Commons Sitting of 10 July 1882

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [July 7] reported—£5,703,891, Consolidated Fund.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Lords Amendments—London River-side Fish Market.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Passenger Vessels Licences (Scotland) * [234].
Ordered—First Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance * [233]; Consolidated Fund (No. 4)*.
First Reading—Cathedral Statutes * [232]; Merchant Shipping (Colonial Inquiries) * [235]; Pluralities Acts Amendment * [236].
Second Reading—Lunacy Districts (Scotland) * [224]; Beer Dealers' Retail Licences Act (1880) Amendment * [229]; Lunacy Regulation Amendment [230].
Committee—Arrears of Rent (Ireland) (re-comm.) [213]—R. P. [First Night]; Partnerships (recomm.) [179]—R.P.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON RIVER-SIDE FISH MARKET BILL (by Order.)

    LORDS AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had given Notice of his intention to move to disagree with two new clauses which the Lords had added to the Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member intends to move to disagree with Clauses 54a and 54b.
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes.
    MR. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member's Motion will be taken presently.
    Lords Amendments, as far as new Clause 54a, agreed to.
    New Clause 54a (Providing for compensation to Corporation of London), read a second time.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he now rose to move that the House should disagree with the Lords as to the insertion of two new clauses—Clauses 54a and 54b. It would be necessary for him to enter somewhat into detail as to what the Bill proposed to do, as the fate of the Bill depended on the course the House adopted; because if the House agreed with the House of Lords in the insertion of these two clauses the Bill would be practically at an end, as he had the authority of the promoters for saying that if either of those clauses was inserted they would at once withdraw the Bill, and the project would not be proceeded with further. As the matter was one of great importance, not only to his own constituents but to the whole of the Metropolis, in order to guard against such an unfortunate result as that it was necessary that he should detain the House at more than usual length in order to substantiate his case against these clauses. The House would soon be able to see how important the Bill was to those he represented. It was a Bill for the establishment of a Fish Market on a site in the East End called Shadwell. The site of the proposed new Fish Market was in a very densely populated neighbourhood, to which it was of the greatest importance that fish should be supplied, and supplied in abundance. The effect of the two clauses inserted by the Lords would be to destroy utterly the smallest chance of that Market being established. At present, Billingsgate was the only Market available for the purchase and sale of fish from one end of London to the other, and the Corporation of London was the authority under whose auspices the Billingsgate Market was carried on. That Market had been shown to be utterly inadequate for its purposes for many years past. Constant

    1917
    complaints had been made on the subject, not only by those who sold but by those who bought the fish, and by many others who were interested in securing the freedom of the traffic of that part of the City in which Billingsgate was situated. The approaches to Billingsgate, both by land and water, were of such a character as to seriously interfere with the supply of fish which entered into the Market. The approaches by water were of such a nature as to render it necessary that the fish should be carried over planks on men's backs in order to obtain an entrance into the Market. But bad as the approaches from the water side were, those on the land side were infinitely worse. It had long been a standing complaint that those who desired to obtain a supply of fish for distribution in London found it almost impossible to get anywhere near the Market. After 9 o'clock in the morning he understood that all vans, barrows, and carts were cleared out of the City, and subsequent to that hour the fish had to be carried on the backs of men in order to be loaded on to the vans which were compelled to stand outside the area of the City. The natural result of all this was greatly to limit the supply of fish and to enhance the price. This had been a matter of complaint for 20 years at least, and it had more than once been brought before the authorities of the City and others concerned. In 1862, 1868, and 1874 the Corporation of London considered these complaints; but although a certain expenditure had been incurred, and certain things had been done by the Corporation, nothing to render the Market at all adequate to the requirements of the public had been done by the Corporation. In 1880 the attention of the Home Secretary was directed to the state of affairs at Billingsgate; and he had to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the prompt action he took in the matter by appointing a gentleman, thoroughly qualified, to examine into the matter. Mr. Walpole, one of the Inspectors of Fisheries, was directed to institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and he made a valuable Report, which was now on the Table of the House. That Report, among other recommendations, contained the following:—
    1918
    "vii. It is impossible to say exactly at what precise spot between the port of debarkation and Billingsgate the 281 tons of fish which came by land went bad; but there is reason to believe that some portion of it went bad during its transit through the streets of London.
    viii. The risk of its going bad is increased by the delays constantly extending for hours, and occasionally extending over days, which are due to the inadequate approaches to, and want of room outside of, Billingsgate.
    ix. The delays which thus take place have probably also the effect of enhancing the price of the cheaper kinds of fish in London.
    x. The delays cannot be avoided unless (a) adequate approaches to the Market are constructed, and adequate standing room for vans is provided, or (b) the market is itself removed.
    xi. It would probably be a serious loss to the public and the trade if the Market were removed from the riverside."
    From this it will be seen that Mr. Walpole reported that it was impossible to meet the requirements of the public unless the Market was either removed from Billingsgate, or larger accommodation and adequate approaches provided at the existing Market. Mr. Walpole wound up his recommendations by expressing a strong opinion that in the event of a new Market being provided, it should be at the waterside. The Report of Mr. Spencer Walpole was communicated by the Home Secretary to the Corporation of London, and, on the receipt of it, the Corporation took action by appointing a Fish Supply Committee to inquire into the present unsatisfactory state of the fish supply of the Metropolis, and the increased cost of fish to the consumers. The House would see from the terms of the Reference that the Corporation acknowledged two things—first, that the fish supply to the Metropolis was unsatisfactory; and, secondly, that the unsatisfactory state of the supply had resulted in increased cost of fish to the consumers. The conclusions at which the Corporation Committee arrived were that one wholesale Market was calculated to meet the requirements of the trade; that, in the interests of the public, such Market should be at the riverside, and that the existing approaches to Billingsgate were utterly inadequate. That was the conclusion at which the Corporation Committee arrived after a most laborious investigation. But that was not the only inquiry by a public body into the matter. The Metropolitan Board of Works also inquired into it, and they arrived at the con-

