founded upon that Resolution. We
  558
  shall have as much to do this Session as can be done after that great measure is passed. It may be, for aught I know, that very little else may be done, and that some things which we had hoped for may end in total failure. If nothing is done by the Government and the House this Session, I may say, for the consolation of my hon. Friend, that the question in which he is so greatly interested grows, and continually grows, and it holds out to him a constant promise of future result. But there are two difficulties in the way of the Government, which I should be somewhat disturbed by, if it were proposed at an. early period to introduce any Bill upon this question. Any Bill that the Government could introduce, I take it for granted, would meet with considerable obstacles. If it did not give powers, for example, to suppress the traffic in liquor, but only within limits to control it, I am not quite sure that we should have the cordial and earnest support of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. I hope that in the time that may elapse between now and that when any Bill will be introduced, he may in some degree have changed, if not moderated, his views, so that he may, with the great force he has behind him, give support to any Government which may attempt honestly to deal with this question. The other difficulty is the question which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly), the question of compensation in case public-houses were suppressed, when there had been no breach of the law. I think the hon. Baronet would, on further consideration—in fact, I gathered from what he said that this is so—would not think it absolutely wrong for Parliament to provide some mode by which men who are now engaged in a lawful business should not be deprived of that business without some sort of compensation. These are two points in which I think any Bill brought into the House by any Government would probably differ from the view of my hon. Friend. I should regret very much if the hon. Baronet should feel himself bound, the moment a Bill founded on his Resolution was presented to the House, to rise and say it was a measure which he could not accept or support. If we pass this Resolution to-night, if it be affirmed as the

  559
  Resolution was affirmed last year, there will be, in some degree, another step in advance. What it may lead to at present will be mainly this—that we shall gradually come to something more like unanimity in considering this question, and possibly approach a state of feeling which, at some not distant time, may facilitate legislation upon it. But there are several great questions which are blocking the way. Hon. Members have heard that illustration which has been sometimes attributed to me, but which I borrowed from my old friend Colonel Perronet Thomson, that you cannot get six or 12 omnibuses abreast through Temple Bar. We are just in that position now. What are the great questions which the Government will have before long to turn its attention to? There is that introduced by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), the great question of the Land Laws. There is besides that another question on which, I believe, the Liberal Party, with scarcely any exception, is united, and I suppose there are a great many Members opposite who will not differ—the question of the extension of the county franchise. There is probably also the question of the re-distribution of Parliamentary seats, which may, I hope, lead to general support. Then there is, besides that, another question which presses very much—the municipal government of this great City of 4,000,000 people. Ireland contains 5,000,000, but the Metropolis in which we are now contains 4,000,000, and a greater confusion of government probably never existed in a time of peace in any great city in the world. These are great and pressing questions. I think some of them, at least, are ripe for the consideration of the House, and for being dealt with by Parliament. If the Government is to make a choice, if I were to put it to the House what choice it shall make, it may be that the question of the drink traffic is one of so great difficulty, and for which the public is so little ripe, that it would be injudicious in the last degree to take that before the other questions I have mentioned. I am not arguing against legislation on behalf of the general objects of my hon. Friend. I am arguing so that the passing of the Resolution last year and the re-affirming of it this year must not be understood to be a compelling of the Ad-
  560
  ministration to take up this question and deal with it immediately. If that be the case, and if that be the conclusion to which we come, my hon. Friend has no reason to regret or despair. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) told us what a great diminution there had been in the number of licences, although there had been an increase in population, and he argued from that that the magistrates had fairly and honestly done their duty. I do not in the least dispute that; but I say that the reason that there has been that change within the last few years had been mainly in consequence of the great agitation throughout the country, which has been promoted and led, to a great degree, by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. He may take comfort in this—that, although the House is not prepared, and the Government is not prepared, now to introduce or promote any Bill upon this question, that the movement amongst the people, the discussion of this question going on year after year will create an amount of opinion which will not only compel some Government to deal with this question, but which is necessary to enable any Government to deal with it in a manner that can be effectual and satisfactory. The policy which was pursued on this Bench last year is the policy of to-night. This is in no degree either a Government Resolution, nor is the policy of the Resolution a Government policy. This is a matter on which every Member of the House has a right to form his own opinion, and act freely upon it. I hope, whatever the division may be, it may be a division not influenced by Party, but by a consideration of the circumstances of the time in which we are debating, and of the vast and paramount importance of the great question which my hon. Friend has submitted to us.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that there was one advantage which the House had derived from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and that was it had got a rough draft of the Queen's Speech, not only for next Session, but for many Sessions to come. But the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would not derive much consolation from the right hon. Gentleman, for what he said came to this—that the Government could not

