Commons Sitting of 27 June 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Presumption of Life (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [191].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Court of Bankruptcy (Ireland) (Officers and Clerks) * [189], and passed.
Considered as amended—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * [169].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Coroners (Ireland) [187], and passed.
Third Reading—Commons Regulation (Shenfield) Provisional Order * [183], and passed.
Withdrawn—Medical Act (1858) Amendment * [22].

QUESTIONS.

  CENTRAL ASIA—ADVANCE OF RUSSIA.
  VISCOUNT SANDONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is now in a position to state what is the number of the population and the extent of the territory of the

  1349
  Tekke Turcomans recently annexed to the Russian Empire; whether he can give an approximate estimate of the distance of the new frontier of Russia from the boundaries of Afghanistan, and also from Herat; and, whether he will obtain such information from Her Majesty's Embassy at St. Petersburg as will enable him before the end of the Session to place a map in the Library of the House showing the extent of this important extension of the Russian Empire in Central Asia?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at St. Petersburg has been informed by the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs that the territory annexed to Russia is the Tekke Oasis, including Askabad, that the boundaries are not yet marked out, but that the delimitation is in course of execution. I am informed that the distance from Askabad to the Afghan Frontier is about 190 miles, and from Askabad to Herat about 310 miles. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at St. Petersburg will be instructed to send home any map that may be published in Russia showing the boundaries of the annexed territory, and a Copy shall be placed in the Library.
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Is Askabad at the present moment the boundary of Russia?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We do not know; but Askabad is the furthest point that has any name on the map.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE FRENCH DUTY ON RICE.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in the Return by the Board of Trade on the 27th May on the French Tariff, it is stated that rice has been freed from duty; whether this is not a mistake; and, whether the duty is not about 15 per cent. on the value of rice coming from England, whereas rice coming from Italy is admitted duty free?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that rice coming from the country of production was under the French Tariff free from duty; but coming from some other country there was a surtaxe d'entrepôt placed upon it, which would amount to about 15 per cent. It was not upon rice only that this surtaxe d'entrepôt was placed, but upon other articles also
  1350
  which did not come from the country of production.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—CREW OF THE "FORT GEORGE."
  DR. CAMERONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether seven of the crew of the merchant ship "Fort George," were, on the 22nd February last, sentenced by a naval court at Cerro Auzul to various terms of imprisonment for mutiny; whether they were taken on board a man-of-war to Callao to undergo that imprisonment; whether it was not the duty of the senior naval officer, under the Merchant Shipping Act, to inspect the prison to which it was proposed to commit them, and whether he ever did so; who interfered to protect these men from imprisonment in the noisome prisons of Lima or Callao; what finally became of the men; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House any correspondence relating to the subject?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, it appeared that seven of the crew of the merchant ship Fort George were, on the 22nd February last, sentenced by a Naval Court at Cerro Auzul to terms of imprisonment varying from seven to 12 months for combining to disobey orders. They were taken on board a man-of-war in order to be brought to Callao to undergo imprisonment in the prison there. But upon arrival at Callao, Her Majesty's Consul reported that the prison was quite unfit for the reception of British prisoners. The Minister at Lima accordingly authorized the Consul to deal with the prisoners in accordance with the Regulations that had been issued by the Board of Trade. The Consul found that he had no alternative but to discharge the men, and they were accordingly set free. The Merchant Shipping Act did not make it absolutely, or in precise terms, the duty of the senior naval officer to inspect the prison to which he had committed prisoners, but required that the Court should be satisfied, either by personal inspection or some other way, that the prison was one in which British prisoners could he properly incarcerated. As to the Correspondence, he thought if his hon. Friend would communicate with him it would be hardly necessary to lay it on the Table.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS—FREE SCHOOLS AT BRIDLINGTON.
  MR. SYKESasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that the Free Grammar School at Bridlington has been in abeyance for a period of nearly fifteen years, and that the Free Knitting School at the same place has been in abeyance for a period of eight years, and that, with regard to the former Institution, there should be an accumulation of funds to the extent of upwards of five hundred and sixty pounds and interest; and, with respect to the latter, one of upwards of three hundred and twenty pounds and interest; and, whether, in view of the fact that the Charity Commissioners have frequently been appealed to on the subject during the respective periods above referred to, but have apparently done nothing in the matter, there is any likelihood of any official scheme being speedily prepared for the protection and future government of the said Charities; and, if so, at what time such official scheme will be issued?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he believed the annual income of the two charities was £40, which was not found sufficient to carry on the work. Some years ago the accumulations were £564 in relation to the larger charity, and £245 in relation to the smaller. At the last communication which took place between the Local Trustees and the Charity Commissioners it was agreed that the accumulations were not sufficient to found the charities anew, for that, in fact, was what was required.

  CHINA.—COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
  MR. J. W. PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Foreign Office have Copies of the Commercial Treaty recently entered into between Germany and China which was read to the assembled Parliament at Berlin on the 23rd May last, and the Treaty recently entered into between Russia and China; and, whether he will lay Copies of those Treaties upon the Table of the House?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The German Treaty will be presented to Parliament. The formal Russian Treaty has not yet reached the Foreign Office, though we know its substance; but it
  1352
  will be laid on the Table as soon as a copy is received.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRE LAND)—PIER OR BOAT-SLIP ON THE MIDDLE ISLAND OF ARRAN, CO. GALWAY.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If any Report has been made by the Inspectors of Fisheries on an application for a grant in aid of the erection of a pier or boat slip on the Middle Island of Arran, county Galway, and if he will say whether the work has been recommended by the Inspector of Fisheries; and, if so, has he any objection to lay upon the Table a Copy of such Report; if the fishermen of this island have volunteered to contribute a large sum towards such work; and, if he intends to recommend the Treasury to make a grant for the purpose under the Piers and Harbours Act?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the Question ought to have been put to his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. He had, however, been told that the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries had reported upon a draft plan for the erection of a pier, and had recommended the work. The estimated cost was £1,000, and the fishermen had raised £54 towards it. It was not usual, however, for the Board of Works to sanction the grant of any sum unless one-fourth of the amount had been subscribed, and in the present case the authorities could not proceed on the small sum referred to.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE MEMO- RANDUM—PURCHASE CAPTAINS.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary of State for War, If, under paragraph 43 of the Memorandum lately issued, purchase Captains promoted on July 1, 1881, are to be included in the rule rendering it necessary, under pain of cancellation of promotion, to pass examination before July 1, 1882; and, if he will consider the justice of exempting purchase Captains from such examination, bearing in mind that, by the 38th paragraph, 4th section, Queen's Regulations, 1873, Captains promoted before November 1, 1871, were declared entitled to exemption from examination when reported fit for promotion, and bearing in mind also that the examina-

  1353
  tion has lately been made much more difficult than it was formerly? He also begged to ask, If, under the intended working of paragraph 81 of Revised Memorandum lately issued, purchase Captains over 42, on being offered promotion on 1st July 1881, and declining it, will be entitled, notwithstanding the non-acceptance of the offered promotion, to retire with the improved pension referred to in the note to the said paragraph?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. and learned Friend I have to say that purchase captains promoted next month under paragraph 43 of the Memorandum will not be required to pass an examination if they are reported fit for promotion. In answer to the other Question, I have to say, Yes; these officers will receive the improved pension.

  AFGHANISTAN—SUBSIDIES TO THE AMEER.
  VISCOUNT SANDON (for Mr. E. STANHOPE)asked the Secretary of State for India, If he will state the total amount of the subsidies in money, independently of gifts of arms, which has been granted to the Ameer Abdur Rahman?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTTNGTON: So far as can be ascertained from the letters and telegrams from India, the total amount which has been paid to Abdurrahman is rather more than 39½ lakhs. Of this sum, 9½ lakhs is money which was found in the Cabul Treasury when the city was occupied in October, 1879. In addition, the Ameer's Governor at Candahar is receiving a temporary subsidy of 50,000 rupees a month. This arrangement, I understand, is at present intended to continue for six months.
  MR. MACFARLANE: are these sums a gift or a loan?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The sums which have been given to the Ameer are a gift and not a loan. The sums, in English money, amount to nearly £390,000.

  CENTRAL AMERICA—THE INTER OCEANIC CANAL.
  MR. W. HOLMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to an article in the "Panama Star Herald" of 24th May, giving the leading points
  1354
  of a Protocol signed by the representatives of Colombia and the United States, viz:—
  "1. That ships of war and military convoys of the United States may in peace or war pass through the Interoceanic Canal without payment of tolls:
  2. In case the neutrality of the Canal is threatened, the United States are authorized to take military occupation of the Isthmus:
  3. The ships of war of all other nations are not to pass through the Canal in time of peace without permission:
  4. Colombia undertakes to enter into no negotiations concerning the Canal, or to alter the rules and regulations governing it, without previous accord with the United States;"
  if he is aware whether this statement is correct; and, if so, whether such an agreement between Colombia and the United States is not a breach on the part of Colombia of the Treaty made in 1866 between that Country and Great Britain?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The contents of the extract from The Panama Star and Herald have been reported to the Foreign Office. The Protocol in question, however, has been rejected by the Colombian Senate.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—RELIEF WORKS.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it has been brought to his notice that the funds available for relief works in Ireland are exhausted; and, if so, whether he will recommend a further advance to be made for such works as have been applied for and formally reported upon?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he had made inquiry on the subject, and regretted to state there were at present no funds available for any relief work in Ireland which had not yet been begun.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. JAMES TUITE, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state why Mr. James Tuite, T.C. of Mullingar, is detained in prison as a suspect after Mr. William Farrell, J.P. who was arrested at the same time, in the same place, and

  1355
  for the same alleged offence, has been set at liberty?
  MR. HEALYsaid, that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would state the grounds upon which Mr. Farrell was released?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that Mr. Farrell had been released on two grounds. In the first place, three doctors had given their opinion that his state of health was such as to render his imprisonment dangerous; and, in the next place, he was informed that Mr. Farrell had been the dupe of others. Mr. Farrell had been released on condition of his signing a document pledging himself that he would not do any act of violence, or incite others, directly or indirectly, to do such acts, and also acknowledging his liability to arrest in case he failed to comply with the conditions.
  MR. O'KELLYasked why Mr. Farrell had been arrested?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member would see the reason if he looked into the Warrant which was on the Table of the House.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, his Question had not been answered. He did not ask why Mr. Farrell had been released, but why Mr. Tuite was not released.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the reason why Mr. Tuite was not released was that neither of the grounds alleged in the other case were alleged in his. It was neither said the protracted imprisonment would injure his health, nor that he had been the dupe of others.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether Mr. Tuite would be given the option of release on signing a similar document?
  [No reply was given.]

  ARMY—MILITARY STAFF CLERKS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any increase of pay or position will be given to Military staff clerks other than superintending clerks employed in district head quarter offices; and, if not, whether he is prepared to grant them the ninepence a-day given to staff clerks employed in Royal Artillery offices?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that increase both of pay and position will be given in these cases. All these staff clerks, whether employed in Artillery offices or not, will be treated alike; and
  1356
  besides certain advantages in their earlier years of service, the maximum pay is raised from 4s. 5d. to 5s. a-day, and the rank of Quartermaster General will be confirmed after six instead of nine years.

  PRISONS (INDIA)—FLOGGING.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether prisoners in India ordered by the governors of prisons to be flogged have, in all cases, an opportunity of being heard in their defence before some person in authority independent of the prison executive?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The powers of a superintendent of gaols as to the infliction of corporal punishment for prison offences are regulated by different Acts for the various Presidencies, which Acts are supplemented by rules made by the local authorities. Throughout the Bengal Presidency, the superintendent is, by the Prisons Act 26, of 1870, empowered to order corporal punishment; but in case of repeated offences against prison discipline he is directed to bring the matter to the cognizance of a magistrate, who is empowered to hold an inquiry upon oath, and it is only in these cases that the prisoner has an opportunity of being heard before an independent authority. No corporal punishment is to be inflicted in any of the Presidencies except in the presence of the superintendent and with the sanction of the medical officer. I have already stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), that the large number of corporal punishments in the gaols of Bengal has attracted the attention of the Governments of Bengal and of India; that Provisional Orders have been issued which have already had the effect of greatly diminishing their number; and that further inquiries have been instituted with the view of substituting, in many cases, a less objectionable form of punishment.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CHANCERY DIVISION)—DORMANT CAUSES— MONEY PAID INTO COURT.
  MR. S. LEIGHTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government will take steps to procure the publication of the following

  1357
  particulars in the future lists of the dormant funds in Chancery:—
  Name of the cause or matter;
  Cross refrences to sub-titles;
  Names of persons supposed to be entitled, with last known addresses;
  Amount of fund in court;
  How long lying unclaimed?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The Government do not propose to publish fuller particulars of dormant funds in Chancery. It appears to them that the information now given is sufficient for general purposes. The labour of preparing the list is already considerable, and should not be increased except on proof of necessity. In any case the Government could not undertake to offer an opinion upon such a point as supposed claimants.

  BRITISH BURMAH—THE OPIUM TRAFFIC.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the measures recommended by Mr. Aitcheson, Chief Commissioner of British Burma, for prohibiting the traffic in opium, the consumption of which article he declares to be "affecting the very life of this young and otherwise prosperous province," have been carried out?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The principal measures recommended by Mr. Aitcheson, which are embodied in the draft Orders of the Chief Commissioner of British Burmah (vide page 17 of Parliamentary Return) have been carried into effect. The number of shops for the retail sale of opium has been reduced from 68 to 27, with effect from the 1st of April last. From the same date, also, the rates at which opium is supplied by the collector to a farmer, licensed vendor, or medical practitioner have been raised from 24 rupees to 28 rupees in Arakan and to 32 rupees a seer in Pegu and Tenasserim. Three other recommendations were made by Mr. Aitcheson in connection with this subject, which do not appear to have been adopted. They are as follows:—1. That opium should only be consumed on the premises, and that the possession of opium in any quantity, however small, outside the shops, except under a pass from the collector, should be illegal. 2. That habitual opium smokers should be
  1358
  placed under restraint and required to find security for their good behaviour. 3. That a Commissioner of Excise should be appointed for Burmah.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Can the noble Lord inform the House whether the shops which are to be closed are to receive compensation?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am not aware of that.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Have any similar complaints been made with regard to the extension of the traffic in the drug under Government auspices with any other part of British India?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have no recollection of any such complaints having been made; but if the hon. Member will give Notice of his Question I will make inquiry.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPART MENT)—HIGHLAND COUNTIES OF SCOTLAND.
  LORD COLIN CAMPBELLasked the Postmaster General, To what extent the telegraph has been extended in the Highland Counties of Scotland since 1871; what is the total sum paid by these Counties by way of guarantee against loss consequent on such extension; how far have the guarantees covered the cost of extension and working expenses; and, whether, taking into consideration the benefits which are likely to result to these Counties by a further extension of the telegraph, he will consider the question of reducing in future the sums demanded by way of guarantee?
  MR. FAWCETT: I find that 100 telegraph offices have been opened since 1871 in Scotland, and that 18 of these have been opened under guarantees. During the last year, out of 10 of these offices opened under guarantee there was a loss amounting to £236, which fell upon the guarantors. In eight there was a slight gain, amounting in the aggregate to £54, and consequently nothing had to be defrayed by the guarantors. I am anxious to extend, as far as possible, the advantages of telegraphic communication, and will carefully consider whether any means can be adopted, consistently with the interests of the Exchequer, to enable guarantees to be given on reasonable terms.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS—REPORTED MAGISTRATES.
  MR. CAINEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he can now state the result of the communications addressed by the Lord Chancellor to those magistrates who have been reported guilty of corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections last year, or lay a Return upon the Table?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): the Lord Chancellor having communicated with 27 Justices who have been reported to have been guilty of corrupt practices at the last General Election, 15 of these gentlemen have placed their resignations in his hands. As to the other 12, the Lord Chancellor has thought it his duty not to depend upon the Report of the Commissioners, but to inquire into every particular case himself on its merits. He will compare the statements made by the Justices with the evidence, which in some cases is very voluminous; and the delay that has arisen in the Chancellor arriving at a final decision arises from his desire that no injustice should be done.
  MR. CAINE: Has he accepted the resignations of the Justices?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I cannot answer. I only know that they were placed in the Lord Chancellor's hands.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Does the answer include any mayors or ex-mayors?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): My impression is that the 27 gentlemen hold the ordinary Commission of the Peace. The Lord Chancellor has no jurisdiction over mayors, who exist by virtue of a Statute.

  NAVY—ASSISTANT PAYMASTERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that assistant paymasters, Royal Navy, have now fifteen years seniority and are thirty-six years of ago before being promoted to the rank of paymaster; whether, when these gentlemen joined the Navy, promotion to paymaster was gained after nine years seniority; if these officers, whatever their seniority, are inferior in rank and position to the junior Lieutenant in the Navy; and, what steps, if any, the Admiralty pro-
  1360
  pose taking to ameliorate their pay and position?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is quite true that the senior Assistant Paymasters of the Royal Navy reached that rank in 1866, and that their age is, on the average, that stated in the Question; and it is true that between 1866 and 1868 promotion to Paymaster was gained after nine years in the lower rank. It was in consequence of this slowness of promotion that, in 1877, the pay of Assistant Paymasters was raised very considerably in the later periods of their service; so that the senior among them rise to 12 s. 6d. a-day, instead of 10 s., an increase of £45 a-year. Meanwhile, the prospects of the whole class have been much improved by the great amelioration in the position of retired Paymasters. In 1861 the average retired pay of a Paymaster was £150 per annum. In 1881 it is £313. All Assistant Paymasters rank after Lieutenants. A Paymaster of 15 years' service ranks after a Commander. Assistant Paymasters have the option of going into the ward-room quite early in their career. There are only two ways of quickening promotion. One is by increasing the higher ranks; but in this case, out of 200 Paymasters, we have 30 still unemployed; and the Admiralty certainly could not consent—and I hope that the House would not permit them—to increase the number of officers above what is required by the Service in order to give promotion to those below them. The other method is for a Government, by stinting itself in patronage, to diminish the number of first entries. In 1865 and 1866, 51 and 45 youths were respectively entered in this line of Service, and the lists were hopelessly clogged in consequence, just as was the case during the same years with the executive lists of the Navy. But between 1869 and 1874 the entries were reduced to an average of five a-year. They then rose again to an average of nearly 30; but this year only 10 youths were entered, and that policy will continue to be pursued until the rate of promotion is again healthy and rapid.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH FORMS AND POSTCARDS.
  MR. JACKSONasked the Postmaster General, If he will obtain specimens of the forms of telegrams used by other

  1361
  countries, and exhibit them along with the specimens of post cards?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, he had no objection whatever to accede to the request.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPART MENT)—TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that the telegraph clerks at numerous important centres have instructed their committees to furnish the Members of Parliament with copies of the objections of the clerks to the last scheme for the organisation of the Telegraph Department, so that Parliament may be in possession of such information previous to voting public money for the Government scheme; and, whether the clerks who furnish such information to Members of Parliament will be punished by exclusion from any benefits under the Government scheme?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: No, Sir. I have no knowledge, apart from the intimation conveyed by the Question of the hon. Member, of any such intention on the part of the telegraphists as that described in his first Question. As regards the supposed object of such instructions—namely, the information of Parliament, I would suggest to hon. Members that it is not the custom of this House when voting public money to depend for its information upon representations made to individual Members, but upon information open to all Members alike, which can be duly examined into and tested. With respect to the second Question, it is the wish of the Government that the scheme, which has been framed with great care by the Departments responsible for the Service with the view of promoting efficiency and of removing all causes of well-founded complaint, should be applied with as little delay as possible to the various offices throughout the country. It would, however, be impossible to acquiesce in the continuance of organized agitation, accompanied with threats of a general strike, unless claims which we cannot but regard as entirely inadmissible are conceded. If, therefore, such an agitation were to be continued, it may be necessary to suspend in particular cases the introduction of the new scheme.
  1362
  I trust, however, that no such necessity will arise.
  MR. O'DONNELL: The noble Lord has not aswered my Question, which is, whether the clerks who furnished information to Members of Parliament will be punished by exclusion from any benefits under the Government scheme? I did not raise any question of strikes and agitation, and so forth, which I will be ready enough to consider when the time comes. It is a very simple and straightforward Question?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I do not think it would be of any use to answer such a Question. A great deal depends on the character of the representations which were made; but I am not aware that the Government has any such intention as that stated by the hon. Member
  MR. O'DONNELL: I have asked a Question which is strictly within my right to ask, and which I think the noble Lord is bound to reply to. I want to know, generally speaking, whether the clerks in the Telegraph Office who furnish information to Members of this House of the opinions of their body with regard to the Government scheme will be punished in any way by the Government? That is a simple and straightforward Question. If there are any exceptions, they can be dealt with exceptionally.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The hon. Member asks whether telegraph clerks who furnish information to Members of Parliament will be punished. I cannot say that I am aware of any such intention.
  MR. O'DONNELL: That is not the Question. The Secretary to the Treasury seems to be desirous of provoking a Motion for the adjournment of the House. I must distinctly ask him to answer the closing part of my Question—whether the clerks who furnished such information to Members of Parliament will be punished by exclusion from any benefits under the Government scheme?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I have already stated that any action of Government must entirely depend on the manner in which the representations were made. These have been accompanied by very general threats of a universal strike, which might require the serious consideration of the Government?
  MR. O'DONNELL: Does the noble Lord intend to make this rule general, and does the Government intend to propose—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has put his Question twice, and he has received an answer. He is not entitled to repeat his Question.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I was not about to repeat my Question. I was about to ask, in consequence of the nature of the reply received from the noble Lord, whether the Government intend to make the rule general; and whether they propose a curtailment of the salaries of all officials who engage in extra-official agitation—not only the lower class of officers, but also the higher paid officials?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I am not aware how the Government can propose to make any rule general, seeing that no rule has been stated.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ATTACK ON AN ORDNANCE SURVEY OFFICER.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that a surveyor from the Ordnance Survey Office in Dublin, acting under the directions of Colonel Martin, R.E., proceeded to the estate of Colonel Simpson in the county Roscommon in March last, for the purpose of mapping certain lands for which a Landed Estates Court title was being sought; whether this surveyor and his assistant were attacked by a mob, their maps taken from them, and their escape effected with difficulty; whether this resistance to a Government official is in any way connected with a settlement of rent; whether the proceedings in the Landed Estates Court are still in abeyance pending the completion of the maps and survey; whether it is the case that the surveyor has applied for police protection; and, whether the constabulary authorities have informed him that a force of forty men will be necessary, and are about to furnish him with that escort?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that on the 24th of March last a surveyor and a bailiff, whilst proceeding to make a survey on the lands in question, were met by a number of women and children—eight or ten of them—who took their maps from them, and destroyed them. It was not considered, however, that this resistance had any
  1364
  connection with the payment of rent' as it was understood that the tenants had no objection to the survey being made when the pending proceedings as to title were determined. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) was not sware that the proceedings in the Landed Estates Court were in abeyance in consequence of the occurrence; and he was informed that no application had been made by the surveyor for police protection, and the Constabulary did not at present know where he was. The people who made the attack seemed to have been under the impression that until the title was cleared up nothing ought to be done upon the land.

