Commons Sitting of 30 June 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Entailed Estates Conversion (Scotland) [203].
Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Open Spaces Act (1877) Amendment [9–202].
Third Reading—Presumption of Life (Scotland)* [191], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  CUSTOMS—THE PORT OF EXETER.
  MR. NORTHCOTEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If it is the fact that the Board of Customs have declined to recommend to the Treasury that Exeter should be made a testing port; are the Treasury aware that only eleven ports and bonding towns in the United Kingdom contribute a larger Customs Revenue than Exeter; is it correct that the bonding towns of Plymouth, Southampton, Newhaven, Folkestone, and Gloucester contribute altogether less Customs Revenue than Exeter alone, and that the total revenue of the last three towns is less than the amount of duty on direct importations into Exeter in spite of the difficulties raised by the Customs as to the transshipment of cargoes from the Bight through the Exeter Canal; whether the Treasury are aware that great expense is entailed on the Crown and on the wholesale wine and spirit merchants of Exeter through the necessity of sending samples to Plymouth to be tested; can he state what would be the cost of making Exeter a testing port; and, would it exceed that already necessitated by keeping officers from other ports at Exeter for considerable periods of time at extra charges of subsistence; and, will he reconsider the decision stated to have been arrived at by the Treasury on the Customs advice?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The question of making Exeter a testing port has been carefully considered, and we have come to the conclusion that no case has been made out for doing so. The statements in the Question are only partly accurate, the duty on direct im-

  1639
  portations into Exeter being only about £20,000 a-year, or much less than the total revenue of the three towns which he names. Testing is a technical operation, and should be carried on at as few places as possible, and the places selected are those where it can be carried on most conveniently and economically. No appreciable expense to the Crown is caused by Exeter not being a testing port, nor am I aware that the merchants are put to any expense by it, although some slight delay is doubtless caused. It would cost about £200 a-year to make Exeter a testing port, and there would be no compensatory reduction; the extra charges alluded to in the Question will cease when a vacancy is filled up.
  MR. NORTHCOTEsaid, that, as his information was different from that of the noble Lord, he should put a further Question to him on Monday.

  ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES—THE VOLUNTEER REVIEW AT WINDSOR.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, on further consideration, he will put himself in communication with His Royal Highness the Ranger of Windsor Park, in order that the same facilities which have been granted on former occasions may be afforded to both Houses of the Legislature to testify by their collective presence at the forthcoming review on the 9th of next month the interest which they take in the Volunteer force of the Country?
  MR. CHILDERS: I have on a previous occasion informed the House, in reply to the hon. Member for Poole, that this matter is not under my control; but I may now add that, in my opinion, it would not be desirable to have inclosures or stands for the two Houses, and the many others who would claim a similar privilege. It is true that at the Windsor Reviews before 1877 tickets to reserved places were issued, but not at subsequent Reviews.

  SOLWAY FISHERIES ACT—LEGISLATION.
  MR. ERNEST NOELasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government are prepared to introduce a measure to repeal or amend the Solway Fisheries Act, so as to put the inhabitants of Dumfries
  1640
  and Galloway on the same footing as the inhabitants of the rest of Scotland as regards the right to fish with rod and line in the rivers and streams for trout and other freshwater fish, not of the salmon kind?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: A Bill is prepared on the subject, and I hope it will be introduced in the House of Lords.

  FRANCE AND TUNIS—INTERESTS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS AND OTHERS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any arrangement has yet been concluded by which Tunisian subjects and interests in this Country have been transferred from the protection of the Turkish Ambassador and Consuls to that of the French Ambassador and Consuls; whether it has yet been decided under what jurisdiction Tunisian subjects and interests are to be placed in Ottoman territory; and, whether the Porte has recognised French jurisdiction under the capitulations in civil and criminal cases in the Ottoman territory in which Tunisians are involved alone, or with the subjects of a third Power?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No arrangement has been concluded as to the transfer of Tunisian subjects and interests in this country to French jurisdiction, and no question with regard to them has arisen. The question as to the jurisdiction over Tunisian subjects and interests in Ottoman territory will have to be decided between the Turkish and French Governments. The Porte has not hitherto recognized any such jurisdiction.

  SPAIN AND ENGLAND—GIBRALTAR—THE NEUTRAL GROUND AND MARITIME JURISDICTION.
  MR. DODDS (for Mr. MAGNIAC)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether an understanding has been arrived at with the Spanish Government which holds out any hope of an agreement being come to for defining the limits of the jurisdiction of the British and Spanish Governments around Gibraltar, so as to prevent the recurrence of irritating collisions between the naval and civil officers of the two nations; and, if so, whether the Papers are in a fit state to be laid upon the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Active negotiations are now proceeding with regard to the neutral ground and maritime jurisdiction at Gibraltar; and, as the Spanish Government have expressed their desire for a speedy settlement of these two questions, there is every reason to hope for a satisfactory result. It would not be convenient, however, to lay the Papers on the Table in the present state of the negotiations.

  THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—RETIREMENTS.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the rule is still in force which obliges diplomatists to retire from the public service on attaining the age of 70; whether Sir Charles Wyke, as is reported, is about to be transferred from the post of Her Majesty's Representative at Copenhagen to that of Her Majesty's Representative at Lisbon; and, whether, before this transfer be made, he will insist upon the production of evidence to show that age entitles him to remain in the diplomatic service?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: When the regulation in question, which is still in force, was first made, the members of the Diplomatic Service were called upon to furnish a Report of their ages. Sir Charles Wyke, in reply, stated that he was born on September 2, 1815, and he is, consequently, now 65 years of age.

  THE SASINE OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE (for Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a memorial has been received from commissioned clerks of the Third Class in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, complaining of the manner in which their position and prospects are affected by the Treasury Minute of 27th March last, regulating the offices affected by "The Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) Act, 1879," and praying for the production of certain Reports and Papers regarding their duties, for the appointment of an open Commission of Inquiry, and for the redress of certain grievances complained of; and, if so, what steps in the matter are proposed to be taken by the Lords of the Treasury?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: A Memorial has been received from
  1642
  clerks of the Third Class in the Sasine Office, praying for an improvement in their position under the scheme of reorganization of the Register House Departments recently sanctioned by the Treasury. The Memorial has been submitted for the observations of the Deputy-Clerk Register before being considered by the Treasury.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CASE OF PHILIP MACCABE, LEITRIM CO.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been, directed to the case of Philip MacCabe, of Meltam, Carrigallen, co. Leitrim, who was evicted with seven in family on 28th April 1880, and who is now and has been since his eviction living with his family in a miserable little hovel made up of pieces of sticks, sods, and old straw without even a door upon it, and their furniture, comprising a box and two old chairs, have to remain outside the hut in the day-time, as there is no room for them within it; and, whether they have lived in this wretched little hut during the heavy frost and snow in January and February last, and are just now recovering from a severe attack of sickness?
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question he desired to put another on the same subject. It was whether this man was the same Philip MacCabe who had paid no rent since 1877, and who had been proceeded against in January 1880, for two-and-a-half years rent and evicted; whether he had not been employed as a labourer for the last 10 years by the Protestant clergyman of the parish, and had been in the regular receipt of 6s. a week from the Land League, from which source he had received £14; whether he could not get another house if he liked, but preferred to remain in his hut because he would be able to get money from the Land League; whether it was not the fact that there had been no sickness in his family for the last six months; and whether he had some time ago taken forcible possession of his house and was ejected by the police?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the information he had received from the Constabulary in regard to this case was that MacCabe did not live in

  1643
  the hovel alluded to during the winter months. In the beginning of February last, he took possession of his former residence, and was prosecuted by the police. The case, however, was allowed to drop, as he promised not to go near the place again. Since the 18th of February he had been living in the hovel. He had seven children, only four of whom were living with him, the others being hired as servants in the neighbourhood. He was daily employed as a labourer by a gentleman in the locality. At the time of his eviction he owed three years' rent. The rent of his holding was very little over the Poor Law valuation. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), he had not had the opportunity of testing the information which was given; but he had received it from a source which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) considered to be trustworthy.
  MR. FINIGANasked whether it would not he fair that Questions such as those put by the hon. Member (Mr. Tottenham) should be put on the Paper in black and white, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might have an opportunity of testing their accuracy?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that was a Question which ought to be put to the authorities of the House; but he might remind the hon. Member that it was by no means unfrequent that Questions, he would not say by the hon. Member himself, but certainly by hon. Gentlemen who sat round him, were put in the same way as the one of which he now complained.
  MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has said that MacCabe did not live in his hovel during the winter months, but that he did so during the month of February; I wish to ask whether February is not a winter month?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Perhaps it is a question of the degree of correctness; it was since the 18th of February that he lived in his hovel.

  STATE OF IRELAND—CASE OF E. J. BARRETT.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the case of Edward J. Barrett, telegraph clerk, of Croughwell, who is at present detained in Galway Gaol on a warrant issued by the
  1644
  Lord Lieutenant charging him with "writing and causing threatening notices to be received," Whether the Right honourable Gentleman has received any information to the effect that on Sunday, June 12th, several notices were posted through the village of Croughwell calling on the people to "Boycott "a" land grabber" named Clasby, who as the notice stated gave cars to the police and the Crown Prosecutor, when other car owners refused them, and that Clasby's wife when in a state of intoxication charged Barrett with writing these notices, and boasted that she would have him arrested, and so sent for the police and had a long interview with them; and in the course of the week she said that if Barrett were not arrested it would not be her fault?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the resident magistrate reported that one notice to the effect mentioned in the Question was posted on the chapel gate on the 12th instant. The resident magistrate was not aware, until the Question was referred to him, that Barrett had been threatened by Clasby's wife. Mrs. Clasby did not send for the police, as alleged in the Question. The posting of the notices on the 12th instant had nothing whatever to do with Barrett's arrest.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—GUN LICENCES.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. Hardy, a respectable landowner, has been refused a gun licence; and, whether Mr. Fowler, J.P., gave as a reason, for withholding the licence, the connection of Mr. Hardy with the Land League?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the Question did not specify in what county or district the landowner resided. The hon. Member was under some misapprehension as to the granting of licences. Local magistrates were not appointed to grant licences; but they could grant certificates to persons residing in the same petty sessions districts. The licensing officers were bound to grant licences under the certificate of the magistrate, who was not obliged to sign certificates, but used his discretion. Anybody possessing an agricultural residence, who thought he ought to have

  1645
  a licence, had the remedy of applying to the resident magistrate direct.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. John Kelly, Carrawimen, Ballyforan, Ballinasloe, has, on April 26th, been refused a gun licence by Mr. Paul, resident magistrate of his district, although he brought before Mr. Paul recommendations from three respectable gentlemen in his neighbourhood as to character, &c.; whether Mr. Kelly, when the late Arms Act came into force, delivered up his gun to the police, and in every way complied with the requirements of the Law; whether Mr. Paul said he could not grant him—Kelly—a licence, unless he was recommended by two local magistrates, and, on its being pointed out to him that there was only one local magistrate in Mr. Kelly's district, and, as he was not acquainted with him, he would not, therefore, recommend him, Mr. Paul then said that he should get a recommendation from the chief constable; whether the chief constable, on being asked if he knew of any reason why Mr. Kelly should not have a gun, replied that he did not know of anything against his character, but that he would not recommend him; whether he is aware that, in consequence of Mr. Kelly not having his gun, he will lose a considerable part of his crop, as there is a rookery within a quarter of a mile of his farm; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will consider the necessity of the application, and give instructions to the local authorities to grant him a licence?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he was still making inquiries. He had not yet received the resident magistrate's Report, and he was surprised that he had not received it.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—J. M'MURRAY, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that John M'Murray, a "suspect" in Kilmainham Prison under the Coercion Act, was at the time of his arrest, on the 9th of March last, a national school teacher, and in receipt of a salary from the Na-
  1646
  tional Board of Education; whether it is true that neither he nor his sister, who was acting as a mistress in the same school, have received any pay from the National Board of Education since his arrest; and, whether they have been given to understand, by both the inspector and the manager of the school, that none of the family will ever be recognised again by the National Board of Education?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, it was true that no salary had been paid to John M'Murray since his arrest on the 9th March. Salary due up to that date was not paid, as the claim for payment was imperfect. M'Murray had been informed that when the claim was perfected the salary due would be paid. His sister was not a mistress but a monitress, and monitresses were not recognized in a national school from which the teacher had been removed. This young woman held possession of the school-house, in opposition to the authority of the manager, who was the parish priest, and who had transferred the school to another place, and put it under the charge of another teacher. The Commissioners had given no authority to the Inspector nor to the manager of the school to say that none of the family would be recognized by the National Board again. The Commissioners had given no opinion as to whether the Inspector or the managers had made such a statement, and they were not responsible for what those persons said.

  SAVINGS BANKS (IRELAND)—THE BOYLE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Boyle Savings Bank is identical with the Bank conducted in Colonel King-Harman's rent office, and by his sub-agent; whether the following rule or bye law of said Bank has been brought to the notice of the Government:—
  "That any trustee or manager of this Savings Bank who has declared or shall declare in writing under his hand, deposited with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, that he is willing to be answerable for a specific sum only, such amount being in no case less than £100, shall not be liable to make good any deficiency which may hereafter arise in the funds of this Savings Bank beyond the amount specified in such writing, &c.;"
  whether he is aware that according to

  1647
  Parliamentary Return, No. 157, issued in 1880, sums amounting to £30,073 16 s. 5d. have been placed on deposit in the Boyle Savings Bank, on the faith of the supposed responsibility of the Government for the repayment of the sums deposited; whether in case of any deficiency arising in the funds of the Boyle Savings Bank, owing to fraud or losses from whatever cause, and the non-liability of the trustees as contemplated under approved Rule No. 33 of the same Bank, it would be the duty of the Government or of the Commissioners of the National Debt to indemnify the depositors from any loss they may sustain; and, whether in view of the existence of a Post Office Savings Bank, which affords absolute security to small depositors, within a few hundred yards of the Boyle Savings Bank, there is any public advantage in maintaining the latter institution at an annual cost to the public exchequer of £17813 s. 4d.; and, if no such public advantage exists, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to close the Boyle Savings Bank, and, under Act 26 Vic. c. 14, have its funds transferred to the Post Office Savings Bank, and thereby effect an annual saving of £178 13 s. 4d. of the public money?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the manager of the Bank was the same person as Colonel King-Harman's sub-agent. Under the provisions of the Savings Bank Act, any trustee or manager might limit his responsibility to an amount not less than £100 by a writing under his hand to the Commissioners for the National Debt. The name of every trustee, and the amount of their collective or individual responsibility, must be printed and posted in every place where deposits were received. It was not the duty of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, or the Government, to indemnify depositors for loss in the case of a deficiency in the funds of the Savings Bank, except in so far as these funds had been lodged with the Commissioners. With regard to the condition of this particular bank, Parliamentary Returns showed that £30,073 had been deposited in the Boyle Savings Bank up to date; and, at the same time, the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt held to the credit of the Bank £3,263. This Savings Bank had been 58 years in existence. The last audit showed a
  1648
  satisfactory state of its finances. This bank appeared to be in a perfectly sound and healthy condition; but he would take this opportunity of stating—what was true in Ireland as well as in England—that as regarded Savings Banks other than Post Office Banks the Government was not responsible for any sum except to the amount of that which had been deposited with the Commissioners. They had no power to close the bank.

  POST OFFICE—LETTER CARRIERS.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Postmaster General, If it is intended to take any steps to ameliorate the position of the letter carriers as to pay or otherwise?
  MR. FAWCETT: It will probably be in the recollection of the House that as recently as Thursday last I answered a Question to almost the same effect as that which is now addressed to me by my hon. Friend. I then stated that the various Memorials which had been received from letter-carriers and others were being carefully considered, and if I should have any proposals to make to the Treasury, there should be no unnecessary delay in submitting them. On that occasion I made an appeal, which, I think, from the manner in which it was received, was considered a not unreasonable one—that I should not be pressed to give a decision before I had had time properly to investigate the subject. I will now ask permission to make this further remark. The obvious truth seems to be too often forgotten, that if the Government increases the remuneration of its servants, the money has to be found by the general body of the taxpayers; and nothing could be more indefensible than to take money from the community to give it to a special class, unless it were found, after careful investigation, that justice demanded such an appropriation.

  ARMY—PURCHASE CAPTAINS—PENSIONS.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Purchase Captains who happened to be on half pay at the time of the abolition of Purchase, and who are now upon full pay, will receive an additional pension of £50 per annum, bearing in mind

  1649
  the fact that Purchase Captains receive this extra pension by the Army Warrant that takes effect on the 1st July next?
  MR. CHILDERS: My hon. and gallant Friend cannot have heard the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Henry Fletcher) on the 23rd instant, which was in the affirmative, to a precisely similar inquiry.

  AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONS (IRELAND)—THE REPORTS.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state why the Report of the Assistant Commissioners for Ireland, which the Agricultural Inquiry Commissioners were informed, in a letter from the Home Office dated 18th January 1881, would be laid before the Queen and presented to Parliament, has not been issued?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he found, on inquiry, that this Report of the Assistant Commissioner was presented to the House; but, by some error, the printers thought that it was only the Report of the Commissioner, and not of the Assistant Commissioner, that was to be issued. Measures would be taken to correct the error.

  RAILWAYS—RAILWAY PASSENGERS' COMMUNICATION.
  MR. SHERIDANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, considering that the means of communication between the passengers and guards of Railway trains at present in use is difficult to get at if a personal struggle is taking place, and considering the cases of violence and murder which occur in Railway carriages, which the present means of signalling was not contemplated to prevent, he will consider the expediency of requiring Railway Companies to adopt the following or some other efficient means of signalling in such cases, viz.:—That the footboards and handles on the carriages should be so altered that the guard can at intervals traverse the train and look into each carriage; that a square of glass should be inserted in each compartment, so that a personal struggle in one compartment could be visible in the adjoining compartments; and that, whilst allowing the present means of communication with the guard to remain, there should
  1650
  be, in addition, in each compartment, chain pulls which should communicate with bells in each of the other compartments of the same carriage?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend bases his Question, among other things, on the mode of communication between the passengers and guards of railway trains at present in use; and I think it is fair to say, with reference to the London and Brighton Railway, where there has recently been a murder, that the mode of communication adopted by them appears to be the best hitherto devised, and it is difficult to see how it could be further perfected. It has been carefully considered by the Board of Trade and approved by them. My hon. Friend goes on to suggest the expediency of requiring Railway Companies to adopt certain means of signalling. I have to point out that we have no power to make such requisitions on the Railway Companies; and as regards the expediency of these recommendations, I have to say, with respect to the first—namely, that the footboards and handles on the carriages should be so altered that the guard can at intervals traverse the train and look into each carriage—I am informed that it would be impossible to make the proposed changes without a general alteration of the bridges and tunnels on many of the lines. With regard to the second recommendation—that a square of glass should be inserted in each compartment—I am informed that that has already been done on several lines, including the London and South Western. It is, however, generally objected to by the passengers, who take such opportunities as their luggage affords them of stopping up the openings. As regards the last recommendation, I have to point out that whatever difficulty there is now in communicating with the guard by means of the existing chain pulls would, apply, of course, to the additional pulls that he suggests.
  MR. SHERIDAN: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood my Question. The chain pulls which I suggest are not like those already existing which communicate with the guard, and are intended to communicate with other carriages. I should like to know whether the Board of Trade has tested this mode of communication; and, if so, how often?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I perfectly understood my hon. Friend; but what I wished to point out is this—that there already exist chain pulls for communicating with the guards, and, as shown by this recent case, these chain pulls are not always accessible to passengers; probably the pull was not accessible in this case, because, in the first instance, the passenger was shot, and the same difficulty would apply to the additional chain pulls now suggested. The Board of Trade is in the habit of testing these appliances; and I am informed that the Brighton Railway Company are in the habit of testing them before and after each journey.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINE CORPS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the re-organisation of the Royal Marine Corps will take effect from the 1st July, and when will its details be made known to the House; and is any alteration in the pay of the private (Royal Marines) in contemplation by the Admiralty?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In the Order in Council of the 15th of January, 1878, affecting the promotion and retirement of the Royal Marines, the Regulations dated back to, and took effect from, the 1st of October, 1877. In the same way the changes which the Admiralty proposed to effect in matters relating to the corps of Royal Marines will come into operation from the 1st of July, 1881. What those changes are to be I will let the House know at a very early opportunity; and I should prefer not to make any partial statement until I can give them as a whole.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—MOUNT PLEASANT SCHOOL, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in consequence of the felonious abstraction at night of the school register from the Mount Pleasant National School, in the county of Limerick, the National Board has refused to hold the usual examination, and the teacher, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, has been thereby deprived of his result fees; and, whether the Inspector General of Constabulary has refused to give the said teacher a copy of the Police Report relative to said abstraction to send to the Board?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he was informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the statement in the first part of the hon. Member's Question was incorrect. With regard to the second point, he was informed that the Inspector General of Constabulary had not refused to give the teacher a copy of the Police Report referred to. If the hon. Gentleman wished for further information on a matter which was really a matter of detail, he should be glad to communicate with him on the subject.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARREST OF THOMAS M'GIRNEY UNDER THE ACT.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would state for what offence Mr. Thomas M'Girney, of Drumkieran, co. Leitrim, was arrested on the 22nd instant, under the Protection of Person and Property Act; and, if the medical authorities of Galway Gaol have certified that he is in a fit state of health to undergo imprisonment?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the person referred to had been arrested on the 22nd instant under the Protection of Person and Property Act. The Warrant stated that he was suspected of unlawfully assembling with others, to the terror of Her Majesty's subjects, for the purpose of disturbing the public peace. On the 27th instant a Memorial with regard to the state of his health was referred to the General Prisons Board, and the medical officer of the gaol was asked to prepare a special Report. This Report, however, could not be received in Dublin till to-morrow morning.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—SUPERANNUATION OF POOR LAW OFFICERS.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the anomalous condition of the existing Law and practice relative to the Superannuation of Poor Law Officers, by recent cases which have occurred in the two adjacent unions of Farnham and Alton, a superannuation allowance having been granted in the former union and refused in the latter to an officer of advanced age and long

  1653
  service; and, whether he has it in contemplation to propose any amendment of the Law with a view to greater uniformity in future?
  MR. DODSON: My attention has been called to these two cases, and I cannot but regret that they were not dealt with by the Guardians of the two Unions on the same favourable principle; but, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the grant of superannuation allowance is entirely within the discretion of the Guardians, the Board having no jurisdiction to require them to grant a superannuation in any case; and it would be a matter requiring very serious consideration to undertake to propose any amendment in the law which would deprive the Guardians of their discretionary power.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—LIEUTENANT COLONELS OF THE ORDNANCE CORPS.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the privilege which has been granted to Lieutenant Colonels of Infantry who were appointed before the 1st July 1881, of optional retirement on a Colonel's pension after having held command for four years, will be extended to those Lieutenant Colonels of the Ordnance Corps who are similarly situated?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; the period of the employment of Lieutenant Colonels of the Line will vary from a minimum of four, if in actual command, to a maximum of six years; and this will be about the same period as the fixed five years in the Ordnance Corps. I see, therefore, no reason to shorten the latter period.