  561
  help him at all, and that he ought to go on agitating and agitating so as to exercise pressure on some future Administration. For his own part, he (Colonel Makins) felt as much the necessity of doing something to put an end to the evils of intemperance as even the eloquent apostle of local option himself. But what he quarrelled with was the hon. Baronet's method of dealing with the evil. He was aware that it took some courage on the part of an hon. Member to say a word against the Motion, because he did so at the risk of being held up in the journal of the United Kingdom Alliance as the advocate of drunkenness and drunkards. Nevertheless, he would express his opinion that the natural result of the division of last year was that the hon. Baronet should have brought in a Bill embodying his views, and then the Government could have said at once whether they approved it or not. The hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) candidly admitted that he supported the Resolution because it was vague. For 12 years the hon. Member had listened to the hon. Baronet, and had not been able to support him; but now the Resolution was so vague he could do so. Hon. Members might, therefore, go back to their constituents and say that they had voted in favour of temperance; but they must see the Bill on the subject before they could say whether they should support it or not. The hon. Baronet had not exaggerated the evils of drunkenness; but he (Colonel Makins) might be allowed to remind him that public-houses were for the use of the public, and not of drunkards, and that for one drunken man who went to a public-house there were 50 sober ones who made a proper use of it. His Motion, therefore, should be directed rather against the drunkards who made a bad use of those places than against the sober ones who did not. It should be used against those who were guilty of intemperance, and not against those who only used their natural right to go to the public-house for their accommodation. The hon. Baronet said that all the crime, lunacy, and poverty of this country arose from drink. Well, the statistics of intemperance in France compared favourably with those of this country; but he did not know that the statistics of crime in France compared
  562
  so favourably. [Cries of "Divide!] As the House appeared to be impatient for a division, he would only add that, feeling as strongly as the hon. Baronet the evils of which he complained, he did not think the remedy he proposed was likely to be effective, while it would undoubtedly seriously interfere with the liberty of the subject.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 154: Majority 42.

  AYES.

  Agar-Robartes,hn.T.C.

  Davies, W.

  Agnew, W.

  De Ferrieres, Baron

  Ainsworth, D.

  Dilke. A. W.

  Alexander, Colonel C.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Allen, H. G.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Allen, W. S.

  Dodson, rt. hn. J. G.

  Anderson, G.

  Duff, rt. hon. M. E. G.

  Archdale, W. H.

  Dundas, hon. J. C.

  Armitage, B.

  Edwards, H.

  Arnold, A.

  Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Ewart, W.

  Balfour, J. B.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Barran, J.

  Ferguson, R.

  Birley, H.

  Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

  Blake, J. A.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. C.

  Brand, H. R.

  W. W.

  Brassey, H. A.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Briggs, W. E.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Fort, R

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  Fowler, H. H.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Fowler, W.

  Brown, A. H.

  Fry, L.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Fry, T.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Bryce, J.

  Gordon, Sir A.

  Buxton, F. W.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Caine, W. S.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Cameron, C.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Campbell, Lord C.

  Grafton, F. W.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Grant, A.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Greer, T.

  Campbell - Bannerman,

  Grey, A. H. G.

  H.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Carbutt, E. H.

  Hastings, G. W.

  Chambers, Sir T.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Cheetham, J. F.

  Healy, T. M.

  Chitty, J. W.

  Henderson, F.

  Clarke, J. C.

  Heneage, E.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Cohen, A.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Collings, J.

  Hill, Lord A. W.

  Colman, J. J.

  Hollond, J. R.

  Corry, J. P.

  Holms, J.

  Cowan, J.

  Howard, E. S.

  Cowpor, hon. H. F.

  Howard, G. J.

  Cropper, J.

  Illingworth, A.

  Cross, J. K.

  James, C.

  Crum, A.

  James, W. H.

  Cunliife, Sir R. A.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Currie, D.

  Kinnear, J.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Labouchere, H.

  Davies, D.

  Laing, S.

  563

  Lalor, R.

  Richardson, J. N.

  Law, rt. hon. H.

  Richardson, T.

  Laycock, R.

  Roberts, J.

  Lea, T.

  Rogers, J. E. T.

  Leake, R.