  STATE OF IRELAND—CURRAGH CAMP.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the Curragh Camp Brigade Orders, No. 8, of the 11th instant, directing that certain carmen shall not be engaged by the military station it the Curragh for having refused to give their cars to the police; whether the military authorities claim the right not only to prevent certain persons from having access to the "stands" within the precincts of the Camp, but also to prevent passage through the Camp by roads which are in all respects public roads; and, if so, under what statute; whether his attention has been called to the Curragh Camp Brigade Order, No. 8 (B), of the 11th instant, which says,
  "The house of Mr. Brown, publican, Eyre Street, Newbridge, is placed out of bounds, in consequence of his having refused to serve a carman who had driven members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in charge of a prisoner to Naas;"
  and, whether he approves of the same?
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked, whether it was not the duty of the military authorities to prevent the access of all such suspected persons to the Camp; and, whether such rights were not under the jurisdiction of officers commanding the Camps?
  MR. CHILDERS: I have inquired, Sir, into the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and I am satisfied that in taking steps to meet attempted "Boycotting" on the part of carmen, the military authorities at the Curragh have acted properly. They have not stopped the public road through the Camp,

  1365
  known as the "XY" road. Mr. Brown has appealed to me denying that he had anything to do with "Boycotting," and I have sent his letter to the Commander of the Forces in Ireland, who will make further inquiries in the matter.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether in 31 & 82 Vict., c. 6, s. 8, there was an express proviso that the military authorities were not allowed to obstruct the public way over the Camp?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had already stated that the military authorities had not stopped up any public road. He had looked carefully into what had been done by the military authorities at the Curragh, and he thought they had acted properly.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORdesired to submit that the prohibition of the use of a particular road by certain carmen was the closing of the road to them.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not read it in that sense. He thought there was a distinction between that prohibition and the closing of a public road.

  STATE OF IRELAND—AFFRAY AT BODEKER, CO. CLARE.
  MR. FINIGANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, during the recent affray at Bodeker, county Clare, one John Moloney was killed by a police constable; whether a coroner's jury returned a verdict of "wilful murder against a policeman not then known;" whether, since the coroner's inquest, informations have been sworn as to the identity of the police constable; whether, under a warrant granted by Mr. O'Hara, R.M., the police constable was arrested; whether he is now a prisoner in Ennis Police Station; whether a further investigation has been ordered; and, whether the Crown intends to prosecute without further delay?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out that this Question concerned legal proceedings, and that it ought to have been asked of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. He believed, however, his right hon. and learned Friend would make the same reply as he must make, that as a magisterial investigation was being held in this case, he must respectfully decline to answer the Question.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PROCLAMATION OF WATERFORD.
  MR. R. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, If he can state the number of agrarian offences that have been committed in the county of the City of Waterford since the 1st of January 1881?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am informed that there has been one case of serious assault at a fair, and one bad case of intimidation. But I must say that the number of agrarian offences committed in any specified place is not the sole ground on which action can be taken by the Government in proclaiming a district. They must consider the information they have in regard to the probability of a disturbance of the peace, and the general necessity of the place being proscribed under the Act. The Government thought it necessary, in proclaiming the county of Waterford, that the city should be included.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what he meant by saying it was necessary to proscribe the city of Waterford? According to the Act a person could be arrested in any part of the county.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The city of Waterford is the capital of the county, and the House will well understand that, if steps were taken to organize a system of intimidation in the county, it will be exceedingly probable that the headquarters of such organization would be in the city of Waterford itself.
  MR. LEAMYasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the city of Waterford was itself a county; and whether the same argument would not apply to the county of Kilkenny?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am aware of that, or else this Question would not have been asked.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that he could give no other reason why a city of 30,000 inhabitants had been proclaimed, and the people deprived of their Constitutional liberties, than that an assault had been committed at a fair?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think the hon. Member cannot have read the Question which was put to me. It does not ask why the city was proclaimed,

  1367
  but what was the number of offences committed.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was very sorry to have no other alternative than to ask further explanations, and in order to allow the right hon. Gentleman to answer he would conclude with a Motion. So far as they could see, the Chief Secretary had not acted according to the pledges he had given the House on the passing of the Coercion Act. The Government dictinctly pledged themselves to use the powers given them only in exceptional circumstances demanding those powers. They had not the slightest indication that such exceptional circumstances existed in the city of Waterford. In fact, the county and city of Water-ford were exceptionally peaceable, which was all the more creditable, considering that almost the whole of the county of Waterford had been scheduled as a distressed district under the Relief of Distress Act. On what representations had the Government proceeded? Had the magistrates of the county approved of what they had done? Had the Catholic clergy lent their support to the scheme for placing the city of Waterford outside the Constitution? They had heard nothing, but that an assault was committed in a fair, connected with an agrarian outrage. He believed there was not a city in England where similar outrages were not repeatedly committed, and yet they were not deprived of the privileges of the Constitution. He contended that, so far as the Government had explained the case, it was nothing short of an insult to the intelligence of the House and the whole Irish people to tell them that the commission of a single assault was sufficient for the proclamation of a large Irish county. He considered that the Government were bound to give a fair answer to the Representatives of the city of Waterford, to give some indication why this slur had been cast on the city and county. As representing a portion of the county of Waterford he felt bound to protest against this mode of dealing with the liberties of the Irish people. He would afford the Government an opportunity of giving some further information, and enable some of the Chief Secretary's Colleagues to supplement the very unsatisfactory explanation he had given. The Chief Secretary, it was perfectly evident, was not inclined to give any
  1368
  information in a conciliatory manner to the Irish Representatives. The right hon. Gentleman's conduct was designedly provocative. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. HEALY,in seconding the Motion, said, he did not think that the reason why the city of Waterford had been proclaimed was that one assault had been committed in it within six months. He now proposed to give the reason. In the county of Waterford there was an estate of several thousand acres—he might say about 40,000 acres—which was owned, by the Duke of Devon-shire. The son of the Duke of Devon-shire was a Member of the Cabinet, and, no doubt, it was very convenient to the gentleman governing that estate to have the power to put into gaol any of the troublesome Land Leaguers who prevented the Duke of Devonshire from getting his rents. The House would, perhaps, be somewhat surprised when he told them what had already occurred on the Duke of Devonshire's estate, and he thought, after that, they would agree with him that his view was not unfounded. Before the rise of the Land League there were such things as Farmers' Clubs. They were very harmless institutions, which sometimes indulged in a dinner, and he did not know that they ever did any good, but they did not do much harm. They were the means of some little exhibition of public spirit; and, as a matter of course, the idea of a Farmers' Club existing on an estate where the Duke of Devonshire and his people reigned supreme was too much for the being who ruled there; and through understrappers, through bailiffs, through warners, and through agents, notice was given to the members of this Farmers' Club that it was very undesirable that these clubs should continue to exist in the county. Of course, the Duke would not evict a tenant; but their walls would not be repaired, their thatch would not be renewed; perhaps a little bit of arrears might be pressed a little harder; and the end of it was that the Farmers' Club went down. Now came this terrible Land League, and, of course, it was a much more formidable body, and they knew—because the League had much more information as to what was taking place in Dublin Castle than those in Dublin Castle had of the action of the League—that the Chief Secretary

  1369
  had issued a Circular to his myrmidons throughout the country, telling them, first, to report to him the names of the President, Treasurer, and Secretary of the Land League throughout the country; next, to get to know what sort of business was going on; and then, if there was any crime of which any Land League representatives could be reasonably suspected, at once to pounce upon the President, Treasurer, or Secretary. Nothing could be better for the gentlemen on the Devonshire estate, when these troublesome Land Leaguers were advising the tenants not to pay more than Griffith's valuation, than to tip the wink to have Mr. So-and-so, the President or Secretary of the League, put into gaol; and, therefore, he maintained it was not crime that had led to this proclamation, but a desire on the part of the Chief Secretary to help his noble Friends to get their rents.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give some explanation as to why the city and county of Waterford were proclaimed. During the debates on the Coercion Act, the right hon. Gentleman undertook that he would not use that measure in an arbitrary and unjust manner; but he maintained that upon this occasion he had done so. The city of Waterford contained 29,000 inhabitants, and in six months the right hon. Gentleman could only produce one case of assault, and two cases of alleged intimidation as having been committed in that population. He believed the county of Waterford was proclaimed in order to arrest the Secretary of the local branch of the Land League. There was not in Ireland a city so quiet, nor a county in such a peaceful condition; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed determined that he would treat a peaceful district in the same manner as a district where, undoubtedly, disorder or outrage might exist. He believed the right hon. Gentleman did not fully appreciate the gravity of the situation in Ireland. He did not know to what courses he was driving the people of that country. If he wanted to make the county and city of Waterford disturbed, he could not have adopted a more effectual means
  1370
  than by suspending the liberties of the people. When speaking to the farmers of Waterford some time ago, he remembered they said to him—"We have a branch of the Land League, and we are determined to work within the lines of the Constitution. We shall not allow upon our platform any man who uses rash or violent language, because he may compromise us, and we may then be placed under the Coercion Act." The right hon. Gentleman could not point to one speech delivered in Waterford in which outrage was not denounced, and in which Constitutional agitation was not advocated. There was, he was sorry to say, a feeling in Ireland, entertained by a very large portion of the population, that the Government by their acts were seeking to drive the people into open revolt. The people of Ireland, however, had learnt a lesson from experience. They tried rebellion in 1798, and again in 1848, and they were not be foolish, now as to be goaded on by the action taken by the Government, and which the right hon. Gentleman could not explain, for how could the taking away of Constitutional rights of thousands of people be justified by the commission of two or three crimes? He had never sympathized with the course of procedure now adopted, and he would not have joined in it but for a strong sense of the duty which he owed to his constituents. The Government, by acts of this description, were playing into the hands of the enemy. If they thought they could sustain their power by bayonets, informers, and policemen, they were mistaken, because it could never be sustained for any length, of time upon such a basis. These miserable and tyrannical acts would alienate instead of conciliate the affections of the people, without which their power would never exist. He trusted a division would be taken on the Motion, as a protest against the action of the Government.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It is impossible for me or for the Government to give a full answer to the Question which has been put. The House, in intrusting to us the great power it gave us under the Protection of Person and Property Bill, showed that it had confidence in the Government in the administration of that power. [Laughter.] A majority of the House has given us that confi-

  1371
  dence; and they are doubtless aware that the very essence of the measure requires us to act without, in all cases, giving the grounds and reasons for our doing so. If a Vote of Censure in reference to this, or any other case, is brought forward, the Government will be prepared to meet it. But the House at either side will not expect me to take any notice of the extraordinary grounds for what we have done which have been put forward by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).
  MR T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the House had placed trust in the Government when they passed the Coercion Acts. So far as his testimony was concerned, that trust had been grossly abused. The Coercion Act was used in Ireland in a manner that had never been foreshadowed by the occupants of the Treasury Bench. The arrests in Ireland were made upon trivial grounds, they were wanton and tyrannical, and they were creating, very naturally, the greatest possible exasperation. Men like Mr. Farrell, as to whom he had asked a Question, had been so arrested, and now they heard that he had been released on giving an undertaking not to do again that of which he had never been guilty—namely, inciting people to violence and disorder. On the contrary, he had himself more than once heard that gentleman urging upon the people the necessity of their keeping within the limits of the law. The Government had made an unfair use of an Act which, he believed, was vilely and foully abused every day.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had stated that there were but two cases of outrage in the county, and he would like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite if the Constitutional liberties of 125,000 people were to be taken away because of those isolated cases? They were told, again and again, that the need for the Coercion Bill was the difficulty of obtaining evidence; but he would refer the right hon. Gentleman to two Charges made by Judges recently in the county, and he defied him to find anything in those Charges which would justify him in the action he had taken. But it was said that people might be plotting in the city of Waterford to commit crime in the county, and that that was the reason
  1372
  the Proclamation was issued. That, however, would be a reason for proclaiming every city and county in Ireland. Hon. Members might think the course they were taking was inconvenient; but they did not know Waterford as he knew it. He himself was born and bred there; and he challenged the Chief Secretary to find in any part of Ireland a more peaceable city. Did not the police records show it? Did not the absence of crime show it? He contended that a more tyrannical, unjust, or cowardly abuse of power he never saw. When the Chief Secretary first went to Ireland, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman intended to do the Irish people justice. He feared the right hon. Gentleman would fail; but he gave him credit for the best intentions, and thought that any English gentleman would cut off his hand before he would sanction, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, the infamous Police Circular which had recently been issued. One of the worst characters in Irish history was Armstrong, who went into the houses of his victims, sat at their boards, took their children on his knee, and then betrayed them; and a Circular pointing out that man as a type of an Irish police officer was sent out, and the Chief Secretary never protested against it. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that though he felt it his duty to protest against the proclamation of Waterford, he knew his fellow-citizens too well to fear that the abuse of his power by the Chief Secretary could have any effect on them, and make them do anything that was unworthy of them. The only effect it would have would be to stimulate the spirit of nationality and a desire to bring back the independence of Ireland.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he hoped his hon. Friends would not carry this Motion to a division; but if they did so he should certainly vote with them. He had never been more surprised in his life than at the proclamation of Waterford City; and with regard to the county, of which he was a magistrate, he must testify to its almost universal peace.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought it was rather cruel for his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Waterford to allude to the case of the Shearses in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman. A description was

  1373
  given some years ago, in one of the Dublin newspapers, of a visit of the Prime Minister to the spot where these unfortunate brothers were executed, and it was stated that when their sad story was related to him the right hon. Gentleman displayed very considerable signs of emotion. When the Prime Minister visited the tombs of the Shearses he could scarcely have anticipated that he would be the Colleague of that Brummagen Castlereagh, the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; or that the spy, the informer, and the lying and traitorous friend would be the chief instruments on which a Liberal Government would rely for preserving order in Ireland. A Liberal Ministry, however, was now shamelessly employing such means in order to restore in Ireland such order as was once restored in Warsaw by the Agent of a Liberal and friendly Administration. It would be impossible to descend to a more foul, and unfair, and cowardly use of the powers which the House had given to the Government than that which had been made of them by the Administration of Ireland. Referring to the impressment of cars for police service at Tullamore, he said it was a policy which would commend itself to the Tories, but which they could not expect from a Liberal Government. However, he rejoiced in the conduct of the Chief Secretary in the matter. It was preparing the way for their final triumph. In 12 months the Chief Secretary had done more to consolidate and render certain the future of the Party led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) than could have been done by 10,000 agents of insurrection and sedition. The Liberal Government would reap all the shame, and that Party, in the future, would reap all the benefit of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BLAKE,as one of the Members for the County of Waterford, protested against the very unjust and most unnecessary measure of proclaiming that county, which he considered unwise and unjustifiable. He could bear testimony, from personal experience, that the city was peaceable; and he should join with his hon. Friends in dividing, in order to show his protest against such an uncalled for step.
  MR. PARNELLreminded the House that it had been alleged, as an argu-
  1374
  ment for the Coercion Bill, that intimidation was so rife in Ireland that no jury would convict, even on the clearest evidence. Now, he held in his hand a Return of the number of criminal cases tried at the last Waterford Assizes, and was able to inform the House that they were 39 in number, that eight of the cases tried ended in acquittals and 30 in convictions, while the jury disagreed in only one instance. However, everyone knew that the Chief Secretary had not retained a shadow of regard for the reasons originally given by him for the Coercion Bill, but was determined to pursue the shameless course he had begun.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he never knew a case in which the facts less justified the action of the Government than this. In Dublin, which was proclaimed a short time since, only a few outrages took place in six months to which the Coercion Bill would apply. A more peaceable community did not exist in the world than in the city and county of Waterford. Nothing could be more notorious than the absence of anything approaching to violence or illegal agitation in the county. But the Chief Secretary was ignorant of all matters connected with Ireland; and he was never likely to be anything else, because he did not want to learn.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that the confidence placed in the Government when it demanded extraordinary powers had been outraged and violated. The midnight marauders and the village ruffians and village tyrants—the original objects of the Coercion Bill—were perfectly safe. There was not a single landlord in prison; but the men who were arrested were not arrested on account of any criminality, but simply and solely because they were energetic and efficient members of the Land League. The Queen's County—which had always been notoriously free from crime—had been proclaimed. Only two counties in Ireland—Wicklow and Louth—could compare with it, for only at last week's Sessions the presiding Judge had to inform the Grand Jury there was nothing to engage their attention. Since the proclamation of the county Limerick, three men had been arrested, including Patrick Doran—and a greater favourite or more respectable or esteemed citizen could not be ima-

  1375
  gined; but it was clear he was arrested simply because he was the Vice President of the Land League. An efficient member of the League in Queen's County was just arrested. Though the Government might arrest every President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer of the Land League in Queen's County, the Land League would not be suppressed. Immediately that Patrick Doran and his friends were arrested, others were ready to take their places; and if all the men in the district were arrested, it would be found that the business of the League would be carried on by the women of the country. The Land League might be made an illegal association; but do what they would, the Government could not put down land meetings. Whenever two farmers met there would be a land meeting; and this state of things would continue until this infamous landlord rule had been removed.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 305: Majority 277.—(Div.List,No.267.)

  FRANCE AND TUNIS—RIGHTS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  MR. T. BRUCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether British subjects will be entitled to apply to the French Government should they be dissatisfied with the action of the French Consul in his capacity of Minister of the Bey of Tunis?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: British subjects would not, under any circumstances, apply to the French Government. If they have occasion to complain they would address themselves to Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General, who, if he considered that the circumstances required it, would report the case to Her Majesty's Government. If it should prove that the Treaty rights which the French Government have undertaken to respect had been disregarded, Her Majesty's Government would then make such representations as they might consider necessary through Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris; but much would depend on the actual circumstances of the particular case, and Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake to pledge themselves beforehand as to the course they would pursue.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which passed between the English and Turkish Governments in 1870 and 1871, with respect to the Firman issued in 1871 by the Porte to the Bey of Tunis?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir; there will be no objection to that course.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—CRAUGHWELL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, Whether the statement is true that the Craughwell Telegraph Office has had to be closed owing to the arrest under the Coercion Act of Mr. E. J. Barrett, the telegraphist; whether he will in future arrange with the Irish Executive that no further telegraph clerks shall be so arrested until the Post Office authorities have been first notified, and arrangements made for promptly filling up the arrested official's place; and, whether he will inform the House, in view of future arrests, what course the Department intend to take towards their officials imprisoned on suspicion, whether they are to be reinstated on their release, and maintained or paid, while confined, by the Post Office, if their previous official record has been satisfactory?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that in consequence of Barrett's arrest the Craugh-well Telegraph Office was closed on the 21st or 22nd instant; but it was opened again on the 25th. At the same time, it is right to state that Barrett was not a telegraphist on the Establishment, but an assistant employed by the local Postmaster. I do not think it would be expedient for me, as suggested by the hon. Member, to advise the Irish Government not to exercise until the Post Office has been communicated with in any particular case the power which recent legislation has placed at their disposal. In reply to the latter part of the Question, I am glad to say that no officer on the Establishment of the Post Office in Ireland has been arrested; and, so far as I am aware, there is no reason to suppose that any officer will be arrested. I do not, therefore, think that it is necessary to consider what should be done in

  1377
  the hypothetical case put by the hon. Member.