    1919
    clusion that Billingsgate was utterly inadequate; that the deficient accommodation limited the supply of fish and increased the cost; that the Charter granted to the Corporation was out of date; that it acted prejudicially to the 4,000,000 inhabitants of the Metropolis; and that it should be altered by legislation so that local Markets might be established. The House would, therefore, see that the net result of three independent inquiries was as follows:—That Billingsgate was utterly inadequate; that the price of fish was thereby increased; and that the Market should be at the waterside. The Corporation, after the receipt of the Report of the Committee, referred it back to the Committee to consider the question of site. The Fish Supply Committee reported that one Market would be the proper thing to have, and that it should be at the waterside. The second Committee to whom the matter was referred—being practically the same Committee as the first—arrived at the conclusion that there should be two Markets; that the new Market should be inland, and that Farringdon Market, provided for fruit and vegetables, should be utilized for fish. The House would see that the Committee arrived at a conclusion diametrically opposite and in direct contradiction to Mr. Walpole's Report, and to the Report of the previous Committee of the Corporation. The propriety of utilizing Farringdon Market was brought before Mr. Walpole in the course of his examination before the House, and he said—
    "I do not think that that proposal of Farringdon Market, or whatever you choose to call it, would meet the requirements of the case."
    But he (Mr. Ritchie) did not think that the Corporation were ever serious in proposing Farringdon Market. They themselves expressed their belief that it would never succeed, and all the evidence showed that it would be an utter failure. Their opinion of the matter was shown conclusively by a Motion submitted to the Court of Common Council a few days ago for taking power to re-convert that Farringdon Market into a Fruit Market again. That Market was an inland Market, and, looking to the fact that their own Committee came to the unanimous conclusion that no inland Market would be satisfactory, but that
    1920
    a riverside Market afforded the only means of meeting the difficulty, this proposal must be regarded as a mere sop to public opinion in order to induce the people of London to believe that the Corporation were at least disposed to do something. He would like the House to remember that there had been no proposal by the Corporation to enlarge and increase Billingsgate Market, as recommended by Mr. Walpole. On the contrary, a motion to that effect was defeated in the Common Council by a considerable majority. It having been seen that the Corporation of London would neither enlarge Billingsgate nor propose some other riverside Market to meet the requirements of the case it became a serious question what further steps should be taken in the matter. It was evident that the unsatisfactory condition of things then existing ought not to be allowed to continue, and it was also evident that the Corporation of London intended to do nothing adequate in the matter. It was only then that private enterprise stepped in order to supply a public want. The present Bill was the result. In order that the House might see how important it was to provide this new Market, he would read half-a-dozen answers given in the course of the inquiry before the Committee of the House by a fishmonger well known in the West of London. The gentleman to whom he referred was Mr. Charles, who said—
    "Q. 1293. You would have double the supply of fish in three months without any question, if there were proper water accommodation to unload the fish coming by water.
    "1294. There is no question that the present state of the Market accommodation at Billingsgate has the effect of preventing and stopping off the further supply if there was better Market accommodation.
    "1298. The Irish Fisheries are about to be developed, and there is an inexhaustible supply of fish there, and when they start I do not know where they are going to take the fish.
    "1292. There would be such an immense quantity of fish come from Ireland when the fisheries are developed that one cannot explain the extent they will be developed to.
    "1300. The difficulties and dangers of getting to Billingsgate choke off even the present supply of fish. The expenses are enormous.
    "1302. The whole of the work of the fish trade would be relieved from the load that has crushed them for the last 20 years, which has crushed and ruined many honest and hard working men. They cannot stand the expense of doing business at that Market."