  Ross, C. C.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Rylands, P.

  Leeman, J. J.

  St. Aubyn, Sir J.

  Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

  St. Aubyn, W. M.

  Litton, E. F.

  Samuelson, B.

  Lloyd, M.

  Samuelson, H.

  Lusk, Sir A.

  Seely, G. (Nottingham)

  Mackie, R. B.

  Shield, H.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  Macliver, P. S.

  Slagg, J.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Smith, E.

  M-Arthur, W.

  Stafford, Marquess of

  M'Lagan, P.

  Stanton, W. J.

  M'Laren, J.

  Stewart, J.

  M'Minnies, J. G.

  Storey, S.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Sullivan A. M.

  Mason, H.

  Summers, W.

  Massey, rt. hon. W. N.

  Tavistock, Marquess of

  Meldon, C. H.

  Tennant, C.

  Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Thomasson, J. P.

  Morley, A.

  Thompson, T. C.

  Morley, S.

  Tracy, hon. F. S. A.

  Mundella,rt. hon. A. J.

  Hanbury-

  Noel, E.

  Trevolyan, G. O.

  O'Beirne, Major F.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  O'Connor, A.

  Waugh, E.

  Palmer, G.

  Webster, J.

  Palmor, J. H.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Parker, C. S.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Whitworth, B.

  Pennington, F.

  Williams, B. T.

  Philips, R. N.

  Williams, S. C. E.

  Playfair, rt. hon. L.

  Williamson, S.

  Potter, T. B.

  Wilson, C. H.

  Price, Sir R. G.

  Wilson, I.

  Pugh, L. P.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  Ralli, P.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Ramsay, J.

  Ramsden, Sir J.

  TELLERS.

  Redmond, J. E.

  Burt, T.

  Rendel, S.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Richard, H.

  NOES.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Burrell, Sir W. W.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Buxton, Sir R. J.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Callan, P.

  Bass, A.

  Cavendish, Lord F. C.

  Bass, H.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Bass, M. T.

  Clarke, E.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Cobbold, T. C.

  Bentinck, rt. hon. G. C.

  Coddington, W.

  Biddell, W.

  Collins, E.

  Birkbeck, E.

  Collins, T.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Commins, A.

  Blennerhassett, Sir R.

  Compton, F.

  Boord, T. W.

  Cotton, W. J. R.

  Bourke, rt. hon. R.

  Courtauld, G.

  Brise, Colonel R.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Brodrick, hon. St. J.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Brooks, M.

  Dawnay, Col. hn. L. P.

  Brooks, W. C.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Bruce, hon. T.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Burghley, Lord

  Digby, Col. hon. E.

  Burnaby, General E. S.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  564

  Donaldson-Hudson, C.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Dyke,rt. hn. Sir W.H.

  Master, T. W. C.

  Ecroyd, W. F.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Elcho, Lord

  Miles, Sir P. J. W.

  Emlyn, Viscount

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Estcourt, G. S.

  Moss, R.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Murray, C. J.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Feilden,Major- General

  Nicholson, W.

  R. J.

  Nicholson, W. N.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Nolan, Major J. P.

  Fenwick-Bisset, M.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Filmer, Sir E.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Finch, G. H.

  Onslow, D.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Paget, R. H.

  Floyer, J.

  Percy, Earl

  Foster, W. H.

  Phipps, C. N. P.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Phipps, P.

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Powell, W.

  Galway, Viscount

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Gamier, J. C.

  Puleston, J. H.

  Gladstone, rt. hn.W.E.

  Pulley, J.

  Goldney, Sir G.

  Rankin, J.

  Gorst, J. E.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Grantham, W.

  Ritchie, C. T.

  Greene, E.

  Ross, A. H.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Rothschild.SirN. M. de

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Schreiher, C.

  Hamilton, right hon.

  Sclater-Booth, rt.hn. G.

  Lord G.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral

  Scott, M. D.

  Sir J. C. D.

  Seely, C. (Lincoln)

  Hicks, E.

  Shaw, W.

  Hill, A. S.

  Smith, A.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Hope,rt hn.A.J.B.B.

  Smyth, P. J.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Johnson, W. M.

  Thornhill, T.

  Kennard, Col. E. H.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

  Tollemache.hon.W. F.

  Knight, F. W.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Lawrence, Sir T.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S.

  Leamy, E.

  Warburton, P. E.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Warton, C. N.

  Lee, Major V.