  FISH SUPPLY (METROPOLIS).
  MR. FIRTHasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works were disposed to undertake to remedy the great defects in London fish supply, in view of the support promised by the Home Office to any well-considered scheme for that object; and, whether he is able, on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works, to state whether they are willing at once to undertake this important work on behalf of the people of London?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: In reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to assure him that the Metropolitan Board is fully sensible of the defects in the Metropolitan fish supply; and on Friday last, at my suggestion, referred the subject to a Committee for consideration and report, with authority to confer with the Home Secretary. Until the Committee has reported I am, of course, unable to say what steps the Board can take; but perhaps my non. Friend may be satisfied at the present time to know that the matter will receive attention.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PIERS AND HARBOURS, IRELAND.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he would have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the actual amount of money paid by the Board of Public Works in Ireland for each of the several Piers and Harbour works enumerated in the Return, No. 244, of the present Session, up to the date of that Return?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The Return asked for by the hon. Member could be given up to any date required; but most of the works are being executed by contract, on which payments are only made periodically on account of work done, after deductions, according to the terms of the contract, varying from 10 to 20 per cent. and without any allowance for machinery or materials on the ground. The Return would, therefore, be so misleading that I think it would be useless to give it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ATTACK UPON THE POLICE AT CORK.
  MR. DALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, on the evening of Thursday the 9th of June, Mr. Thomas Travers (at present and for many years past engineer to the Cork Gas Consumers' Company at Cork) was wantonly assaulted by five policemen near the site of the old Cork and Passage Railway Station at Cork; whether it is true that, on the occasion referred to, Mr. Travers was standing on a small bridge, the only other occupants being a few little children, and that, seeing the policemen about to cross the bridge, Mr. Travers stood aside to allow them to pass, when the police attacked him, knocked him down, and beat him cruelly with their batons; whether it is true that, whilst down and being beaten, one of the policemen stabbed him in the groin with his bayonet, inflicting a severe and dangerous wound; and, whether, if the above-recited facts be correct, he will take steps for the prosecution of the perpetrators of this assault?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, the further inquiry which he had caused to be made had elicited no other information than that already given by him, to the effect that the police had no knowledge that the man referred to had been assaulted. The sub-Inspector reported that he heard no appeal for assistance at the time the bridge was cleared by the police, and had he heard such an appeal he would have attended to it. The hon. Member had observed that the bridge had been twice cleared, and that possibly the information he had referred to was the clearance of it when Mr. Travers was not there. He could not find anything, however, to support such a view, and the Constabulary reported that they were not mistaken as to the clearance. The bridge was cleared of a mob of persons. The Inspector had an interview with Mr. Travers, who said he appealed to Mr. Divou; but Mr. Divon must have heard his appeal if he had made it.
  MR. O'KELLYwanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman denied Mr. Travers' statement?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I deny it on the information I have received; but I

  1379
  do not doubt that Mr. Travers believes in the truth of his statement.
  MR. DALYremarked, that if the right hon. Gentleman had received his information from the same source as he did his first information on this subject, very little reliance could be placed on it.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE NEW RE GULATIONS—QUARTERMASTER AND COLOUR SERJEANTS.
  LIEUT.-COLONEL MILNE-HOMEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he is aware that by the intended new regulations, Colour Sergeants will become entitled to the same pension as Quartermaster Sergeants who belong to Class II.; and, if he proposes, therefore, to give a proportionate rise in pension to non-commissioned officers of that class?
  MR. CHILDERS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken in assuming that Quartermaster Sergeants will be in Class II. They will be in the new Class I., and Colour Sergeants will be in the new Class II. The maximum pensions in these classes will be 2s. 9d. and 2s. 6d. per day respectively.
  COLONEL ALEXANDEE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question of which I have given him private Notice, Whether it is still intended to give Quartermasters the honorary degrees of Captain and Major; and, if so, after what period of service?
  MR. CHILDERS: It is intended to give to Quartermasters the honorary and relative rank of Captain after 10 years' commissioned service. After 20 years' service (towards which two years' rank service counts as one), any officer retiring receives a step of honorary rank, so that almost all Quartermasters would retire as honorary Majors.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONEgave Notice that To-morrow, at Two o'clock, he should move—
    "That, on and after "Wednesday next, the several stages of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, on all days when it is set down among the Orders, until the House shall otherwise determine."
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be
    1380
    in a position to-morrow, if he is unable now, to give the House some statement as to the probable measures which the Government intend to proceed with after the Land Law (Ireland) Bill is disposed of. That will have a material influence on the decision of the House with respect to the Notice which has just been given. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will to-morrow be able to state the general course of Business and the probable duration of the Session. I also hope the right hon. Gentleman will, at the same time, be able to name a day on which my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) may be able to bring forward his Motion on the affairs of the Transvaal.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I hope, if the House should be pleased to accede to the Motion of which I have given Notice, that it will place the Government in a position at an early date to form some judgment on what they may be able to ask the House to do during the remainder of the Session. At our present rate of progress we are really not in a position to say what we can ask it to do during the present Session over and above the Land Law (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. HEALY: On the consideration of his Motion to-morrow, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government intend to proceed this Session with the measure of Local Government, announced in the Queen's Speech at the opening of Parliament; and, also, whether they intended to redeem the promise given by the Chief Secretary last year with regard to the Limitation of Costs Bill?

ORDERS 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. [FOURTEENTH NIGHT.]
    [Progress 23rd June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    PART I.

      ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.
      Clause 4 (Incidents of tenancy subject to statutory conditions).
      MR. LALORmoved, in page 5, line 12, to leave out from the word "During" to the end of the Clause. He said the people of Ireland had been under the impression that the Bill was intended for the purpose of giving security of tenure and fair rents; but if this part of the present clause was to remain in the Bill it would do away completely both with security of tenure and fair rents. It would give the landlord, in the first place, the power of going to the tenant and telling him that he required to resume possession of the farm for the purpose of improving the estate or for the purpose of building cottages for the benefit of the labourers. What would be the effect upon the tenant? He would probably offer a higher rent at once; and, therefore, the clause would place the landlord in a position to compel the tenant to give an increased rent. In the next place, even if the landlord might not oblige the tenant to give him an increase of rent, he would, at the least, put him to the trouble and expense of litigation. It would further give the landlord the power of seizing upon the tenant's improvements, because the tenant knew very well from previous experience of the operation of the Land Courts in Ireland that no tenant, when he appealed to the Land Court, ever got the fair, honest value of his improvements. The practice of the Land Courts during the last 10 years had been this—if the tenant wont into Court and claimed compensation for improvements the Court could ask him how long he had been in possession of them, and if he had had them for a few years it would be said—"We see no reason why you should be compensated any further, because you have already had the benefit of them." Therefore, the retention of this part of the clause would completely shut out the power of the tenant to make improvements in the land, and if the tenants were not allowed to make improvements in the land the chief value of the Bill would be nullified and destroyed. No tenant in Ireland would make improvements unless be was perfectly secure, and under this clause no tenant would be secure. Therefore, the clause would operate in opening a door for the resumption of the holding by the landlord, who, on going to the Land Court to claim the right of resuming possession, would
      1382
      only have to make the excuse that the farm was in a backward state, because the tenant had not made the improvements that were necessary. He would consequently succeed in turning the tenant out on the simple ground that the labourers required better cottage accommodation or on a hundred other excuses. The clause in its present state would give encouragement to the avaricious and cunning landlord to deal harshly and unjustly with his tenants. He, therefore, begged to move the omission of this part of the clause.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 12, to leave out from the word "During," to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Lalor.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'During the continuance of a statutory term in a tenancy 'stand part of the Clause."
      MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the remarks of the hon. Member I may say that I do not bind myself absolutely to the words of the clause, because they may be somewhat obscure and may possibly be improved, although we have gone through them with great care. But the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman raises a question of principle which is of considerable importance. The clause, as it stands, gives a considerable amount of freedom to the landlord in regard to the power of resuming possession of a holding. It entirely alters the old practice, and by the operation of the clause the power now exercised is placed under a very stringent limitation. The landlord must appear before the Court, and in claiming the right to resume a part of the holding he must satisfy the Court that he has a serious purpose in view. A merely speculative or a capricious desire will not suffice; but he must be able to show that he requires to carry out improvements, during a statutory term, with a really serious purpose in view. There is a further limitation in a subsequent part of the Bill, which deals with. The first statutory term under conditions exclusive of resumption altogether. When, the landlord shows that he has a desire to resume for some purpose or other connected with the good of the estate, or for some purpose connected with the improvement of the condition of the labourer, I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that it is mainly

      1383
      to the tenants he must look for carrying out these improvements. It would be a great mistake to approach the consideration of the Bill with the impression that we can have no good notion of farming in Ireland unless we introduce English ideas. I dismiss that view altogether and admit, as a general principle, that it is desirable to make improvements; but it is another thing to assert that the landlord is not to have something to say to the good of the holding, even subject to the check of the judgment of the Court. And when we come to the question that deals with the good of the estate the ground is much stronger, because we cannot, in that case, look to the tenant at all. It is no part of his duty to look to the good of estate, and alterations of the holding might be vital to the good of an estate, even where, at the same time, they may not have any particular bearing upon the condition of the holding. Where the condition of the holding is detrimentally affected, the case may generally be met by compensation under this clause or under the Lands Clauses Act. I am told, to take a strong instance, that to a very considerable extent the method of holding land in rundale still exists in Ireland, and it would be very injurious to say that where a method of holding so disadvantageous prevails, we should leave it absolutely in the power of the tenant to say that it should continue to prevail. It would be an advantage to tenants as well as landlords to have scattered portions of holdings brought together. It is the obvious title of the landlord to economize the working of his estate by the making of good arrangements of this kind. There are many proceedings connected with the management of land in regard to which the landlord is naturally the person who should be responsible for carrying them into effect. For example, there are main drainage operations in respect of which it is evident that the landlord ought to form the judgment and not the tenant. The tenant might not admit that the good of the holding, or of his particular holding, was concerned, and yet it might be desirable that material improvements should be effected. Then, again, as to the condition of the labourers, one of the most obvious matters we have before us is that we should introduce a power of this kind in regard to the labourers. We
      1384
      are going to give the tenant powers, as against the landlord, to alter the conditions of his tenancy, in a certain sense, for the sake of enabling him to provide accommodation for his labourers; and I think, by a parity of reasoning, we ought to give power to the landlord, as against the tenant, to do the same thing, and to promote the extension of good accommodation for the labourers. Under all these three heads, therefore, the good of the holding, the good of the estate, and the provision of accommodation for labourers, we adhere to the principle that the power of resumption ought to be contained in the Bill; and if we did not maintain it we should strike a vital blow against the character of the landlord as a landlord invested with certain rights and corresponding duties in the management of his estate. The words of the Bill are very cautiously framed in regard to compensation to the tenant. When anything of this sort takes place it is obvious that the tenant must be compensated. The Court must be satisfied as to the object of the landlord, and in the case of resumption by the landlord it is provided that the compensation to the tenant must be full.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, the proposal of the clause which it was the object of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) to remove was a very obvious one. It appeared to be based on a provision of the Act of 1870, which gave power to the landlord to resume possession of a portion of a tenancy for the purpose of building cottages for labourers, and so forth. He thought that in asking the Committee to re-enact an extension of that power the Government should be prepared to show that under the working of the Act of 1870 it had been attended by beneficial results. So far as he knew, the landlords had not made use of the power conferred on them by the Act of 1870 to any appreciable extent. In fact, they had not cared about building cottages for labourers on the holdings of their tenants, and consequently they had not used the power which the Act gave them. Therefore, so far as the argument of the Prime Minister went, that because they gave power to the tenant to set aside one of the conditions of the tenany in order to enable him to introduce labourers upon his holding, they ought to give a corresponding power to

      1385
      the landlord, the contention of the right hon. Gentleman had entirely failed. The landlord had not, to any appreciable extent, used this power for the purpose of building labourers' cottages; and he thought that, so far as the benefit of the labourer went, it would prove to be entirely useless in the future. In point of fact, if they were to discuss the matter in reference to the question of the labourer, he did not see how they could avoid doing it much more usefully and satisfactorily upon the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), who sought to provide a different course of proceeding, and, in effect, to take it out of the power of the landlord to make the annexation in question and to hand it over to the Commission to be appointed under the provisions of the Bill. He (Mr. Parnell) thought that was a preferable method of procedure to that proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He did not quite understand what was meant by giving power of resumption for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate. To him that appeared to be a very vague proposition indeed, and one that might give rise to considerable confusion in future. The Prime Minister had been unfortunate in selecting his examples to show the way in which the law might be applied. He referred to the question of rundale and also to other questions of improvement, and he said that the landlord ought to have certain powers in order to prevent the land being held in rundale or divided in communion. Now, many disputes had arisen in connection with this question of rundale, and it had been a fruitful source of contention between the two classes of tenants in Ireland. What he would therefore suggest was this—that as the landlords had not in the past used this very important provision, the Government should adopt the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Longford, and hand over to the Commission the power sought to be given by this part of the clause, at any rate, as far as the labourers' question went. He very much feared that if, as far as the provision of cottages for the labourers went, they left it to the tenant on the one side, or to the landlord on the other, the unfortunate labourer between the two stools would fall to the
      1386
      ground, and no provision would be made to enable him in future to exist in some sort of comfort. A very trifling extension of the provisions of the Artizans' Dwellings Act was desirable, in order to enable Board of Guardians, or the rural sanitary authorities, to exercise the same powers in favour of the labourers which. The local authorities, corporate bodies, and Town Commissioners were able to exercise in the towns in Ireland. He did not care whether they gave the powers proposed to be given by the Bill to the landlord, to the Town Commissioners, sanitary authorities, or Boards of Guardians. Either would exercise it in an efficient way, and probably the sanitary authority would have the greatest local knowledge necessary to enable them to carry out such alterations; but as to giving to the landlord the right of going to his tenant and claiming, in the vague terms of this clause, that he was entitled to resume the holding for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding, or the good of the estate, or the benefit of the labourer, and demanding that he should receive the sympathy of the Court, without requiring him to give the slightest security that he would really carry out the objects for which he was to receive such sympathy, would be far too dangerous a power to give to the landlord, and would give rise to a great deal of future litigation and feeling of insecurity on the part of the tenant. Furthermore, it would not, in the end, accomplish the object for which it professed to be framed—namely, the improvement of the condition of the labourer.
      MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, it appeared to him that the clause, as it stood, was a very dangerous one. He referred especially to the words "the good of the holding" and "good of the estate," which were so vague and misleading that he thought they would be a source of great danger to the tenantry of Ireland. He wished to put a question. To Her Majesty's Government. He wanted to know whether the landlord, after having gone before the Court and stated that he wished to resume the holding for the good of the holding, or for the good of the estate, would be bound to carry out the improvements he proposed afterwards? For instance, would he be bound to build the labourers' cottages which he declared to be necessary? Would

      1387
      he be required to undertake the improvements within a certain specified time, or would the landlord be perfectly free, after having resumed possession of the holding, to lie on his oars and do nothing whatever? In any case, he (Mr. Sullivan) thought the vagueness of these phrases was highly perilous. They were not only vague and uncertain, but they placed great power in the hands of the landlord, and left the tenant no defence whatsoever. He could have no defence against the representations of the landlord; and, therefore, he (Mr. Sullivan) would ask the Government whether, after being allowed by the Court to resume the holding on the faith of certain representations, the landlord would not be bound within a reasonable time to carry the improvements into effect?
      MR. LEAMYremarked, that the clause would empower the landlord during the continuance of the statutory tenancy to resume possession of the holding for the good of the estate. Such a provision would hold out a direct encouragement to every landlord in Ireland to increase his rents, because if he did not do so a statutory tenancy would not be created, and he would not be able to resume the holding for any of the purposes mentioned in the clause for the next 15 years. He could only resume possession provided the statutory term arose in consequence of an increase of rent; and, therefore, the adoption of the clause as it was now drawn would give a direct encouragement to the increase of rent.
      MR. SHAWsaid, he hoped that the Government, before dealing with the question which had been raised, would consider an Amendment which stood lower down on the Paper, in the name of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). He thought the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would very materially improve the clause. The clause went on the assumption that the landlord should have the right of resumption in the event of his requiring to do certain things, and the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend omitted the last part of the clause, and made it read thus—
      " During the continuance of a statutory term in a tenancy, consequent on an increase of rent by the landlord, the Court may, on the application of the landlord, and upon being satisfied that such application is just and reasonable, re-
      1388
      quire the tenant to sell his tenancy, and upon such terms as to the Court, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall seem just."
      The phrase "good of the holding or of the estate," was a very vague phrase, and as to the system of "rundale" and squaring a holding, he hardly knew of any system of tenancy which led to more disturbance in the most remote parts of Ireland where the system of "rundale" prevailed. The landlord was authorized to buy up the holding for the purpose of "squaring it," as it was called, and then he afterwards let it to some other tenant. He admitted that if some great public object were to be obtained there should be some means by which the landlord might resume possession of the holding, giving the tenant ample compensation for his loss; but it would be very hard to define that the condition of the resumption should be merely that the landlord required it for the good of the holding or of the estate. Then, again, as to the labourers, he thought it was a very doubtful case in which to give the landlords the power of dispossessing their tenants, that all that was desired was to erect cottage tenements for the labourers. In Ireland such an object would certainly very much complicate the question; and a proposal to turn out a tenant and to cut up the holding for such a purpose would be regarded with extreme disfavour. Their object should be to encourage good relations between the landlords and tenants in Ireland, and not to enact provisions that contained the elements of future disturbance. He hoped that by the time they reached the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant proposed to move, the Committee would be able to strike out some plan by which the labourers' question might be satisfactorily settled; but he doubted whether it was desirable, even from a landlord's point of view, to give him this power, which he was only too likely to exercise in a manner that would bring about a disturbance between himself and his tenants. He suggested that the best course to take was to strike out the words objected to in favour of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk.
      MR. MARUMsaid, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that the other evening he had pointed out how

      1389
      the wording of this clause—"the good of the holding or the good of the estate" might operate. The landlord might consider it necessary for the good of the estate to undertake an extensive system of drainage, and, with the permission of the Court, he might be allowed to resume the holding for that purpose. If a number of holdings were taken possession of in that way it would then be contended that, for the good of the estate, it was necessary for the landlord to resume possession of the entire property, and in that way the consolidation of the estate into one large holding would be brought about. Irrespective of any considerations in regard to the tenants, this clause would enable the landlord to go before the Court and make out a case which would, in the end, result in consolidation. But the consolidation of holdings in Ireland, if carried out to any considerable extent, would be injurious. The landlord might probably be able to obtain a larger amount of rent in some cases; but, as a rule, the consolidation and amalgamation of holdings would be decidedly adverse to the interests of the community at large. The difficulty he experienced in dealing with the Amendment was that there were several other Amendments down upon the Paper; and, if it would be in Order, he wished to deal with all of them at the same time. One of them had already been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)—namely, the Amendment which stood upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). That Amendment was much more general than that of the Government. It did not encourage arbitrary or capricious eviction, but gave even larger powers to the Court than the Amendment of Her Majesty's Government. Hon. Members on both sides of the House had been moving Amendments, the object of which was to cut down and define the power of the landlord in regard to the right of resumption. Not long ago he had presided at a National Conference in Ireland at which this subject was considered. About 50 land clubs were represented at the Conference, and the members all came to the conclusion that no right of resuming a holding should be given except for the purpose of carrying out a bonâ fide pub-
      1390
      lie improvement. That was distinctly the impression of the large number of tenant farmers who were represented; and in the event of the Government not giving way upon this, he should certainly press the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, to leave out the word "or," in line 16 of this clause, and insert "the bonâ fide purpose of erecting thereon public or private buildings." Then, in the next line, he proposed to move, after the word "allotments," the insertion of the words "due regard being had in the premises to the general good of the community at large." His object in proposing these Amendments was to provide that, when the landlord went before the Land Court, he should be required to prove that the improvements he contemplated were for the public advantage and would be a bonâ fide improvement of the holding or of the estate. He believed that every hon. Member who was acquainted with the condition of farming in Ireland would bear him out when he said that the consolidation of holdings was opposed to the general interests of the community. The suggestion, therefore, contained in his Amendment was that, even if the landlord had a locus standi to go before the Court and show that the good of the holding or of the estate was involved, yet, nevertheless, the Court should have power to require that the improvements should be carried out for the good of the community at large. There were various other Amendments on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir Thomas Bateson), the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), and the hon. Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce), all of which dealt, more or less, with the question of the specific causes for which the landlord would be allowed by the Court to resume the holding. He hoped, therefore, that the matter would be discussed generally, and that the consideration would not be confined to the Amendment now before the Committee.
      DR. COMMINSthought there were serious objections to the adoption of this sub-section—objections that went much further than any hon. Member had, as yet, suggested. He entirely endorsed the view of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), that the