  ARMY—AFRICA (WEST)—THE TROOPS AT CAPE COAST CASTLE.
  MR. W. HOLMSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that no adequate provision was made for the accommodation of the 2nd West India Regiment, landed at Cape Coast in March last, three companies with their officers being quartered in tents on the seaboard, the other three companies in the Fantee town, where, in the words of an eye-witness—
  "Every evening there rises from the countless cesspools and steaming earth a poisonous
  1654
  miasma, hanging in so dense a veil that you could almost cut it; this is the atmosphere which must be inhaled all night;"
  whether he is aware that, although on active service, no rations were supplied to the officers of the regiment, who were left to forage for themselves as they best could; whether he is aware that, of the 29 officers of that regiment who landed at Cape Coast between the 11th and 31st March last, one (Lieutenant Harwood) died, eleven were invalided home, and the others, with one exception, suffered from fever before the 17th May; and, if he will inform the House whether any inquiry has been, or will be made, in order to ascertain who is to blame for the neglect of the proper sanitary precautions as regards the accommodation of the regiment referred to when landed at Cape Coast?
  MR. CHILDERS: My hon. Friend cannot have been in the House when I fully answered almost identical Questions on the 9th and 13th instant, and I must refer him to those answers. The only additional point in his Question is, whether the officers received rations? I presume that they did, and large supplies of food were sent out; but I have received no Report on the subject.
  MR. W. HOLMSsaid, he had heard the answers given by the right hon. Gentleman to the two Questions referred to; but he ventured to think that he had not answered this part of the Question—whether he was aware that of the 29 officers of the regiment, who landed at Cape Coast between the 11th and 31st March, one (Lieutenant Harwood) died, 11 were invalided home, and the others, with one exception, suffered from fever before the 17th May? He should also like to know if it was not the case that no rations whatever were supplied to the officers?
  MR. CHILDERSreplied, that he had already informed his hon. Friend that large supplies of food were sent out, but that he had no information as yet as to its distribution, and could not, therefore, answer the Question. He had not the points of his previous replies before him; but he remembered that he expressly stated that one officer had died, and that a large number were invalided. He thought he mentioned 10 or 12, and he also said that there was a great deal of sickness among the officers.

  ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES—2ND DEVON ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. GORST (for Mr. PULESTON)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that two-thirds of the members of the 2nd Devon Artillery Volunteers have resigned; and, if so, whether he can state the reasons which have led to such a step by so efficient a body of Volunteers?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; I find that a much smaller proportion of the men of the Volunteer corps to which the hon. Member's Question refers resigned in a somewhat irregular manner about a month ago, disappointed at their regiment not being allowed, through inadequacy of funds, to attend the forthcoming Review. The General Officer commanding the Western District has ordered inquiry to be made into the financial condition of the regiment; but, as at present advised, I think that Colonel Ridgway was justified in not sanctioning so heavy an expenditure.

  WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX ON FARMS IN HAND.
  SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in accordance with the suggestion of the Inland Revenue Commissioners of 13th June, the Government intend to adhere to the limitation of the remission of the Income Tax on farms in hands of the owners (proposed to be made in consideration of the present agricultural distress) to cases of farms not habitually occupied by owners for purposes of husbandry; and, whether such a limitation will not, in fact, exclude from relief all yeomen farmers who have suffered as much as, or more than, any of the farming class in recent years?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he presumed the hon. and gallant Member did not think that the recommendation in question extended to what were known as home farms. As to the purport of the Question, however, he could not give any positive answer; but he would make inquiry as to the precise position of matters.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—MORNING SITTINGS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It would be convenient for us to know whe-
  1656
  ther the Government propose to take Morning Sittings regularly on Tuesdays and Fridays; and, also, whether we are to understand that the recent Order of the 27th with regard to the precedence to be given to the Land Law (Ireland) Bill excludes or supersedes the Rule that places Supply as the first Order on Fridays?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to Morning Sittings, I have no other desire than that we should take that course which will most expedite the Business of the Committee without hurrying it, and I think if we have two Morning Sittings weekly it will conduce to that end. It produces a more constant attendance, and the numbers do not vary up and down in the same extreme. When we have got rid of the Committee and the Report of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, my own opinion is that, unless the House thinks otherwise, it will be better to go on as we are doing. With regard to the other part of the Question, there is no doubt whatever that the Resolution taken on Tuesday last does, for the time, set aside the Resolution as to Supply.

  TUNIS—THE CASR ESSAID TREATY.
  THE EARL OF BECTIVEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government are aware that additional clauses exist in the Casr Essaid Treaty besides those communicated to Lord Granville through Lord Lyons on the 20th May; if the French Government have informed Her Majesty's Government of their intention to compel the Bey to cancel or alter Article V. of the British Convention of 1863, and Article V. of the Convention of 1875, whereby British subjects are allowed to acquire and dispose of immovable property in the Regency of Tunis; whether they are aware that very lately, on M. Camondo, a wealthy Levantine banker, and Mr. Gustavus Rothschild, entering into negotiations with Flamida Ben Ayad, a British landowner, for the purchase of two large estates, they were informed by M. Roustôn that no real property could henceforth be disposed of in that country without his consent; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make inquiries on this subject?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We are not aware of the existence of any such

  1657
  additional clauses. The French Government have not given any such information to Her Majesty's Government. We are not aware that the persons named have been informed by M. Roustan that real property cannot be disposed of in Tunis without his consent. There will be no objection to making inquiry on the subject if the noble Lord will inform the Foreign Office of the grounds on which he has based the Questions.

  AUSTRIA AND SERVIA—COMMERCIAL TREATY.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether, in the Revised Convention or arrangement about to be concluded between Servia and Austria, Servia, notwithstanding the most favoured nation clause in the Treaty between this country and Servia, would have to admit manufactured or partly manufactured iron and other articles from Austria at considerably lower duties than those at which it admits the products of this and other countries; and, whether before the Convention was signed by the Representatives of Austria and Servia it would be laid before the Chambers of Commerce?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I shall feel obliged by the noble Lord giving Notice of the Question.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I suppose the Convention will not be signed before to-morrow?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I cannot state at a moment's notice what is the exact position of matters at this moment. I have not seen any Papers relating to the Question for the last three days.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: When does the hon. Baronet propose to lay on the Table the Treaty between Austria and Servia?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It is in course of being printed.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MICHAEL DAVITT, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. J. COWENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If Mr. Michael Davitt
  1658
  could not be removed from Portland and imprisoned in Kilmainham, along with other of his countrymen arrested under the Coercion Act?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether this Question has been put under a perfectly accurate impression as to the state of the law as regards Davitt. It seems to imply that the case of Davitt is analogous to that of the prisoners now confined in Ireland. It is well known that Davitt was a convict at large, under the licence of the Crown. That licence was revokable for certain reasons, and the Government, thinking that those reasons existed, regarded it as their duty to revoke the licence. The prisoners arrested under the Coercion Act are untried prisoners, and the Government could not undertake to place tried prisoners in the same condition as untried prisoners. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department that, on account of the state of Michael Davitt's health, he has received special indulgences; and I do not learn that he has complained, in any respect, of harshness in his treatment. I have no doubt that everything that could be desired will be done.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he wished to ask the Prime Minister a further Question. He understood that Mr. Davitt was not imprisoned for the purpose of punishment, but only for the purpose of restraint. On an interesting occasion recently the Premier had referred with commendation to the aid that Lord Beaconsfield gave to Mr. Thomas Cooper, the Chartist, when he came out of prison. Mr. Cooper, while in gaol, wrote a poem, and Mr. Disraeli aided him in getting it published. Now, Mr. Davitt was a Poet as well as Mr. Cooper; but he was not permitted to have writing materials. What he wanted to ask the Prime Minister was whether the Government would treat Mr. Davitt, an Irish political prisoner, as the Government of Sir Robert Peel treated Mr. Thomas Cooper, the Chartist prisoner, and give him pens, ink, and paper?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As this is a matter that involves a reference to prison rules, I am afraid I must ask to have Notice of the Question.
  MR. PARNELLasked whether the Government had considered that Michael Davitt was being punished for his ori-

  1659
  ginal offence—namely, treason-felony, or supplying arms for the purpose of making war against Her Majesty's Government, or for his acts in connection with the Land Agitation since his release?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid the answer to the Question would require a general statement of the Rules under which the licences of convicts are granted, and I am not prepared to enter upon any such statement at present.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—COLOUR SERGEANTS OF MILITIA AND VOLUNTEERS.
  LIEUT -COLONEL MILNE-HOMEasked the Secretary of State for War, If a colour-sergeant, when transferred compulsorily to the permanent staff of a Militia battalion or Volunteer regiment, under paragraph 12 of the Army Organization Scheme, will receive the same pay, allowances, and pension, as if he had remained in his Line regiment?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to say that the suggestion in his Question appears to be worthy of consideration; and, though not at this moment prepared to say what I can do, we will give the matter early attention when other more important Business is disposed of.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)—ARREARS OF RENT.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Prime Minister, Whether the Government had yet come to any conclusion with regard to arrears of rent in Ireland; and, if so, when they would place upon the Notice Paper the Amendment or Clause by which they proposed to deal with the question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the question of arrears cannot be treated by us at a time arbitarily chosen, but that time must depend upon the progress made with the Land Law (Ireland) Bill; and if the hon. Member will give us that assistance which I am bound to say is in a very considerable degree in his power, we shall very speedily arrive at that part of the Bill where the question of arrears can be discussed. We are very anxious to arrive at that stage, because we know that the subject is one on which there is a good deal of just anxiety.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD, R.M.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is true that Mr. Clifford Lloyd, Resident Magistrate, Kilmallock, has persons arrested and brought before him (almost daily, without summons or warrant) at his private residence and at the Police Barracks, both at Kilmallock and Kilfinane, where he hears complaints by the police brought against such persons, and inflicts fines and imprisonment in private, without holding a legally constituted court; and, whether the charges in many of those cases were not for hooting or groaning at himself; and, if so, under what statute is a magistrate empowered to deal with such cases other than in an ordinary petty sessions, and without giving the parties accused full time to prepare for their defence?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in reply, said, he had communicated with Mr. Clifford Lloyd in reference to this Question, and had received a Report in which that gentleman stated that he could not understand to what proceedings the question referred, as he had caused no person to be brought before him without summons or warrant, and had not performed any act except what he was authorized to do by statute. Mr. Lloyd stated that there was no real foundation for the hon. Gentleman's statement; and he thought, therefore, that the hon. Member must have been wrongly informed.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN: There is no mistake whatever. Mr. Lloyd lives opposite to my own residence, and I have seen men taken into his house and coming out after conviction.

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. [SEVENTEENTH NIGHT.]
    [Progress 29 th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    PART II.

      INTERVENTION OF COURT.
      Clause 7 (Determination by Court of rent of present tenancies).
      Amendment proposed,
      After the word "accept," at the end of the last Amendment, page 6, line 30, to insert the words "or any leaseholder who can show to the satisfaction of the Court that he was constrained or induced by a landlord or his agent, to take out a lease since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' at an unfair rent, or subject to unreasonable covenants."—(Mr. William Corbet.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. LITTONsaid, he was conscious that the Amendment raised a most important question; but he believed that the question could be more conveniently dealt with at a later stage of the Bill, and that the present was not the proper time to discuss a subject which must, if proceeded with, occupy a considerable time. He would therefore ask his hon. Friend (Mr. Corbet), who was, no doubt, anxious to present the question under the most favourable circumstances, to postpone the Amendment on the understanding that it would be brought up at a future time, when it could be more conveniently debated. If his hon. Friend responded to that appeal, it would be unnecessary that he (Mr. Litton) should now trouble the Committee with any further statement in continuation of the remarks he was making when the debate was adjourned on Wednesday. At the same time, he was quite of opinion that it would be necessary to debate the question fully.
      MR. PARNELLasked the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) in what part of the Bill he would propose to discuss the question of leases? He (Mr. Parnell) had always been under the impression that the proper place for discussing the question was upon the 7th clause; and if they were to pass over it he should like to know when it could be more conveniently discussed.
      MR. LITTONsaid, there were Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), the hon. Member for the County of Armagh (Mr. J. N. Richardson), the hon. Member for the County of Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), and in his own name, upon Clause 47, which proposed to deal with leases; and the question would come on more conveniently when the subject of leases was under discussion.
      1662
      It certainly did not seem to him that the 7th clause was the proper place for raising it.
      DR. COMMINSsaid, the 7th clause dealt with the power the Court was to have in fixing fair rents. The power which the Amendment proposed to give was a negative power, excluding altogether leases which might have a longer term to run than from year to year. He failed to see how the question of the exclusion of leases, forced upon tenants under the operation of the Act of 1870, could be discussed under Clause 47. The present question was whether or not the Court should have the power of re-framing the leases which had been forced upon tenants, and in regard to which the tnant had no option as to the taking of them compulsorily. If the Committee did not decide that question now, there was no other clause upon which they could decide it. There was no doubt that the Bill interfered with contracts just as much when they were contracts under seal as where they were verbal contracts. If the Court was to have power to consider whether a contract under seal were just or unjust, equitable or inequitable, the present was the time to consider whether it should be invested with such power.
      MR. SYNANsaid, he took the same view as the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), and he took it in the interest of the leaseholders. If the Amendment was pressed, under the present circumstances, the Committee would be placed at a disadvantage, because it was proposed to put leaseholders in the same position as present tenants, who only went into Court for the purpose of having a fair rent fixed. If the leaseholders were admitted into the Court they must be admitted under certain conditions and under certain limitations. The grounds for their admission must be distinctly stated to the Court, and they could not be dealt with as present tenants. The Committee were, therefore, placed at a disadvantage in arguing the matter, upon the ground that leaseholders should be treated as present tenants, and valuable support might be alienated from those who were in favour of the claim of the leaseholder when the question as to leases came to be considered. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be for the present withdrawn.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLlooked upon the leaseholders' question as a mere parenthesis in another very important subject.
      MR. MARUMsaid, that upon considering the Bill as it was originally introduced, he had given Notice of an Amendment upon the point in what he considered to be the proper place—namely, the 47th clause; but the Committee were not to take for granted that the 47th clause would be proposed, or, if proposed, that it would be accepted. He hoped, therefore, that the opinion of the Committee upon the subject would be taken now.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was unable to form an opinion as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the discussion now; but the Prime Minister was altogether responsible, because the right hon. Gentleman certainly stated yesterday that this was as good a place as any for discussing the question raised by the Amendment. Nothing could show greater irresolution or want of fixity of purpose than to withdraw now from the discussion which the Government had raised upon that question in favour of taking it upon the 47th clause. As he understood the 47th section, it would not raise the question of leases upon the particular point they were engaged now in discussing. That point was not the general character of the leases, but whether the rent fixed under them should be brought under the arbitrament of the Court or not. He wished to ask the Prime Minister to declare himself more distinctly, and to explain whether or not the rent-charge reserved under leases was not a proper matter to come under the purview of the Court. If it were not so, the consequence would be that a large proportion of the tenant farmers of Ireland would be excluded from deriving anything like real benefit from the operation of the Bill. Many farmers under terms of leases that would be disposed of by such an Amendment as that now before the House would be left in precisely the same condition they were before the passing of the Bill. As regarded the question of rent, that question was the essence of these leases, however imperious, absurd, tyrannical, and unjust the other covenants the leases contained might be. It was the largeness of the rent chargeable under the leases that contained the core of the
      1664
      leases themselves; and if they left that question untouched, whatever other question they touched in regard to leases would be of no consequence whatever. In the Bessborough Commission no evidence was more clearly brought out than that exhorbitant rents were imposed against the will of the tenants by these very leases; and, under these circumstances, he should be greatly surprised if hon. Members who represented Ulster were to retire from the conflict until they heard something far more satisfactory than they had heard at present.
      MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he would move here an Amendment, of which he had given Notice—namely, to omit from the Amendment the words "at an unfair rent, or subject to unreasonable covenants," in order to insert the words—
      "Shall be entitled to surrender his lease, and claim the rights and privileges reserved by the Bill in respect of ordinary tenants."
      He gathered that the object of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment they were now discussing was to release the tenant from any bond which he had entered into of an unreasonable nature. His proposal was to allow such tenants who felt themselves aggrieved by such leases to surrender whatever benefit they might derive under them. He did not ask that the tenant should retain the advantages of such leases, and only get rid of the disadvantages; but what he asked was that the tenant should start with a fair field and no favour as a present tenant. He did not ask the Prime Minister to come to a hasty decision upon the matter, because he believed that the interests which were dependent upon the question were of great importance; but he would warn the Prime Minister and the Government that if the Bill was passed to the exclusion of thousands of the largest and most influential of tenants, the Bill would not be a settlement of the land difficulty that would last for two years. He did not wish to see the measure passed as all other Land Bills had been passed—namely, incomplete and insufficient for the purpose it had been introduced to carry out. He would, therefore, propose his Amendment, because he believed that it placed the matter in a simple, intelligible, and thoroughly tangible form.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
      To omit from the proposed Amendment the words "at an unfair rent, or subject to unreasonable covenants," for the purpose of inserting the word "shall he entitled to surrender his lease and claim the rights and privileges reserved by the Bill in respect of ordinary tenants."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
      MR. SHAWsupported the proposal made by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. W. J. Corbet); but hoped that the Committee would not be forced into a discussion, or a premature decision, upon a question which was of so much importance for the tenantry of Ireland. They must remember the declaration which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister last evening, and must not allow it to force them into a premature discussion, especially as the declaration was made upon insufficient evidence. He was quite sure that when the right hon. Gentleman heard the case which the Irish Members would be able to bring before the House at the proper time, his sense of justice would lead him to see that the claim made by the Irish Members was founded upon reason and justice. He believed that the Irish Members would be able to convince the entire Committee and all the hon. Members who represented the landlords of Ireland that any leases of this kind should not be allowed to exist. It was impossible to go through the evidence without feeling that there were many cases in which those leases had been unjustifiably forced upon the tenants; and he was afraid that if they went to a division upon that clause and upon that part of the Bill, they would do it to the injury of the cause they wished to raise, and to the injury of the tenants of Ireland. Therefore, as they could not discuss it to advantage, he would suggest that they should withdraw it. They were not prepared to discuss it in the middle of a clause which was one of the most important clauses of the Bill; and in the interest of the tenant farmers it was not desirable that it should be discussed partially at the present moment.
      MR. H. R. BRANDalso wished to add an appeal to the hon. Member who sat below the Gangway (Mr. Corbet) to
      1666
      allow the Committee to go fairly into the discussion of the 7th clause. He could not support the Amendment; but he might say that the conviction had been brought home to his mind upon reading the evidence given before the Bessborough Commission that there was a great deal to be said in regard to the necessity of dealing with these leases. He must admit that he had a very strong prejudice, indeed, against unsettling a written agreement entered into between the landlord and tenant after the passing of the Act of 1870; but it was clearly established by the evidence before the Bessborough Commission that there had been leases forced upon the tenants by the landlords which excluded them from the benefit of the Act of 1870. If he were an Irish landlord he should feel a desire and a wish to have those leases brought under the purview of the Court, in order to show that there was nothing unreasonable or harsh in the terms which had been imposed. He hoped the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite (Mr. W. J. Corbet) would be satisfied with the statements which had been made, and would now consent to withdraw the Amendment.
      MR. M'COANjoined in the hope expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) that the discouraging statement made by the Prime Minister last night would in some way be qualified, and that it would be admitted to have been more or less ill-considered. Since the commencement of the discussion he had heard no more disheartening statement from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman. He knew from positive evidence that in no two points connected with the state of Ireland in view of the present Bill was it more generally felt that the defects and omissions of the Act of 1870 were so considerable as where they excluded leases from the operation of the Act, and failed to deal with arrears of rent. He would venture to say that if the Bill dealt a little more generously and fairly with those two questions it would have been accepted gratefully by the people of Ireland. He believed that the effect of the statement made by the Prime Minister last night would be to excite a feeling of profound discouragement amongst all classes of Irish tenants. In the county which he represented (Wicklow) a large portion of the tenants

      1667
      were disposed to accept the Bill, not as a completely satisfactory settlement, but as giving three-fourths of the loaf they hoped to get in the end; but if they were to be told that the Government would not deal with, the question of leases the opponents of the Bill would be multiplied by thousands. He thought the evidence upon which the Prime Minister was induced to make his statement last night was hardly sufficient to justify such a declaration. The lease which had been instanced was one from Earl Fitzwilliam, and the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow was argued upon that case. He thought that the hon. Member might have taken much stronger ground, and might have based his case upon leases very much more objectionable than those of Lord Fitzwilliam. He knew a case in which upon a farm of 16 acres all the improvements were done at the expense of the tenant; but at the expiration of the lease the whole were forfeited and passed to the landlord without the tenant having the right of claiming compensation under the Act of 1870. The lease further provided that if the landlord deemed, it desirable to make other improvements for drainage, or for other purposes, he was at liberty to enter upon the farm and make them at the expense of the tenant. It further covenanted that, instead of the usual allowance of time for non-payment of rent, forfeiture of the lease was to result if the rent should be unpaid at the end of 21 days. There was also a forfeiture in the case of bankruptcy, or compounding with creditors, or in an ordinary case of insolvency, and when the forfeiture took place the whole of the improvements effected by the tenant became confiscated to the landlord. The climax was contained in a clause which provided that the tenant should not be able to make any claim for compensation under the Act of 1870. Here was a case where they not only had a rack rent, but all the worst and most onerous and fraudulent covenants which it was possible to conceive forced upon the poor tenant. He was acquainted with another case of a farm of 18 acres, where an original rent of £1 2s. 6d. an acre had on the falling in of a previous lease, been increased to £1 17 s. 6d. an acre; and other cases he had heard of were as fol-
      1668
      lows:—Rent increased from £19 10 s. to £28 5s.; in another case, a farm of 37 acres, original rent £30, increased to £60; another increased from £38 to £58, £196 to £275, £66 to £112 10 s., and £33 to £50. These were all cases that had occurred since 1870, and in every case the helpless tenant had no choice but to pay the rent or be evicted, which meant ruin for himself and his family. He was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would say at once that such a state of things was not right, and that the parties to such contracts were not at all equal. All he asked was that in such extreme cases it should be competent for the tenant who had been coerced into the acceptance of such terms to go to the Court and ask for simple justice. He joined in the appeal which had been made to his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Corbet), and he trusted that his hon. Friend, having initiated this useful though premature discussion, would now withdraw his Amendment.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSwas not prepared to say whether this was or was not precisely the most convenient moment for discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for the county of Wicklow (Mr. Corbet); but he thought it unfortunate that the view which now dawned upon the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) had not dawned upon him yesterday afternoon and prevented the debate which then ensued, and which had been continued up to now. But, without going into that question, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the very serious view which had been placed before them by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) in assigning his reasons for inducing the hon. Member for the county of Wicklow to withdraw the Amendment. The view of the hon. Member for the County of Cork was that if the Amendment was postponed until they reached somewhere about the end of the Bill, a great effect might in the meantime be produced on the mind of the Prime Minister and the Government, who might be induced by pressure to alter or withdraw altogether proposals now contained in the end of the Bill. Now, that was a very serious view, and he hoped the Committee would not be in a hurry to accept the advice of the hon. Member for the County of Cork.