    1921
    In regard to the difficulties of getting fish away Mr. Charles said—
    "1363. I have to get it away as if I stole it."
    And the result of this state of things is shown in the answer to Question 1,410—
    "Owing to the expense of getting it to Market, an immense quantity of fish that is caught and killed does not come. It is used for manuring the land."
    That was the result, from the testimony he had cited, of the present condition of things at Billingsgate Market. An argument had been used in the papers distributed to hon. Members of the House on behalf of the City that this Bill was a mere speculative enterprise brought forward by Messrs. Hewitt and Co., in order to make profit out of it. That assertion was contradictory of the whole case of the Corporation. What they said was that the Market was not wanted, and that it would undoubtedly prove a monstrous failure. Having taken that ground before the Committee they then said the proposed Market was undertaken by Messrs. Hewitt and Co., because of the profit they hoped to make out of it. The fact that Messrs. Hewitt and Co. were promoting the Bill was a powerful argument in favour of it. They were about the oldest firm who sent fish to Billingsgate Market, and they declared that they were unable to find accommodation for the fish they could supply. They added, that their business was much hampered, and the interests of the public much damaged, by the existing state of things; and, therefore, they bad been compelled to come forward and take steps by which the public would ultimately be greatly benefited. He certainly thought the fact that the Bill was promoted by Messrs. Hewitt and Co. was one of the strongest arguments which could be used in favour of this Fish Market. But it so happened that the proposal for the new Market did not originate with Messrs. Hewitt and Co. It originated with a public body at the East End of London—the Limehouse Board of Works. The site was proposed by the Limehouse Board of Works to the Corporation of London in 1868, and again in 1881, and it was only after the refusal of the Corporation to do anything at all that Messrs. Hewitt and Co. came forward and introduced the present Bill. That dis-
    1922
    posed of the "speculator" argument. The interests of the public were protected by the provisions of the Bill, which secured that the tolls should be only one-half of those levied at Billingsgate, and that out of the eight acres proposed to be taken four acres should remain a Fish Market for ever. The measure was supported by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and by Vestries and District Boards representing 1,500,000 of the population of London. It was also supported, and evidence had been given in its favour, by Mr. Walpole, the Inspector of Fisheries, who said—
    "I think the proposed Market would fulfil all the conditions I had in view. I have no doubt the price of fish would be cheapened."
    Under these circumstances, he should like to know what would become of the "speculator" argument which had been raised? The Bill was opposed by only one body in the Metropolis—the Corporation of London, and they had fought it both in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords for many days. The ground upon which they fought it was that they were in the possession of a Charter of Edward III. By which they were appointed the Market authority over the whole of the Metropolis. But, notwithstanding their opposition, the Committee of the House of Commons passed the Bill, and it went to the House of Lords. The Corporation had then to consider whether they should take any further steps in the matter. Surely they ought to have been content with vindicating their ancient Charter in the House of Commons. They met to consider what course they should adopt in the House of Lords. They had not, however, an open meeting to discuss the question, but they considered it necessary to meet with closed doors. He desired to call the attention of the House to that fact, because in a moment or two he should have to comment upon it. [Cries of "Agreed!"] Hon. Members who called out "Agreed" did not understand the enormous importance of the question to the people of London, and he felt bound to put the case fully before the House of Commons. This meeting, which was called for the purpose of considering whether the Bill should be opposed in the House of Lords, came to a decision to oppose it by a majority of one. And he might say here that it was the custom for Members of the