      1391
      object of the Government in promoting the present Bill should be to preserve the peace of Ireland; if possible to compose the feud which at present existed between the landlords and tenants; and, as far as possible, to take away all occasion for future feud, in reference to the consolidation of holdings or anything else. There was an opinion in Ireland—and he believed that it was not without foundation—there was an opinion abroad that from the beginning to the end of this Bill, where the measure gave a thing with one hand, it took it away with the other. The present clause was as remarkable an exemplification of this as could probably be found. The Bill, in the first instance, gave power to the Court to fix a statutable term of 15 years, and, having done so, it gave, under the present section, a power to the landlord of resuming the farm, and getting rid of the statutable term of 15 years at any time he might think fit. Not only could he resume the term, but, under a provision contained in the 45th section of the Bill, he could put an end to the tenancy to which the term applied; therefore the statutable condition that the rent of the holding should not be increased for 15 years was of very little value. The Court had power to fix a fair rent; but if the landlord found, after it had been fixed, that some other person was willing to pay a considerably higher rent, such a circumstance, would, undoubtedly, be for the good of the estate—at any rate, it would be for the good of the landlord, although it might not be for the advantage of the tenant—and the landlord would represent to the Court that he wished to effect improvements for the good of the holding. A tenant with large capital would certainly be more capable of improving the property; and it might be considered by the Court that a tenant who was likely to spend more money upon the farm would be for the good of the estate, and would entitle the landlord, under this sub-section, to resume the holding. The consequence would be that the tenant would be deprived of his statutory term of 15 years, either upon this or a thousand other pretexts. For instance, the landlord might claim the right of building a labourer's cottage in the centre of his tenant's garden, and in front of his tenant's house. The tenant would naturally refuse his permission; but he
      1392
      would be told that it was for the good of the holding, and with a friendly County Court Judge—a matter there was only too much reason to apprehend—in most instances, the landlord would be able to get all he wanted, and this insidious sub-section would give him the power to resume an entire holding of 200 or 300 acres, on the plea that it was for the good of the estate that he should erect a labourer's cottage. It would never be difficult to show that a labourer wanted a cottage, and as the landlord would choose to build it in any corner that suited him, he might readily be able to get an order from the Court to resume the entire holding and put an end to the tenancy and the statutable term of 15 years. As the clause was drawn it was so wide that any pretext whatever might suffice for the landlord. The provision was, in his opinion, a most mischievous one, and in whatever form it might be adopted it would be regarded by the people of Ireland as an attempt to take away with one hand what the Bill gave with the other. In point of fact, its adoption in its present shape would make the Bill a false pretence, a mockery, a delusion, and a snare.
      MR. HEALYwished to point out that the statutable conditions were only to arise in the case of an increase of rent. He wished to ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland whether, in the case of an increase of rent by mutual arrangement, the landlord would have the power of applying to the Court for the right of resuming possession of the holding? He also desired to know whether the 10th section of the Land Act and the 3rd section of the Notice to Quit Act would also apply? He certainly thought the Government might devise a better clause than this for conferring on the landlord the power of resumption.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)pointed out that the 7th sub-section of the 7th clause made provision that—
      "Where the judicial rent of any present tenancy has been fixed by the Court, then, until the expiration of a term of fifteen years after the determination of the Court has been given, such present tenancy should be deemed to be a tenancy subject to statutory conditions., and having the same incidents as a tenancy subject to statutory conditions consequent on an increase of rent by a landlord."
      MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered the question whether the 10th section of the Land Act applied as well.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)replied, that that section would not apply to statutory tenancies.
      MR. T. D. SULLIVANremarked, that no answer had been given to his question whether the landlord, after making his representations to the Court, would be bound to carry them into effect, or whether he would be free to do nothing after having taken possession of the holding?
      MR. GLADSTONE: It is plain that the intention of the clause is not to have merely a vague expression of opinion on the part of the landlord; but the Court will require all the facts of the case to be laid before it, and must be satisfied of the landlord's bonâ fides. I do not know whether it is necessary to insert words to that effect in the clause; but the plain intention of the clause is to require a practical plan to be submitted by the landlord, which he would be obliged to carry into effect.
      MR. A. M. SULLIVANsuggested that the Government should consider the advisability of putting into the clause some words to enable the Court to take security from the landlord as to the bona fides of his intention.
      MR. O'CONNOR POWERjoined in the appeal which had just been addressed to the Government by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan). He inferred, from the reply which had been given by the Prime Minister, that the right hon. Gentleman did not despair of being able to see Ms way to meeting the obvious difficulty that had been called attention to. Prevention was better than cure, and there was much force in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westmeath, that the landlord, on declaring a certain state of things, might be allowed to resume possession of the holding, and might then refuse to give effect to the representations on which the right of resumption was given to him. In that way it was possible that the tenant might suffer great injustice. He would suggest that a Proviso should be added to the end of the clause to this effect—
      " Provided also, that the Court may authorize the resumption of the holding by the tenant
      1394
      if the conditions on which the resumption by the landlord has been authorized have not been fulfilled within a reasonable time."
      That would not interfere "with the object of the clause, and would afford a satisfactory protection to the tenant.
      MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, the Committee were endeavouring to establish in Ireland a mutual property between the landlord and the tenant; and it seemed to him, as the clause stood, that it would be quite possible for the landlord to go into Court and prove that he would be improving his estate very much by improving off of it all the tenants who happened to be there. That was a case which often happened in England. Many landlords were of opinion that it was for the good of the estate that they should reduce the number of tenants, and throw the property into one holding, as by that means they got rid of the expense of providing buildings for the maintenance of a numerous tenantry. It would, therefore, be possible to create even greater distress among the poor tenants of Ireland than now existed; and he would suggest that, after the words "having relation to the good of the holding," the word "or" should be struck out, and the word "and" be substituted, making the clause read "and for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments."
      MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYagreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken that, as the clause stood, it would enable the landlords to improve the tenants off the face of the land. In point of fact, it was an invitation to a landlord who was not bonâ fide in his intentions to do as much. He thought the Committee were discussing the clause under very great disadvantages. It had been stated that the Government intended to bring up a clause at some future time which would deal with the question of the agricultural labourer and his accommodation; but as yet the Committee had no idea what that clause was to be. They could only guess that it was to be a re-enactment of the clause which was struck out of the Land Bill of 870 by the House of Lords. They were, therefore, discussing the whole matter in the dark, and the Government had given no indication of what their real intention was. He thought the Government should give an assurance that

      1395
      they had the whole question fully in mind, and that they were anxious to do something that would confer a substantial benefit upon the labourers.
      MR. GLADSTONEbegged to remind the hon. Member that the Government would not be permitted, on the present Amendment, to discuss any other question than that which was involved in the Amendment itself. They intended hereafter to give a full explanation of their intentions.
      MR. LALORsaid, he was afraid that the real object of the clause was to give power to the landlord to intimidate the tenant into accepting an increased rent. There could be no real doubt that the clause did confer such a power, and enabled the landlord to apply to the Court in order that he might subsequently be in a position to increase the rent. He knew very few tenants in Ireland who would not be intimidated by such a course. The right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the fact that the landlords might wish to build cottages for the labourers; but, as a matter of fact, the landlords of Ireland were not willing to build cottages. They had not been willing hitherto, and were not now, and never would be. In his own neighbourhood very few labourers' cottages had been provided; and, as a general rule, they objected to allow their tenants to do so. A few years ago, a tenant with a farm of 300 or 400 acres found himself in want of labourers—a condition which was pretty general in Ireland—and he asked his landlord for permission to build three or four handsome cottages for the accommodation of labourers. He engaged to build them in a handsome style, or in any manner the landlord might suggest; but the landlord totally refused to allow him to build them, for this reason, that some day or other these men might be thrown upon the poor rate. That was the real reason why the and lords would not sanction the building of labourers' cottages; and there was not the slightest reason for making the provision at present contained in the clause. He hoped the Prime Minister would re-consider this part of the clause, which was altogether unnecessary.
      MR. A. MOOREasked if it was proposed to strike out the whole sub-section? ["Yes."] He thought there must be a power of resumption some-
      1396
      where to meet the case of improvements of public utility. He, therefore, hoped the Government would tell the Committee how far they were prepared to meet the views of the Irish Members. The clause, as it stood, was most unsatisfactory, and would have the effect of fomenting again, in the worst form, the unhappy disputes which had so long prevailed between the Irish landlords and tenants. The system of rundale, which had already been referred to, had been a greater source of bitterness and bloodshed almost than any other. As education and enlightenment progressed landlords became anxious to have their property brought within a ring fence, and it would be unfortunate to leave this power in their hands. He objected to the frequent and continuous applications to the Court provided by the Bill. Everything was thrown upon the Court, instead of a man being left to deal amicably with his fellow man. He was inclined to support the Amendment, because provision had already been made that application should be made to the Court to fix the rent and a statutory term, and one application should suffice. The right of resumption should be restricted to cases where it was desirable for carrying out improvements that were of public utility. It would very much simplify the matter if all reference to the labourer were eliminated from the clause. The case of the labourer would have to be dealt with afterwards, and it would be more completely dealt with in a separate and distinct clause.
      MR. MACFARLANEthought the words "for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate" should be omitted from the clause, which would then read "for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, and allotments." There certainly ought to be a power of resumption for the benefit of the labourers.
      MR. CALLANdid not concur in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore), which, he thought, would have the effect of eliminating from the clause the only matter upon which it could be justified—namely, the benefit of the labourers. If the subsection were not struck out altogether he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) should be adopted.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he disliked the clause as it stood, because it seemed to him too much to regard the interest of the landlord, while it regarded the interest of the tenant too little. He agreed with the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) in recognizing the justice of the landlord having the right of resumption in certain cases, and should be willing that a clause should be introduced for the purpose of securing this; but he objected to this sub-section, because the meaning of the words "the good of the holding or of the estate" was not sufficiently clear. It would appear that, as the clause stood, the landlord could resume the tenancy, however little its resumption might be, for the improvement of the estate; and, therefore, he thought it would be well to introduce words to the effect that the Court should only allow this power on grounds which were just and reasonable, those words having relation not only to the interest of the landlord, but to that of the tenant. Having said he was in favour of resumption on the part of the landlord in certain cases, he would be willing that he should have that power where, for instance, any part of the farm came into the category of building land—where the land was in the vicinity of a railway, and might be utilized for building cottages for the use of persons engaged on the railway. On the whole, although he expressed his views with some diffidence, he submitted that the sub-section, as it stood, was bad, and that some such words as he had suggested were necessary.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought some such provision as was now proposed to be struck out was necessary, and, further, that it would be wrong, having regard to the interest of the owner of the estate, not to vest in him some power of resuming a holding. It was not proposed that this power should be exercised by the landlord in an arbitrary way, because he would have to satisfy the Court that he wished to resume the holding for certain denned purposes; and he ventured to say that the Court, looking at the matter in a common-sense way, would have little difficulty in arriving at a fair conclusion. The Court, if the landlord was not able to satisfy it that some bonâ fide and tangible benefit would result to the holding or estate,
      1398
      would undoubtedly say that he had not made out his case. He thought that, instead of giving the Court power to take up the entire holding, it should also have power to permit the landlord, on proper evidence, to resume possession of part.
      MR. SYNANsaid, that like some of his hon. Friends he had an objection to certain words in this sub-section; but it must be remembered that they had not reached the point at which those words could be discussed. They were at present engaged upon an Amendment for striking out the sub-section altogether, and he thought it would be well if the discussion were confined to that particular question. Taking all the circumstances into account, he did not think the sub-section should be struck out in its entirety. Even if the words "of the holding or" were retained, he would certainly not retain the words "for the good of the estate." The question as to what was for the benefit of the holding was one which, he thought, might be safely left to the Court. To retain the words "for the good of the estate" only would simply be giving the landlord power under the Court to consolidate holdings—the very thing which the Bill was intended to prevent.
      MR. HEALYwished to know what notice would be given to the tenant in case the Court decided that the landlord might resume?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, of course, the Court would direct some reasonable notice.
      MR. HEALYthought that it would better to add words to the effect that notice should be given by the Court.
      MR. O'CONNOR POWERagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) that some power of resumption ought to be given to the landlord. For instance, that power was desirable in the case of a tenant who was not an improving tenant, and who was holding the land on conditions not beneficial to the property. Those conditions, however, ought to be carefully defined. He would rather see the clause standing in the Bill with the Amendment suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk; and he thought if words could be added in the direction of the Amendment also indicated by the hon. Member for Longford

      1399
      (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) with reference to labourers' cottages, it would be better for all parties concerned. He should certainly not vote for the total expunging of the sub-section.
      MR. GILLasked whether the clause was intended to refer to future tenancies only? The words "consequent on an increase of rent by the landlord" appeared to him to confine the operation of the sub-section to future tenancies which arose out of an increase of rent by the landlord.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)pointed out to the hon. Member that the 3rd clause of the Bill dealt with the demand of an increase of rent by the landlord in the case of both present and future tenancies.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not think that this hap-hazard power ought to be given to the landlord for resuming possession of the tenant's holding. One of the reasons given for conferring this power was that it was for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages; but it was perfectly well known that the landlords in Ireland, so far from encouraging the building of labourers' cottages, were entirely opposed to it. They had gone on the principle of driving the labourers off the land, saying to the tenants—"You must not build cottages on your holdings, because some of the people who will live in them will become chargeable on the rates." He thought the tenant farmers should be allowed to build cottages for their own labourers on the understanding that in case the landlord resumed the holding, or in case an increase of rent were established, those cottages should be the property of the tenant and not of the landlord, and that their value should not be included in any increase of rent at a future time. The occupying farmer was, to his mind, the best judge of what was for the good of his holding; and he could scarcely imagine a case in which it would be desirable, legitimate, or proper, that a tenant should be turned out of his holding because the landlord alleged it was for the good of the holding that this should be done. They knew very well that the so-called gentleman farmer did not farm properly; but this could not be said of the tenant farmer, as a class, who were the only persons who could properly cultivate
      1400
      their holdings, and who knew that if they were unsuccessful they would not be able to pay their rent and would go to the bad. In a case of that kind the tenant would have to sell his tenancy to the highest bidder, and probably a man of more enterprizing character would come in, and the result would be that the holding would be improved without any intervention on the part of the landlord. Again, the landlord was to have this power of resumption for the benefit of the estate. But upon what grounds, he asked, should the landlord have power to involve the tenants on his estate in litigation, by simply alleging that it was for the good of the estate that he should resume possession of their holdings? It seemed to him that the clause was drawn in favour of the landlord without any regard to the interest of the tenant. The conditions on which the property of the tenant was to be resumed were certainly different from those on which a Railway Company had power to acquire property. All the provisions, which in those cases acted for the protection of the occupier of land, were, in the present case, taken away. He certainly was not in favour of allowing the tenant's property to be given up on the simple allegation that it was for the good of the estate or for the good of the holding without any other protection to the tenant than that if he objected he might fight the case at his own expense. He therefore trusted the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) would press his Amendment, and that the Government would see their way to entertain it.
      MR. CALLANsaid, it had been considered by some as a recommendation of the clause that it provided for the erection of labourers' cottages; but he pointed out that already, by the Act of 1870, the landlord could resume possession of as much land as might be required for the bonâ fide purpose of erecting one or more labourers' cottages, with or without gardens, and that such resumption was not to be deemed disturbance of the tenant within the meaning of the Act. He asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he could quote one instance in which, during the last 11 years, an Irish landlord had availed himself of the provisions of the Act of 1870 for the erection of labourers' cottages? He did not believe it could be shown that any

      1401
      Irish landlord had availed himself of the Act of 1870 for that purpose. If, therefore, the landlords had so disregarded the interest of the labourers in this respect, what possible use there could be in introducing in the present Bill a clause to the same effect as that contained in the Act of 1870? But this provision of the Land Act of 1870 was guarded is a manner entirely different from the present provision—namely, by the words—"in case the Court shall be of opinion that the same is unreasonable." There was no such safeguard in the present case; and the only thing the Court was called upon to take into consideration was whether they were satisfied that the landlord was desirous of resuming possession. In view of the fact that not a single landlord had availed himself of the powers of the Act of 1870 for the purpose of erecting labourers' cottages, he thought the argument that the present clause was for the benefit of the labourer was of no value whatever; and, therefore, he trusted that his hon. Friend would press his Motion for the omission of the sub-section.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, the words relating to cottages appeared to him to have been inserted with the deliberate purpose of making persons believe that something was to be done for the labourer in Ireland, while their real object was to enable the landlord to turn out a tenant without any bonâ fide cause. The sub-section before the Committee—if it remained—would add to the means by which the Bill would do incalculable injury to the tenantry of Ireland.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 30: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 268.)
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) cannot be moved in this place, as it is outside the purpose of the clause. Clause 4 is intended to preserve a tenant in his tenancy during his statutory term if he fulfil certain statutory conditions. But it also gives to the landlord a right to resume the possession of the holding by purchase from, and on paying full compensation to, the tenant, if the land be required, either for the good of the estate, or for
      1402
      the benefit of the labourers upon the estate in regard to cottage allotments. The proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for Longford goes much beyond this purpose. By his Amendment he would enable the State, through the Commissioners, to buy land in any part of Ireland, so that the State might acquire, and then sell or let, the land for labourers' dwellings. The largeness of the proposal is shown by the form of the Amendment itself. It first begins with a preamble, and is then followed by an enacting clause. In its form and purpose it is rather a Bill in itself than an Amendment to a clause. It certainly cannot be moved as an Amendment in Clause 4, and could only be entertained as a distinct clause. I reserve, however, for further consideration whether, even as a distinct clause, it can be considered by the Committee without specific instruction from the House.
      SIR THOMAS BATESONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had upon the Paper an Amendment which expressed, in more concise language, the object of the Amendment which he himself had intended to propose with reference to the resumption of holdings; and, therefore, he thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee that his own Amendment should be withdrawn. He proposed, however, to move certain words when line 24 was reached.
      MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he was unable to understand why the power of the Court to grant resumption was limited to cases where the statutory term had arisen under this Act; and, in order to afford an opportunity for explanation, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 13, omit "consequent on an increase of rent by the landlord."—(Mr. W. Fowler.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped the Government would agree to this Amendment.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): We cannot agree to it.
      MR. W. H. SMITHregretted that the Government did not agree to the

      1403
      Amendment, because the clause as it stood seemed to him to put the landlord in a position in which he ought not to be placed; for, if he wanted to carry out improvements for the benefit of the labourers on the estate, he could not resume possession without serving notice for an increase of rent. It might be that the landlord desired that the tenant should remain at a reasonable rent, and yet to make improvements he would be compelled to serve this notice.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW),referring to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. W. Fowler), explained that the only statutory term yet recognized was the statutory term under the 3rd clause. Having first fixed the statutory term, they now proceeded to say what the power of resumption was. With regard to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Smith), a statutory term was created, as would be seen by this clause, which provided that the landlord should not compel a tenant to quit his holding except on the statutory conditions. The landlord was not able to resume in such a case without this clause; but, if the land was not held under a statutory term, the landlord still had the same power as under the Act of 1870. This clause only provided for the obstacle to the landlord's right created by the statutory term.
      MR. GIVANunderstood that, in addition to the statutory term created by the Bill, a statutory term would also be created if the tenant, instead of accepting the increase demanded, applied to the Court to fix the rent. If the Court did not fix an increased rent, would the landlord have the power of resumption?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)replied by pointing out that the 4th sub-section said the tenant might apply to the Court "in the manner hereinafter mentioned," and that saved the tenant's rights. The 7th section dealt with that point, and the term would then be a judicial statutory term.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, it would appear in this case as if there were only one particular kind of tenancy under which the landlord could resume; but he made out that there were two tenancies under this Bill under which the landlord could resume—a present tenancy after 15 years, and a tenancy of
      1404
      a statutory term fixed in consequence of an increase of rent. But was there any power by which the landlord could resume a future tenant without raising the rent? It was no use quoting the Land Act, for that did not meet the case at all.
      MR. W. H. SMITHasked what power the landlord would possess of resuming the holding for the benefit of the estate if a judicial rent had been fixed which was not an increased rent?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)stated that the 4th clause assumed that a statutory term had been created, and the only way of creating that under Clause 3 was a demand for an increased rent by the landlord. The moment the tenant accepted such demand a statutory term arose; and then it was necessary to provide for a resumption. On the other hand, the 7th section provided that, where a judicial rent for the present tenancy had been fixed by the Court, then another statutory term of a similar character should arise, and, till the expiration of 15 years after the determination of the Court, such tenancy would be deemed to be a tenancy subject to statutory conditions having the same incidents as a tenancy under the statutory conditions consequent on an increase of rent as mentioned in Section 3. There were thus two states of circumstances under which statutory tenancies might arise; one where an increase of rent was agreed upon, and the other where the rent was judicially fixed; but in the latter case the provision for resumption was not to apply during the first statutory term of 15 years, with a judicial rent.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Can the landlord resume a future tenancy?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Certainly. The only way in which a future tenant can get a statutory term is by accepting the increased rent proposed by the landlord.
      MR. MARUMobserved, that the object of this clause, of course, was that, if the tenant applied to the Court, he should not be penalized, and subject to removal by the landlord for any of the specified causes. He was thus saved during the first term; but in the subsequent term the landlord could go to the Court and ask for a resumption. The