      1669
      The statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister was a well-considered statement. It pledged the Government to maintain the framework of the Bill as it was read a second time and accepted by the House; but the view of the hon. Member for the County of Cork and other hon. Gentlemen was that the Government should go back and should alter completely in one most important particular the whole scope, framework, and principle of the measure as it was read a second time, and as it was now being discussed in Committee. He did not wish to enter at length into the question now; but he thought it right that the Committee should know that hon. Members on that side of the House took a very serious view of the prospect opened out to them by the hon. Member for the County of Cork. If it really were the intention of hon. Gentlemen who supported that view to press a material alteration in the structure of the framework and the principle of the Bill at the end of the measure, it was not at all clear that it would not be more convenient and much more fair to all parties that the present discussion should be carried on until they arrived at some decision of it now, instead of postponing such a grave and important conclusion until the very end of the measure.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the discussion; but he desired to say that there was no part of the question in regard to which the feeling was stronger in many parts of Ireland than upon this. He understood the Prime Minister to say that, while the Government had their own views about the question, they did not desire to have it supposed that they were not open to consider any alteration that might be fairly and fully represented to them. He did not recognize the object of the noble Lord who had just addressed the Committee, unless the noble Lord meant to exercise some sort of moral intimidation upon the Prime Minister, in order to prevent him bringing his judgment to bear upon the question. Like the noble Lord, he did not intend to enter into the general question. He thought this was not a convenient place in which to discuss it. It would come on much more appropriately on the consideration of the 47th clause. Per-
      1670
      sonally, he thought it a great pity that the particular instance which had been cited should have been brought forward, as it was, in truth, a very weak illustration of a very strong case. Certainly, the hon. Member for Wicklow had admitted that the case of Lord Fitzwilliam was not the strongest that might be adduced. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment at this stage; and, with all the earnestness he could bring to bear, he would appeal to the Prime Minister to keep his mind open upon the question. And while recognizing—which he (Mr. C. Russell) did most fully—that it was no light matter to enable any person who had entered into a solemn contract to be released from that contract—while recognizing that most fully, and admitting that a strong and overwhelming case ought to be made out, he hoped that where it could be proved that harsh contracts did exist the parties who had been compelled to enter into them by threat of eviction or by other unfair means, would be released from the obligations which they imposed.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, he had asked the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) upon what part of the Bill he thought it would be best to discuss this Amendment, and the hon. and learned Member named the 47th clause. Now, it apeared to him (Mr. Parnell) that if they were to produce an impression upon Parliament with regard to the case of leaseholders, they ought to do it before they got to the end of the Bill. By the time the 47th clause was reached the Committee would be exceedingly weary and impatient, and he did not think it would be possible to have a favourable discussion in reference to that most important question—certainly the fourth most important question involved in the Bill. But whether they should definitely challenge the decision of the Committee now was another question, and would depend very much on the course of the debate; and the course which he humbly thought would be best calculated to effect a useful purpose was that they should not limit the discussion now upon the lease question on the 7th clause, but that they should put their case before the Committee and be guided by the discussion whether they would definitely take the opinion of the Committee upon this point at the present

      1671
      moment. It appeared that a very strong case had not Seen put before the Committee in selecting the case of Lord Fitzwilliam's lease as a test one. Certainly, the leases of Lord Fitzwilliam did not present the same amount of injustice and inequality as others. At the same time, he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone and others, who were in possession of special information in regard to the question, to give that special information now. The course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) to postpone the discussion until they reached the 47 clause was open to much objection.
      MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the proposal which had just been made seemed to be rather a curious one in face of the desire which had been so generally expressed that practical work should be done in connection with the Bill. He apprehended it was now proposed that there should be a long debate, to which Members representing Irish constituencies should contribute their own experience as to leases in Ireland; that they should then be at liberty to consider whether they had made their case strong enough; and at the end of the Bill raise the question again, abstaining from challenging the decision of the Committee now. Now, he thought that such a course would scarcely put the Committee in a fair position. It would be a mere obstruction to the progress of the Bill, and in the end it would be left open for hon. Members to challenge the general feeling of the Committee in their favour. It seemed to him that the question was naturally and properly raised at the present moment, and that the object of those who brought it forward would be wholly lost if it were postponed till the 47th clause came before the Committee. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) had tried to modify the suggestion of the Prime Minister by implying that the right hon. Gentleman had reserved to himself the right of dealing with that question when at a more convenient moment it came on for discussion; but there could be no doubt as to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman not only declared that it was outside the purpose and scope of the Government to inter-
      1672
      fere with future leases; but he went on to point out that if it were wrong to interfere with future leases and the rents fixed under them, it would be still worse to interfere with leases which had already been made, because the landlord had been invited under the Act of 1870 to enter into such leases. Not only was that a declaration which everyone who had read the Bill would have expected from the Government, but it was a statement distinct in its terms, and based on a really intelligible and good reason. He hoped the Committee would be given to understand that if the discussion was now to cease, and to be renewed at a more convenient time, in future they might rely upon the Government standing by a declaration of principle which had been so recently and so distinctly made.
      MR. LITTONwished to call the attention of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) to the fact that the Amendment could not be withdrawn without the consent of the Committee. At present the Amendment was the property of the Committee. He was of opinion that the question could not be fully debated on the present occasion without danger to the interests of the tenants of Ireland who held under leases. He was anxious not to consume the time of the Committee if the whole matter was to be brought up again. He had no wish to precipitate the discussion now.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to say a few words upon this undoubtedly important question. I wish to express the opinion of the Government upon the Amendment, which distinctly raises the question that the leaseholder should have the power, like all other tenants, of going to the Court and obtaining a judicial rent. I am not in a position to decide whether there may not be cases brought before the Commissioners in which some relief should be given to leaseholders who have been subjected to undue coercion. I will explain hereafter what I mean by undue pressure or coercion; but of all the modes in which relief could be given, there would be none open to so much objection, either prospectively, or still more with respect to current leases, as one that would enable the leaseholder to go into Court and obtain a judicial rent while the conditions of the lease remain unaltered in other respects. I speak under the dis-

      1673
      advantage of not having heard a full expression of the views of hon. Gentlemen who have a practical knowledge of the question; but I will frankly say that, in my opinion, it would be impossible to strike more directly at the very root of contract itself, as it is understood in Ireland, than to give relief in that form. The case in Ireland is this. A lease in Ireland is understood in one sense and for one purpose and effect only, and that is the purpose and effect of paying a certain sum of money for a certain number of years for the possession of a farm. A leaseholder in Ireland does not conclude that the lease is to annul and destroy the whole of his interest in the farm; but he does understand and know that it is a binding covenant to pay a certain sum for a certain time. Therefore, I should be extremely grieved if, in regard to present or future leases, it were found right or necessary by Parliament to authorize any alteration in these pecuniary contracts. That was the intention with which I spoke yesterday; and although I am not aware that I stated it as a final and irrevocable intention, yet I stated it as an intention, and I have seen no reason to depart from it on further considering the question—and it was our duty to consider it seriously before the introduction of the Bill. I did not intend to imply that there were no matters of importance which might be considered with respect to present leaseholders. I referred to one of these matters—the position in which a leaseholder might be left at the conclusion of his lease. I believe that I likewise referred to the case of the leaseholder, on the second reading, as a matter which would require consideration on the part of the House. If it is requisite to devote further consideration to the matter, the allegation which appears to be serious, and to deserve the attention of the Committee, and which on principle appears to be a fair allegation, is this—that the provision inserted in the Land Act of 1870 for the purpose of encouraging leases, and for the purpose of inducing landlords and tenants, by a free contract, to constitute something of permanency in the occupation—the allegation is that that provision has been used in a manner contrary to the intention of the Act—in a manner conformable to the letter of the Act, but not within the
      1674
      spirit of it. We must be very careful, I think, as to the exact terms in which we admit any attempt to deal with views of that kind. But doubtless there are, and I will not scruple to mention them, two matters which I conceive to be entirely contrary to the spirit of the Act of 1870, and in regard to which we should not feel ourselves precluded on a consideration of the amount of evidence which might be brought up in the debate from coming to such a conclusion as the case might appear to require. What I am going to state I believe will be admitted, not only by hon. Members on this side of the House, but by all, to be a very fair case to bring forward. I gather from the Report of the Bessborough Commission—it may have been the case only in very few instances, I believe in very few indeed—that tenants have had presented to them this alternative lease or eviction. So far as that may be judicially proved, the question may arise whether relief ought not to be afforded to those leaseholders justly and upon the strictest principle of equity by enabling them to go into Court to have a fair rent fixed, and by enabling them to have the lease quashed as a case of fraud. I will give another instance, which falls within the same principle, where I think relief may be given. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tyrone referred yesterday to the case of a man named Flynn. I presume that my hon. and learned Friend ascertained the facts to be correct. I do not know anything about them my self, and I therefore take the case hypothetically. In that case, and in others which have been presented to us, it is reported that, under the Act of 1870, some landlords have thought fit to say to their tenants—"You shall take this lease, and I will require you to make stipulations, harsh or otherwise, not merely with respect to the currency of the lease for 31 years, but I will require you, in all futurity far beyond the termination of your lease, to sacrifice all your improvements." If such a thing as that were done, I think that the interest of the tenant in his improvements ought to be revived. That is a course palpably founded on the intention of Parliament. I cannot say that the Government have any intention to interfere in altering the rents in present contracts; but we are prepared to give the relief which I have mentioned

      1675
      where it may be required. It appears to me undoubtedly that the employment of a power given by an Act of Parliament in a manner manifestly contrary to the intention of the Act is a fair matter for consideration. I cannot say that the Government have any intention to interfere to alter the rent in current contracts, although we should be perfectly ready to consider fairly, if it were shown that cases existed where the powers of the Act of 1870 had I been employed in a manner contrary to the intention of that Act, whether relief should not be given in those cases.
      MR. GIVANsaid, he thought the Committee would agree with him that the proper course to adopt would be to defer the discussion on this subject until a more convenient time. For his own part, he assured the Committee that since this Bill had been introduced into Parliament no more important subject had been raised than that which had been discussed that morning. The words of the Prime Minister, spoken last night, struck dismay into the heart of every Member of that House who cherished the interest of the tenant, as well as into the hearts of tenants throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. He was glad that the points of this subject were thoroughly understood by the Prime Minister, and his own desire was that the principle which had been admitted should be pushed to no greater length than would give justice and equity to the tenant. He hoped the Committee would not on that occasion discuss the question any further, and he appealed to the hon. Member for Wicklow not to press his Amendment.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I waited for a moment before rising, because I thought the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. W. Corbet) might have taken the opportunity of expressing his views as to the discussion which has taken place. But I think it is necessary for us to take notice of the very serious manner in which the questions involved in this Bill have been enlarged by the discussion of this evening, and, not least, by the observations of the Prime Minister himself. Throughout all the arguments adduced in favour of the Bill in this House, we have always understood that it was the intention of the Government to exclude from the operation of the Court cases in which leases have been
      1676
      obtained. We have quite understood that the Government put forward a peculiar case with regard to tenancies from year to year, which, in their opinion, rendered it reasonable that there should be recourse to the very exceptional machinery of the Court, for the purpose of deciding upon the amount of rent which the tenant was to pay; and when the proposal was made that the powers in the Bill, in the case of tenancies from year to year, should be extended to the case of tenants under lease, even qualified as the hon. Member for Wicklow proposes to qualify them, by confining them to cases where there is evidence of unfair pressure having been put upon those tenants, the Prime Minister, in accordance with the spirit which had operated throughout this Bill, got up at once and said he could not listen to such a proposal; that it would be a very serious invasion of the principles of the Bill and of the Act of 1870, and could not, therefore, be admitted here—that seemed to be the natural and reasonable course for the Government to take. We could not be surprised that some proposals should be made to extend the Bill; but we undoubtedly thought the Government were bound to maintain the lines on which the Bill was drawn, and to say at once that they could not assent to it. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Wicklow having been proposed and having been made the subject of considerable discussion, that discussion has been enlarged to-day by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane), the effect of which is to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wicklow, but to strike out the qualifying words "at an unfair rent, or subject to unreasonable covenants," and to give power to the tenant under lease to go into Court to surrender his lease, and to claim the rights and privileges accorded by the Bill to a tenant from year to year. This is a large question, and it is one which, having been raised, the Committee can hardly pass by. It may be true that a question somewhat similar might be raised at a subsequent part of the Bill; but we have the fact before us that it has been raised at this part of the Bill, and if we allow it to be withdrawn we shall leave the position of the question in a very unsettled state, because the Prime Minister, while objecting, as he

      1677
      did yesterday, to the proposal of the hon. Member for Wicklow, has thrown out a suggestion that it may be possible to find a place in the Bill where power might be inserted for the purpose of quashing certain leases. That, I say, is a very large question, and I should like to know from the Attorney General for Ireland how the law at present stands as to quashing a lease obtained under coercion or fraud. If there be such a case of coercion and fraud, I should like to know whether, as the law stands, the lease could be quashed? But the argument presented to us is, that in some of these leases, or, as some say, in many of them, there are provisions which are unfair, and which there ought to be an opportunity of getting rid of. If that be so, you are really opening the whole question in a manner which, I think, we have a right to complain of. Members for Ireland get up and bring forward cases in which they say, there, this, and that hardship exists, and the Government say—"We will bring forward a new clause to meet these particular cases. I do not, of course, know what effect the proceedings of the Government in meeting every case of supposed hardship which may be brought forward with the promise of a new clause may have upon the passage of this measure; but, for my own part, I think that the prospects of speedy progress under those circumstances are not very good. We are told that this question is brought forward at a wrong time. I do not think it is. The clause deals with the intervention of the Court, and I think that now is the time to settle who are the persons to go before it. Originally, it was the tenants from year to year; then the Court was opened to the landlords; and if it be the intention to let in the leaseholders, then I say that this is the proper time at which to discuss that question. We are told, however, that the subject should be put off, because it has been raised at an inconvenient moment. I do not think the present is an inconvenient moment, although I quite understand that it would be inconvenient to the promoters of the Amendment to discuss it immediately after the Prime Minister had pronounced against it, and when they had an opportunity offered to them of bringing it forward on another occasion. These are the feelings I have with regard to this
      1678
      matter, which, I think, the Committee must consider to be one of a large and serious character.
      MR. LAINGsaid, that, having listened to the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister, he regarded it as very unfair to impute inconsistency to the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the Amendment, he thought it reasonable, and trusted hon. Members below the Gangway opposite would, by not pressing it then, co-operate with hon. Members on that side of the House in allowing time to the Government for the purpose of considering the best way of giving it effect.
      MR. W. J. CORBETsaid, in consequence of the appeals made to him from the opposite side of the House, and from his hon. Friends near him, as also in consequence of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, which, to a considerable extent, admitted the propriety of his proposal, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.
      THE CHAIRMANpointed out that, before that could be done with the consent of the Committee, it was necessary that the hon. Member for Carlow, if he thought fit, should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wicklow.
      MR. MACFARLANEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Amendment again proposed.
      MR. WARTONwas opposed to the withdrawal of the Amendment. The Committee would now see how the Prime Minister was being educated by the Leader of the Irish section. The Prime Minister had now made a perfect change of front, and the reason was that what he had said yesterday had caused dismay in Ireland. As to the alleged reason that some of the leases had been obtained by fraud, in all such cases a Court of Equity could grant relief. The question having been raised, he submitted that the present was the proper time to discuss it.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I do not rise for the purpose of opposing any obstacle to the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wicklow, but simply to explain the purport of the vote we should give if the question is

      1679
      divided upon by the Committee. By that vote we should declare that the Government are not satisfied that it would be right to permit interference with the rent which a tenant is to pay, maintaining the lease alive. The allegation would be that such interference ought to be founded on the principle of the existing law—namely, by quashing the lease. With regard to the question of leases which have been made in contravention of the plain meaning of the Act of 1870, I may say that at the proper time we shall be prepared to enter upon that question; but I am not prepared to give any sanction to an alteration for the purpose of obtaining a judicial rent, and, at the same time, maintaining the lease alive.
      MR. CALLANwished to know whether, in case the Amendment was negatived, it would be competent for the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) to move the Amendment standing in his name upon the 47th clause, which was very similar in terms to that before the Committee?
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had not yet been able to study the Amendments be far in advance; but if the Amendment referred to were identical with the present, it would not be competent to the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) to move it, in the event of the Amendment now before the Committee being negatived.
      MR. CALLANsaid, he was in a position to throw some light upon the question as to whether there were instances of leases having been forced upon tenants under the threat of eviction. In one case, in which the lease expired three years ago, the rent, which was formerly £130, had been increased to £205 a-year. The landlord forwarded the new lease to the bailiff, requiring him to get it signed at once by the tenant, who, however, declined to sign it. The landlord then wrote to the tenant, requiring him to give up possession. Notwithstanding that the tenant had spent £1,600 in improvements, one clause of the lease offered to him was to this effect—
      "Provided always and it is hereby expressly agreed, that the said lessee shall not make any claim for compensation in respect of disturbance or improvements, or for compensation in any other respect under any of the clauses or provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act of 1870."
      1680
      Again, he had been furnished with a copy of a lease forced upon the tenants on the estate of an English nobleman under the threat that they would be deprived of their holding at the expiration of their old leases, in which case the rent was more than 100 per cent above the Government valuation. He was acquainted with many cases in which leases had been imposed upon tenants in Ireland under the threat of eviction; and he trusted that the Government, although they might vote against the present Amendment, would in no way commit themselves to allowing this state of things to continue.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I have considered the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), to which reference has just been made. The proposal of the hon. Member for Cork is that where a lease is obtained by the threat of eviction, or undue influence, the Court may declare such lease void. That is essentially different to the question now before the Committee; and, in the event of the present Amendment being negatived, it would be competent to the hon. Member for Cork to move the Amendment standing in his name.
      Amendment (Mr. William Corbet) negatived.
      Amendments proposed,
      In page 6, line 31, leave out "what is;" in page 6, line 31, after "paid," insert "by such tenant to the landlord for his holding, and thereupon."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland)
      Amendments agreed to.
      MR. ERRINGTONsaid, that the next Amendment stood in his name, and related to the important question of arrears of rent. He was aware that a number of Amendments proposed to the 13th clause also dealt with the same question; and, as a friend of the Bill, he did not desire to be responsible for any unnecessarily lengthy discussion taking place. Therefore, he was willing not to move it; but he trusted that the Attorney General for Ireland would lay the new clause, by which he understood Her Majesty's Government were prepared to deal with this question, upon the Table as soon as possible.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he wished to add words to the clause for the protection of the labourers, who, he con-