  Whitloy, E.

  Leigh, hon. G. H. C.

  Wiggin, H.

  Leighton, S.

  Wilmot, Sir H.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Levett, T. J.

  Wortley, G. B. Stuart-

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wroughton, P.

  Lindsay, Sir R. L.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Long, W. H.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  TELLEHS.

  Lyons, R. D.

  Aylmer, Capt. J. E. F

  Macartney, J. W. E.

  Daly, J.

  Mac Iver, D.

  SUSPENSION OF EVICTIONS (IRELAND) BILL.—MOTION FOR LEAVE.
  MAJOR NOLAN, in rising to ask leave to introduce a Bill to suspend evictions in Ireland, said, the object of the Bill was to suspend evictions until the passing of the Land Bill. The date fixed upon was the 1st of October, and he proposed to prevent ejectment processes being carried into execution until the Laud Bill became law. The measure

  565
  which he submitted to the House was a very moderate one, and it would only apply to those who paid up six months' rent within 14 days of the passing of the Act. He did not intend to make a speech. He only wanted to state what the Bill was, and he would merely say that a very extraordinary thing had been done in blocking this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by asking leave to introduce the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to Suspend Evictions in Ireland for a limited period, on payment of six months' rent."—(Major Nolan.)
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he did not intend to oppose the hon. and gallant Member; but it appeared to him extraordinary that a Bill of this kind should be brought in while the Land Bill was going through, without the Government taking any part in the discussion. The proposed Bill affected the whole of the interests of landlords in Ireland; and yet the Government were allowing it to pass sub silentio. In order that the Government might express some opinion upon the Bill satisfactorily, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
  MR. HEALYthought the course taken by the hon. Gentleman an extraordinary one, for he asked the Government to express an opinion upon a Bill which had not been printed. He was glad, however, that the hon. Gentleman had taken that course, for it showed that the Tory Party wanted to see the present state of things carried to a pass which it was likely to arrive at. The Bill was a very moderate one; but the Tory Party, who expressed great interest in the welfare of Ireland, now proposed to adjourn the debate. If they were anxious to improve the state of affairs in Ireland they should allow the Bill to be introduced.
  MR. LITTONhoped the Motion would be withdrawn, observing that it was because there was a Land Bill before the House that this Bill was necessary. It was merely a measure for tiding over a short period, and he hoped it would be brought in.
  MR. T. COLLINStrusted his hon. Friend would not persist, and mentioned that the Rule of the House used to be that unless a Bill had been thrown out in a previous Session, its introduction was allowed in order that the country might be informed of the nature of the proposals submitted. If a Bill had been before the House Session after Session, and the House had refused, by large majorities, to pass it, then the House exercised a wise discretion in not allowing it to be brought in; but when a Bill was introduced for the first time it was unfair not to allow it to be printed. In "another place," he believed that would be done as a matter of course. When the Bill had been printed the House would probably see no more of it.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not think the House would be generally of opinion that it was the duty of the Government to charge themselves with the conduct of this matter in such a sense as to exclude any other Member from undertaking it. So far as the Government were concerned, he was distinctly of opinion that unless the urgency were of a higher order, and the remedy were of the clearest character, it would be most unwise for the Government, during the arduous discussion of the Land Bill, to charge themselves with another collateral measure; and he was sure the measure would be more dispassionately considered when proceeding from the hon. and gallant Member than if it were proposed by the Government, when it would assume much more the character of a Party matter. As to the vote to be given, the Government had not yet considered the course they would take; but he hoped no resistance would be given to the introduction of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member not only spoke with the authority of an Irish Member, but with the countenance of a large number of the Irish Members. The House would not be committing itself to final approval, but simply to the view that there was nothing in the Bill to exclude it from the ordinary procedure. That the Bill was entitled to deliberate and careful consideration he did not doubt. He was not prepared to give a final opinion upon it; but it was evident that it aimed at meeting a great difficulty, and also that the hon. and gallant Member had framed it with studious care in order not