      1405
      position of the future tenant was that the landlord could evict the tenant on notice to quit; but if the landlord and tenant came to an amicable arrangement, they could create a statutory term with the same incidents as an increase of rent.
      MR. GIBSONthought the clause would be simpler and would work better if the words were left out. It was quite clear that the words "consequent on an increase of rent from the landlord "were not put in in reference to antecedent drafting; they were put in to mark here, in the first place, a clear distinction of policy and intention between the 4th and the 7th clauses; but would that tend to the good working of the Act without friction, and would it cause the Act to be plainly and distinctly understood? He thought not. Why should there be any distinction? If it was right and fair, having regard to the interests of the holding and the labourers, to give this power to the landlord on making full compensation to the tenant, why should it be restricted to the case of an increase demanded by the landlord? If the policy of the Government was sound—and he thought it was sound—this restriction was not necessary. Was there any reason for preventing Clause 7 having the operation of attaching to this at once? He thought not. He thought it was right to give the landlord this power of resumption here; and he did not see how they would be able, when they advanced, to show that there was any sufficient reason for postponing the discretion of the Court to the second period.
      MR. GLADSTONEwould not say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism was mistimed; but he had spoken now apparently with the object of getting indirectly a virtual decision upon the limitation which they had reduced to a power of resumption in Clause 7, and the observations would properly come upon that clause. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), the power of the landlord to dismiss his tenant was only altered in the Bill by specific form and not by specific enactments.
      MR. W. FOWLERdesired, after the explanations which had been offered, to withdraw the Amendment.
      MR. WARTON,with reference to the Prime Minister's remarks as to mistimed
      1406
      criticism, wished to point out that it was the Attorney General for Ireland who first referred to Clause 7. He must do the right hon. and learned Gentleman the justice of admitting that he showed distinctly that the two clauses were necessary to each other; but there was an inconsistency between the clauses. He did not see why, when the interests of the landlord and of the tenant and of the estates required it, justice should not be done, whether it was one sort of statutory term, or not.
      MR. LEAMYthought there was some reason for the question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) as to why the incidents of the 1st section should differ from the incidents created under the 7th clause. He thought there ought to be no distinction, and, instead of allowing the landlord to resume at the end of the first 15 years, he would suggest that they should not allow him to resume until the second statutory term, even when the statutory term arose from an increase of rent. They allowed the landlord to resume in the first statutory term, when that arose from an increase; but when it was fixed by the Court they said he should not resume until 15 years had expired. What he wanted to know was why it was that under one term the landlord was put off resuming for 15 years, and under the other he could resume within a month? Now that they were endeavouring to settle the minds of the Irish tenantry by this Bill, it was a good thing to put off the time when the landlord might resume, so that the tenants might feel that for some time a notice to quit could not fall upon them at any moment. The Bill said the tenant might retain his holding so long as he fulfilled certain statutory conditions; but when he came under this statutory term he did not know at what moment he might get notice. Was it not wise and right that this Bill should be made to work better by having no distinction whatever in the incidents of the two statutory terms—not in the way suggested by the noble Lord, but by preventing the landlord from resuming when the 15 years had expired? If they sent this Bill to the Irish tenantry, telling them that they had a quasi-fixity of tenure, but that even if they consented to what they thought a fair increase of rent, they might, perhaps, receive notice the very

      1407
      next day, what would they be doing? In the first place, by this distinction, they held out to the landlord an inducement to increase the rent, and so increased the law suits, because a solicitor would probably advise a tenant not to accept the increase, because he might get notice to quit the next day, but to go into Court. Did the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland consider that wise? Of course, the Irish Members could not support the Amendment, because even though he thought it a great mistake to have this distinction, he thought it well under one of the terms that the landlord's right should be put off for 15 years.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. MARUMsaid, he did not know whether he would be in Order in taking up the hon. and learned Member's (Mr. C. Russell's) Amendment; but he should be sorry if it were dropped, because lie should prefer that Amendment to the clause as it stood. As the clause now stood, an application by the landlord would suffice for a resumption on his satisfying the Court that he desired to resume for some purpose; and he would then be entitled to all that was contained in the clause. If the clause were amended in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Member, that would insure the bonâ fide action of the landlord, and he would move the Amendments in the name of the hon. and learned Member.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 14, leave out from "satisfied," to "tenant," inclusive, in line 20, and insert "that such application is just and reasonable, require the tenant to sell his tenancy, and upon such terms as to the Court, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall deem just."—(Mr. Marum.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, observing that his right hon. Friend proposed to put in after the word "purpose" the words "reasonable and expedient," so that the Court would be obliged to consider whether the application was reasonable and expedient.
      MR. MARUMsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that an Amendment has been handed in by the Attorney General for Ireland partly to the same effect as the hon. Member's Amendment which stands next.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he had not heard the terms of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, and he would formally move his.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendments have a like purpose; but if the Committee reject the words proposed by the hon. Member in this place, it will not be possible to move the Attorney General's Amendment.
      MR. BIGGARwould formally move his Amendment, and then the Attorney General might state his views; and as the object on both sides was the same he thought there would be no jealousy. He could imagine cases in which a landlord, for some purpose, might desire to resume possession of a small portion of a holding—to make a road, for instance, or to mend a drain or a water course; and for that purpose it might be desirable that there should be some summary power of getting sufficient land for improvements of that general character. In the same way a landlord might require sufficient ground for building labourers' cottages; and he was strongly of opinion that unless there was some such provision as he suggested the clause would work great mischief. It was not at all desirable that the landlord should have power to take possession of an entire holding, and clear any of the parties from the estate. According to the clause, the landlord must resume the whole of the holding; but surely it would not be necessary for him to resume more than a part of it, in order to make the improvements "for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments," or, at any rate, the matter might be left in the discretion of the Court. The Amendment would alter very much the tenour of the clause, and render it much less objectionable.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 15, after "resuming," to insert "part of."—(Mr. Biggar.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the effect of

      1409
      the Amendment would be to restrict the power of the Court in this matter, and to enable it only to authorize the landlord to resume part of a holding. It should be left to the Court to see that justice was done; and as it might appear to them that the interest of the public, or the good of the estate, required that the landlord should resume the holding, or only part of it, so should the Court direct. The Court, they might rest satisfied, would not give the landlord power to resume the whole if the whole was not required; and they might also feel assured that as the landlord would have to pay full compensation, he would not desire to take more of the tenant's holding than he absolutely required.
      MR. MARUMwished to point out that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan was carried, it would be necessary to consider the question of the severance of a holding. Everyone who was acquainted with the manner in which land was acquired under Railway Bills would know that great difficulties sometimes arose with regard to severance.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he would not press the Amendment to a division.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 15, after "holding," insert "or a part thereof."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to ask, as a point of Order, whether the Attorney General could move to insert words which had been distinctly negatived by the Committee?
      THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, there is a difference between the scope of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan, which the Committee has rejected, and the meaning of the Amendment just proposed. The first proposal was that the landlord might resume part of the holding; but the proposition now is that the landlord may resume "the holding or a part thereof."
      MR. PARNELLsaid, he should be obliged to oppose the Amendment, because he held that the power which would be given to the landlord to resume possession of the holding under these
      1410
      circumstances would be a most objectionable one. The landlord would have the power to resume possession of the whole of a holding, or a portion of it; and the power to resume a part of it was, perhaps, even more objectionable than the power to resume the whole. If the Amendment passed, a landlord would be able to cut up a holding in such a way that the part which remained to the tenant would be utterly valueless. The questions of valuation and compensation would arise, and there was no way of meeting or settling these provided in the Bill. He should therefore consider it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon the Amendment, which was a distinct extension of the right of landlords to resume possession of a tenant's holding.
      MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland was a very good one; but it would, perhaps, be better to make it read thus—" or any part or parts thereof." Unless it were amended in this way, many difficult questions might be raised by litigious disputants who objected to "part "being confounded with "parts."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): That question is settled by the terms of the clause.
      MR. MARUMsaid, he must protest against the Amendment. He had said, in a public letter, in Ireland, that the Bill had been drawn up after full consideration—that there was not a word in it which had not been carefully weighed—and he, therefore, thought they were perfectly justified in resisting any Amendment that it was sought, by an afterthought, to insert in it. Questions would arise with regard to severance of holdings, and considerable acrimony would be occasioned between landlord and tenant. How did the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland propose to meet cases of severance? When queries of this kind were put it was said, "Oh, the damage is too remote." Well, it was true that the damage was not direct, but it might not be remote; and the damage done to a tenant's holding might be most serious. In this Bill there was no provision similar to that contained in the 10th section of the Land Act of 1870, in which 1-25th was mentioned in regard to the resumption of a holding. If the Attorney

      1411
      General for Ireland would not state what was the mode of severance, to enable the Committee to consider the question of compensation, and to see whether it was full and adequate, it would be necessary to go to a division.
      MR. SHAWdiffered entirely from his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) as to the effect of the Amendment. So far as he could see, the Amendment would be entirely in favour of the tenant. If the landlord took that part of the holding which was of special value to the tenant, the compensation would be in proportion; but he certainly thought that if they gave the landlord power of resumption at all, it was of immense importance that they should give him power to resume only part of the whole. The landlord might require a small part for a special important purpose—for building a school-house, or for 50 other things—but if they did not accept this Amendment, in such a case the landlord, instead of being allowed to take so much of the holding as he required, would be forced to take the whole of it. He failed to see how the Amendment could be objected to.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORconsidered that the Amendment would prove a constant source of temptation to the landlord to do that which would cause a quarrel with his tenant. It was desirable to discourage the resumption of holdings by landlords; but if they were to be resumed at all, it would be better, in order to avoid difficulty and heart burnings, that the whole and not a part of them should be taken. Very small things were sufficient to occasion bitter disputes between landlords and tenants. He could imagine a landlord saying to himself, under this Amendment—"In order to clear the prospect to my house;" or, "In order to improve my lawn, I must take a quarter, or a piece, of my tenant's holding." The tenant might object—in all probability he would—and the result would be bad blood between the landlord and tenant, which it would take a long time to cure. It was, therefore, the intention of the Irish Members to insist on the Amendment going to a division.
      MR. P. MARTINsaid, he hoped hon. Members would not go to a division on the matter, for the reason that the Amendment was one more for the benefit of the tenant than the landlord. If they
      1412
      allowed this power of resumption to the landlord, it might be to the advantage of the tenant to have only a portion and not the whole of his holding taken away from him. Take a case that was not of infrequent occurrence in Ireland—namely, the case where a landlord was anxious to open a lime-kiln on his estate for the benefit of the tenants. He might be desirous, for that purpose, of taking only a small portion of a tenant's holding; and it did seem unreasonable that, in spite of his desire not to deprive his tenant of any valuable part of it, that he should be compelled to take the whole instead of a very small portion.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
      MR. P. MARTINsaid, that to guard against any unfair or unreasonable exercise on the part of the landlord of the power proposed to be given, he trusted the Government would assent to words being added to the Amendment compelling the landlord, if the tenant so required, to purchase the entire holding. Let him remind the Committee that this would be in accordance with precedents where Parliament conferred a right of compulsory purchase. A clause substantially establishing the principle was to be found in the Lands Clauses Act, to the effect that where a company wished to take part of a holding, the taking of which would render the rest unfitted for the purposes of the tenant, the company should be bound to take the entire of the holding. In the present clause, where the landlord desired to take a portion of a holding, the loss of which the tenant would consider rendered the rest of the holding unsuited to him for the purposes for which he had heretofore held it, the landlord should be bound to take the whole of the holding. If they got some assurance from the Government that would protect the tenant from having his holding injuriously severed, he had little doubt the opposition of hon. Members opposite would cease. The desire, so well known, of tenants to retain and add to their holdings was sufficient to prove they would never, except in extreme cases, and where by the act of the landlord the farm was rendered almost useless, require the landlord to take the whole of the holding when only a small portion of it was required. He

      1413
      hoped an Amendment on the lines he had indicated would be put into the Bill.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought the Amendment before the Committee was in favour of the tenant. It might be that a landlord had a legitimate and proper ground for resuming a portion of a tenant's holding, but he would not be able to do it without resuming the entire of the holding; therefore, the Court might say—"Inasmuch as we cannot give the landlord a portion of the holding without the whole, although he wants a part of the land for a reasonable purpose, we will accede to his application for the whole." It was suggested that if they gave the landlord power to take part of the holding it might press hardly on the tenant, inasmuch as the best part of his land might be taken away and the worst left to him. This case, however, would be met by the clause when supplemented by the words to be added after the word "landlord." This Amendment would leave to the discretion of the Court the imposing of such conditions on the resumption of part of the holding as it might think fit to impose. It might be made a condition of the resumption that no arrangement should be made which would leave an insignificant and insufficient part of the holding in the tenant's hands, and that, where the portion desired could not be resumed except under such circumstances, the landlord should be compelled to resume the entire holding. If words such as he had indicated were inserted in the clause, they would have a state of things beneficial to both parties. The landlord would not be obliged to take all if he merely wanted a part, and, on the other hand, the tenant would not be compelled to keep an insignificant part of his holding that he could not advantageously cultivate. It would be found that putting in these words, properly guarded, would be quite as much in favour of the tenant as the landlord.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) was one which, if adopted, would remove the difficulty of the situation as to the operation of the Amendment now under the consideration of the Committee. The Amendment which was to be moved later on by the Prime Minister did not meet the difficulty. The tenant should be allowed to choose whe-
      1414
      ther he would sell the whole or a portion of his holding. He had, originally, entered into an agreement with his landlord to take a certain holding, and, by mutual agreement, or under the action of the Court, the rent was fixed; but the landlord came, after this bargain had been made, and after the statutory term of 15 years had been entered upon, and said—"You must give me a portion of this tenancy which you have taken from me." He applied to the Court to say whether the transfer was a reasonable one, and what he had to pay; and, under such circumstances, when the contract that had been entered into between the two parties for a statutory term was interrupted and broken in upon by the action of one of them, it should be open to the other to say—"Now the whole contract shall cease; I cannot enjoy the holding advantageously in its mutilated form, and I, therefore, call upon you to purchase the whole of my interest." The Proviso that was shortly to be moved, and which had been referred to by the Solicitor General—the Proviso giving power to the Court to determine these matters—was not, in his opinion, a fair one. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for County Kilkenny was a reasonable one; and if this were adopted, and it were provided that where a landlord wished to have a portion of the tenant's holding, the tenant, if he so desired, should be able to compel him to purchase the entire holding, all his (Mr. Parnell's) objections would be removed as to the operation of the Amendment.
      MR. LITTONasked, whether it would not shorten the discussion on this question if these words were added, by way of Amendment to the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland?—namely, "unless the tenant requires the whole to be purchased." That, would meet the objection which had come from the other side, and in which there was some substance. The words of the clause, if amended as he proposed, would run thus—
      " Desirous of resuming the holding or part thereof, unless the tenant requires the whole to be purchased, for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding," &c.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should like to know what the Government had to say to this proposition which had been twice made, first by the hon. Member for County Kilkenny, and now by the

      1415
      hon. and learned Member for County Tyrone (Mr. Litton).
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, they all desired to accomplish the same end, and only differed as to the means. Power would be given to the Court, according to the view it took of the purpose for which the landlord wanted the land, to authorize him to take the whole or part. If the hon. Member for Kilkenny would turn to Clause 8—which dealt with the equities to be administered by the Court between the landlord and tenant—he would find the following:—
      " Where the Court, on the hearing of an application of either landlord or tenant respecting any matter under this Act, is of opinion that the conduct of either landlord or tenant has been unreasonable,"—
      and it would be "unreasonable," if the landlord wanted the best bit of land and would not take the rest—
      " Or that the one has unreasonably refused any proposal made by the other, the Court may do as follows:—It may refuse to accede to the application, or may accede to the same, subject to conditions to be performed by either landlord or tenant, or may impose on either party to the application the payment of the costs or the greater part of the costs of any proceedings, and generally may make such order in the matter as the Court thinks most consistent with justice."
      If, therefore, the landlord wished to take the best portion of the holding, the Court would have the power either to refuse his application altogether, or accede to it only on the terms of his agreeing to pay a very high price for it. Any other Amendment than that proposed by the Government would rather hamper the subsequent provision which was meant to cover all the difficulties that might arise. The scheme of the Bill was to vest discretionary powers in the Court to enable them to deal with each case on its real merits. No Court would listen to an application of a landlord to take what had been called "the heart" of a tenant's holding and only pay its value perse for such an application would be unreasonable on the face of it.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORremarked, that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had not properly represented the nature of the objections of the Irish Members. Their object, with regard to this clause, was to prevent and discourage resumption on the part of the landlord, whereas the object of the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to
      1416
      be to encourage resumption. He understood the Solicitor General for England to say that it would be hard upon the landlord, if he wished to take a certain part of a holding to be compelled to take the whole.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he had discussed the question from an entirely opposite point of view. He thought it would be very hard upon the tenant, if the landlord, really having just cause for taking a portion of a holding, should nevertheless be able to require the Court to give him the whole.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought that matter was provided for by the Amendment which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) had suggested. It would be hard not only upon the tenant, but upon the landlord also, that the one should be required to have all of the holding when he only wanted a half; and the adoption of the clause as it stood would raise another cause of difference and quarrel between the landlord and tenant. He knew from his own experience of the relations between landlord and tenant that nothing was a more constant source of complaint than that the landlord, from a desire to beautify his lawn or for some other selfish purpose, insisted upon the removal of a cottage, or took away a piece of his tenant's land. The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny met that difficulty in every way. Under that Amendment, the tenant would not be compelled to get rid of all of his holding; but he would have the power of compelling the landlord, if he proposed to take a part, to take the whole.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 29: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 269.)
      MR. P. MARTINmoved, in page 5, line 15, after the word "holding," to insert the words "unless the tenant requires the whole to be purchased." He said the object of the Amendment was perfectly plain. It would be most unjust in a case where a portion of the holding was required by the landlord for the purpose, for instance, of making a road for the benefit of other portions of his estate, but where the making of the road would