      1681
      sidered, had been badly treated by the tenant farmers in Ireland. He was not prepared to insist upon the exact form of the Amendment he was about to move, and would be satisfied by the adoption of such words as the Attorney General for Ireland believed would improve the position of the labourer in the sense indicated.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 6, line 31, after "paid," insert "and this provision shall be deemed to apply to cottier tenants who are day labourers and hold cottages, or cottages and gardens,"—(Sir Hervey Bruce.)
      Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet would, on consideration, understand that this was not the proper place at which to introduce his Amendment. He had already stated that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring up a clause dealing with the subject before the Bill left Committee. Under those circumstances, he trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.
      THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Amendment as it stood was out of place, the word "paid" having been struck out, and the words of the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland ending with the word "thereupon" having been added to the clause.
      SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, that when he put the Amendment on the Paper the word "paid" was part of the clause.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSagreed with his hon. Friend who had just sat down, that the question raised by him was an important and substantial one, affecting as it did the agricultural labourers of Ireland, whose position was clearly made worse by the Bill as it stood. But, after the assurance of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, he thought his hon. Friend might with propriety withdraw his Amendment. At the same time, he thought it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would place the clause which it was intended to bring up upon the Table some days before the Committee were called upon to discuss it.
      MR. WARTONpointed out that the manner in which the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland was worded and introduced was very inconvenient,
      1682
      inasmuch as the arrangement accorded with no other Amendment on the Pepar.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the important question as to the condition of the Irish labourer could conveniently be considered in Clause 46 in connection with the sub-section relating to cottage allotments not exceeding a quarter of an acre.
      MR. P. MARTINpressed upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland to lay upon the Table, at the earliest possible date, his clause with respect to labourers. He need hardly remind hon. Members that a considerable agitation existed in Ireland in relation to this question. The question of the improvement of the condition of agricultural labourers had been many times before the House, and promises had over and over again been made that the matter should be looked into. He recommended Her Majesty's Government to allay the existing agitation as soon as possible by the production of the clause by which it was now intended to deal with this matter.
      THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Baronet (Sir Hervey Bruce), that inasmuch as it would not make sense with the word "thereupon" in the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland, his Amendment could not be put.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, that the Irish labourer ought to be brought within the provisions of the Bill relating to a fair rent.
      THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire that he was discussing words which were not before the Committee. The next Amendment, which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Northcote), was also open to the objection which applied to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, and that unless it were reconciled with the wording of the Bill it could not be put.
      SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he had an objection to leaving the labourers out in the cold, so to speak, until they reached the 46th clause.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment could not be put for the reason he had stated.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the Amendment had been moved before the objection was raised.
      THE CHAIRMAN: It does not read with the last Amendment after which it

      1683
      comes, and, therefore, as it stands, cannot be put.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved to leave out lines 32 and 33, which, were as follows:—
      "Such application may also be made by the landlord and tenant jointly. A fair rent means such a rent as in the opinion of."
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, when he was ruled out of Order, he was asking Her Majesty's Government whether, before the Committee proceeded further with the present clause, it would not be better that they should make some statement as to their intentions as regarded the position of the labourer. He was one of those who thought that if it was right for the Court to fix a fair rent for the tenants in Ireland the Irish labourers also should be allowed to participate in the benefit which might result. He thought the Government might give some idea of their views, because it was hardly fair to ask the Committee to decide upon this large and important question, which after all was the cardinal point of the Bill, until they knew what position the labourers were to occupy in the future. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the other night to say that the landlords would be at liberty in the future to charge labourers whatever rent they pleased; but the Committee ought to have an understanding from the Government, before they proceeded further, as to whether that was their intention or not. He begged to move that Progress be reported.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, a Motion to report Progress in order to introduce some matter foreign to the question before the Committee was a very irregular proceeding.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLadmitted that, under ordinary circumstances, the Motion would be irregular; but the Motion in this case was entirely owing to the course the Chairman had taken. He wished to point out that the proposal of the Attorney General for Ireland would absolutely cut out a whole page of Amendments, and there was no single Amendment left. The Chairman had put the Amendment of
      1684
      the hon. Member for Coleraine, and then had discovered that the other Amendments could not be put; and he therefore thought the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin), in consideration of the extraordinary position in which the Committee had been placed, was justified in making his Motion in order to elicit the opinion of the Prime Minister. He thought that Members having Amendments were hardly treated; and he recollected no precedent for an Amendment being put which designedly cut out every other Amendment on the Paper. Not a single Amendment could be put now until that of the Attorney General for Ireland's was reached.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he had not had the remotest intention of cutting out the Amendments of other hon. Members; but their Amendments could easily be moved lower down the clause.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he was one of the sufferers in a certain sense, because he had an Amendment which, if the Attorney General for Irelands's Amendment was carried, he would be prevented from moving. The Committee were really in a position of some complication. With regard to his own Amendment, he should, when the question of the present Amendment was put, explain his own views as to the course taken by the Government, and as to the mode in which he should deal with the Amendment, so far as he was able to deal with it; but there were two questions upon this Notice both of which deserved consideration, and which he thought might properly be taken into consideration upon this clause. They were the questions raised by the hon. Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Northcote). Both these were accidentally shut out from the particular place in which they stood on the Paper in consequence of the omission of the words upon which they were grounded. That would not, as he understood, prevent a discussion of the words and principles involved by these Amendments when they came to the proper place; and he understood that what had caused a little anxiety in the mind of the hon. Member for Coleraine was that language was used which seemed to imply that he could not raise the question of the labourers until some distant clause

      1685
      of the Bill was reached. That he could not agree to; but he thought that when they came to put in words further on they would get a fair opportunity of discussing this question without any difficulty. It seemed to him that the course taken would be free from complication, if it was clearly understood that Members having Amendments would not be shut out from discussion in the course of the 7th clause, although they were at this particular part of the clause.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I should like to make a remark as to the point of Order raised by the noble Lord. It was impossible for me to do anything else than to move the insertion of the words which have thrown out other Amendments. Upon that point the Chairman has no option. It is a different matter when there is a proposal to omit words which cut out all other Amendments; for then the Chair tries to move as few of them as possible, and I moved only the omission of the words "such application may be also made."
      CAPTAIN AYLMER: If you, Sir, had not hurried over these Amendments—
      MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to call the hon. Member to Order for challenging the ruling of the Chairman in this way. I give no opinion of the frequency with which the Chairman's ruling is challenged; but to say that the Chairman has hurried over Amendments is, in my opinion, a breach of Order.
      CAPTAIN AYLMER: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He should have listened to what I was going to say. I was saying that if you, Sir, had not hurried over these Amendments—
      MR. GLADSTONE: I call the hon. Member to Order, subject to your decision, Sir.
      CAPTAIN AYLMER: I will leave out those words. I meant simply this. That as soon as you called attention to the fact—
      MR. GLADSTONE: I again rise to Order, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he adheres to those words or not.
      CAPTAIN AYLMER: I was quite prepared, Sir, when you said the Amendment of the hon. Member for Exeter—
      MR. GLADSTONE: I again rise to Order; and if the Chairman is precluded from any sense of personal delicacy from
      1686
      putting this Question, which ought to be put to the Committee, I shall be prepared, in whatever may be the regular manner, to put it to the Committee whether language of this character ought to be used?
      CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he was perfectly prepared to withdraw his words. He was trying to explain—he meant no offence to the Chairman—that he was not quick enough to follow the ruling of the Chairman that the word "thereby" being omitted, that excluded the Amendment of the hon. Member for Exeter. He was quite prepared to move that Amendment himself.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee must remember that the hon. Member for Exeter said it would be more convenient to move that Amendment in another place. It was only after that intimation that the next Amendment was called from the Chair. Does the hon. Member wish that Progress should now be moved?
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he did not wish to prolong the scene which had occurred, and which he did not think was to the advantage of the Committee; but he moved to report Progress for the reasons he had submitted. The Prime Minister thought that had been a disorderly and irregular proceeding. He was sorry if that was the view of the Prime Minister; but he must point out that he rose to call attention to a question which, to his mind, was of very great importance. That question, under ordinary circumstances, would have been raised by the Amendment of his hon. Friend. That Amendment could not be put: and he would have had no other opportunity of calling attention to the question, except by moving to report Progress, in order to call the attention of the Government to it. If the Government were prepared to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman below him, he should be ready to withdraw his Motion; but he thought the Committee ought to have some understanding from the Government that the whole question of the position of the labourers should be discussed, and, if necessary, a division taken upon it before the 7th clause was finally settled. If fair rent was to be settled, Members on that side of the House were of opinion that it should be in the interest of the labourers, who, above all, had been more rack-rented

      1687
      than any other class. If the Government would give an assurance upon this point, he would not further delay the Committee.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had not described the conduct of the hon. Member as disorderly and irregular; but he thought the Motion was inexpedient in itself. It was competent to any hon. Member to propose in the course of the discussion of the 7th clause that the subject of rent for labourers' cottages should be introduced; but he was bound to say the Government were convinced that it could not be fairly dealt with till they came to the 46th clause. Another subject of anxiety was this—they hoped that the hon. Member would not propose the clause in such a way as that, if they felt compelled to meet it with a negative, and if the Committee took the same view, they should be precluded from introducing the subject, because the subject was a proper one for consideration, and he did not wish at this moment to express any adverse opinion. He was not sure that that difficulty might not arise; but there was perfect freedom to hon. Members to raise the question of the 7th clause, and that, he thought, was all that was needed.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought the danger would be very much obviated if, when they came to the discussion of the subject, the Government would say what they intended to do.
      MR. A. M. SULLIVANconsidered that the hon. Member was quite within his right in moving to report Progress; but that course had placed hon. Members below the Gangway in a very unfair position. They had been taunted the other night with being silent on a similar attempt to draw the Government; and although they did not consider the labourers' question the special property of any Members of the House, yet there were hon. Members who took a peculiar and strong interest in the subject, and, feeling that the Government were right in putting off the matter to a subsequent stage, they held their tongues upon this occasion. He would be the last to say that this sudden affection for Irish labourers was not made in good faith; but it was made to appear that the special friends of the Irish labourer were the hon.
      1688
      Gentleman and hon. Members above the Gangway, while the Irish Members, whose interest in the Irish labourers had not begun yesterday, were giving a helpful silence to the deliberations of the Committee. He rose to say, on behalf of himself and some of his Colleagues, whose interest in the Irish labourers had not been assumed for tactical purposes—they had desired to improve the Irish labourer's position in 1870—that they felt the time of the Committee was being wasted by this Motion, because the Government had refused to be drawn into a discussion of a question which could not be fully discussed at this stage of the Bill.
      MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am willing to believe that there is a general feeling in each quarter of the House that this Bill should leave the House of Commons with the labourers' question properly considered; but I think it would be very unwise to discuss, and I hope the Committee will not encourage any discussion, as to what part of the House feels more interest on this subject than another. I also hope that the labourers will not be damaged by any difference of opinion as regards the particular time at which the discussion can be brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) has asked the Government to state upon this clause exactly what we propose to do with regard to the labourers. I am not prepared to do that, and I do not think it would be a convenient time to make such a statement. I believe that the result would be that in this clause, which is the most important clause as affecting the tenants, we should have another question introduced, which is not the main question of the Bill, although it is a question of immense importance, and there might be confused statements as to the position of the tenants, which would be damaging to the position of the labourers. It is rather unreasonable to ask the Government to do that, after what has been stated. I will put on the Table an Amendment expressing our views, and when I propose that Amendment the question must be brought forward. I thought there was an understanding that the Government, in dealing with this very difficult question, should consider how they could best deal with it, and should bring forward a separate

      1689
      clause. Now we are called upon to anticipate the discussion upon that, and all of a sudden to bring the subject forward for discussion. That course would be open to the objection that it had been sprung upon the Committee, and that hon. Members had been taken by surprise. I am not prepared to bring the question forward on this clause. This is a question of fixing a fair rent; and if hon. Members wish to have a discussion as to whether and how far the rents for labourers' cottages should be controlled, they will not be prevented from thoroughly bringing that question forward. It is a very important matter; and perhaps I may appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) not to put any formal difficulty in the way of that being done, and to oblige us, with our strong feeling that this is not the right time to raise the question, to vote against his Amendment.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, all that was asked was, where and when it should be discussed? And it was only fair that the Government should tell them. They had been told that there was a certain clause in the Bill upon which the question might be raised and discussed. He and those who acted independently with regard to this Bill were most anxious that it should be fully and fairly discussed. They took a deep interest in the well-being of the landlord, the tenant, and the labourer; and, from the labourers' point of view, the Prime Minister would do well to state where they could discuss the question, because the labourers' position deserved serious consideration.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERrepeated, that the Government thought the question could be best treated by a clause which he would undertake, on behalf of the Government, to move.
      MR. MACDONALDreminded the Committee that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) brought forward a Motion a short time ago dealing especially with the labourers' question, and the Government gave a distinct assurance that at the earliest moment they would deal with it. Why this trying to force the matter? They had a Government pledged to do right—one that was more disposed to do well for Ireland than any one that had ever existed. And now what was this new-born zeal for the
      1690
      labourers? Who was on the Front Opposition Bench when the question was discussed? Only one person—the Nobleman who, long years ago, said—
      "Let laws and learning, arts and commerce die,
      But give us still our old nobility."
      The noble Lord (Lord John Manners) was filled with new-born zeal for the labourer, and he appeared to have given up the old nobility. There was also the hon. Baronet, the Member for Coleraine. But the other Benches were empty; and the labourer was brought there as a red herring across the path of the Government.
      LORD GEORGE HAMILTONrose to Order, and asked whether any hon. Member was in Order in imputing such a motive to other hon. Members?
      THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member would do much better not to impute such motives. The Question before the Committee is the question of reporting Progress.
      MR. NEWDEGATEsuspected the announcement from the Government would come, and he rejoiced that it had been made; but he wished to point out why this question was applicable to the substance of the present clause. They were creating a new Governmental authority to intervene between the landlord and the tenant; and he felt that if they were to create an efficient authority to protect the Irish labourers, it must be coupled with this novel authority by which they proposed to intervene in. regard to all properties in Ireland. He hoped the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) would excuse him for saying that he (Mr. Newdegate) had been known a long time in the House, and, as one of those who carried the Ten Hours' Act, for expressing some interest in the labourers—even though they were Irish.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary misunderstood something I said a few minutes ago. The matter stands thus. The hon. Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) desires to raise on the 7th clause the question of the labourers. A technical difficulty prevents him raising it at this moment; but he still has the power, and he intends to exercise it, to raise the question before we come to the close of the 7th clause. The Prime Minister

      1691
      assented to this; but, at the same time, to guard himself from saying that the Government assented to that being the proper time, he expressed a hope that the hon. Member would not put the question in any such form as might preclude or embarrass any subsequent Motion the Government might desire to make in the interest of the labourers. I, in reply to that, said it would be much easier and more certain to enable my hon. Friend to avoid putting the question in a way embarrassing to the Government, if we were informed before we came to the discussion, or on the discussion, exactly what the Government proposed. It is all very well to say this question has been suddenly sprung upon the Committee; but it is not suddenly sprung. It is a question which has been in the minds of all of us in the discussions on the Bill, and everybody knew the moment must come for considering the question; and all we ask is—and that was why my hon. Friend moved to report Progress—whether we may have an assurance that we shall not be shut out from the discussion of this question on this clause? If the Government have any reason why we should be shut out, they should tell us what they propose. But I hope we shall now be allowed to go on, and I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Motion.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had not entirely gained his object; otherwise he should withdraw his Motion. He was quite sensible that the right hon. Gentleman had made certain concessions; and if the Government would answer one question, the Committee could proceed with the Bill. The worst cases of rack-renting had occurred in regard to sub-tenants, the tenants to whom the Bill was to apply; and all that he wanted to know was whether the Government did or did not mean that the sub-tenants and the tenants to whom the Bill would apply, should have the same benefits from this clause as the tenants to whom the present law applied?
      MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think the hon. Member is a little under a misapprehension of the facts. It is not the case that "sub-tenant" is another term for "labourer." They are quite distinct, and if the hon. Member wishes to raise the question of sub-tenants, it would be better to raise it in actual words with regard to sub-tenants. It is
      1692
      quite a mistake to state that the two terms are one and the same.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, there were labourers who were also sub-tenants; and the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question, whether the subtenants were to have the advantage of the Bill or not?
      MR. GLADSTONE: The sub-tenant is the man who of all others gets the advantage of this Bill.
      MR. MACARTNEYstated that there were a great number of sub-tenant labourers in Ireland who occupied small holdings on the farms of small farmers, and their condition was sometimes extremely hard. In the North of Ireland those men got a house each with a small plot of ground, for which they were supposed to pay a small sum annually; but, in addition to the rent, they were bound to give the farmers either two or three days of every week in the year. Those men occupied the position of sub-tenants. He thought the arrangement in this clause an excellent one, and he saw nothing to prevent hon. Members from bringing forward their Amendments afterwards.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it was clear that the clause as it stood did not show whether the sub-tenants who were labourers would be excluded from the operation of the Bill.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question again proposed, "That the words 'such application may also be made by the landlord and tenant jointly. A fair rent means such a rent as in the opinion of' stand part of the Clause."
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to say a few words on the effect which this omission may have on the Amendment I intended to move, but which I shall now be precluded from moving. The clause, as it was originally drawn and inserted in the Bill, provided that a fair rent should be fixed by the Court, subject to certain directions which were to be given in the Bill. Many of us considered that those directions were not of a satisfactory character, and I, therefore, gave Notice that it would be my wish to move certain words which would alter the character of those Amendments. I will not go fully into the matter, but, speaking generally, the object was to limit the discretion of the Court in fixing a fair rent so far as to

      1693
      prescribe the kind of interests which the Court should take into account in fixing a fair rent. Subsequently to that the Government decided to leave out part of the clause which gave these directions, and instead thereof to provide that the Court shall fix the fair rent. If that is maintained I shall not move anything in the nature of my Amendment; but I see that there are other Amendments, especially one by the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), which would go back, to a certain extent, to give these directions to the Court. If the hon. and learned Member moves that, and it should be adopted, I shall probably think it necessary to move some words in addition to it. At the present moment I am satisfied to accept the Attorney General for Ireland's words without any addition.
      MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has taken a course which is well qualified to promote progress. I almost infer that he is prepared to accept the proposal of the Attorney General for Ireland, and, on the whole, to leave the matter to the discretion of the Court. I am bound to say it would not have been fair, with the Amendments we propose to introduce references to the tenant's interests. I must go a little further. I wish to state without prejudice my own opinion as to the proposals to introduce references both to the landlord's and the tenant's interests; and it is, that we had bettor have no reference to the tenant's interests. We have proceeded, as I think wisely and to my great satisfaction, by dealing in the 1st clause with the tenant's interests entirely apart from reference to the landlord's interests; and I would appeal to my right hon. Friend, who has given indications of a particular view on this subject, whether that is not the wisest way to deal with it? If we mention the tenant's interest and the landlord's interest together, that will at once give rise to the notion that they are in direct opposition to one another, and that what you give to the one you take from the other. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) made use of a pithy and happy expression on this subject, which I thought was not only true, but contained a pregnant portion of the truth on this matter. He said in substance this—Whatever the abstract notion in Ireland might be, and in reference to the holding of land, two halves
      1694
      were more than the whole. And I think that should be borne in mind—that is to say, the man who is to occupy the land, according to the usage of the country and in concurrence with his own interest, is ready to pay in tenant right and rent a greater sum for land than he would consent to pay on any consideration for land alone. If a landlord had bought up the tenant right, he never could get from the tenant a full acknowledgment of that tenant right. I have heard of cases in Ulster where landlords have bought up tenant right, and have then attempted to add the interest of the right. I think it is our business, as far as we can, to prevent the growth of the mischievous notion of direct conflict between the interest of the landlord in his rent and of the tenant in his tenant right. I hope the Committee will forgive me for giving utterance to this opinion. It is not done with any exclusive view as to either party, but because we believe it is best for the structure and well-working of the Bill. I hope we shall succeed in keeping the definition of fair rent as simple as possible.
      MR. GORSTsaid, he could not assent to the idea that two halves were greater than the whole. Whatever Parliament or the Court settled as a fair rent, that which they took from the landlord would be that which they gave to the tenant, and that which they gave to the landlord would be that which they took from the tenant. The Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment would leave the determination of this difficult question to the Court; but he thought the Court should determine the fair rent upon some principle. If Parliament gave no indication of the principle by which the Court was to be guided, the property of every landlord and every tenant would be left entirely to the caprice of the Court. He did not think there was any precedent for this; and if the Legislature gave no indication to the Court as to what principle it was to proceed upon, there would be endless litigation. Everybody would have to go to the Court and become involved in litigation before the rent of any holding could be settled. But the evil would not stop there, because the Court would not give with its judgments the principles upon which it had proceeded. If the Court were like an English Court it would give the principles upon which it proceeded, and the principles would be-