  567
  to provoke unnecessary opposition. That being the case, he hoped the House would concur in the view that the hon. and gallant Member ought to be allowed to introduce the Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought that after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would do well to withdraw his Motion. It was desirable that the House should see what the hon. and gallant Member proposed on this subject.
  LORD ELCHOobserved, that Bills were not always allowed to be brought in and printed; on the contrary, he had known many divisions to be taken on the proposal to introduce a Bill, and so to economize the time of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) appeared to have no idea what the Bill proposed; but he should have thought, from what took place last year and from what was on the Notice Paper, there could be no doubt as to the character of the Bill. It was a Bill to suspend evictions. The Bill of last year was brought in to meet cases of real distress, and after the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) proposed a clause in the Compensation for Disturbance Bill to suspend evictions, the Government themselves brought in a Bill with that object, and all the row that occurred last year about disturbance and evictions resulted from that. The same game was being played now. The Prime Minister had not said one word against the Bill; on the contrary, arguing from what he had said, he would rather favour it. Therefore, nothing would surprise him (Lord Elcho) less than that the Government should find it right to take up the Bill themselves.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANregarded it as a happy omen that no Irish Members, although there were some of strong Conservative opinions, and some landlords, had opposed the introduction of the Bill; and he did not despair of seeing the war between the landlords and the tenants of Ireland ended. If this Bill did not pass he should like to see the Irish landed gentry agreeing to some similar measure by which, while the Government Bill was passing, tenants should be secure, so that the discussion of the Bill might not be accompanied by harrowing scenes in Ireland. Fighting to the last moment for justice
  568
  to the Irish tenants, he would urge his countrymen to reach out their hands to meet any compromise of an equitable character from the landlords.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERagreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) as to the old custom; but he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had done good service in moving the adjournment of the debate, because the title of the Bill was of an exceptional character and conveyed imputations of such a nature that the Government ought to refuse the Bill. It implied that evictions were on the increase, by the injustice of the landlords. He believed that they were not increasing, and the imputation was a gross calumny on the landlords. The hon. Gentleman was therefore quite justified in his Motion.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERreminded the Prime Minister of the doctrine laid down by himself at the beginning of the Session of 1869. A Bill was introduced by Lord Bury to relieve Members who accepted Office under the Crown from having to seek re-election, and the right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle that when there was any doubt about a Bill, when it involved any details, it was proper to permit its introduction; but that when there was no question of details, when the object of the Bill was perfectly obvious, then it was Constitutional to oppose its introduction. [Mr. GLADSTONE assented.] He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman assented to the accuracy of his recollection of the doctrine he then laid down.
  COLONEL MAKINSalso agreed that a first reading was in ordinary cases given to a Bill as a matter of courtesy; but there were exceptions to that rule, and this he took to be one of the exceptions which clearly came within the definition laid down by the Prime Minister. When it was clear from the title that the object of a Bill was to overturn the rights of certain members of the community, then it was quite open to the House to oppose its introduction. That was the case with this Bill, which assumed that evictions were being carried on in Ireland unfairly. Either the landlords were evicting according to the law, or they were not; but this Bill proposed to alter the law in favour of the tenants at a time when

  569
  there was a Bill before the House dealing with the whole subject. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member for Portsmouth would not withdraw his Motion.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he had not intended to oppose the Bill itself, and, in deference to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), who was the father of the 12 o'clock Rule, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Collins), he begged to withdraw his Motion. ["No, no!"]
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 148: Majority 122.—(Div. List, No. 250.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Major NOLAN, Mr. PATRICK MARTIN, Mr. HEALY, Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN, Dr. KINNEAR, Mr. SEXTON, Mr. MOORE, Mr. BIGGAR, and Mr. LITTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 188.]

  ORDERS OF THE DAY—THE NOTICE PAPER.—QUESTION.
  MR. HEALYrose to a point of Order. He saw the following Orders on the Paper:—Ways and Means, Committee; Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) [Salaries, &c.]; Report thereupon; and Post Office (Land) Bill; As amended to be considered. These Orders were down for the Morning Sitting which terminated at 7 o'clock, and there was no time with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, before the suspension of the Sitting, for Notice to be given in order to have the Orders put down for the Evening Sitting. When Mr. Speaker was not in the Chair no Notices could be received by the Clerks at the Table. He wished to know, therefore, how these three Notices got on the Paper? He did not object to them, but simply asked as a matter of Order.
  MR. SPEAKERstated that the Orders of the Day were postponed from the Morning Sitting to the evening in pursuance of a Resolution of the House.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY—THE NOTICE PAPER.—QUESTION.
    ERNE LOUGH AND RIVER BILL.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Erne Lough and River Bill do consist of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House, and Two by the Committee of Selection:—Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Mr. GIVAN, and Sir HERVEY BRUCE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.—(Mr. John Holms.)

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, the sum of £1,023,327 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.