      1417
      considerably impair, if not altogether destroy, the value of the rest of the holding to the particular tenant from whom the land was taken, not to give the tenant the power of compelling the landlord to take the whole of the holding. It must present itself to the minds of the Committee as an undoubted interference with the rights of the tenant if the landlord was to be allowed to resume possession of parts of the holding from time to time, so that the value of the holding would be materially diminished, and the landlord, nevertheless, be not bound to take the entire holding. A strong argument in favour of pressing this Amendment was that originally, when the Bill passed originally from the draftsman's hands, if the landlord desired to exercise the power of resumption, he was obliged to purchase the entire holding; and the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, referred to the provision thus made. It would be most unfair to the tenant, after he had acquired a statutory term of 15 years, to allow the landlord, just as his fancy pleased, to resume any part of the holding without being obliged to acquire the whole. By adopting this Amendment he failed to see how, in equity, any injustice could be done to the landlord. Everybody knew there would be a strong desire on the part of the Irish tenants to retain their holdings. It would be their wish to remain in possession of the land they held, and in no case would they be likely to compel the landlord unjustly and without reason to resume possession of the holding. But there might be cases in which the resumption of a part of the holding would be most detrimental to the interests of the tenant, and, indeed, would practically destroy the value of the holding, and in such cases it was only fair and just to give the tenant the right of compelling the landlord to take the whole. It had been suggested that the Court would have full power to deal with the question; but that was certainly not so under the present section, which regulated what the incidents of the tenancy were that were to be subject to statutory conditions. It simply gave jurisdiction and power to the Court to require a tenant to sell his tenancy to his landlord, if the landlord wished to resume possession, on such terms as might be approved, by the Court; but
      1418
      there were no words in the clause to confer a similar right upon the tenant to demand that the landlord, where a portion of the holding was proposed to be taken, should take the whole. Why should the landlord have superior rights to anyone else in a matter of this kind? If a public company desired to take a piece of laud under the Lands Clauses Act, and in so doing intercepted the property, the owner could require them to take the whole, on the ground that it was rendered unfit thereafter for the purposes for which he required it. The circumstances in this case were precisely the same, and they were bound in fairness to give the same rights to the tenant. It was manifestly unjust to say that the landlord should have the right, with the assent of the Court, if he pleased, to acquire the whole or part of the holding, and the tenant be exposed to the risk of being left in possession of and liable to the rent of a portion of the land.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 15, after "holding," insert "unless the tenant requires the whole to he purchased. "—(Mr. P. Martin.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)pointed out to the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny County, that if an absolute power were given to the tenant to compel the landlord to purchase the whole of his holding, in cases where it was only necessary for him to take a small portion of it, very great injustice might occur. He thought the Court might be trusted to do what was reasonable and right between the parties—that was to say, to accede to the landlord's request if it was reasonable, and refuse it if it was not so. His hon. and learned Friend had referred to the Lands Clauses Act, by which public companies were empowered to take both houses and land, and had said that the conditions upon which they were empowered to purchase were the same as those sought to be established by his Amendment. But it must be remembered that the public companies in question had absolute power to purchase, while in this case the landlord had no absolute power. The landlerd had no right to resume. He had simply the right to ask the Court to allow him

      1419
      to do so, and the clause was intended to give the Court power to see that equal justice was done as between landlord and tenant.
      MR. WARTONpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, inserted at the place where he proposed it should be introduced, would have a very remarkable effect upon the clause. The clause, if the Amendment were adopted, would run thus—
      " During the continuance of a statutory term in a tenancy, consequent on an increase of rent by the landlord, the Court may, on the application of the landlord, and upon being satisfied that he is desirous of resuming the holding or part thereof, unless the tenant required the entire holding to he purchased "—
      and this was the point to which he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention—
      "for some purpose, having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate."
      The hon. and learned Member would see that the place at which he proposed to insert his Amendment was clearly not the right one.
      MR. P. MARTINsaid, if it had been necessary, he could have cited not only the analogy of the Lands' Clauses Act in favour of his contention, but also the Notice to Quit Act, framed in 1877. By the section of that Act to which he referred, if the landlord desired to resume part of the tenant's holding, he could be required to resume the entire. It was expressly provided that if, for such purpose, the landlord gave a notice to quit limited to part of the holding, the tenant might serve the landlord with a notice that he accepted the same as notice to quit the entire holding, and that the notice should have effect accordingly. The present section dealt entirely with a cognate subject—namely, where the landlord desired to resume land for the following reasons:—that was to say, for the good of the holding or of the estate, or for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments. He trusted that the Committee would not lightly dispose of this matter, because by leaving the clause in its present form a considerable injustice might be done to the tenant. They had already made concessions to the landlord's interest. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland dwelt continually upon the Court that was to be
      1420
      established; but he would point out that they were at present entirely ignorant as to its constitution. All they knew was that there would be in Ireland 32 separate Courts, always acting in different ways, and each varying in its decisions from the other; and because, under those circumstances, he thought it right that the tenant should be afforded some protection, he must, unless the Attorney General for Ireland promised to deal with the matter on Report, feel it his duty to press his Amendment toa division.
      MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he thought that it ought not to be left in doubt that if such portion of the holding were claimed as should, in the estimation of the Court, be deemed such diminution of the valuable extent of the holding as to render it questionable for the tenant whether he should continue to hold it, the tenant should have the option of quitting the holding. He should be glad to support the clause in the sense of rendering impossible the capricious exercise of the right claimed for the tenant, to compel the landlord to purchase the whole tenancy. But he suggested that it should be put into the section that if the Court were of opinion that the holding was foiled upon the tenant for the purpose of his tenancy, the Court should take into consideration whether or not the tenant might be allowed to claim of the landlord to take the whole holding.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)admitted that such a provision was necessary, but believed it was already contained in the sub-section.
      MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny County (Mr. Martin) that the Lands Clauses Act, to which he had referred, had a considerable bearing upon the present question. Very great disadvantage might result to the farmer from the words which gave the landlord power to take a part only of the farm. Take the case of a farm of 10 acres, eight of which were in pasture and two under tillage. Suppose that the landlord wanted to take away two acres that were in pasture, and it was clear that the remainder would be of little value to the tenant. He would be slow to reject an Amendment giving the landlord power to take some part of the farm; but he felt that the tenant should be protected

      1421
      against the taking away of such part as would render the rest perfectly useless for the purposes for which the tenant wanted it. Therefore, if power was to be given to the landlord to take part of the holding, he suggested the addition of words to this effect—that the tenant should not be compelled to give up part of his holding, if the effect of his so doing would be to interfere materially otherwise than by mere diminution of area with the value of the whole.
      MR. FIRTHpointed out that the 93rd section of the Lands Clauses Act had also an immediate bearing upon this question, inasmuch as it dealt with the acquisition of land outside towns; and he trusted this point would receive the consideration, of the Attorney General for Ireland.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, the section referred to by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) applied, undoubtedly, very fully to the present question. Then there was the very much stronger point urged by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) with regard to the effect that the resumption of part of the holding by the landlord would have upon the culture of the remainder of the land. There could be no doubt that the taking away of two or three acres from a farm of 10 acres would, under a variety of circumstances, leave the remainder of very little value to the tenant. For instance, the landlord might take away the part of the farm on which the house was situated, which led to a convenient road, or to the place for watering cattle. Any of those things would be very serious in their effect upon the tenant's interest; and although the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had contended for the tenant having the option of going to the Court to make out his case, he (Mr. Biggar) submitted that where a man was competent to form an opinion as to his own interest, it was much better that he should decide for himself. Moreover, the application to the Court would be an expensive operation. For these reasons, he submitted that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny was better than the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Meath, or the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland. But if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny was lost,
      1422
      the hon. and learned Member for Meath would then have the opportunity of suggesting an Amendment which might be satisfactory to the Government, and which, at the same time, would, as he hoped, mitigate to a great extent the mischief which this clause was likely to bring about.
      MR. P. MARTINsaid, he had certainly no wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a division; and he was willing, after the assurance on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland, and because the matter could be equally well arranged on Report, to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. PLUNKETtrusted the Government would not have any difficulty in accepting the Amendment which he was about to move, and which had for its object to give power to the landlord to resume possession of the holding, or any part thereof, for building purposes. He submitted that this Amendment was necessary, because he believed the object in view would not be covered by the words of the sub-section—" for the good of the holding or of the estate." He felt sure that it was not the intention of the Government to deprive the landlord of the right to convert a part of his property to the purpose of building if he paid proper compensation for it; and as he submitted that the interest of the tenant was perfectly protected by the sub-section, he trusted the Government would have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment which he begged to move.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 15, after "holding," insert "or any part thereof for building purposes."—(Mr. Plunket.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONE: I think this Amendment is unnecessary. Nothing can be regarded as more reasonable than the resumption of the holding, or a part of it, for building purposes; but, according to our view, this is included in the words of the clause as they now stand. I should be very sorry, however, to offer opposition to the introduction of these words, with the opinion we have upon the subject, and in view of the admission we have made; and,

      1423
      therefore, if the Committee wish for the words contained in the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, we shall have no objection to their being inserted.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he should not press his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. LEAMYsaid, he proposed to leave out all the words after the word "thereof," the last word of the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland, which now stood part of the clause, down to the word "for" in line 16. He moved the omission of these words—" for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate, or," because, as he submitted, if the tenant had a real interest in his holding, and if that interest was partly constituted by the property which had been created by his own improvements, it was very unfair to allow the landlord to resume possession of the property of the tenant, simply because he might think his doing so was for the good of the holding. Again, he was opposed to the retention of these words because he thought it was wise to lessen the number of opportunities which the Bill afforded for litigation. The Bill was introduced for the purpose of settling the Land Question in Ireland—at least, that was professed with regard to it; but there was not the slightest doubt that had it been intended to introduce a measure for the purpose of promoting litigation, no better Bill for that purpose could have been devised. Therefore, for the protection of the property of the tenant, and in order to remove one of the causes of litigation which would otherwise arise, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 15, to leave out from "holding" to "for" in line 16.—(Mr. Leamy.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that to accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford would really mean the striking out of the principal part of the essence of the clause, and therefore he was not prepared to accept it. It was
      1424
      but just that the landlord should be enabled to fulfil his ordinary responsibilities. For the sake of greater clearness, and in conformity with analogous language in the Bill, he should, however, propose, if the words "for some" in line 15 were retained, to move that the words "reasonable and sufficient "stand part of the clause.
      MR. BIGGARlooked upon the point raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford as exceedingly important, and was not at all influenced by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, because he thought the interest of the tenant in this matter was of far more importance than the interest of the landlord, notwithstanding that the tenant's holding was small in proportion to the whole estate of the landlord. As a rule, the landlord was a wealthy man, and it mattered comparatively little to him whether his estate was improved or whether the tenant was put out of house and home and ruined. Therefore, he thought the words proposed to be left out should be omitted from the Bill. He had not heard a single argument advanced in favour of resumption on the part of the landlord. The landlords of Ireland had derived many benefits from the tenants in the way of rents and the improvements of their estates. He was not prepared to argue that they should cease to receive any rent; but he reminded the Committee that the general experience in Ireland was that any interference on the part of the landlords had been mischievous, and, therefore, he thought that the less the power which the landlord had of interfering with the conduct of the tenant the better. It would be far better that the tenant should watch over his own interest, and that the landlord should confine himself to his province of receiving his rent. He hoped his hon. Friend would press his Amendment.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he was not in favour of taking a division upon the Amendment, although he agreed with the proposal to strike out these words, which, in his opinion, would lead to much legal argumentation. There was a Relief in Ireland that every man had his guardian angel; henceforward every tenant would stand in need of a guardian attorney.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 15, after "some," insert "reasonable and sufficient."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
      Amendment agreed to.
      SIR HERVEY BRUCEmoved to insert, in page 5, line 17, after "allotments," the words "places of worship, schools, and residences for schoolmasters." He thought the Prime Minister could have no objection to including these things, for they were all useful, and he had had great difficulty in getting residences for schoolmasters.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 14, after the word "allotments," to insert the words "places of worship, schools, and residences for schoolmasters."—(Sir Hervey Bruce.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. HEALYsuggested that the hon. Baronet should insert, also, "Orange Lodges and Land League Committee Rooms."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he thought the words of the clause covered everything that was necessary, including residences for schoolmasters; but lest there should be any doubt about that, he would consider it on a subsequent stage.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. MARUMproposed to insert the words "due regard being had in the premises to the general good of the community at large." These words, he observed, would not disturb the language of the section, and he thought they were necessary to qualify the powers given in the clause for the good of the estate. These words would qualify any attempt at consolidation by the landlord. The Court might be able to say it was very well for the landlord to look to his own interest; but if there was an official, there should be some check on him, and it was desirable to introduce some words, however vague and general, to enable both parties to go to Court, and object to any scheme for consolidation.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 17, after "allotments," insert "due regard being had in the premises to the general good of the community at large."—(Mr. Marum.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not think it would be satisfactory to have words qualifying the language of the clause.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 18, after the words "resumption thereof by the landlord," to insert "upon such conditions as the Court may think fit."—(Mr. Attorney General for Inland.)
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 19, to insert the words "the whole or such part."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. WARTONsaid, he did not see the value of the word "whole," and suggested the words "the tenancy or such part thereof."
      Amendment agreed to.
      SIR HERVEY BRUCEproposed to insert, after "tenant," the words "which shall in no case exceed five years' rent." He observed that he did not desire to stick to the limit of five years particularly; but as this Bill was to be for public purposes, he thought there should be some limit, so that a fancy price should not be put upon some small piece of ground for a residence or a place of worship. The Amendment would be for the benefit, not of the landlord, but of the community at large, and he urged the Government to put some limit to the price.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 20, after the word "tenant," to insert "which shall in no case exceed five years' rent."—(Sir Hervey Bruce.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONEcould not agree to the Amendment, and said the Court, in dealing with these questions, would, while allowing for anything exceptional in the removal of a tenant, be guided by the principles laid down by the 1st clause in the main as between landlord and tenant. The Government had not attempted to introduce any arbitrary limitation, and the hon. Gentleman was not correct in saying that this Bill was for the benefit of the public. On the contrary, it was for private purposes; and

      1427
      although it might be beneficial to the public, it was not as if they were dealing with the dedication of land for public purposes. For example, if they brought in words to meet the idea of the hon. Member, they would be on the principle that they would conduce to the improvement of the immediate neighbourhood. At any rate, they could not here introduce an arbitrary limitation for tenant right, for that would be quite contrary to the whole analogy.
      MR. A. M. SULLIVANwished to point out an instance of the curious ideas of justice which some landlords had in dealing with tenants. Here was an Irish landlord who, if his land were taken for a public purpose, would call it robbery, now said the tenant was not to have more than five years' compensation, although the tenancy might be worth 15 years' rent.
      SIR HERVEY BRUCE,in answer to the remark of the hon. and learned Member, which was so very derogatory to the Irish landlords and so contrary to usual practice, and in answer to the Prime Minister, said, he could not agree that a place of worship would be for a private purpose or for the benefit of the estate. He had found considerable difficulty in getting sites for public places of worship and for school masters' residences. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Meath had no justification for his observations.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Baronet intended to go on with this Amendment; but it seemed to him that the hon. Baronet was thoroughly correct in saying that churches and school-houses were more or less for public purposes. The hon. Baronet, however, seemed to have forgotten that this was only a minor part of the paragraph, which referred also to matters of a purely private nature—namely, labourers' cottages; and he thought the Amendment might be withdrawn and the clause allowed to stand as it was.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. BRODRICKsaid, the Amendment he was about to put was one which he thought he might fairly put on the ground of public advantage, and not on any personal or selfish ground, either with regard to the landlord or the tenant. The Amendment was not new to
      1428
      the House, for the pleas involved were almost identical with those in the Act of 1870, and the principle had received the direct sanction of the Prime Minister by his introduction of it into that Act. There were one or two points with regard to this Amendment about which there could be no controversy. He did not think any hon. Member would deny that the present condition of the labourers' cottages in Ireland was something like a disgrace to the country, and he was quite certain, whether they put the blame on the landlord or on the tenant, hon. Members, as a rule, would be glad of any opportunity of supporting a proposal which tended to improve the condition of a class which had too much escaped the attention of the Committee during the progress of this Bill. He might cite passages from the Report of the Bessborough Commission to show how bad the condition of the cottages had been; but he would only give one or two special instances bearing on the Amendment. The fact was, and must be generally admitted, that labourers' cottages, if comfortable, could not be built in such a way as to pay, for no rent which an Irish labourer could afford would repay the outlay. Therefore, if it was wished to make the erection of these cottages easier in the future, facilities must be given to those who intended to erect them. He had looked out three or four cases in the Bessborough Commission to bring before the Committee as representative cases, to show that not only were the labourers badly housed, but that this Amendment would be an advantage to them. Mr. Hecarty, a tenant farmer in the county of Cork, had described the condition of the labourers in Ireland as a disgrace to all parties, and had said he did not know how they could exist in the cottages. The Rev. Thomas Meagher, of. Newport, Tipperary, had said before the Commission that he would make the erection of cottages compulsory on the landlord, and that—
      " If you want to remedy the grievances of the labourers who are crowded in the villages you must give them a plot of land and a house each and distribute them among the farmers- I would do nothing for tenants who are unwilling to give up one twenty-fifth of their land to the labourers."
      Unless some such method as he proposed in this Amendment was adopted, it

      1429
      would be impossible to distribute the labourers among the farmers. There was one other piece of evidence worth citing. Mr. Barry, a land agent and large farmer, said he would try to have the labourers comfortably housed; and as to having them subject to the landlord directly, or to the farmer, he said they would prefer to be under the landlord directly. It was desirable to give the landlords facilities for carrying out improvements in this respect, and that would have a most beneficial effect on the labouring population of the country. From the evidence given before the Bessborough Commission, it would be found that on estates like those of Lord Fitzwilliam, Lord Bessborough, and Lord Leconfield, the position of the labourers was infinitely better than on the estates of those who had gone by the custom of the country and had left the farmers to build the cottages for those they employed. He would not insist upon that point with regard to any particular estate; but it must be obvious that when they were asking people to fulfil a duty which was not a paying duty, they must put facilities in their way. At present, the Committee had not put any facilities in the way of the landlords, while they had taken away facilities which, were given by the Land Act of 1870, which said that, unless the Court should deem it unreasonable, so much land, not exceeding l–25th of the holding, as might be bonâ fide required for the improvement of the estate by the erection of one or more labourers' cottages, should not be subject to compensation, except in respect of improvements, nor be deemed a disturbance, and should not be liable to anything except an abatement of rent in proportion to the value of the land to be taken. That seemed to be just and fair; and all that he should ask the Committee to do would be to enforce that proposal in this case, by taking away all question of compensation for disturbance and tenant right in respect of those portions of holdings which might be necessary for the general progress of the country—a progress which would be irrevocably checked unless the proposal was adopted. The Prime Minister had said they ought to give power to the landlord to improve his estate for the benefit of the labourers, and that was all he asked the Government to do. Unless that were done, the
      1430
      landlord would be met with great difficulties.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 20, after "tenant." insert "Provided that if the land thus resumed by the landlord for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments do not exceed in the whole one twenty-fifth part of any individual holding, it shall not be deemed a disturbance of the tenant within the meaning of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act 1870,' and shall not subject the landlord to any claim for purchase of tenant right, or to any claim for compensation, except in respect of improvements, beyond an abatement of rent proportionate to the annual value of the land thus taken by the landlord."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. W. E. FORSTERagreed that the Committee ought to aim at providing cottages for the labourers, and to give the landlords power to do that; but he could not agree to this Amendment, which would take from the tenant property which at present belonged to him. He thought the hon. Member could hardly have calculated what the effect of the Amendment would be. They had declared by the 1st clause that the tenant had the tenant right, but the hon. Member proposed to destroy that. It was very desirable that cottages should be put up, and it was necessary to enable the landlords to do that; but they ought not to give them the power of taking that which belonged to the tenants without paying for it.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not see that the right hon. Gentleman had given any reason against the Amendment. What was the position of this question? It was admitted that the labourers in Ireland were not in a satisfactory condition, and that unless something was done to encourage the landlords and the tenants to improve that condition nothing would be done in that direction. This Amendment endeavoured, not to give a direct inducement to the landlord, but to free him from discouragement in improving the condition and status of the labourers. By the 1st clause of the Bill, as framed by the Government, the landlord was permitted to resume possession for certain purposes—amongst others, for providing cottages and gardens and allotments to the labourers. He was in favour of that provision; but it was sought, in the present Amendment, to give vitality and vigour

      1431
      to that clause, and without this Amendment it might be a dead letter. They could not expect the landlord to go and improve the condition of his labourers at a dead-money loss. All that the Amendment sought to do was to provide that if a landlord got an order from the Court to resume a moderate portion of the tenant's holding, and satisfied the Court that he did bonâ fide want land for the real purpose of improving the labourers' condition on the holding, he should be freed from the obligation under which, otherwise, he might suffer, of paying on a substantial scale for disturbance. If there was any point in the particular phraseology of the Amendment, he was sure his hon. Friend would be willing to meet the difficulty; but that was not the way in which the Amendment had been met by the Chief Secretary. He had met the Amendment with a distinct statement that he would not accede to it, and it should not be acceded to; but he (Mr. Gibson) would be very glad if, on consideration, the Government could see their way to look at the matter from a somewhat different point of view. He ventured to think that if this Amendment, or some Amendment embodying its principle, was adopted, it would meet with the substantial support of both sides of the House, and would not tend to do one single particle of harm to anyone. As well as he could follow the right hon. Gentleman, what he said was that this Amendment might have the effect of taking away from the tenant property which they desired to confer upon him. But if the landlord went to the Court and satisfied the Court that he had a fair case for resuming possession of a part of the holding in which he had a substantial property, and showed that he had a bonâ fide intention, was it unreasonable to ask the tenant, as in this Amendment, that his application should not exceed l-25th, and that all he should have would be an abatement of rent proportionate to the annual value of the land? Was there a single thing in this Amendment which was not reasonable and fair as between man and man, as between the landlord and tenant on the one side, and the labourer on the other? Everyone who looked at the matter fairly would be disposed to accede to the Amendment—nay, everyone, except, perhaps,
      1432
      those who disliked the landlords more than they liked the labourers, would agree to it.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he remarked a change in the tone in which the Amendment was supported. He saw no reason whatever why they should heat their spirits in the discussion. Although it was clear that the range of the Amendment was limited, Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to accede to it. When the landlord desired, and very properly desired, to resume part of the holding or the entire holding for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, it would be no part of his duty before the Court to prove that he was going to impose on himself any sacrifice whatever. When he had got the holding in his hands, and had paid the price of the tenant right to the man who had quitted, he would be free, if he chose to do so, to cut it up into sites for labourers' cottages, to let it as he pleased, and to charge what rent he liked for the cottages. These labourers' cottages were excluded in principle, and, he believed, by the very terms, from the operation of the provisions of the Bill; consequently, they did not call on the landlord to make pecuniary sacrifice; but what was proposed by the hon. Member opposite was that the tenant should be called on to do this, and that, instead of obtaining the full compensation for his tenancy which was involved in the idea of tenant right, he should receive only compensation for his improvements. Her Majesty's Government had always contended that there was another element besides compensation for improvements—namely, compensation for tenant right. By the Amendment, they would deprive the tenant of a portion of his interest in the holding, and would not confer on the landlord any right whatever. Under the circumstances, the course of the Government was clear—they could not agree to the proposal.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the principle of his hon. Friend's proposal was that something should be done that would be for the good of the labourer. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the arrangement were made in the way the Government proposed that it should be made, nobody need suffer—neither the tenant, because he would be paid for the tenant right he was sup-