      1695
      come settled by judicial decisions, and we should have a Code of Jugde-made law by which everybody could beforehand determine the value of any particular kind of property. The consequence of leaving the Court without any principles to guide it would be that no landlord would be able to tell what was a fair rent to demand, and no tenant would be able to tell what was a fair rent to give, without going to the Court. In the particular circumstances of Ireland, and of political Parties, that might be a convenient course to take. The Government had been asked, over and over again, how they were going to measure the tenant's interest; but it appeared that that question was never going to be answered, and he thought those who desired that legislation should be based on principles of sound political economy ought to protest against this course. At all events, the Bill ought to define the landlord's and the tenant's interests, and to give such instructions as might guide the Court in applying the law.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought the Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment was a great improvement on the drafting of the Bill, and he did not believe the Court would have much difficulty in arriving at a fair rent. Fair rent in Ireland did not mean rack rent; and it would be found when the Court was in operation that of the rents at present existing two-thirds were fair rents, and not rack rents. As the Bill had been understood, it must be recollected that the tenant of any holding in Ireland would not be able to assign his interest in the holding except for the term which he held it; and he did not think that saying by Act of Parliament that the tenant might sell his interest would put him in any better position. Another element in the tenant's interest was what he had paid for the property. He had his tenant right; but where the tenant had paid nothing, that right would not be granted by the Court. Then there was a third element—namely, improvements. He had no doubt that where a tenant had not made any improvements the Court would not award him compensation; though where a tenant had made improvements the Court, no doubt, would give compensation. He thought the limitations which it had been proposed to insert in Clause 7 would have very much tied the hands of the Court, and
      1696
      would have tended to do great injustice to the landlords. The Committee might very well entrust the settling of a fair rent to the Court, provided that the Court was constituted in such a manner as to command the confidence of all parties. The Court must be not a Court of landlords or a Court of tenants, but in every sense of the words a Court of Justice; and if that was secured, he did not think there would be any difficulty in arriving at a fair rent, which would practically meet the wishes of both parties.
      MR. BRYCEsaid, he thought the Government did well in not attempting any definition of fair rent. The criticisms of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) were very natural from the point of view of an Englishman and a lawyer; but he ventured to remind him that there were things which it was very difficult to define in the abstract, although they were well known in the concrete. If one travelled in Ireland and asked people to tell him what was a fair rent, no doubt some difficulty would be experienced in getting a clear definition; but the people engaged in agriculture were always able to point to some particular estate on which they considered the rents to be fair. Therefore, he did not suppose that the Court, which would be composed of persons familiar with the working of farms in Ireland, would have any difficulty in forming an opinion as to what was a fair rent. From his own experience in travelling through Ireland, he could say that practically the persons concerned on both sides—landlords, agents, tenants—knew what was meant by a fair rent, and agreed in the sense they put on the term. At the same time, he must express a hope that, considering the uneasiness which existed in the minds of the tenants, caused by the belief that the omission of the words which had stood in Clause 7 might prejudice their interests, Her Majesty's Government would admit some words with the object of conveying to them that not only the value of their improvements; but also, over and above that value, their goodwill, occupation, right, or whatever else one was to call the tenants' interest, would be taken into account in estimating the fair rent.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he could not accept the doctrine laid down that the tenant right and the interest of the land-

      1697
      Lord did not in any way interfere with each other, and that it would simplify things if the Committee made up their minds to dissociate them. To a certain extent he agreed with the Prime Minister in saying that when a landlord bought up the tenant right he would receive an equivalent; but he could not go the whole length of the argument of the Prime Minister, which amounted to this—that the rent would be the same whether there was tenant right or whether there was not. He disputed that proposition entirely. It had been pointed out before the Commissioners, as by no means an uncommon case, that the lowest price paid for the tenant right was 20 years' purchase; the average being 40 years' and the maximum 60 years' purchase. Could the right hon. Gentleman mean that, in cases of that kind, the same price would be paid whether the tenant had paid for the tenant right or whether he had paid nothing for it? [Mr. GLADSTONE: I do not believe it.] Then, what became of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the tenant right and the landlord's interest were utterly dissociated? [Mr. GLADSTONE: That was not my argument.] He did not share the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the Court would have no difficulty in arriving at a fair rent. He advised the noble Lord to read some of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman on this question. He would find in them a whole series of arguments that would positively appall him, and shake his faith in the case with which a fair rent would be settled by the Court. They were told what the Court would do and what the Court would not do; but he reminded the Committee that these statements were utterly worthless. In his recollection similar things were said during the passage of the Act of 1870 with regard to the effect of the Bill, and it was perfectly well known now that they were of no more value than waste paper. In that year the right hon. Gentleman said that from the day that the Act passed every Irish tenant would be absolutely bound by the contract into which he entered; but the fact that it was now contemplated to interfere with existing leases was a proof of the total fallacy of that assumption. He was bound to say that he had no
      1698
      more faith in the assumptions of the present day than he had in those of 1870.
      MR. LITTONsaid, that he had come to the conclusion that it was wise on the part of the Government to abandon the idea of defining fair rent, and to revert to the system which his hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) had said was perfectly well understood throughout Ireland. There would, he thought, be no difficulty in getting two honest farmers to agree upon what was a fair rent. The Bill, as it originally stood, contained a direct reference to the interest of the tenant, by which they had been led to believe that there was a value attached to the words which probably went far beyond what they indicated. But these words having been struck out, he thought the tenants would be naturally alarmed, because they looked upon them as the recognition of the principle for which they had contended for years, and would, at the same time, impute a change of mind to the Government. Now, he was of opinion that political considerations were as important in such matters as legal considerations; and, looking at the question from a political point of view, he asked whether it was wise to frame this clause strictly upon the lines of legal draftsmanship? Would there not be a loss of weight and power in adopting the bare and narrow language of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland in place of the full and explicit language of the clause? If there was such loss of weight and power by leaving unsatisfied the aspirations of a large class of persons who were in favour of the Bill as it originally stood, then he would ask the Government to agree to the admission of some words which would remove those anxieties. He did not wish any words to be inserted which would convey to the tenant the idea that he was to have anything over or above what the simple term "fair rent" would give him: but if, as it was, or ought to be, the desire of everyone in that House that the Irish tenant should be contented with this measure, and if this could be secured by the addition of words which would meet the tenant's wishes without doing injustice to the landlord, then, he said, there was a strong case for adding the words contained in his Amendment lower down upon the Paper—namely, "having re-

      1699
      gard to the tenant's interest in his holding."
      THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone that it was not competent to him to advocate the Amendment referred to, inasmuch as there was a number of other Amendments standing before it upon the Paper.
      MR. LITTONsaid, in that case, he had merely to express his willingness to accept any words that might be suggested which would secure the object he had in view.
      MR. CARTWRIGHTsaid, he hoped that, if the clause was not adopted as it originally stood, the Amendment which the Committee would sanction would not be that of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone.
      MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that the omission of the words proposed by the Government to be struck out would raise the question whether they ought or ought not to put into the clause any indication that the Court must not charge rent upon the tenant's interest in his holding, whether that interest was in the shape of improvements or otherwise. He deplored that the Government had receded from their original intention of putting into Clause 7 a plain statement or indication that, in determining a fair rent to be imposed upon the tenant, that in no case should he be rented upon his own interest in the holding. The Government were, no doubt, anxious to avoid the difficulties threatened by the Opposition in connection with this subject; but he reminded them that they were only purchasing present case by laying up future troubles. They left to the Court to determine what was a fair rent; and either they intended, or they did not intend, that the Court should act upon the lines of the Bill as it originally stood. If the Government believed that the Court ought to take into consideration the elements referred to in the clause as it then stood before the Committee, there could be no sensible reason why they should not say so. But if they believed that the Court ought not to take those elements into consideration, then he would only say that the change proposed by the Government was ominous, and full of alarm and dismay to the tenants of Ireland. He ventured to differ from the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr.
      1700
      Litton) that the Court, in considering what was a fair rent, would take these elements into consideration; and suggested to him, as a matter of law, that the Court would be held to the purview of the elements legally before them, and that the only interest of the tenant which the Court could legally consider, unless they had the authority which the Government originally contemplated, was the legalized interest which the tenant now had in his improvements, and in compensation for disturbance under the Act of 1870, which latter could not arise until he was actually disturbed. Nothing was clearer to his mind than that the Government wanted to take a short cut out of the difficulties presented to them by the Notice Paper of the House, by hinting to the Commissioners that the Government's mind was expressed in the words of the clause as it originally stood, and by expecting the Commissioners to save them from the broil that would arise in the discussion from their endeavours to carry the clause without alteration. If he thought the Commissioners could fairly and legally do that, he should be glad to aid the Government in lightening the difficulties which surrounded this subject. As he had already pointed out, if the clause was mutilated the Commissioners could only take into view the existing legalized interest of the tenant in his holding. They would give him the measure of that, and he asked the Attorney General for Ireland where the Commissioners were to discover or invent any other legalized interest of the tenant other than those which he had indicated? His uneasiness entirely arose from this—that the Court would be precluded from taking any interest of the tenant into view save that which existed in legal purview at the present moment. The Government, when they originally drafted this clause, had that fact before them; and with regard to its operation in Ireland, he said that there was no clause in the Bill which attracted public confidence so largely as Clause 7, and that there was no line in Clause 7, nor proposition or sub-section of the clause, deemed by the tenants to be more beneficial, equitable, or necessary for them than the very lines which were now proposed to be excised. And why? Because in those lines an attempt was made to recognize in the Statute Book that the tenant of Ireland outside Ulster—

      1701
      that long-favoured corner of their Island—had an interest at law which he had already in equity—namely, an interest independent of his improvements. He heard people saying that it existed already in Ulster, but nowhere else in Ireland. But this tenant's occupancy right existed all over Ireland. It existed in Munster as strongly as in Ulster; in Connaught as equitably as ever it arose in Ulster; and the only difference was that in the corner of Ireland which the English Government bought as a plantation it was recognized by law, where else it was not. The ægis of law was thrown over this right in Ulster, whereas in the other parts of Ireland it was left to protect itself by, as he might say, the savage and rude justice of legal crime. But the equitable principle existed that, where a family had been, perhaps, for 200 or 300 years upon a farm, the very soil of which they had created, they had an interest quite apart from the visible improvements which they could claim for under the Act of 1870, and prove by legal evidence. Moreover, the Prime Minister had over and over again, in the course of the discussions which had taken place upon the Bill, recognized that right; and the Attorney General for Ireland, whose acquaintance with the subject was minute, would say that that right was just and equitable. The recognition of that right at law, which was originally promised, was the one point which awakened the interest of the tenant farmers in Ireland, because they said at last the Queen's Government was going to put them on an equality in point of equity and justice, whether they belonged to the favoured corner of Ireland or to the other portions of it. That right was there as sacred and as strong as was ever the Ulster tenant right, which was only a thing of 250 years' growth; whereas in the other Provinces of Ireland the same occupancy right dated from hundreds of years previous to the reign of James I. He had already met what he considered to be an unjust cry against this Bill—namely, that it would lead to litigation, by saying to the tenants, if they had legal rights conferred upon them, they must be prepared to assert them or defend them in a Court of Law. But this proposal of the Government would lead to litigation of the most vexatious kind. Over-definition
      1702
      was a great weakness and a great embarrassment, and he entirely sympathized with the Government in their desire to avoid it; but on this occasion he thought they had gone into the opposite extreme in thinking they need only to say to the Court—"Settle the fair rent." It was said that any two farmers could settle what was a fair rent, and, no doubt, it was true that any two farmers in Tyrone could do this; but take any two farmers from another county, and they would tell you quite a different tale from the others. The only attempt scientifically to determine data for the fixing of fair rent had been made by the valuators of Sir Richard Griffith in 1862; but even those valuators had differed widely in their valuations with regard to counties in the North and South of Ireland in cases where, as any agricultural chemist would declare, the land was of the same quality. And, therefore, if it were left to the Court to fix a fair rent without giving them some indication of the tenant's interest to be protected, he denied that he had any protection under the clause. Why should the Government shrink from giving the Court that indication? He could not believe that in their desire to get out of a difficulty they would sacrifice the interest of the Irish tenant. Watching how the Government had given way to the activity of hon. Members above the Gangway, he could not help coming to the conclusion that all that was necessary to induce the Front Ministerial Bench to accept mischievous Amendments to the Bill was for the opponents of the measure to make a great row. He sincerely hoped the Government would consider the danger of abandoning the protective and most beneficent proposals which they contemplated passing for the benefit of the tenant, and trusted that they would insert words in the Bill which would give the tenant an equitable protection.
      MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he entirely agreed with almost every word that fell from the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan). But he must point out, with respect to the discussion he had raised, that this was not the time at which it could be fairly decided. The point they were at was to leave out lines 32 and 33; and if the Committee would look at the Bill they would see that it was necessary that

      1703
      those words should be left out before they could consider the Amendment of the hon. Member. If the Attorney General's Amendment was carried they might then proceed to determine what was a fair rent. He was sure that the Government did not wish that the Court should be practically precluded from considering what was the tenant's interest in the holding. He should be perfectly prepared to support either the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) or that of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), which would make it clear that the Court was to take into consideration the tenant's interest in the holding; and, in order to get at that point, they should now pass the present Amendment.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not admit that his hon. Friend's (Mr. Fowler's) recitation of his right hon. and learned Friend's (the Attorney General for Ireland's) Amendment gave the correct meaning. He merely rose to support his hon. Friend's appeal, and to accept the words which the Attorney General for Ireland had proposed.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, there was some inconvenience in following the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. They had already discussed this question an hour and a-half; and to say, after that, that they had better drop the discussion, and that they should resume it on the original Amendment, was not to save time, but to waste time. The discussion had been carried to such great length that it would be better to carry it out to the end. If they did what the right hon. Gentleman asked them to do they would have all the discussion over again. But if there were no other Amendments between the one now moved and the other Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he would reserve what he had to say until the other Amendment was moved.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had not kept the Committee strictly to the Amendment before it, because, undoubtedly, the Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment was only one part of a larger Amendment; but it was quite true that, as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had altered his Amendment, he might bring it on after the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland had been carried.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURremarked, that his hon. and learned Friend was not going to give up his right to move his Amendment; but as the whole question had been raised they had better proceed with it. With regard to the speech of the hon. and learned Member behind him (Mr. A. M. Sullivan)—
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would allow him to interrupt for one moment, if the hon. Member intended to proceed with this discussion. If they proceeded with it, the division would not really represent the views of hon. Members. If these words were accepted, the question now under discussion could be brought up in a manner in which it could be discussed.
      LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that if it was the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) to move his Amendment it would give an opportunity for observations being made upon it. His impression was that the hon. and learned Member would not move it, but would allow the Attorney General for Ireland to proceed. But there was nothing to prevent the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) being discussed as well as the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, which was germane to the issue.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that after what had fallen from hon. Members he would reserve what remarks he had to make until later.
      Amendment (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland) agreed to.
      MR. GORSTsaid, he would now move his Amendment to follow after the words already agreed to by the Committee, and which would make the most perfect sense—"The tenant is to apply to the Court to fix what is the fair rent thereupon." It then went on to say that the fair rent should be fixed by the Court in the following manner. He should move to leave out the words "shall raise the rent," in order to insert the words "shall estimate the fair rent to be paid in the following manner." He moved his Amendment because he thought it would conveniently raise a discussion which might be considered by the Committee before making further progress with the Bill. His original intention in putting this Amendment on the Paper was, if he might use a

      1705
      vulgar expression, to bring Her Majesty's Government to book. This was a point on which they had pressed for information which they had never obtained, and that was, how did the Government propose to put a money value on the tenant's interest? Being wholly ignorant of Irish affairs, he had been very curious ever since the Bill was proposed to ascertain from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, or from the Attorney General for Ireland, or from any Member more instructed upon the law of Irish land or the custom of Irish land than he was himself, how they were going to estimate the money value of the tenant's interest, because that did seem to him to be the whole gist and purpose of the Bill. What was this which was going to be done to put a money value on the tenant's interest in Ireland? When the Attorney General for Ireland put the Amendment on the Paper he was most bitterly disappointed, because he then found that the Government did not mean to answer this question at all. They did not mean the House of Commons to declare what was to be the value of the tenant's interest at all, but meant to relegate that difficult question to the tribunal which was to be created, and the House of Commons was to pass this Bill into law without having the slightest idea of the mode on which the tenant's interest was to be calculated. His disappointment was much aggravated by the continual lamentations they heard on the distress in the North of Ireland. He referred especially to the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), who made a long and interesting address on this Bill, and who, in his opinion, made clear what was a fair rent. If it was so easy to determine what was a fair rent, why should not the House of Commons be informed of how it was to be arrived at, and why should not the principles on which the fair rent was arrived at be bound into the law of the land in the Bill? He understood from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) that the Opposition was perfectly content to leave the matter to the Court. He could understand that might be the opinion of those who rather conceived it might be the interest of Irish landowners to leave the matter to the Court. With that idea he did not see why those independent Members of Parlia-
      1706
      ment who did not appear there as the advocates of landowners' interests, but who desired that a measure should be passed, which should be founded upon justice, for the permanent peace and satisfaction of Ireland, should be satisfied with such an answer as that. Because it appeared to him that it would be quite as much to the interest of the tenant as it would be the right of the landowner that this matter should not be left at large, but should be settled by Parliament in some form or shape. If this measure was attempted to be dealt with leaving this matter at large, Irish tenants would await with interest and impatience the decisions of the Court to be created. But if those decisions were not satisfactory to the Irish tenants, it was quite certain that fresh agitation would immediately arise for fresh legislation in accordance with the views of Irish tenants. Therefore, if this Bill was to be a settlement for either landlords or tenants, and was to stop further agitation, Parliament would do well to lay down in the Bill itself the just and fair considerations on which the tenant's interest was to be created. So far, he was in accord with opinions expressed by Irish Members behind him, that Parliament ought to lay down in the Bill itself the principle on which the tenants' interest in his holding was to be estimated. So far, Irish Members agreed with him, and so far as this was an attempt to show how the Courts should be guided in the estimation of the tenant's interest he should have their support. Then came the question whether the principles on which the tenant's interest ought to be estimated were correctly put in this Amendment. He supposed the tenant's interest consisted in his improvements, and in whatever consideration he had given in money or in any other manner for the land in his possession. He did not know what else the tenant had a right to. He had heard vague indications thrown out by the Government, and the hon. and. learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had thrown out vague intimations, that beyond the value of the improvements, beyond the value the tenant might have paid for the land itself, there was something else which was also the property of the Irish tenant. What was that something else; how was its value to be estimated? If anyone would amend

      1707
      his Amendment by inserting a description of what the future property of the tenant was to be, and how it was to be arrived at, he believed that the curiosity many of them had felt since this Bill was introduced would be satisfied. Therefore, he moved this Amendment with a view of putting on record his own strong opinion on the subject; secondly, with a view of eliciting, if possible, from either Her Majesty's Government or their legal friendly adviser, the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, a description of what there was more than the improvements, and what was given for the tenancy in as clear, plain, and precise terms as this Motion did.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 6, line 34, leave out from (3) "a fair rent" to "title," page 7, line 12, and insert,—"The fair rent to be paid for a holding shall be estimated by the Court in the following manner:—

      "(1.) The Court shall estimate the gross rent which a solvent and responsible tenant would pay for such holding if let by competition in the open market;

      "(2.) The Court shall estimate the gross capitalised value of such holding if sold in the open market;

      "(3.) The Court shall estimate the tenant's share of such gross value which shall be the pecuniary value in their then existing state of the improvements in such holding (if any) made by the tenant or his predecessor in title, together with the then pecuniary value of the tenant's interest in such holding in respect of any consideration which may have been given by the tenant or his predecessors in title with the express or implied consent of the landlord or his predecessors in title for coming into such holding;

      "(4.) The Court shall calculate what part of the gross value the value of the tenant's share constitutes, and shall deduct a corresponding part from the gross rent;

      "(6.) The remainder of the gross rent shall be the fair rent of the holding."—(Mr. Gorst.)