      1433
      posed to have, nor the landlord, because he could charge any rent he pleased. But the object of the supporters of the Amendment was to see in what reasonable way the labourer could be provided with his dwelling at a fair and moderate rent. They had heard a great deal about tenant right and this property that was in the tenant, and they had had a considerable amount of discussion on the subject. As far as he had been able to make out, that property arose, or was said to arise, under the legislation of 1870—under the Compensation for Disturbance Clause of the Act of that year. But, if that were so, the case of labourers' cottages did not arise. In the 10th section of the Act of 1870 it was laid down that the landlord might, after a certain notice, resume possession of so much land as he might require for the bonâ fide purpose of erecting labourers' cottages, so long as it did not exceed l-25th, and such resumption should not, unless the Court believed it was unreasonable, be deemed a disturbance of the tenant, and should not subject the landlord to any claim for compensation. They had expressly excluded the tenant from the property that they now said he was to have in those parts of his holding, not exceeding l-25th, which were resumed for the special purpose of providing for the labourer. It seemed to him the question was not whether they were going to take from the labourer something he had already, but whether they were going to give the tenant, at the expense of the landlord, a property they said they would not give him in the Act of 1870.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was very fond of going back to the Act of 1870; but they had got beyond that Act now, and he was proud and happy to think that they had. But, more than this, they had also got beyond the 1st clause of this Bill. The 1st clause of the Bill provided that henceforth—he always contended that they had it before, but, at all events, this made it clear and un-mistakeable—the tenants had a saleable interest in their holdings. Very well, that having been passed by the Committee, what did the Amendment propose? It proposed that a quota of that interest should be taken away from the tenant, that it should be devoted to the erection
      1434
      of cottages for labourers, that the cottages, when built, should be on the soil and freehold of the landlord thus resumed, and that he should be able to charge what rent he chose for them. Though he entirely sympathized with. The object which the proposer of the Amendment had in view, he was opposed to the carrying out of that object without any sacrifice on the part of the landlord, and at the expense of the tenant. As the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Act of 1870, he would ask what effect had the 10th. section had? It was all very well for hon. Members to put forward specious arguments—and when he said that, he did not deny that some hon. Members might be perfectly sincere in their arguments and statements as to the desirability of providing for the labourers—but, though this Act had been on the Statute Book for 11 years, what evidence was there to which anyone could point to show that the landlords had given practical effect to the clause by building cottages for labourers? He submitted, therefore, that this was an attempt to subtract from the interest of the tenant, and, by subtracting from the interest of the tenant, to give effect to what in itself, he admitted, was a praiseworthy object.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, it was perfectly true they had got beyond the Act of 1870, and a very considerable distance, too.
      MR. HEALY: And I hope we shall go further yet.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he remembered, however, that 11 years ago they were frequently told that the Land Act was to be a final measure, and that the landlord might consider himself permanently bound by it. But, though they had gone some distance beyond the Act of 1870, the measure before them was not yet passed into law; therefore, whatever property was vested in the tenant at all was vested in virtue of the Act of 1870, and not in virtue of any clause or clauses that might have been inserted in the Bill. It was true that the Amendment was limited in its range. But there were two facts which had come out clearly—first, that cottage accommodation for labourers in Ireland was exceedingly bad; and, secondly, that under this Bill, as it stood, the landlord would be placed in a position of the

      1435
      greatest difficulty in endeavouring, in any way, to improve that accommodation. What would be the consequence of refusing the Amendment? Either the labourers in Ireland must do without improved cottage accommodation in the future; or they would have to occupy the cottages as sub-tenants, in which case they would be introducing all the evils of middle-men in the old days. Without disparaging the tenant farmers of Ireland, as far as he had been able to gather from all the information which had come before him, it was in the case of holdings sub-let by tenant farmers that the worst cases of rack-renting had occurred. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had pointed out that in the Bill up to the present time they had given power to the landlord to resume his holding. Yes, but at what cost? The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the landlord would not suffer, and had pointed out that he could charge what rent he pleased to the labourer. Very well; but he had thought that the object of the Bill was to introduce fair rents into Ireland. Here they had a proof of the want of interest taken by the Government in the condition of the poor labourers; while, at the same time, there was no lack of evidence that they were ready to inflict any penalty whatever on the landlords in order to obtain low rents for the tenants. The Government would do wisely to accept the Amendment in the interest of the agricultural labourers of Ireland. If they did not accept it, he should look upon it as another and a new departure from those sound principles of legislation which had hitherto governed the relations between landlord and tenant.
      MR. SHAWsaid, they could not improve the condition of the labourer of Ireland unless they did it by some power outside the landlord and tenant; and it appeared to him that the Amendment was somewhat confusing in the minds of some hon. Members. If by it was meant that the landlord should take advantage of the tenant, and charge what he pleased to the labourer, he (Mr. Shaw) contended that he had no right to do anything of the kind; because, in this way, he might take land from a tenant, without compensation, and build up for himself a most valuable property. But it was a different thing if by the
      1436
      Amendment was meant that a landlord was to have power to provide for agricultural labourers working on the holding. If a tenant had 100 acres of land, he would, necessarily, require labourers to enable him to farm it properly; and if they were to provide machinery for giving better accommodation to those labourers, he would not give the farmer a tenant right in the land resumed by the landlord by the operation of such machinery for such a purpose. The farmer should be satisfied in having had the condition of his labourers improved.
      MR. W. H. SMITHwould advise his hon. Friend to accept the recommendation of the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. Shaw), and add to the Amendment the words "for the benefit of the agricultural labourers on the holding." There could be no doubt that labourers' cottages were not built by landlords as a mere matter of speculation, and there also could be no doubt that the possession of good labourers' cottages was a great advantage to a tenant farmer, inasmuch as he was able to secure more steady and efficient labour. Inducements ought to be held out to landlord and tenant alike to provide decent buildings and homes for their labourers.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, they were all agreed that it was a desirable thing to provide decent dwellings for the agricultural labourer; but the question now was, who was to pay for them? It was desirable that the landlord should resume land for these dwellings; but by the clause, as it stood, he would pay full compensation to the tenant, whose land he took, whether he took it for labourers' cottages or for any other purpose. What difference did it make to the tenant for what purpose the land was resumed? Then, it was proposed that the words "for the benefit of the agricultural labourers on the holding "should be accepted; but they would place the Committee in a difficulty, for the labourers so housed would probably not hold under the farmer, but be cottier tenants holding direct from the landlord. It was desirable, for public purposes, that these cottages should be built, and that land should be resumed for the purpose; but why on earth was the tenant to pay for the realization of these public purposes?

      1437
      A great deal had been said about "confiscation." Whenever anything was proposed that in the very smallest degree interfered with the landlords' interests, there was a great outcry from hon. Gentleman opposite; but those hon. Members did not seem to think there was any harm, in confiscating a certain portion of the tenant's property. They had already affirmed the principle that the tenant should be entitled to sell his interest in his holding for what he could get for it; but now they wished to provide that where a resumption was for a particular purpose, though the landlord had to pay full compensation in other cases, there should be no compensation paid. It was no answer to this to refer to the Act of 1870, because the parties could contract themselves out of it. There was no such power now. Where there was a compulsory sale of part of an interest, he should have thought that a higher price should be given than where the sale was voluntary; but that did not seem to be the view of hon. Members opposite, who had suddenly conceived a regard for the Irish agricultural labourers, and seemed anxious to provide for them at the expense of the tenant farmers. From this, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) must entirely dissent.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he could not conceive how the Committee could for one moment doubt what the intention of the Amendment was. If it was for the benefit of the tenant farmer that the labourers' cottages were built, it could not be reasonable that the landlord should be called upon to pay an extra price to secure the accommodation. Whilst they were providing for the improvement of the tenant, they must also provide for the improvement of the labourer. The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was really that these improvements should not be effected at all, or, if they were, that they should be effected absolutely and wholly at the expense of the landlord. The Amendment was reasonable, and ought to be accepted by the Committee.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he must protest against the very quiet way in which the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) and the Attorney General for Ireland assumed that what was done in passing the 1st clause of the Bill had given
      1438
      the right to exclude such an Amendment as that which his hon. Friend proposed. As he had pointed out, under the Act of 1870 the case before the Committee was expressly excluded. But the Attorney General for Ireland got up and said they had gone a long way beyond the Act of 1870, and that, in the 1st clause of this Bill, they had affirmed the right of the tenant to sell his holding, and new they were going to take away a portion of that right. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) begged to say that they proposed to do nothing of the sort. This was a Bill which, he presumed, would be a complete Bill when it was passed and not before. They must take one part of it with reference to its bearing on other parts. The 1st clause said the tenancy might sell his tenancy—
      " Subject to the following regulations and subject also "—
      and he would draw special attention to these words—
      " to the provisions in this Act contained with respect to the sale of a tenancy subject to statutory conditions."
      Well, they had to define what was meant by these reservations, and here in this particular clause they were dealing with them. They were proposing with regard to them that there should be a power of resuming a portion of the land for a particular purpose for the benefit of the labourer and, indirectly, through the labourer, to the tenant. What his hon. Friend proposed was that they should adhere to the rule made in 1870 which excluded the right of the tenant to claim compensation if l–25th of the holding was taken. When they considered how important it was that there should be proper accommodation for the labourers and that the burden of building the cottages would fall on the landlords, there could be no doubt whatever that the Amendment proposed was a most reasonable one.
      COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, the question was, to whom were they to look for the improvement of labourers' dwellings on agricultural holdings? He submitted that they must look, under the conditions that this Bill would establish, to the tenants of the holdings for such improvement. Though he had been subjected to misrepresentation for having stated it the other night, he would repeat that they ought to render it obli-

      1439
      gatory on the tenant to raise money to build decent houses for the labourer. The Amendment would have very little effect, even if accepted, for they could not expect the landlords to build these houses.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the Attorney General for Ireland had not answered the speeches which had come from that (the Conservative) side of the House on the subject of this Amendment. Even granting that all improvements belonged to the tenant, the foundation of tenant right, as described by the Prime Minister, was this—the right to a holding fortified by compensation for disturbance. But in this matter that fortification was gone, because, according to the 10th section of the Act of 1870, there was to be no compensation for this particular disturbance. The Attorney General for Ireland had not answered that point; and in this matter the holding stood on an entirely different footing from the ordinary footing of land taken for other purposes.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was quite true that under the Act of 1870, when land was taken away for the purpose of being given for labourers' cottages, there was no compensation for disturbance. The taking of the land was not to be the foundation of a claim for compensation. That was consistent with the view in which the Land Act was passed; but, as he had stated all along, it was not perceived by the proposers or opponents to that Act, that they were really laying the foundation for tenant right. They made an important step towards tenant right, but did it without full consciousness of what they were about. Their object had been to fine the landlord for ejecting the tenant, and, as they did that, it was not an unnatural thing to say that in cases, and within the limits in which they authorized the landlord to take the land of the tenant for the benefit of the labourer, the landlord should not be fined. The case, however, was different now. In the 1st clause they had laid down a general rule—he did not say that it did not admit of exceptions—that the tenant should sell his interest, and that interest, according to their contention, embraced more than his improvements. By the Amendment the tenant right would be impaired, and the tenant would be compelled to make a sacrifice in order that labourers' cot-
      1440
      tages might be built, whereas the landlord would not be called upon to make any sacrifice at all. Under the Bill there was nothing to prevent the landlord taking the best rent he could get. It was said that they might trust to the landlord's benevolence. Why impose a compulsory fine upon the tenant? Why impose upon him a law to sacrifice a part of his property in order to enable the landlord, if he pleased, to turn that sacrifice to his own profit? That was the effect; and he was reminded most properly by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland that the enactment of 1870—to which he gave effect as far as compensation for disturbance was concerned—did not apply to Ulster, or to districts in which the Ulster Custom prevailed. In Ulster, where there was tenant right, there was no power to the landlord to take rent without a charge for tenant right. If they adopted this Amendment, it must be with compulsory provisions to prevent the landlord deriving a profit.
      LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the Prime Minister had argued on the footing that, by the Act of 1870, no landlord in Ulster could get possession of any part of a holding without paying the tenant right for the whole of it. He thought that was the law; and the result was this—that in certain cases, where landlords were anxious to get hold of small portions of the tenants' holdings for the purpose of labourers cottages, they were unable to do so unless they chose to pay the tenant right for the whole of the holdings—[Cries of "Name ! "and "Where ! "]—and there were certain landlords who were unable to bear that expense. There was a gentleman with whom he had the pleasure of having an interview who related to him the following circumstances. The gentleman was not a well-to-do landlord, and he lived in the county of Armagh; and there happened to be a tenant who had a certain holding of 13 or 14 acres. He was an absentee tenant, having purchased under the "Bright Clauses" a farm in another part of the country, and this tenant charged certain cottiers for two cottages more rent than he paid the landlord. This landlord was most anxious to build cottages for those labourers, but was unable to do so because the tenant objected to give up any portion of the holding unless he was

      1441
      compensated to the full amount of that holding. The question before the Committee was a simple one, and the argument of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General for Ireland had taken it away from the real issue. It was simply this—supposing the tenants refused, or were unable to build cottages for the accommodation of the labourers, was the landlord to obtain land for that purpose at a fair price, or was he to obtain it at a maximum which nothing but land hunger could produce? If the landlord got the land clear, he must charge a proportionate rent upon the labourers; and the whole argument of the Attorney General for Ireland amounted to this—that it was better that the tenants should get compensation under this Bill, in order that a higher rent should be put upon the agricultural labourers. He would undertake to say this—that if agricultural labourers had been in possession of the franchise, the Attorney General for Ireland would never have made his last speech. Therefore, it seemed to him that if tenants were unable, or deliberately chose to neglect their duty of providing proper cottages for their labourers, it was only fair that the landlord should step in and obtain it on such reasonable terms as would enable him to place a reasonable rent upon it, and to place the agricultural labourers in cottages at such a fair rent.
      MR. SHAWsaid, he hoped that his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment. He thought it would be a perfectly absurd and monstrous provision. He begged to say that he should support any and every Amendment in the Bill which could have the effect of benefiting the Irish labourers.
      MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he thought that the Committee had got from the attempt to deal with this subject of the labourers' dwellings under the sub-section. It was perfectly true that the sub-section in this clause referred to the power of the landlord assuming the land for certain purposes; but the purpose of building labourers' cottages was only referred to incidentally, and he should despair of Her Majesty's Government ever being able to grapple with this question if they put forward this clause as a settlement. If that were so, why should they pass such an Amendment? First of all, this Amendment was founded upon what
      1442
      experience? Upon the experience from that clause of the Land Act of 1870 which gave the landlords certain powers of buying land for these purposes. They knew that it came to nothing; and if they passed this Amendment, they would be passing it with the teaching of 11 years of experience. He appealed to Conservative Gentlemen—for he had no reason to suspect that they were as reasonable as Irish Members—not to join Her Majesty's Government if they were disposed to pass a sham Resolution of this kind. It seemed to him that this question of granting a plot of ground and a dwelling house to the labourer was one of the greatest possible delicacy and difficulty. This giving the labourer an acre of land and a plot for his dwelling was generally accompanied on the conditions of its forming a part of the hire; and this was a control over the labourer which he was not willing to give to the tenant farmer, except upon clear and exceedingly definite conditions. If they dealt with this question either indirectly by this Amendment, or by others, as suggested, it would be really tinkering with the subject. He appealed to the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) to withdraw the Amendment, for it could accomplish no good; and as to the generosity of the landlord indicated in the speeches in support of it, he could only say that it reminded him of the generosity of the man who
      " Out of his bounty
      Built a bridge at the expense of the county."
      SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYremarked, that if the unfortunate labourer were to have a provision in the Bill to build a cottage for him, hon. Members said that there was no chance of the landlord doing it, and if he did it would be to the detriment of the tenant. Why not give the labourer a chance of having something done for him? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) seemed to argue this question upon a wrong basis. The supporters of the Amendment were trying to engraft something from the Land Act of 1870; and, amongst other things, they were going to engraft upon it that if the rent was raised for a statutory term of 15 years, subject to certain incidents of that term, and amongst the incidents and conditions that were proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey was this—that instead of having

      1443
      he whole land for the 15 years, he should have abstracted from that 15 years' term, allowing a fair abatement of rent, a sufficient portion of that, not exceeding l–25th. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The Prime Minister shook his head. But let them look for a moment at the Bill itself. Under the 3rd section they had laid down this—that if there was an increase of rent, either by agreement between the landlord and tenant, or, if the agreement could not be come to, the tenant should have his return in the holding for a period of 15 years, subject to the after-mentioned conditions, and subject to the incidents of the tenancy which were provided in the section of the Bill which they were now discussing. The condition was a fair and reasonable one, and it referred to the Act of 1870, because it was engrafted upon that. That was a new interest created by the tenant; but that did not apply to that Act. The Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for West Surrey with the view of carrying out what all Members had been anxious to get favoured in some way or other—namely, that further provision should be made for the tenant on the holding itself, and the Government were not giving the landlords the chance, on the mere pretence or statement that he had not done something before. The reason the landlord had not done something was because he felt the matter insecure. In view of the possibility of the labourer being benefited, yet the Committee were to say that because the matter had failed under the Act of 1870 they were to do nothing for him under this Bill.
      MAJOR NOLANsaid, he was of opinion that only the fringe of the question had been touched by the hon. Member for West Surrey. They had got a Bill brought in which was totally unsatisfactory to the labourer in Ireland, and they had got an Amendment which offered something; but he feared that it would be totally inoperative. The Amendment proposed to take something out of the farmer's pocket to build cottages for the labourer; but, as the Prime Minister had remarked, the landlord had this power under the Act of 1870 and had not used it. At any rate, he was prepared to say that under that provision of the Act of 1870 very few cottages had been built in Galway. He
      1444
      thought that something of greater importance should be done for the labourer. His hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) said that this was a delicate subject. At the same time, while he differed from the Amendment to a certain extent, if he thought the Government would not introduce a provision into the Bill for the labourer, he would vote for the Amendment, because he believed it would be of some use to the labourer. He hoped that the Government would do something; and he would suggest something that was perfectly in accordance with political economy, and what was done by every other country in the world. The Town Commissioners or the Poor Law Guardians should have the power of buying land for this purpose. He did not think that the landlords or the farmers should do it. There were cases of farmers who charged extortionate rates; but whilst he would take away this power from, them, he would give them a small percentage more than they paid the landlords, in order that Town Commissioners and Poor Law Guardians should acquire the land permanently and let it out to the labourers year by year. Another reason for advocating this was because it would cost a great deal of money to build cottages. At the present moment they did not leave this matter to supply and demand. They should leave the power to any speculator to acquire a piece of land for the purpose of building; and perhaps the Government would allow one-half as security for the building, or something of that kind. If they did not leave it to the law of supply and demand, they might have houses too good for the labourers—not too good for human beings—but too good to pay 6 or 7 per cent upon them. But if they had freedom in dealing with land, they would have a certain number of buildings. This was a small Amendment, and he did not know that he should vote against it; but certainly he would vote for it if there were no other Amendment.
      MR. GRANTHAMobserved, that it was perfectly impossible for the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, after the remarks of the Attorney General for Ireland, to vote for the Amendment, because they said that it was depriving the tenant of something which he had already. There was a fallacy underlying