      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, if the Government were to attempt to define what the tenant had received and were to analyze what he was to receive they would either give to the tenant nothing that he wanted or they would expose themselves to criticism that would be exceedingly in convenient. Her Majesty's Government, as far as he could make out, had originally intended to do what the hon. and learned Member intended to do—namely, to restrict the discretion
      1708
      of the Court by elaborate and carefully framed rules. There was a good deal to be said in favour of that course. There was also a good deal to be said in favour of leaving the whole matter to the Court. But there was very little to be said in favour of a proposal to give the Court no discretion at all, or to give them some vague wording which would not guide the Court, but which would have the effect of raising vast, undefined, and probably erroneous notions in the minds of the Irish peasantry. The hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) said that what the Court would have to determine, in settling the amount of a fair rent, was what was a fair return to the tenant, for his labour, and what was a fair return for his capital. In other words, the hon. and learned Gentleman expected the Court to decide what fair wages were, and what fair profits were. No Court was ever asked to decide such a thing before, and he hoped that no Court would ever be required to do it again; but if they did require the Court to do that, they had swallowed the camel, and should not strain at the gnat. Having agreed that there should be a Court, let them either not trammel it with any directions at all; or if there were to be directions, let them, at all events, be as clear and as precise as they could be made.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought it rather suspicious that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) should recommend the Government to accept the proposals of his hon. Friends around him (Irish Members). He ventured to think the hon. and learned Member was acting the part of the rough countryman who looked innocence itself, but who played a card in these confidence tricks that so frequently came before the police courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman got up, and, with an air of innocence, said—"What is this which the Treasury proposes to give to the tenant?" Would no one on the Treasury Bench, the hon. and learned Member asked, get up and attempt to answer that question? Now, it was too late in the day to have a re-hash of that extraordinary conundrum of what passed for knowledge of Irish affairs on the Treasury Bench. What was proposed to be conceded to Irish tenants by this Bill was a very elementary concession. It was the right of 2,500,000 people in

      1709
      Ireland to live in Ireland on better tenure than they lived now. The hon. and learned Member's definition of the tenant's right to his holding, or to the improvements made by him, was that these improvements must have had the express or implied consent of the landlord. He proposed that the right of a tenant should consist of the amount of money he had paid for his tenant right with the consent of the landlord. That was a simple proposition, quite in accord with the simplicity and ingenuousness of the hon. and learned Member's nature. That was to say, that if a man paid £1,000 for his tenant right, and was under a good landlord, he would be in a worse position than if he was under a bad landlord. With regard to improvements, he would be quite willing, if the improvements included all the reclamations made by all the tenants in Ireland in their holdings; but he thought it would be wasting the precious time of the Committee to consider further the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and he hoped the Committee would be permitted to go to the question, whether or not the Court should have specific directions. He would only say one word on that point, and that was, that every single man he had spoken to on this question was clearly of opinion that the Government was making a step in the wrong direction. Among others he might mention his hon. Friend the senior Member for the County of Carlow (Mr. Gray), who was certainly one of the clearest-headed and best judges in that House, and who represented one of the most moderate sections of Members, and who was distinctly of opinion that the policy of the Government was disastrous almost to the Bill.
      MR. MARUMsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman near him confounded two different and distinct things. He asked what was the property of the Irish tenant? Well, it was decided that the Court, after hearing all the parties, and considering all the circumstances of the case, should decide what was a fair rent. He confessed it was with great disappointment that the tenantry of Ireland found the change that was made by omitting that prominence of the tenant's interest in the first part of this clause that was given in the second. When he went down to Kilkenny after
      1710
      the first draft of this Bill, he strongly impressed the fact of the great prominence of the tenant's interest, and the great security derived therefrom; and it would strike them with great disappointment, and they would call him justly to account for the difference between the original draft and what was forthcoming. No doubt, the Prime Minister did state at the time this draft was brought forward that it was open to criticism, and that he was not very sure of the words which might be put in.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the Amendment before the Committee just now is the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).
      MR. MARUMsaid, he was perfectly aware of the Amendment that was before the Committee, and of the solution that was proposed of the difficulty which pressed on the Government. The second consideration was the nature of the holding—namely, what was the character of the soil, whether it was grass land or arable land; and there was also the material consideration as to what were the improvements, and who made them. There was a great difference in the degree of improvability of different soils. An expenditure of capital on one soil might produce 25 or 30 per cent, whilst in the case of another it might only produce 2 or 3 per cent. Then there was the question of the "circumstances of the district," which meant the rental of the district, its contiguity to markets, and its altitude. If they looked at the published evidence they would find that in Kerry the farmer was a long distance from the Cork butter market; and the difference between the position of that farmer and the farmer in the Waterford district, who was near a good market, was very great. All these matters were to be considered in the circumstances of the district; but the most important of them, was the rental of the district. In judging this matter they could not have regard to the rentals of England or other countries—they could not make any comparison. The reason he made this remark was because he had placed upon the Paper an Amendment to the effect that in addition to the circumstances of the case, the circumstances of the holding, and the circumstances of the dis-

      1711
      trict, the circumstances of Ireland should be taken into consideration; and, in addition to that, he proposed to move an Amendment to the effect that regard should be had to the prices of agricultural produce, and the cost and production of the same. These Amendments were not clearly before the Committee now; but he mentioned them because, looking at the mode in which Amendments had been taken, he was at a loss to know when he would be in Order in bringing them on.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendments will come next after the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland. They are not before the Committee now, and, obviously, cannot be discussed.
      MR. MARUMsaid, he would confine his observations to the Amendment before the Committee. He objected strongly, and he was sure his constituents and the Irish Members would object strongly, to the want of prominence given to the tenants' interest in the Amendment. There was no allusion to the tenants' interest except in a capitalized form, and he should prefer the Government clause in its original form. He would wish to dissever the question of the definition of a fair rent and the question of tenure.
      MR. GORSTsaid, he was sorry he had not obtained an explanation from the Government; but he saw that it was impossible for him, by his own unaided exertions, to get a statement from the Government; therefore, he would withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, the next Amendment was in his name. He had been informed yesterday by the Chairman that if the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland were put, it would be too late for him (Mr. Charles Russell) to bring forward his proposal. He, therefore, brought forward his Amendment now. If it were accepted, the clause would run thus—
      "A fair rent means such a rent as in the opinion of the Court, after hearing the parties, and having regard to the interest in the holding of the landlord and tenant respectively, and considering all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, a solvent tenant would undertake to pay one year with another," &c.
      His reason for bringing forward the Amendment was this. When he had
      1712
      first seen the clause he had thought that if the reference to the tenant's interest at the top of page 7 had stopped there it would have been sufficient. He had thought that the subsequent sub-clauses, a and b—especially b, which contained a reference to the scale of compensation for disturbance—did not express what was the interest of the tenant; and, moreover, he had felt that all reference to the landlord's interest ought not to be omitted. In other words, he had thought that the clause would defeat the fair justice of the case as regarded the interest of the landlord and tenant both, if there was not a reference in it to the interest of each. He would point out to the Prime Minister that this did not imply the least in the world the notion of any conflict and antagonism between the two interests. The two interests did exist, as everyone in Ireland who knew the relations between landlord and tenant admitted. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who was always—like one of the characters in Dickens' novels—asking for information, said he had frequently asked for an explanation of what the tenant's interest was, but that he could never get to know. Well, there were no people so difficult to teach as those who would not learn, and he was afraid his hon. and learned Friend was one of those. Several times he (Mr. Charles Russell) and others had given an explanation. He did not mean to say it was a complete or satisfactory one; but it was the best he could give, and, he thought, to those who were conversant with the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland, it did give a sufficient explanation of what the tenant's interest was. If the hon. and learned Member would read the Report of the Devon Commission he would find that in 1845 it was shown that in Ireland dealings between landlord and tenant had long proceeded upon the practical assumption of a joint interest in the land between the landlord and tenant. This meant that, according to the public opinion of the country, acquiesced in in practice, there was a tenant's interest in the land something more than his hon. and learned Friend referred to as "an interest in his improvements." What was that interest? Again and again it had been explained by the Prime Minister, by the Attorney General for Ireland, and by others. It

      1713
      meant that the tenant was owner of an estate in land, technically described as "a tenancy from year to year," with a reasonable expectation of being continued in that tenancy, and that interest was fortified by the Disturbance Clauses of the Act of 1870. If this was no definition, he could not give any other. If they had got a Court which understood this subject and could be intrusted with dealing with it fairly, without doing more than was equitable, it would suffice. But he had had a very general expression of opinion—and from no part of Ireland stronger than from Ulster—that the fact of the Government having, in the clause as it stood originally, referred to the tenant's interest, that the omission of that reference would be looked upon as a triumph of the landlord party and a neglect of the interests of the tenant. He did not mean to say that an unjust prejudice was a thing that the Committee ought to give great weight to; but if their object was to pass a Bill which would be received with a reasonable amount of confidence in Ireland popular sentiment of this kind was not to be disregarded, if, indeed, it could be consulted without the sacrifice of any substantial right or the interest of any class. He would ask any hon. Member on the other side of the House how this reference to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively—interests which the legislation had recognized—could do harm to either landlord or tenant? He hoped, if no convincing reason was given to show that it would do injustice to either or operate unfairly, that the Government would accept the Amendment. He took leave to say that though his sympathies were with the Irish tenant, because they had not, untillate years, been considerably represented in the House, and because they had been for years legislated for by what was, in the main, a landlord Parliament, he tried honestly to look at this question in fairness between the landlord and tenant. He did not think it would be right to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), because it seemed to have exclusive regard to the tenant's interest, and might be supposed to exclude the interest of the landlord. In England the right of occupation was not considered of value, because, speaking as a rule, the improvements were done for the tenant; but in Ireland the case was
      1714
      different. The tenancy was of value, for nearly all the improvements were done by the tenant. It had been shown that out of all the improvements only 11 per cent were done by the landlord. When, therefore, they spoke of a fair rent in Ireland they did not mean it in the sense in which it was meant in England. In England it meant what a man paid for his use and occupation of the farm; but that was not the case in Ireland. In that country it meant much more—namely, what the man paid for the use, plus what he paid for coming in, for goodwill, and also his improvements. He submitted, therefore, that the adoption of these words would satisfy the reasonable requirements of the Irish tenants, and that the concession would not injure the just interests of the landlords.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 6, line 35, after the word "parties," to insert the words "and having regard to the interest in the holding of the landlord and tenant respectively."—(Mr. Charles Russell.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I must make an admission to the hon. and learned Member that there is a certain mark of progress in the Amendment he has moved, in that, for the first time in the course of these discussions, it involves a clear recognition of some interest, at all events, on the part of the landlord. That is really so very important that it ought not to be allowed to pass unnoticed. But we must look at this matter somewhat more broadly. In the first place, I wish to say, in order to clear away any misapprehension on the subject, that any objection to the whole proposal of bringing in the Court for the purpose of fixing rents has not been removed in the course of this discussion, and that it is my intention, at all events, by way of protest if for nothing else, ultimately to divide against the whole proposal of Clause 7. I wish that to be distinctly understood because, though I am prepared to work as well as I can in order to make the clause as little mischievous as it can be made and as useful as it can be made, I cannot see in anything that has been said anything to remove my objection to the Court. That, however, is not the point before us at the present moment. At the pre-

      1715
      sent moment we are endeavouring to arrange what is to be the action of the Court in a case in which it is appealed to to fix a fair rent. We began with a system under which the Court was to have very special directions with regard to the interests which it is to recognize in the tenant. I must say that to these directions many of us entertained most serious objections. They appear to us to recognize rights which, to a great extent, we believe would be a new creation on the part of this Bill, and others which would be of a very embarrassing kind, and which it would be extremely difficult to understand; and, therefore, we put our Amendments on the Paper with reference to that scheme of the clause as originally prepared by the Government. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had put down a very elaborate system of directions to the Court with which, if the Court were to interfere, and were to interfere under any code of directions, I think I should entirely agree. I think my hon. and learned Friend's proposals are very reasonable and proper. But we are rather past that now by the step which the Government have taken in proposing that we should give the Court this sole direction that they are, under certain circumstances, to endeavour to fix a fair rent as between landlord and tenant. Now, I must say that if the thing is to be done at all, and if we are not to have such information as we think satisfactory, it is far better that we should leave the matter to the Court and not weaken its hands. It would be better for us to take care that it is a strong body, that it acts in the light of day and under all those Responsibilities that necessarily attach to a body of high judicial officials, taking care also that some system of appeal is given. I think it is far better that we should trust to the unfettered judgment of the Court than that we should put in words that may have the effect of giving a covert instruction to the Court that it is to proceed in a particular direction. If the question to be submitted to the Court is what, under all the circumstances of the case, is a fair rent to be fixed, we may assume that the Court will take into account all these matters that you are now proposing to specify or direct its attention to; but if there are words put in which at first sight appear to be or-
      1716
      ders, of course the Court will inquire what was the meaning of the Legislature in putting them in. They are not put in for nothing. They are put in, as the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk admits, to prevent an impression that the rights of the tenants are being sacrificed. Well, if that is so, depend upon it you will be increasing the difficulties with which the Court will have to contend by putting in provisions of this kind. I hope we may be allowed to proceed with this section on the lines in which the Government have now placed it. Even so it is not satisfactory; but if it is to be passed at all, I should prefer that we should not attempt to give the Court instructions. If we are to give instructions, no doubt those of the hon. and learned Member have the advantage of being comparatively fair on both sides. I would prefer that we should now concentrate all our efforts in endeavouring to constitute a strong and good Court.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not adduced any strong objection to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk. He seemed to go very near approval of that Amendment, in fact much nearer than he (Mr. Arnold) could possibly have expected; but what had surprised him most of all in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that he had spoken of the mention of the tenant's interest in the clause as though that interest were a trivial matter. Virtually it was the whole matter. The peculiarity of the Irish land system was the peculiarity of the tenant's position. The fact that he had peculiar interest constituted the difference between the Irish land system and the system appertaining to this country. It was this peculiarity of the Irish system which brought the Land Act of 1870, and which rendered necessary the Bill before the House. It was known to everyone by this time that the rent which a solvent tenant in Ireland could pay one year with another did not belong to the landlord; therefore, it was necessary to have a tribunal which should apportion the commercial rent between the landlord and tenant—which should decide how much of it belonged to the landlord and how much of it belonged to the tenant. The insertion of the tenant's interest in the clause appeared to him to be important,

      1717
      and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had shown such sympathy for the interest of the Irish tenant that it was to be hoped he would accept the proposal. The Amendment would add weight and usefulness to the clause without hampering; the Bill in any way.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) had not shown reasons against the Amendment, the hon. Member who had just sat down had not given any reason for it. The Amendment was either perfectly unnecessary or most insidious. As to its being unnecessary, he was sure his hon. and learned Friend would not move an unnecessary Amendment. They must remember the position in which the Bill stood originally and the form it had now assumed, after the Government Amendments. There could be no doubt that the Amendments they had made to the 7th clause was a concession to those who regarded the measure with distrust; there could be no question whatever about that. The definition of fair rents which the Government had put in the Bill was only an act of justice to those who had to support the interests of the rights of property, and who looted on the Bill with great suspicion and alarm. With regard to the Court, the Prime Minister, in the course he had taken, had admitted that the criticisms of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) were sound in the manner in which he proposed to frame the clause. But the hon. and learned Member opposite came forward with an Amendment to the effect that the Court should have regard to the interest in the holding of the landlord and the tenant respectively. Well, what in Heaven's name should the Court have regard to but these two things? How could the Court estimate a fair rent without having regard to them? There could be little doubt that the real object of the Amendment was to prevent the Government from being placed in the difficult position of having to reject the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), which was to the effect that the Court should only have regard to the interest of the tenant. Why should the Court have regard only to the interest of the tenant? The hon. and learned Member had all along shown the utmost sagacity
      1718
      in extricating the Government from rather tight positions. The hon. and learned Member knew very well that in all cases that could be submitted to the Court, counsel would always draw attention to the expressions used by Parliament, and that stress would be laid on the fact that the interest of the tenant was to be looked to in estimating a fair rent. There were no persons in the country, at this moment, who had devoted more attention to the Irish Land Question than the Members of the Cabinet, and they had come to the conclusion that the Bill was open to misconstruction, and had thought it better to leave it to the Court absolutely, without instructions, to decide what was a fair rent. He would urge the Committee not to press the Government to depart from their latest decision. If they were to have a Court which was to be a Court of Justice, he felt certain that landlords and tenants might intrust their interests to that Court; in which case the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member was absolutely unnecessary. If they listened to the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member—which were only meant to unite the opinions of the Home Rule and the Ulster Members—they would give a distinct bias to the Court, putting in the word "landlord" as a blind, and would be departing from the sound decision at which the Government had arrived.
      MR. SHAWsaid, he could not feel any regret at the disappearance from the Bill of the clauses originally proposed by the Government. He had known that they would work unsatisfactorily, and that in some districts of Ireland they would do injustice to both the landlord and tenant. On estates that were well managed injustice would have been done to the landlords, whilst on estates badly managed injustice would have been done to the tenants. It was, therefore, beneficial to all parties that the clauses had disappeared. Very likely, if they had never been introduced, and the Bill had been brought in in its present shape, there would have been no great dissatisfaction in Ireland; but the fact of their having been put in and having been taken out, seemingly at the instigation of the landlord party, had naturally created a feeling in Ireland that the Government had some object in view in the way of sacrificing the in-

      1719
      terests of the tenants. The noble Lord opposite had said that the Amendment was unnecessary. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said it was insidious.] The noble Lord had not pointed out where the insidiousness came in. It was said that this unnecessary Amendment must have some object; but the rejection of it would appear to have some object in the way of sacrificing the tenant's interest. If hon. Members wished to settle this matter, they should meet proposals of this kind fairly. He would admit that the insertion of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) would look as though they were only considering one side of the question; but in the Amendment before the Committee they looked at both sides of the question, and gave instructions to the Court. They ought to look at the effect a Court of this kind would have on the public mind. The insertion of these words, or some such words, would not in the slightest degree weaken the influence or rights of the landlord, and would have the effect of giving satisfaction, in lieu of the other clauses, to the landlords and tenants in Ireland. In going through the North of Ireland, he had found that the one thing universally disliked by the tenant farmers was that their improvements should be valued or even looked at at all. They felt sure that if the valuator went on their land it was bound to lead to an increase of rent. The valuers in Ireland should have regard solely to the natural qualities of the soil, and they should exclude from their consideration the improvements of the tenant and his interest.
      MR. SYNANsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) seemed to complain that hon. Members were too much on the side of the tenant. He (Mr. Synan) did not see why they should take the landlord's side or the tenant's side exclusively. They should be on the side of both, and, in that sense, the words of the Amendment were perfectly harmless. They only, in his opinion, pointed out what the Court would do without them. What had given more weight and significance to them than they deserved was the fact referred to by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw)—the striking out from the clause of the particular direction given to the Court. If the Court was good for
      1720
      anything, it ought to know the law, and it ought to be able to appreciate the rights of the landlord and the rights of the tenant. There was an expression of law which applied to the present case—namely, "Expressio eorum quâe tacite insunt nihil operator." The expressions in the Amendment were implied in the very duty of the Court. As to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), to the effect that improvements ought to be kept out of view in fixing the rent, the Court ought to know that the improvements belonged to the tenant, and should not, therefore, have regard to them. He failed to see what objection the Government or the Committee could have to the Amendment, for even if it were unnecessary it would do no harm. To his mind, however, it was necessary, and would do good by satisfying the tenants and producing a good effect upon the public mind in Ireland, and by directing the mind of the Court to the duty imposed upon it.
      MR. CARTWRIGHTsaid, he had a strong preference for the clause proposed by the Government in substitution for the original words; and why he advocated the adoption of the new proposals was, because they were simple and perfectly intelligible, and because they were consistent with previous Amendments. The Court was to be a Court of Equity in the fullest sense of the word, and was to adjudicate on every question brought before it; but there was another reason why the change made by the Government was most reasonable. It was difficult to frame a definition so as to obviate all objection; but, when certain misconstructions and objections had been current and had been widely circulated, it was desirable to frame definitions so as, if possible, to remove those misconstructions and misinterpretations. They had heard of the aspirations of Ireland from the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), and from the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) they had heard of the disappointments of the farmers of Kilkenny in consequence of the changes made by the Government in the wording of the clause. They had heard the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) speak in the same sense. Well, when they heard such views, and when they saw these constructions put on

      1721
      the original wording of the clause, it was desirable that definitions should go forth so clear that they would remove all misconception. The words of the Bill, as now proposed by the Government, were clear, simple, and definite. For his own part, he believed they were to be preferred to any of the Amendments on the Paper, and he would advise the Committee to abide by them. As to the Amendment now before the Committee, he objected to several words in it; but, if any Amendment was to be accepted, and the present one was to be pressed by the Mover, he thought it was to be preferred to any of the others, with some modifications. He would propose that the words "in the holding" and the words "due" and "just" should be left out, as they were calculated to raise doubts as to the meaning as of the instruction, and suggest to quick-witted attorneys constructions of a dangerous character. The words "and having regard to the interest of the landlord and tenant respectively" were all that were necessary for the guidance of the Court.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he thought that, in considering this subject, they ought to have regard to what was the real position of the Court. It would be, really and truly, an arbitrator between two persons. They admitted that the moment they admitted that the tenant and the landlord had each, respectively, a separate interest in the holding. Well, what were the directions—if a Superior Court of Justice referred a question to an arbitrator, what were the words the Court would use in making that reference? Would it not be to consider the joint interests of each of the two parties, and the particular circumstances of the case? In what way, then, did the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend go beyond that recommendation? It stated in the simplest form what an arbitrator would have to do if an arbitration emanated from a Superior Court. Surely the Court had to have regard to the interests of both parties. The landlord had an interest and the tenant had an interest. In some cases the interest of the tenant was greater than that of the landlord; but in others the interest of the landlord was more considerable than that of the tenant. Take the case of a tenant who had settled on a piece of waste land; after a vast number of years, and the labour of successive
      1722
      generations, that waste land was made into a really valuable arable farm. It was conceded by this Bill that the tenant had, in such a case, a larger interest in the farm than the landlord himself. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Oh, no!] The noble Lord said "Oh, no!" and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was very glad that he had done so, because it confirmed what he had believed throughout the whole of these discussions—namely, that with all the noble Lord's opportunities of observing what went on in Ireland, with all his opportunities of observing the relations between landlord and tenant, and with all the pains he had taken in the discussion of this Bill, he had never got beyond this belief—that the land belonged to the landlord, and that the tenant was a mere appanage to the land, who ought to be removed at the good pleasure of the landlord in favour of someone else. Now, that was not the view of the Committee. The Committee believed that the tenant was as much entitled to his share of the land and to his interest in the land as the landlord himself, and that was the secret of the objection the noble Lord took to the introduction of these words. The noble Lord contemplated nothing less than a rack-rent—
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Allow me to interrupt the hon. Member. I have stated that a fair rent is not a rack-rent.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether the noble Lord would define what he meant by a "fair rent?" All his words went to show that he merely contemplated a rack or competition rent, and now he said that he did not consider a fair rent to be a rack-rent. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) wished to express a hope that the Government would accept this Amendment, not merely because it was expedient, but because it was just. He had gone through the Bill, and, with regard to it, as also in everything else he had said as to Irish tenant right, when former Bills introduced by Mr. Butt and others, were before the House, he had invariably endeavoured to keep a judicial mind, and to consider the interests of both landlord and tenant. He did not say that hon. Members opposite did not also keep judicial minds; but he did not think it was an evidence of a judicial mind when, in a clause defining what the Court was to do, they named only one of the two parties inte-

      1723
      rested in the matter. The landlord was interested as well as the tenant, and he, also, ought to be named. If the unfortunate words which originally appeared in the clause had not been put in the tenants would never have asked for anything than that the two interests of the landlord and the tenant should be considered in the holding. He had spoken of the interests of the tenants, and he would ask any hon. Member to go through Ireland, even now, and converse with the tenants. Do not go in the midst of agitation, and when meetings were taking place; but go to them in their homes, or wherever they were to be met, and they would almost invariably say this—"All that we want is a fair rent; let the landlord receive a fair rent, and let us have a fair rent to pay." The tenantry themselves recognized the just and due interest of the landlord and the tenant; and if that was so, what objection could there be to mentioning the two interests in the Bill? The Court would, of course, do its duty, and it would be an adequate tribunal; but do not let them forget that it would not last for ever. It might change somewhat in its personal character; but this Bill would endure for a vast number of years. In all probability it would regulate for ever the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"] Of course, hon. Members opposite wished for something beyond this Bill; but he should be contented, on the part of the tenants, if the measure passed into law, unmutilated, within a reasonable time, and was brought into operation before Parliament adjourned. But he did not think they ought to content themselves with, generally, constituting a Court and giving it no positive instructions as to what it was to do. What was this Committee but a Court endeavouring to decide what should be a fair basis of rent between landlord and tenant in Ireland? Under the circumstances, he trusted that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would be accepted.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, he would say nothing with regard to the astonishing result which had been brought about by the Attorney General for Ireland—who seemed to have brought all parties in the House very near to an agreement—as to the words to be adopted in this part of the clause, supposing the clause
      1724
      were adopted at all. No doubt, everyone who had spoken in this particular debate had said that the variation that would be introduced into the meaning of the clause, should the words of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) be accepted, would be very small indeed. It was said that these words would make no difference, and that their insertion would be a concession to national feeling and aspiration. Let him remind the Committee of what had fallen from the hon. Member for County Gal way (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that their work this evening was not for a moment, but that they were making an Act of Parliament which was to he read hereafter when the excitement of the present moment had passed away, and when it came to be merely a question of judicial interpretation. Well, the words suggestion were only for the purpose of allaying a momentary excitement; and, on the other hand, as there was not to be, or ought not to be, any contest, not even an emulation, between a fair rent and the tenant right—whatever that might be—he thought that if they accepted the Amendment they would be sowing the seeds of anew controversy. They should not relegate to the County Courts words that would suggest to them that, on the one hand, there was the interest of the tenant, and, on the other, the interest of the landlord. It would be bad enough to put in these words if there was only one Court to relegate this matter to; but when they had a multitude of County Courts, or whatever the Court of First Instance might be, that would have to interpret the measure when they sent it from Parliament, it would be a suggestion and a signal for emulation between the two interests, which might ripen into controversy if they put in words that had no efficacy in themselves—and which, without explaining or elucidating the meaning of the clause, suggested that a conflict of interests might he supposed to arise in deciding what was a fair rent. He would not say one word which would excite angry controversy; but what was the whole Bill; what were the "three F's; "what was the institution of this Court to interfere between the landlord and his unquestionable right, if they were not concessions in the interest of the tenant? The words proposed to be introduced would have no practical effi-

      1725
      cacy in the sense which they were now meant to have. His argument was that if they departed from the wording proposed, and added something on this side, and something on the other, there would be no end to what hon. Members might propose. Here was an Amendment put forward on deliberate consideration by the Government, and he trusted it would be adhered to. He could not see any advantage in introducing other words which hon. Members who supported them admitted would have no binding effect.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he was quite ready to adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), and ask permission to put the Amendment thus—"Having regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 6, line 35, after "parties," insert "having regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively."—(Mr. Charles Russell.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not depart from the opinion he had expressed. At the same time, the question raised by the Amendment was admitted on all hands to be of great importance, and he was bound to say that it was both justifiable and right to have regard to it. He did not entirely reject the observation that the withdrawal of a word or words would not leave the clause in precisely the same position as if they remained. Having listened to this debate, and paid rather particular regard to the fact that very good words had been proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten), which were much to the same effect as those of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk, he had come to the conclusion that, on the whole, the judgment and view of the greater part of those best qualified to form an opinion would be consulted by agreeing to the insertion of these words. His desire with regard to this clause had been to arrive, if possible, at the greatest union of sentiment in the Committee, and when he heard the speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) he was in hopes that they were upon
      1726
      common ground, and that, in accepting the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman was also accepting the clause. He had since learned from another speech that this was not so, and that he objected to the clause on principle, and would have something to say upon it hereafter. That being so, he had taken notice of this fact, and regarded the right hon. Gentleman as one of those who would not be satisfied with the insertion of these words, which the Government were prepared to accept.
      MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought the course taken by the Government, and the observations of the Prime Minister, were hardly likely to shorten the proceedings in Committee. After deliberate consideration of the criticisms offered to the Committee by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), the Government had determined to strike out their original proposal in this clause, and to reduce it to a short passage, which would leave the whole matter very much to the discretion of the Court. Having made that deliberate proposal, and put the Amendment before the Committee, an Amendment was then moved which, by the consent of its Mover and supporters, was not strictly necessary to effect the purpose of the clause. It was approved by those who supported it more in deference to a sentiment in Ireland than because the words proposed were necessary either for the illustration or elaboration of the meaning of the clause. What was the duty of hon. Members on that side of the House under the circumstances? A series of speeches had been made against the Government proposal; but the Government made no sign. They listened to those speeches one after the other, and presently the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister rose and said that the current of opinion in the House, as expressed in the debate, had satisfied him that there was a general feeling in favour of the Amendment. The Amendment was unnecessary. It was admitted by the hon. and learned Member opposite that if the Government had not originally proposed the words which stood in the first draft of the Bill, he would not have thought of any such Amendment as he now put forward; but he said, at the same time, that he did not regret the disappearance

      1727
      of those earlier words, because where the landlord had been a good landlord, they would have done mischief to him, and where the landlord was a bad landlord, they would have done mischief to the tenant; so that when the words disappeared, together with the mischief which he feared, the hon. and learned Member put forward this Amendment. Was not that an acknowledgment that the Amendment was of no importance at all, and that it was put forward simply to meet the feeling of disappointment in Ireland at any concessions being made by the Government? How did the question stand without these words? The Government had made a better draft of the Bill than they at the moment seemed to suppose; because when the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland should have been accepted, and the Bill re-modelled in accordance with it, the clause would run—
      "The Court, after hearing the parties, and considering all the circumstances of the case, and of the holding and the district, shall determine what is a fair rent."
      Now, he did not think it possible to put in any element which the Court ought to consider which was not included in that. Another argument had been made use of in support of the Amendment, and one which had been repeated by four Members in succession—namely, that the words could do no harm, because they did nothing more than amplify the words in the Bill. That would be an equally good reason for putting in the Schedule the multiplication table or the record of an historical event. But these were not such idle words as those who wanted to put them in the Bill tried to make out. What was intended by those who supported this Amendment was that when the Court should have considered all the circumstances of the case, and of the holding and the district, and should have arrived at a conclusion as to what was a fair rent—that then the person appearing before the Court should be able to say there was a tenant's interest over and above all that, and that the Court must cut down the rent by the measure of the tenant's interest. If the Government were prepared to put in one qualification, they ought to be prepared to discuss, and, as he hoped, to accept qualifications which were proposed from that side of the House. He said it was
      1728
      hardly fair that the Government should speak of a sort of general consensus of opinion being established, because the whole current of the debate had really been adverse to their proposition, and had gone in favour of putting in words which had been whittled down to the smallest extent, and which had been recommended on the sole ground that they could do no good one way or the other.
      MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he believed these words were absolutely necessary, because, under the clause as it stood, without them it would be perfectly open by fair argument to maintain that the tenant's interest ought to be altogether excluded. The supporters of the Amendment wanted to guard against this. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had proposed that the landlord's interest should be included. Undoubtedly, what was fair for one was fair for the other in that respect, although he did not think there was any danger of the landlord's interest being lost sight of. But one of the main objects of the Bill was to prevent the tenant paying rent in respect of capital which belonged to himself. He contended that if the fair competition rent of a farm was £100 a-year, £25 of which represented the interest on the tenant's capital in respect of improvements, it would, as the clause now stood, be open upon fair argument to say that the tenant ought to pay the whole £100 a-year, and that he was not to have the advantage of that £25. All that this Amendment proposed was to preclude the possibility of doubt upon that point.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he should regret the acceptance of this Amendment by the Government. It was clear to him that it either meant nothing or a great deal; and as he was sure the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk was not the man to mean nothing, he took the Amendment to mean a great deal. He had little doubt that its effect would be to restore in some measure those provisions in regard to the tenant's interest which had been omitted by the Government, and which stood originally in this Bill. If this Amendment was to be inserted in the clause, it would become necessary to define in the Bill not only what was the tenant's interest, but what was the interest of the landlord. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had complained of the hon. and learned

      1729
      Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), saying that he was one of those who could not understand, because they were not anxious to understand, the definition of the tenant's interest. But as he gathered from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, he did not say that he was unable to understand the definition of the tenant's interest; he said there was no definition of the tenant's interest in the Bill. But however abstruse or learned the definitions given of the tenant's interest might be, they would be of no use to the Judges of Ireland four years hence; and therefore he contended that a definition of the tenant's interest ought to be included in the Bill. But it was now more than ever necessary to have a definition of the interest of the landlord—if, indeed, he had any interest—for it was dwindling every day. What was the hon. and learned Gentleman's definition of the interest of the Irish tenant? He said it was the right of occupancy in his farm, and that it differed from the interest of the tenant in England, where there was no right of occupancy, because the tenant did not make any improvements; that the tenant's interest in England was not a saleable interest. The hon. and learned Member then went on to say that fair rent in England was one thing, and fair rent in Ireland another; that fair rent in Ireland was to be calculated on the value of the farm, plus the value of improvements and plus the value of the tenancy on entering. There was, then, no difference between them as to what a fair rent should be. But he (Mr. Chaplin) contended that the definition ought to be placed in the Bill; and, therefore, being anxious to meet the views of the hon. and learned Member, he should move to add the following words:—
      "Provided that in no case, unless the landlord and tenant agree, shall it be less than the true value thereof, having regard to whatever sum has been expended by the tenant on improvements or in the purchase of his tenancy with the consent, either implied or expressed, of the landlord or his predecessors in title."
      THE CHAIRMANpointed out that this was not an Amendment, but a Proviso which should be moved at the end of the clause.
      LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was anxious, before they went to a division, to express his opinion that
      1730
      a very exaggerated importance had been attached to the concessions made by the Government. Having listened to the arguments on both sides, he was not at all prepared to join in the chorus of disapprobation which was apparently about to commence under the leadership of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) with regard to the adoption of the Amendment by Her Majesty's Government. He made these observations with the less hesitation because, as the Committee was aware, he had on more than one occasion voted against Her Majesty's Government when he believed they were mistaken upon any point in connection with the Bill. He was bound to say that, on the present occasion, there was no ground whatever for making an attack upon the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had urged his Amendment chiefly on the ground that it was a concession to the sentiment of the Irish people. It was, of course, easy to cast ridicule upon an argument founded on sentiment; but, although he was not an Irish Member, he spoke with some knowledge in saying that in the relations of this country with Ireland there had been the unfortunate mistake made of never attempting to govern the Irish people by means of their sentiments, for on that ground they were more accessible than on the ground of reason. He should, therefore, consider it an argument against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, if it did not constitute a concession to sentiment. On the other hand, provided there was nothing unjust in the Amendment, the fact of its being a concession to Irish sentiment was, in his opinion, an argument in its favour. But he wished to look upon the Amendment on the ground of reason also, which, after all, would most weigh with hon. Members. These words would come before a Court of Law, and he asked the Committee to put themselves for a moment in the position of the Judges who would have this clause before them. Taking the Bill as a whole, did any man doubt that it conceded an interest to the tenant on every farm in Ireland? If, as was undoubtedly the case, the Bill made that concession, why should they, ostrich-like, refuse to see it? He said that such a course was absurd. Whether the

      1731
      words proposed were or were not inserted in the clause the interest to which they referred was recognized in a greater or less degree. He did not at the present moment express any opinion concerning them; but he did not shrink from the responsibility attaching to anything he had said on the subject, or from recognizing the fact that whether the words were or were not inserted the Court would have to recognize the landlord's interest. But as his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had observed, it might be possible to make that interest clearer, and to avoid much of the litigation which would, or might, in other circumstances arise, while, at the same time, to adopt the view of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk making a concession to the sentiment of the Irish people. He trusted that the Irish people and their Representatives opposite would recognize a concession which, though of no particular importance in itself, was yet a concession, and one which could do no harm either to landlords or tenants.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 252; Noes 136: Majority 116.—(Div. list, No. 277.)
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 6, line 35, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "may fix such fair rent, but in no case, unless the landlord and tenant agree, shall it be less than the true value thereof, having regard to whatever sum has been expended by the tenant on improvements or in the purchase of his tenancy, with the consent, either implied or expressed, of his landlord or his predecessors in title."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, as he understood the proposal of the hon. Member, it was to be an alternative for the proposal which stood in the name of his right hon. and learned Friend. He took it to be the effect of the hon. Member's proposal that the rent should be such as to allow for the tenant's improvements, and for nothing but such improvements, except in cases where a tenant had paid a sum of money for his holding with the consent of his landlord, and had also, with similar consent, expended money in the improvement of
      1732
      his holding. Her Majesty's Government differed from the views of the hon. Member on almost every point; and, as far as this particular question was concerned, they did not think the sum expended by a tenant on improvements was a test to which the Court should have regard. A tenant might have expended his money unwisely or injudiciously, and he did not think a Court should be entitled to mulct a landlord on that account. Regard could only be had to the actual value of the improvements. The same principle applied, in his view, and in the view of the Government, to the amount that had been paid for the tenant right. The tenant might have paid a great deal too much, or he might have paid a great deal too little. He might have given a fancy price, which this Bill did not recognize, and so wasted his money; and therefore he said the Government could not agree with the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) on either of the points which he had raised. The question was, however, one which laid at the root of all the contentions of the Government since the Bill was introduced, for they had always held that the tenants had an interest far deeper than the mere value of their improvements, and one which extended not only to the value of each and every improvement they had effected during their tenancies, but to the tenancies themselves. It was impossible, therefore, for the Government to accept the Amendment which had been proposed.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he could quite accept the correction of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in reference to the sum of money expended on improvements, and he would therefore propose to amend his Amendment by inserting words which should refer to the actual value of the improvements made, and not to the sum which a tenant might, for reasons of his own, choose to spend. At the same time, he must say that his proposal had been rendered necessary solely by the Amendment sprung upon the Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), and accepted at a moment's notice by Her Majesty's Government. In regard to the objection of the Prime Minister to his Amendment, which was based on the fact that a tenant might have given too much or too little for his tenant

      1733
      right, he could only say that if he had given too much, the landlord was protected by the provisions of the Bill, and if he had given too little, he was clearly a very lucky fellow. The Amendment which he had proposed was, in his view, necessary in order to meet the case set out by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, who told the Committee distinctly that in Ireland a "fair rent" meant and included what the tenant paid for the use of his farm, and what he had paid for improvements, plus what he had given for his tenancy. That statement, together with the views expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman in laying it before the Committee, having been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, it became necessary, as the interests of the landlords as well as those of the tenants were imported into the clause, that those interests should be clearly defined.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Member was not only inaccurate in the statement of his views, but was also wrong in saying that his Amendment had been sprung upon the Committee. The Amendment had been upon the Paper for several days. The hon. Member could not have been present at the commencement of the discussion. [Mr. CHAPLIN replied, that he was present at the time.] He moved his Amendment at an earlier stage than it actually stood on the Paper, because he feared that if it was not moved then it would come awkwardly into conflict with an Amendment standing in the name of the Attorney General for Ireland which he wished to see carried. He did not wish to convey, in what he said, the view which the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had attributed to him. In speaking on the question, he had always insisted as strongly as he could that over and above the improvements of the tenants and the sum of money paid for the goodwill of their farms, there was in their very tenancies—fortified as they were by the Act of 1870—an interest, which was a fact recognized by law and saleable by law.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had shown a very conciliatory spirit; but he thought the observations he made in moving his Amendment were open to the construction put upon them by his hon. Friend near him (Mr.
      1734
      Chaplin), whose remark that the Amendment had been "sprung upon" the Committee was justified by the statement just made by the hon. and learned Member to the effect that for a reason which he set forth he had moved his Amendment at an earlier stage than it would have been reached if moved in the order in which it stood upon the Paper. It was also a matter for observation that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as it appeared on the Notice Paper, was in words totally different from those in which he had proposed it to the Committee. If the discussion was prolonged the Government would only have themselves to blame, for they ought to have had confidence in own their chief Law Officer, instead of jumping at the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk. On the whole, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) would, in the present circumstances, do well not to press his Amendment to a division now, but wait for a more convenient opportunity at a later stage in the progress of the Bill.
      MR. CHAPLINregretted that he could not accept the advice of his noble Friend. They had already, in the progress of this Bill, had repeated examples of the evil effects of postponing Amendments; and as this particular one involved what was to his mind a great principle, he should be compelled to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon it.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 267: Majority 128.—(Div. List, No. 278.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved, in page 6, line 36, to leave out from and including "a solvent," to the end of the subsection in page 7, line 12, and insert "may determine what is such fair rent."
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE CHAIRMAN: I think it right to inform the Committee that, although the Question put is, that the words "a solvent tenant" form part of the clause, the fate of this Amendment will practically determine all the words up to line 12 in the next page.
      MR. LEAMYsaid, he thought a most important matter was contained in this sub-section, for the words were a direction to the Court to take care that the rent should be so reasonably fixed as to allow the tenant, if selling in the open market, to obtain as much from the purchaser as if he had to sell to a landlord who had evicted him, the case being one where no improvements had been effected. Supposing, for instance, the full competition rent for a holding where no improvements had been effected was £25 a-year, the words of the sub-section were a direction to the Court to take care that the rent should be fixed at such a rate as would reasonably allow the tenant to get in the open market £140, which, was what he would be entitled to get if the landlord were to evict him. It was most important, in the interest of the tenants in the South of Ireland, that those words should be left in, for, if not, what would be the interest of the tenant in cases where the Ulster Custom, or an analogous custom, did not prevail? The Act of 1870 gave the tenant an interest in the holding, independently of the property he created for himself by improvements. In was only reasonable and proper that in the present Bill that interest, so created by the Act of 1870, should be preserved, quite independently of any interest created by the tenant's improvements. On these grounds, he should oppose the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland.
      MR. WARTONsuggested that the word "may," in line 10, should be omitted, and the word "shall" substituted.
      THE CHAIRMAN: It will be competent to do that when the new words are proposed to be inserted.
      Question, "That the words 'a solvent tenant' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Question, "That all the following words down to line 12, in page 7, stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Amendment proposed, that the words "may determine what is such fair rent," be inserted.—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. WARTONrepeated his suggestion that the word "shall" should be substituted for the word "may."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that would not do, because the Court must have power to refuse any application if, under the circumstances, they should see fit.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR, in the absence of his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill), wished to propose the insertion of the following words, of which that noble Lord had given Notice:—To insert, at the end of the previous Amendment, the words—
      "Provided always, That any tenant of any holding valued at ten pounds and upwards, before applying to the Court, shall notify to the landlord the amount of decrease in rent which he claims."
      He thought that Amendment, although originally suggested for another place, might come in perfectly well here. His noble Friend's desire was to put the landlord and tenant upon a perfect equality and therefore to provide that the tenant, as well as the landlord, should notify to the Court what was the alteration in the rent which he wished to have made, and that the tenant, if he desired to have the rent diminished, should declare the amount of diminution, just as the landlord should declare the amount of enhancement if he wished to enhance it. As to the limit of £10, that was a limitation which he (Mr. Balfour) would have omitted had the Amendment been entirely his own; but its object was to protect the tenants of small holdings—namely, those who were specially held in view by the Bill.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 7, line 12, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "Provided always, That any tenant of any holding valued at ten pounds and upwards, before applying to the Court, shall notify to the landlord the amount of decrease in rent which he claims."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONE: I must say, Sir, that the proceeding of the hon. Gentleman appears to me to be some what singular. He moves an Amendment; but he does not approve of it, and that

      1737
      which he moves is not in his own name, but appears upon the Paper in the name of someone else. He moves it in the name of a noble Lord who was in the House a few minutes ago, but who now is absent, and who appears to have changed his mind about his own Amendment. The hon. Gentleman, however, has moved it, even though he condemns it; and this appears to me to be a most singular way of commending it to the judgment of the Committee. Our contention is simply this—that the tenant should leave this matter to the discretion of the Court. I have not a doubt that the general rule of the Court will be to call upon all tenants to state the diminution they wish to obtain; but I do not think it would be well to fix a standard of this kind. I see the noble Lord has now returned, and I think he will see, with regard to this £10 limitation, that it would be understood to deprive the Court of any power to demand the amount of diminution asked for in the case of any tenant below £10 of annual rental. I do not think an inflexible rule of this kind would answer. It would be much better not to have such, an inflexible rule, which might operate hardly.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwas bound to say that the Prime Minister of to-day was very different from the Prime Minister of yesterday; and they had now seen the most extraordinary abandonment of what the Prime Minister said most positively yesterday—an abandonment for which neither the Committee nor the public were in the least prepared. He had hoped, considering the marvellous inconsistency shown by the Government to-night with respect to leases—he had hoped to have had the supreme honour of submitting an Amendment which the Government would consent to, and, by so doing, obtain some amount of credit and character. What was it that the right hon. Gentleman had said on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin)? The hon. Member proposed to omit the words which forced the landlord to raise the rent before he applied to the Court. The Prime Minister said—"Oh, that would never do, because there are landlords who would turn it into an immense engine of oppression. Such a landlord would say to the tenant, 'I mean to
      1738
      raise your rent;' and if the tenant asked, 'What amount of increase do you want?' the landlord would reply, 'No, I will not state the increase, I will take you into Court;' and would use that power, no doubt, in terrorem." He quite agreed with the Prime Minister on that point; but it was obvious that the thing must work both ways. He could not understand anyone who wished to maintain the balance between the two parties in this Bill saying that the landlords, before applying to the Court, must specify what increase they demanded, while the tenants need not specify what increase they demanded. Then the Prime Minister said the Court would undoubtedly make rules as to the proposed increase; but he did not know on what ground that was stated, and he believed, if there was nothing in the Bill to show the Court that the landlord and the tenant were in exactly the same position, and an apparent inequality was established, the Court would say that it was the intention of the Legislature to make that inequality. The tenants would take the landlords into Court against their will, for many tenants would consider themselves entitled to a reduction, and a great many landlords, taking into consideration the condition of the country and the state of agriculture, would make up their minds to a reduction of rent; but the Bill was positively forcing them, into Court, and giving them no chance of settling the matter without litigation. He only asked the Committee by this Amendment to adopt measures which, would undoubtedly prevent a whole lot of litigation. The Prime Minister objected to the Amendment because of the limitation; but that was an unreasonable objection, because he adopted the limitation at the Prime Minister's own suggestion. He thought it would be better that all the tenants should make up their minds as to the particular grievance under which they suffered, and tell the landlords that they considered their rents too high by so much, and would go into Court for a reduction. Why should that not be? The landlord might say he was willing to make an arrangement, but the tenant thought it better to drag the landlord into Court. Was that justice between the parties? He did not fancy the Government would much mind if