      1445
      both the argument of the Attorney General and the Prime Minister as to the cause of the labourer in reference to this particular clause. The tenant, by the part of the Bill already passed, was not to have the whole of his holding exactly as it was, but subject to the conditions imposed. They were going to Clause 5; and there was a compensation for disturbance, and this would alter the value of the holding. In consequence of the statement of the Prime Minister that this Amendment proposed to rob the tenant of something, those hon. Members who were looking after the interests of the tenants were unable to accept that. The tenant was simply to have certain rights; but until they had settled the whole Bill they could not determine what those rights were to be. Hon. Members would remember that alterations had been made in the law in regard to the value of a tenant's holding, and that they should not have the same value for their holding in consequence of the condition of the land and houses, owing to some breach of public health, where the Artizans' Dwellings Act had been put into operation. A house situate in a district which was not healthy had the landlord or tenant mulcted in a certain amount; and, consequently, here, when the tenant was an occupier of a tenancy—say the holding where there was not sufficient accommodation for the labourers of that holding—it was only right in determining the future value to say that, under such circumstances, the landlord should have the right of assuming to himself to erect labourers' cottages on a certain small portion of that domain. The object of this Bill was to give the tenant something in the future. Therefore, in determining what they should give him, they ought to determine whether the labourer should have something as well. The Government ought to modify the clause in the interest of the labourers, and the two ought to go on side by side, and the tenant would have all that he had a right to, and then they could not be charged with depriving him of something that never belonged to him.
      SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that hon. Members opposite had spoken a great deal about the condition of the labourer in Ireland; but, with the exception of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan), no
      1446
      one made any proposition to benefit that ill-used person. He did not believe that, under the Act of 1870, the system of tenure in Ireland was very different from what it would be under this Act. Did anyone of common sense in Ireland suppose that any landlord in Ireland would enter into a speculation to borrow money at 5 per cent to build cottages, when they would not produce more than 2½ or 3 per cent? and it was positively illusory to think that if this Amendment were passed any landlord would build cottages. It was not upon a bye Amendment of this character that a large question of this kind was be decided. He did expect that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, upon every platform, had enunciated their deep interest in the agricultural labourer in Ireland, would not have been, when this question was brought forward, as mute as mice; but would have been prepared to give the Committee the benefit of their well-considered ideas as to how they were to improve the position of the agricultural labourer in Ireland.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, the hon. Member for West Surrey's Amendment was entirely in the interest of the labourers, and as such he could not vote against it. But he was of opinion that that was the wrong time to bring forward that Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had undertaken to bring forward a clause for the labourers. He thought it would be far more profitable if any discussion on the labourers were deferred. He did not think that his hon. Friend would gain anything by putting his Amendment to the test of a division; and, whilst entirely agreeing with him in the view which he had brought forward, he would anxiously appeal to the hon. Member not to diminish his chance of doing that good which might be done hereafter for the labourer by putting that Amendment to a division.
      SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONfelt quite sure, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, that he would favourably consider any clause, dealing with labourers, and, if he rejected the present Amendment, that he would bring it forward in some other form on a future occasion. There was this very important principle in the Amendment—namely, that they did not put the labourer into the hands of the

      1447
      farmer to sub-let at an exorbitant rent. The labourer would hold his house and land from the landlord, and not from the farmer, if this Amendment were carried. He hoped the view put forward by the hon. Member would be considered. There should be some provision to prevent the Amendment from being used for the purposes of the speculative builder, and to confine its benefits to the bonâ fide labourer. Hitherto there had been no Amendment inserted in the Bill in favour of the labourer, and now that one was proposed he trusted that the Government would favourably consider it.
      SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division, as the arguments of the Prime Minister and of the Attorney General for Ireland did not hold out any hope that, in any clause they might bring up, the labourer would be helped in the least. The Bill, as it stood, was devised entirely in the interests of one class—the tenant farmers—and for their benefit property was to be taken directly from the landlords and indirectly from the tenant farmers. It had been said that no advantage had been taken of the provisions of the Act of 1870 for the building of labourers' cottages; but he knew that many of such cottages had been built under that Act. The Prime Minister had argued as though the building of labourers' cottages was a profitable concern; but if the right hon. Gentleman had built as many cottages as he (Sir Hervey Bruce) had done, he would find that he did not put much money in his pocket by the process. It would, however, be easy so to alter the Amendment as to prevent the landlord from getting any more than a very moderate interest upon his outlay. He hoped the unfortunate labourers of Ireland would not be put in a worse position than that in which they were already, and God knew they were badly enough off now.
      MR. FITZPATRICKsaid, he wished to corroborate what had been said about the work done by the landlords for the benefit of the labourers. On an estate he knew the landlord had lately been building five more blocks of labourers' cottages, and the gold medal of the Agricultural Society of Ireland had been given to him for what he had done. He himself had been negotiating for building five more blocks, and the negotiation
      1448
      ended in the building of three cottages on one farm. From his own personal knowledge of what the labourers thought in Queen's County, he could say that they were most desirous that the landlords should resume portions of the lands to build upon, and that the labourer should hold from the landlord and not from the tenant. He hoped his hon. Friend would press his Amendment.
      MR. BRODRICKwished to assure the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) that the sole intention of the Amendment was to provide labourers' cottages on the holding; and if its words did not guard sufficiently against land being resumed from one holding for the purpose of others, he was quite willing to have words inserted to secure that object. He wished to guard himself from the misrepresentations of the Prime Minister, who had treated the matter as though it were solely a question of taking from the tenant to give to the landlord. His (Mr. Brodrick's) desire was solely to enable the landlords to perform a public duty in such a way as would not make the incidence fall too heavily on one party for the benefit of the other. The position which the Prime Minister had taken up was this—that he would not lay a fine upon the tenant at all for any purpose. The right hon. Gentleman would not force the tenant to perform his public duties, but would allow him to rack-rent the labourers to the utmost of his bent. The Government had made many professions of good-will to the labourers, but they came to nothing when put to the test; and he felt he would not be doing justice to the Amendment if he did not ask the Committee to divide on it.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to expose the new policy of the Conservative landlords in masquerading as the friends of the labourers. Some of the Conservative Members from Ulster had been masquerading in that way; but he had been asked more than once by friends in Ulster, who were not followers of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and who had very little sympathy with that hon. Gentleman, to state that many of the Conservative Gentlemen who were now masquerading as the friends of the labourer had distinguished themselves on several occasions by levelling the cottages of a large popula-

      1449
      tion of agricultural labourers to the ground. They took no advantage of the provisions of the Act of 1870, enabling them to take land and build cottages, and that showed that the present Amendment was entirely a sham and a delusion.
      MR. CALLANsaid, he could not approve of the way in which the Amendment had been drawn, because it placed those Members who were interested in the welfare of Irish labourers in a false position. As it stood, the Amendment was most insidious in its nature; and he proposed that it should be amended by striking out all the words after the word "1870." That would test the bona fides of those Irish landlords who now came forward to profess an interest in the labourer. Could any Irish landlord in the House say that he himself or any of his relations had ever built labourers' cottages in Ireland? If such a statement could be made it would be far more practical than all these professions of good-will. He was not aware of any such case, and he did not believe that a single Irish landlord had built cottages for the agricultural labourers of his tenants.
      Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out after "1870," in line 5, to the end of the said proposed Amendment.—(Mr. Callan.)
      SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he would be very happy to support the Amendment if altered in the way proposed by the hon. Member for Louth. But he could assure that hon. Gentleman, who appeared to doubt the fact, that some landlords had built labourers' cottages, and he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was among them. He did not think he was an exception to the rule, and though he did not borrow money for the purpose, he thought his conduct had been quite as meritorious as that of those who might do so. Many of these cottages could never be a source of profit to the landlords.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
      The Committee proceeded to a Division.
      Mr. CALLANwas appointed one of the Tellers for the Noes, but no Member appearing to be a second Teller for the
      1450
      Noes, the Chairman declared the Ayes had it.
      Question put,
      " That the words 'Provided, That if the land thus resumed by the landlord for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments do not exceed in the whole one twenty-fifth part of any individual holding, it shall not be deemed a disturbance of the tenant within the meaning of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' and shall not subject the landlord to any claim for purchase of tenant-right, or to any claim for compensation, except in respect of improvements, beyond an abatement of rent proportionate to the annual value of the the land thus taken by the landlord,' be there inserted."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 223: Majority 101.—(Div. List, No. 270.)
      MR. HEALYmoved to insert in page 5, line 20, the words—
      " Any such resumption should be subject to the service of such notice to the tenant as the Court should deem reasonable."
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW),without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the Amendment, said, that the present occasion was too early for its proposal. It might be brought forward at a later stage of the Bill.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEmoved, in page 5, line 21, after the word "that," to insert the words "the Court may on application by the landlord increase." The noble Lord said, his object was that a landlord who spent money in improving his estate might have an opportunity of realizing a reasonable interest on his outlay by increasing the rent of his property, and it seemed only fair that the amount of such increase should be fixed by the Court. As he understood the Bill, as far as it had gone, the intention seemed to be to make the Court, as it were, a sort of agent for all the agricultural properties in Ireland; and, therefore, it seemed to him only consistent with the general scope of the Bill that when a landlord wished to increase his rents in consequence of the outlay of capital on any part of his estate, he should go to the Court to fix the amount of such increase rather than that the matter should be left to a process of

      1451
      arrangement between the landlords and their tenants. His reason for holding this view was that if the matter was left for the landlords and tenants the tenants would be almost certain to refuse permission to the landlords to improve their estates, because such improvements would involve an increase of rent, and the tenants would believe that it would decrease to them the value of the tenant right, in case they should wish to sell that mysterious and unknown quantity, which had never yet in the progress of the Bill been defined in a clear and explicit manner. It might, perhaps, be said that his proposal would curtail the right of freedom of contract between landlords and tenants; but the simple answer to such an objection if made was, that the Court had already had allotted to it everything connected with freedom of contract, and it was only with a view of carrying the matter to its logical conclusion that he moved the Amendment which he had read to the Committee.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 21, after the word "that," to insert the words "the Court may on application by the landlord increase."—(Viscount Folkestone.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the outlay by landlords could not be made without prior arrangement with their tenants; and he could not, therefore, see why they should not also arrange the sum to be paid in the shape of increased rent.
      MR. GORSTsaid, he failed to see how the tenants could be compelled to pay any increased rent without a direction from the Court.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, if the agreement for an outlay by the landlord was made between him and his tenant, the payment of an increased rent would naturally form part of the arrangement.
      MR. TOTTENHAMasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman had considered the question of arterial drainage? Supposing a landlord wished to carry out a system of such drainage, commencing on a farm in his possession, and the tenant on another farm through which the drain would pass objected on account of a possible increase of rent
      1452
      owing to the benefit which would accrue to his holding, was not that a case in which the Court should interfere?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Bill was not intended to apply to arterial drainage, but only to the outlay for alterations and improvements on the holding as agreed upon between the parties.
      VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked what could be done without the interference of the Court in a case where the landlord made improvements on his estate without the consent and against the will of his tenants?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, no improvements could be made except by arrangement between landlords and tenants; and he saw no reason why, if they could arrange as to the nature and extent of such improvements, they could not also arrange as to the amount of additional rent to be paid.
      MR. MARUMsaid, the clause was in its essence purely an enabling one; but it was now attempted to give it a compulsory character, and so, in fact, to take away the character of the clause.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLpointed out that the clause was only intended to apply to mutual arrangements between landlords and tenants, and could hardly, therefore, relate to matters of arterial drainage.
      MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he had been greatly impressed by a passage in. The letters of the late Mr. Senior, published some years ago, in which that eminent political economist and politician remarked upon the persevering opposition to improving landlords in Ireland, and that they were habitually pointed at by the professional agitators and priests as the enemies of the country. The great complaint and difficulty of Ireland, as far as agriculture was concerned, was the want of capital for the improvement of the land; and it was a curious fact that, whenever a proposal was made which would have the effect of introducing to Ireland a sufficient amount of capital at a fair rate of interest, it was opposed by those who claimed to be especially the representatives and patrons of Ireland, and to desire her welfare. He could not think this course was consistent with a real desire for the welfare of Ireland. He knew that some Members of the Government were convinced

      1453
      that many of the evils which afflicted Ireland, both in regard to the Poor Law and the tenure of land, were due to the unfortunate state of feeling promoted by the priesthood of the Church of Rome.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman was travelling beyond the Question, which was as to the agreements which should be entered into between landlords and their tenants.
      MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he should take another opportunity of dealing with the branch of the question with which he was about to deal when called to Order by the Chairman.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, it was a fallacy to say that the greatest complaint of Ireland was want of capital. The real complaint was that tenants had no security against increase of rent by reason of improvements which they made in their holdings at their own cost.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 210: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 271.)
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 21, leave out "tenancy," and insert the word "holding."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. GIVANsaid, he desired to prevent the landlord charging exorbitant interest, in consequence of and money which he might advance, and, therefore, thought the transaction entered into between the landlord and the tenant should receive the sanction of the Court.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 24, at the end of the Clause, add "with the sanction of theCourt."—(Mr. Givan.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, line 24, at the end of the Clause, add "or in respect of land added to the holding by reclamation or otherwise as may have been agreed upon between the landlord and tenant, or for which he has not previously paid rent."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. GLADSTONE: These words are really not required. They might he added, no doubt; but the land referred to would not in any way come under statutory terms.
      Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. LITTONsaid, he had been requested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer) to move the following addition to the Clause:—
      " Wherever the landlord takes proceedings for the recovery of possession of the holding by reason of the breach of any of the statutory conditions, the Court shall have power (under the provisions hereinafter contained for administering equities between landlord and tenant) to order compensation to be made to the landlord by way of damages or otherwise, instead of his recovery of possession of the holding, and upon such terms as the Court may think just."
      The object of the Amendment had been indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant when he stated he would, on a future occasion, bring up a clause dealing with this particular matter. If his right hon. Friend had still that intention, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln would not desire that this Amendment should be pressed.
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring up words relating to this question on the 18th clause.
      MR. GIBSONasked if it was the intention of the Government that all the statutory conditions, including non-payment of rent, were to be dealt with by a clause to come forward thereafter?
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was their intention to bring up an Amendment to Clause 13, which, he believed, would meet the wishes of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton). His hon. and learned Friend would have an opportunity of moving any Amendment he might think fit, in the event of the clause which it was proposed to bring up not being satisfactory to him.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, there were many conditions besides statutory conditions which might be entered into between the landlord and the tenant that were of great benefit to both. For

      1455
      instance, certain reservations might be made with regard to plantations, drainage, and other matters; and these, being of benefit to both parties, while, at the same time, they did not come under the statutory conditions, he thought should be made the subject of separate agreement. There was no arriére pensée connected with this Amendment, the meaning of which was perfectly plain; and he believed that the Attorney General for Ireland did not absolutely object to the addition of some such words to the clause as he desired to move. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he understood, thought that the object of the Amendment was covered already by the Bill as it stood; but, so far as he had been able to ascertain, the general opinion was that it was not so included, and, therefore, as he felt sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not wish to exclude any conditions that might be useful both to the landlord and tenant, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 5, at the end, add,—" Provided always, That in any present or future tenancy, where an increase of rent is accepted by the tenant, or in any present tenancy where the tenant applies to the Court to have the rent fixed, the landlord and tenant may either agree that all or any of such conditions of the tenancy then existing as are not inconsistent with the statutory conditions hereinbefore specified, may remain in force; or the landlord and tenant in such case may make a fresh agreement embodying any reasonable conditions not inconsistent with the said statutory conditions, and all or any of such conditions, being other than the statutory conditions, may be enforced by ordinary process of law, but not by eviction; and it shall be lawful for the landlord and tenant to agree that all or any of such conditions may either continue in force until the expiration of fifteen years, or that they may be liable to be varied from time to time by mutual consent of the parties to the contract."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, Her Majesty's Government did not consider that the statutory term affected the ordinary provisions which were inserted in agreements between landlord and tenant so far as these were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill. If the hon. and gallant Baronet would defer the subject to a later stage of the Bill, they might be able to propose words which
      1456
      were more in accordance with the form of the Bill as it stood at present.
      MR. SYNANsaid, that the Amendment, if adopted, would have the effect of creating a kind of hybrid tenancy—that was to say, a tenancy partly under statutory conditions and partly under voluntary arrangement. The two parts might be consistent or inconsistent with each other; but he thought it would be impossible for the Government to accept such a proposal as that of the hon. and gallant Baronet. He objected to having an Amendment of this character sprung upon the Committee at that time for the purpose of producing a double tenancy. The matter referred to by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet would be altogether outside the statute; and, in his opinion, it was quite unnecessary to incorporate with the Bill any collateral arrangements that might exist between the landlord and tenant.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he was quite unable to understand how the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) could say that this Amendment had been sprung upon the Committee. He felt sure his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would, after the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, wait to see in what way the Government proposed to carry out his object. In the event of their proposal not being conformable with his wishes, he would, of course, have another opportunity on Report of moving his Amendment. It was perfectly plain that the landlord and tenant should be allowed to make between themselves any contract that was not inconsistent with the statutory conditions of the Bill.
      MR. MARUMpointed out that in dealing with this matter the Committee would, upon the wording of the Bill as it stood, have to take care that the collateral agreement entered into by the landlord and tenant was not only consistent with the statutory conditions, but also with "the other provisions of this Act "
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTagreed with the Attorney General in his statement that there should be elasticity in the contracts entered into by landlords and tenants. His object was to allow the landlord to contract with the tenant in such a way as would not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill. Under the circumstances, and

      1457
      after the statement of the Attorney General, with the permission of the Committee, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment for the present.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was sensible of the concessions which Her Majesty's Government had made during the progress of the Bill; indeed, he was not unsanguine that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister might, before the end of the Bill was reached, be induced to make some other concessions which would obviate the necessity for further opposition. At the same time, He was bound to say that a great deal remained to be done in that direction. He could not allow this clause as amended to stand part of the Bill without recording his protest against the principle which it contained. He had always held that this Bill would undoubtedly effect confiscation. The right hon. Gentleman said "No;" but he was obliged to say that up to the present time he had not succeeded in showing the contrary. His contention was that a portion of the Bill established practically perpetuity of tenure, and that involved confiscation, if not actually of property, at any rate, of the rights of the landlord. It was thus. By Clause 7 the tenant might apply to the Court, from time to time, to fix a judicial rent; that being fixed, the 7th section of the same clause would enact that the tenancy should be deemed a tenancy subject to statutory conditions; Clause 4 provided that the tenant should not be compelled to leave his holding, and the 10th subsection of the 7th clause said that—
      " A further statutory term should not commence until the expiration of a preceding statutory term, and an alteration of judicial rent shall not take place at less intervals than fifteen years."
      The fact was the Bill gave to the tenant what he should call "optional perpetuity of tenure." Her Majesty's Government were giving the tenant a perpetual lease with the option of a break at the end of 15 years—an option which was altogether denied to the landlord. He asked what was the distinction between the perpetuity of tenure enacted by the Bill, and the fixity of tenure against which
      1458
      the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister inveighed in no unmeasured terms a few years ago—perpetuity of tenure transferring from the landlord to the tenant all rights attaching to his property, excepting the right to receive whatever rent charge the Court might think fit to allow him? The effect of the Bill would be expropriation, and that, undoubtedly, involved confiscation. That definition, however, was not his own. It was a definition given by a much higher authority than himself, and it would, he was sure, be received by the Committee with the greatest respect. The authority to whom he referred said—
      " As I understand it, the scheme itself amounts to this—that each and every occupier, as long as he pays the rent which he is now paying, or else some rent to be fixed by a public tribunal…
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the 7th clause, and not the 4th clause, under which the question of perpetuity of tenure does not arise.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, that the clause undoubtedly included fixity of tenure, which could be renewed every 15 years. He was quoting an argument of a great authority against perpetuity of tenure.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman point to the part of the 4th clause which enables the 15 years referred to to be continued from time to time?
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, if the Chairman ruled that he could not raise the question in the manner he proposed, he would not pursue it any further at that moment.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the question of perpetuity of tenure arises under this clause.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was willing not to move his Amendment on the distinct understanding that he should be afforded an opportunity of raising the whole question at another time. Otherwise, he should be compelled to go to a division upon it.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, that the question could be very properly raised upon an Amendment to Clause 7 which stood in his name.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, under those circumstances he would not move his Amendment.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
      Motion agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 187.]
  (Mr. Scaly, Mr. Gray, Mr. Barry.)
  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 187.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. HEALYmoved to substitute the word "act" for the word "acts."
    Motion agreed to.
    MR. HEALYmoved to omit line 13.
    Motion agreed to.
    MR. DALYmoved to omit Clause 9, which had reference to the Coroner for Cork.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.
    House adjourned at One o'clock.