      1739
      the Amendment was carried, because it was so obviously just. He did not like the limit himself; but he recognized that the Conservatives were not in a majority and could not dictate to the House, and therefore he was very glad to take a crumb when he could not get a loaf. What he wanted was to have the principle recognized that the tenant should specify before going into Court as well as the landlord. The effect of that would be to make tenants cautious before entering into litigation; but the Bill as it stood was an Attorney's Bill. The attorneys would be anxious to get this Bill for the tenants' advantage and to stir up litigious action against the landlords. If the Amendment was accepted, a tenant would be obliged to consider how much he ought to pay and how much he could pay before going into Court; whereas, if the Bill was left as it was, the tenant might take the landlord into Court, saying, that although he could not do much he could expose the landlord, and probably he would get something, while the costs would have to be paid by the landlord. He urged the Committee to take up a judicial attitude between the two parties. If the Amendment was opposed by the Government, it would be supposed to be because he was a Member of the Conservative Party, or because the Government were resolved to abandon every word they had said on the previous day on one subject or another. If they did not like his limit they could take their own; but, for the sake of the peace of Ireland, he hoped they would recognize the principle he proposed.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he thought the Prime Minister had stated one very sufficient reason why the Government could not accept the Amendment. The Government assumed that they would have the best Court that could be constituted, and, there being such a Court, it might very well be left to regulate its own procedure. He was not at all apprehensive that the Bill as it stood would encourage that amount of litigation which the noble Lord feared. By the clause, as it was framed, it was competent for the landlord and the tenant to go jointly into Court and ask the Court practically to sanction their agreement. There was this further consideration—the first clause of the Bill creating a
      1740
      statutory term—namely the 3rd—proceeded on the principle that when a landlord demanded an increase of rent and the tenant accepted the increase, a statutory term at once arose. The 7th clause authorized a judicial rent to be fixed, and provided for a statutory term then arising by reference to the provisions of the 3rd section in that respect. The reason why the Prime Minister thought the landlord should first make a demand was that he should give the tenant an opportunity of getting a statutory term under the 3rd clause without any proceeding in Court under the 7th.
      MR. GREGORYsaid, the Amendment was intended to prevent litigation, and was based on the same principle as was adopted in regard to property taken for public undertakings. There the party claiming gave notice to the other party of what he should require. The matter then went before a jury, and if the demand was unreasonable the jury had jurisdiction over the costs. He presumed the Court in this case would have jurisdiction over the costs. No doubt, the scope of the Bill did tend to promote litigation between the landlord and the tenant; but the Amendment provided some check by requiring notice to be given to the landlord. In that way he believed an enormous amount of litigation would be prevented; and the Amendment could not prejudice the tenant, for if his demand was fair, it would be granted by the Court without liability for costs, if it was unreasonable, it would be fairly subjected to penalties.
      MR. CHAPLINthought the Attorney General for Ireland had supplied an answer to the noble Lord, when he said if the Amendment was accepted it would involve the re-casting of the Bill. He wished the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the other day, because it would have afforded still stronger reason for omitting the qualification of the landlord; but he thought it would be the least evil of the two that the Bill should be re-cast in this respect, so that the landlord and tenant should go into Court on equal terms. The landlord could not go into Court and have the rent fixed until he had first demanded the specific increase which had been refused. The Court, in fixing the rent, had to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case; but what was the very first circumstance it would have to consider?

      1741
      That the increase had been asked and refused; and the Court would think, therefore, the demand was unfair, and it must fix the rent at something less. Why was the tenant to be placed on a different footing? Not one argument had been advanced in point of principle against the Amendment except that it would involve the re-casting of the Bill.
      MR. SYNANsaid, he believed this Amendment would not save the parties expense, but would have rather the contrary effect. The notice by the landlord would save the parties going into Court if accepted by the tenant; but the notice by the tenant would render it necessary for the parties to go into Court notwithstanding the notice. The argument of the noble Lord, therefore, fell to the ground, and if this Amendment was adhered to they would have to begin the Bill all over again, and go back to the 3rd clause.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, everybody knew that the whole Bill turned on the 7th clause; and although he admitted that the Attorney General for Ireland made a point as to the statutory tenancy, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the Amendment, it would be easy to take the words of the 3rd clause and say that where the landlord accepted the tenant for 15 years the tenancy should be subject to statutory conditions, and that would exactly meet the point. As to the opposition of the Irish Members, represented by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), that was accounted for solely by the fact that they dared not accept the Amendment, because on most estates in Ireland they would have no case, and their opposition was simply to keep up strife between the landlord and tenant. He should certainly go to a division.
      MR. BRODRICKwished for information upon one point which he thought the Committee were entitled to have before going to a division. In the Bessborough Commission Report he noticed that many hundreds of tenants came before the Commission to demand a decrease, and that their demands seemed to be based on very insufficient grounds. If that was so, and tenants went into Court voluntarily and demanded a decrease without specifying what they wanted, surely the litigation would be something entirely beyond expectation, and the work of the Court would be more than
      1742
      any Court could be expected to do. He wished to ask the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), who was a Member of the Commission, whether what he had stated was correct, and whether he did not think applications to the Court would probably be far more numerous than had been expected?
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the only difficulty with regard to the Amendment was as to the restriction, which certainly was a difficulty; but, on the other hand, he thought it would be quite possible if the Amendment was adopted to dispense with that restriction. It appeared to him, however, that in point of principle the Amendment was entirely right.
      MR. SHAWsaid, it was the fact that hundreds of tenants applied to the Commission for reduction of rent; but he thought no one could imagine that a Court of Law would allow a crowd of people to make application without putting on record what they were applying for. These hundreds of tenants came before the Commission with their receipts of rent, and the Commission allowed them to make their own case. But in a Court of Law they would have to go upon some distinct statement. His opinion was that, instead of increasing litigation, the Bill and the Commission that would follow it would decrease litigation. He also believed that in nine cases out of ten the landlord and tenant would settle out of Court. He had met an Irish landlord the other day who was possessed with the notion that there would be great litigation, and that the rest of his life would be spent in litigation. He did all he could to drive that idea out of his head, and gave him a suggestion by which he seemed very much relieved. He said to him—"Go over to Ballynamore and marry the attorney's daughter."
      MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that there were two considerations which ought to be before the Committee before a decision was arrived at. There was no question of principle now involved, for the Prime Minister had given up that point. That was to say, he admitted it would be reasonable that under this Act, or by the rules of the Commissioners, it should be stipulated that notice should be given; but there were two matters which arose out of that. In the first place, if the Com-

      1743
      missioners found that the House, dealing with this Bill, had deliberately put in a requirement with regard to one party, and deliberately left it out with regard to the other, they would have the best possible reason for making no rule. In the next place, he did not find any power in the Bill by which the Commissioners could make any such rule as was here suggested. They would be able to make rules with regard to procedure only, and their right began with the application to the Court. They might require that the application should state what was demanded by the litigant; but that application was the beginning of the litigation, and what was necessary was that that litigation should be prevented.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he wished to point out to his hon. and learned Friend that the 42nd section distinctly said that the Commissioners had power to make rules—
      "As to any other matter or thing, whether similar or not to those above mentioned, in respect of which it may seem to the Land Commission expedient to make rules for the purpose of carring the Act into effect."
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 232: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 279.)
      MR. NORTHCOTEsaid, he had a proposal to make which was designed rather to supply that which he considered an omission in the Bill than to make any Amendment of its provisions. It would have, to some extent, the effect of testing the sincerity of English Members and Members of the Government as to the main provisions of the Bill, because it would inflict a certain charge upon the Exchequer, and that, as a matter of fact, was the only objection which could be taken to it. He trusted, however, that it would commend itself to all sections of the House, because, whilst benefiting the landlord, it would in no way injure the tenant. The simplest way to explain it would be to take the hypothetical case of a landlord succeeding to an estate valued by a Government Department at £1,000 a-year. By the possible action of the Court to be created under this Bill the value of that estate might be reduced to £900. He could not believe that the Govern-
      1744
      ment desired to take money from both pockets of the landlord. If they really considered the Bill a great measure of State policy, they would surely not shrink from accepting this slight pecuniary loss to the Exchequer. He did not know of any argument except this purely financial one that could be brought against the Amendment, and he regarded the proposal as a test whether hon. Members below the Gangway were sincere in their professed desire to deal equitably with the landlord, and whether the Ministry were prepared to make any other sacrifice than a vicarious one of the landlords for the sake of the great principles alleged to be embodied in the Bill.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 6, line 31, after "paid," insert "and if the rent fixed by the Court be less than the present rent, the Court shall grant to the landlord a certificate of the amount of reduction in the rent, and such certificate shall entitle him to a proportionate return from Government of the amount paid by him for succession duty upon the present rent."—(Mr. Northcote.)
      THE CHAIRMAN: My first impression with regard to this Amendment was—and I shall be glad, if any hon. Member entertains a different view, if he will raise the question of Order—that it proposed a drawback, and not a charge upon the Exchequer. If the proposal involves a regular charge on the Exchequer, on money already paid in to the Queen, it will not be competent for a private Member to move it.
      MR. GLADSTONE: Looking at the name of the Mover of the Amendment, one feels rather surprised that any proposal of this nature that he makes should be open to doubt. Nevertheless, I have the gravest doubts as to the competency of the hon. Member to move this Amendment. I cannot recollect a case in which a Member of Parliament moved that money that had been received by the Queen under the authority of Parliament should be repaid out of the Exchequer. The hon. Member says it is to be repaid by Government. I do not know whether he means the Members of the Government, but I presume he means the Exchequer. I would suggest that the hon. Member should allow this matter to stand over for a time, in order that it may be considered and examined into. There is nothing at all in the

      1745
      Amendment which, as a matter of propriety, requires that the provision should be inserted in this part of the measure. As a matter of good drafting, I should say it ought to go into a separate clause. I have not had sufficient opportunity of examining into the matter; but I must say that, as at present advised, I do not know of any precedent for money which has become the property of the Crown for public purposes having been taken back again. This is a very different matter to the reduction of a tax.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry my attention was not drawn to this matter earlier; but that it was not, no doubt, is owing to the fact that the Amendments are so very numerous. I have here a Rule which is very clear on the point under discussion. Standing Order, 29th March, 1707—
      "That this House will not proceed upon any Petition, Motion, or Bill for granting any money, or for releasing or compounding any sum of money due to the Crown, but in Committee of the Whole House."
      That means that we should require to be in Committee of the Whole House for the purpose before we could consider this proposal.
      MR. NORTHCOTE: Of course, I have not the slightest desire to do anything contrary to the wishes of the Committee. I would ask permission to withdraw the Amendment, in order to examine into the point of Order, and to consider whether I should adopt any other means to effect my object.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Perhaps the hon. Member—as we are anxious to meet him on the point of equity—would consider whether he might not add to his Amendment words calling on the landlords to refund the difference between the Income Tax they actually pay on Irish farms, and the real income exacted by them from the said farms.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I called on the hon. and learned Member to move his Amendment—not to make this suggestion.
      MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that since he handed in his Amendment at the Table, an Amendment had been accepted by the Government and passed by the Committee on the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk, and that Amendment
      1746
      that had been so passed, to some extent, covered the same ground as his proposal. The terms of his Amendment were these. After the words "such fair rent," in the Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment, insert—
      "Provided always, that in determining such fair rent, no rent shall be imposed or charged upon, but the rent shall be totally exclusive of the fair value of the tenant's interest in his holding, whether in respect of improvements or otherwise, as may be estimated by the Court."
      He did not think the Amendment accepted was as expressive as he could have desired, and as he thought the necessities of the case required. He, however, was bound to take into consideration the alarm which a more expressive Amendment would create, and the difficulties it might cause; therefore, he would not move his Amendment.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must now point out to the Committee that all Amendments down to line 11, on page 7, have been disposed of. The next Amendment is in the name of Mr. Marum.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he rose to move a Motion which he was sure the Prime Minister would not quarrel with. It was that the Chairman do report Progress.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
      MR. GLADSTONE: It would be more convenient to finish the paragraph of the clause upon which we are engaged before reporting Progress.
      MR. MARUMsaid, he had the following Amendment on the Paper:—In page 7, line 12, after "title," insert—
      "Provided that the tenant of a tenancy subject to the Ulster tenant-right custom, or to a usage corresponding to the Ulster tenant-right custom, may claim to have the Court fix what is the fair rent to be paid either in reference to such custom or usage as aforesaid, or in reference to the scale of compensation for disturbance, and the right to compensation for improvements (if any) as aforesaid, but not partly in reference to the custom or usage and partly under the provisions of this section."
      His object in putting down this Amendment was to clear away all restrictions imposed on the fixing of a fair rent. He was not prepared to say that, under present circumstances, the Proviso was necessary. If the Attorney General for Ireland thought it was not, he would not move it.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, it was not necessary.
      MR. HEALYsaid, that, before they agreed to report Progress, he should like to ask the Government why they proposed to take a Morning Sitting to-morrow, seeing that they had the whole of the day for their Business?
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACES ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 9.]
  (Mr. Walter James, Mr. Bryce.)
  METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACES ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 9.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Interpretation clause).
    MR. W. H. JAMESmoved, in page 1, line 13, after "unoccupied," to insert the words—
    "But shall not include any enclosed land which has not a public road or footpath completely round the same."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Power to trustees to transfer certain open spaces to local authority).
    MR. WARTONmoved that the Chairman do report Progress. This was a Bill of far too much importance to be proceeded with so late at night.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
    MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he hoped that the hon. and learned Member would not persist in the Motion.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he most decidedly should.
    MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, the Bill had been on the Paper for a considerable time, but had been postponed from time to time in consequence of representations made by the noble Lord opposite on behalf of those interested, and their opposition had been arranged. There was now no opposition to meet, and he hoped the Bill might be allowed to proceed.
    EARL PERCYjoined in the appeal, and asked his hon. and learned Friend not to press the Motion. As the Bill
    1748
    first appeared, he certainly was not a friend to it; but it was a matter to which he had given some attention, and he thought the Amendments which the hon. Member had agreed to insert would entirely remove all objection to the Bill.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he could trust the assurance of the noble Lord, and would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 11, after "as hereinafter mentioned," insert "and with the consent of the owners and occupiers of any houses fronting upon, or the owners or occupiers of which are liable to be specially rated for the maintenance of the open space, to be signified in manner hereinafter appearing."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 27, after "trustees," insert "and such persons or class of persons shall be discharged from any special rate or other obligation previously imposed on them in respect of such open space."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, after "resolution," insert "as aforesaid, and with such consent as aforesaid."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 9, after "meeting," insert "and if such resolution shall also have been confirmed by two-thirds in number of the persons present at a second like meeting, to be summoned by such notice as aforesaid, and to be held at an interval of not less than one calendar month from the first meeting, the consent of such owners and occupiers of houses as aforesaid shall be held to have been given and signified if, at a meeting of such persons summoned by at least one month's notice in writing given as hereinafter directed, a resolution shall have been passed by a majority of at least two-thirds in number of the persons present at such meeting consenting to the conveyance, grant, or transfer of the said open space as aforesaid, or to such an agreement with the Metropolitan Board, Vestry, or District Board; and if such resolution have also been confirmed by two-thirds in number of such owners and occupiers present at a second like meeting, to be summoned in like manner to the first meeting, and to be held at an interval of not less than one calendar month from the first meeting.
    "Notice of such meeting shall be given by leaving the same or sending the same through the post to every house fronting upon, or the owner or occupier of which is liable to be specially rated for the maintenance of the said garden, and by inserting the same as an advertisement

    1749
    at least three times in any two or more London daily papers, and such notice shall state generally the object of the said meeting, and no such meeting shall be held between the first day of August and the thirty-first day of January in the following year.
    "For the purposes of this section the owner of a house shall include any person entitled to any term of years therein; and the occupier of a house shall be the person rated to the relief of the poor in respect of the said house.
    "If at any meeting of such trustees or managerial body, or at any meeting of such owners or occupiers as before mentioned, the resolution proposed at any such meeting be not carried, no meeting shall be called or held with the same object in respect to the same garden or open space until the expiration of three years from the day on which such resolution so proposed was rejected at any such meeting as above mentioned."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 15, after "number," insert "the trustees or other managing body of any such open space as aforesaid may (anything contained in the Act or other instrument under which, they are constituted or act to the contrary notwithstanding) in pursuance of any such resolution as aforesaid, and with such consent as aforesaid, signified as aforesaid, admit persons not owning, occupying, or residing in any house fronting on the said open space to the enjoyment of the said open space at all times, or at any specified time or times, and may regulate the admission of such persons thereto on such terms and conditions in all respects as the trustees may think proper.
    "Any trustees so acting as aforesaid shall have the same power of making bye-laws as that conferred by the fourth section of the Act passed in the twenty-sixth year of Her Majesty, chapter thirteen, intituled 'An Act for the protection of certain Garden or Ornamental Grounds in Cities and Boroughs upon the Committee therein mentioned.' "—(Mr. W. H. James.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 16, at end, add "Where the freehold of any such open space as is referred to in this section, and the freehold of all or of the major part of the houses round such open space are vested in the same person or persons, the powers conferred by this section shall not be exercised without the consent of such person or persons."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Power to transfer other open spaces to local authority).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 11, add "and no such meeting shall be held between the first day of August and the thirty-first day of October in any year."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Powers and duties of local authority).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 12, after "regulation," insert "but shall not allow the playing of any games or sports therein."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Provisions for extra-parochial places).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 20, after "Board," insert "No estate, interest, or right of a profitable or beneficial nature in, over, or affecting an open space, churchyard, cemetery, or burial ground, shall, except with the consent of the person entitled thereto, be taken away or injuriously affected by anything done under this Act without compensation being made for the same; and such compensation shall be paid by the Metropolitan Board, Vestry, or District Board by which such estate, interest, or right is taken away or injuriously affected, and shall, in case of difference, be ascertained and provided in the same manner as if the same compensation were for the compulsory purchase and taking, or the injurious affecting of lands, under the provisions of 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' and any Acts amending the same."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Application in city of London).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 1, after "defray," insert "out of the metage of grain duty or otherwise."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
    MR. FIRTHsaid, it was undesirable that there should be any further expenditure imposed upon the metage of grain duty. At the present moment more money had been borrowed on this duty than there was power to borrow by Act of Parliament, and, undoubtedly, they might look forward to the duty being abolished before long. It was not in any case desirable that Parliament should give further sanction to the expenditure the City of London of moneys raised by from the whole Metropolis.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 2, after "them," insert "and any bye-laws made by the Corporation for the regulation of any open space acquired under the powers of this Act shall be made and allowed in manner prescribed by 'The Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act, 1878.' "
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL. 199.]
  (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Duncan M'Laren, Sir David Wedderburn.)
  Lords Amendments considered.
  On the Motion to agree with the Lords in the Amendment to omit Clause 7,
  MR. WEBSTERsaid, that it was quite impossible, at that late period of the Sitting, to discuss the Amendment they were asked to agree with. He was unable to agree with the proposal; and yet he must say that, from what he had heard of the circumstances under which the Amendment was brought forward, and agreed to in the House of Lords, it would be perfectly vain for him, an individual Member, to attempt to get from the Scotch Members such an expression of opinion as would persuade the House to differ from the House of Lords in this Amendment. At the same time, if it were earlier in the evening, he would, by way of a protest against this proceeding of the House of Lords, have reminded the House of some of the circumstances. This Bill, which would effect an important change in the Law of Scotland, was submitted to a Select Committee, which took evidence, and that of the most distinguished Members of the Scotch Bar among others, and it was only after receiving this evidence, and much deliberation, that the Select Committee allowed the Bill to leave their hands in the shape in which it went up to the House of Lords. This 7th clause was the deliberate expression of the Committee's opinion, and he desired to make this final, though unavailing, protest against its being struck out.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, this clause was omitted at the special wish of the Lord Chancellor, who did not see the objections to its omission that his hon. Friend did; but the Lord Chancellor did see grave objections to leaving the clause in, one of which was the opportunity it would give a dissolute husband to sponge upon a wife with a small estate. It was thought right to strike out the clause, therefore, and leave it to the good sense of the parties.
  Lords Amendments agreed to.

MOTION.
  ENTAILED ESTATES CONVERSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN),in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to authorize the conversion of entailed estates, and to amend the Law of Entail in Scotland, would only say that if there was one object in which proprietors and tenants in Scotland were agreed it was in the desirability of giving further powers for the sale of entailed estates, because nothing caused more injury to the agricultural interest than the limitations the law now imposed. At that late hour he would not detain the House by explaining the provisions of the Bill, but simply asked leave to introduce it.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to authorise the conversion of Entailed Estates, and to amend the Law of Entail in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 203.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.