    1923
    Upper House of the Corporation—the Aldermen—to sit and vote at such meetings with the Lower House, representing the Common Council. On that occasion two or three Aldermen sat with the Common Councilmen, and they all voted for opposition to the Bill in the House of Lords, so that the proposal in favour of opposition was carried by the votes of those Members who belonged to the Upper House. If the Common Councilmen had been left to themselves their vote would have been not to proceed with the opposition in the House of Lords. The Bill was accordingly opposed in the House of Lords; but the Committee arrived at the conclusion that the Market was necessary, and declared the Preamble of the Bill proved. At the instance of the Counsel for the Corporation, however, the Committee was induced to insert two clauses in the Bill, which, if adhered to, would prove absolutely fatal to the measure. It would be necessary for him to read these two clauses to the House, as they had not been read at the Table. The first was clause—
    "54a. The Company shall make full compensation to the Mayor and commonalty and citizens of the City of London for all loss and injury they may sustain by the diminution by reason of the establishment and continuance of the Market by this Act authorized of the tolls and dues on fish conveyed by water to their Market called Billingsgate Market, and for the purposes of such compensation the tolls and dues actually taken and received by the said Mayor and commonalty and citizens for and in respect of such fish at the last-mentioned Market during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1881, shall be deemed to be the amount of the tolls and dues in respect of the diminution of which such compensation is to be paid, and the amount of such compensation, unless agreed between the Company and the said Mayor and commonalty and citizens, shall be determined by arbitration in manner provided by 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' with respect to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement."
    The next clause was as follows:—
    "54b. If the Mayor and commonalty and citizens of the City of London shall within six months after the passing of this Act elect to exercise the powers of this Act and of such election shall give notice to the Company under the hand of the Town Clerk all the powers of this Act shall be, and they are hereby transferred to and vested in the said Mayor and commonalty and citizens, and this Act shall be read as though the said Mayor and commonalty and citizens had been therein named instead of the Company: Provided that such transfer and vesting shall not take effect until the said Mayor
    1924
    and commonalty and citizens shall have paid to the Company all the costs, charges, and expenses incurred by them in obtaining this Act to be taxed by the proper officer in case the parties differ about the same."
    Those were the two extraordinary clauses which had been inserted at the instigation of the Corporation of London. With reference to the Purchase Clause, he was authorized to say, on behalf of the promoters, that they were quite prepared to agree to the insertion of a proper Purchase Clause in the Bill, if the House should see fit to accept it. But the present clause was not a clause for the purchase of the Market, but a clause for the purchase of the Bill. Let him direct attention to its terms. The Bill was to be taken over on the payment of taxed costs. A more gross injustice could not be conceived. Everybody knew that there was a vast difference between taxed costs and actual costs, and the proposal was virtually that gentlemen who came forward to meet a public want were to be heavily fined because they had proposed to do that which the Corporation ought to have done but had not. For doing that, these gentlemen, who were really public benefactors, were to be fined the enormous difference which existed between taxed costs and actual costs. Nothing could be more monstrous. It might be said that, however unfair to the promoters, this was not a matter that affected the public; but the clause contained other conditions which could not be assented to from a public standpoint. If the clause was assented to, there was no compulsion placed upon the Corporation of London to make the Market. They were merely to purchase the Bill by paying taxed costs, and they might then put the Bill in their pocket; Having steadily opposed the Bill in every step of its progress, and having said throughout that the proposed Market would be of no use; that it was not wanted, and that it was totally unnecessary; if they were to be the body in trusted with the carrying out of the Act, what chance would there be of the Market being made or used? He confessed there was no doubt in his own mind that if this Purchase Clause were put in force the people of London would find themselves as badly off for a riverside Fish Market as they were now. He now asked the House to consider for a mo-

    1925
    ment what the Compensation Clause was. The clause provided that, taking the revenue of Billingsgate Market for 1881, for every 1s. the revenue might hereafter fall off after the New Market was opened, the promoters of the Bill should compensate the City of London. He would like to know, in the first place, what the compensation was to be paid for? It had been clearly proved that the Corporation had not performed their duty as the Market authority for the Metropolis, because the state of the Fish Market at Billingsgate had long been a crying evil in the Metropolis, and nothing adequate had been done. He certainly could not see what the Corporation had to be compensated for. The House, however, would see the remarkable position which would follow from the acceptance of the clause. The revenue of Billingsgate might fall off year by year until it amounted to nothing at all. The Corporation of London would then be at liberty to dispose of the site, and would still be able to obtain the revenue they had lost from the promoters of the present Bill. He would ask the House to consider who it was who was likely to pay that compensation. In the end, it would not be the promoters of the Bill, but those who bought the fish. The poor of the East End of London would have to pay compensation or tribute to the rich Corporation of London for the privilege of supplying themselves with cheap food. One thing was certain—that if this compensation was to be paid, the result would be that the maximum tolls would be enforced which the Bill authorized the promoters to levy, and the poor of London would have to pay them. This was on the supposition that the Market would be made even were this Compensation Clause to remain; but he contended that this clause would render it impossible to proceed with the Market. It was perfectly certain that no man would subscribe 1d. to an undertaking burdened with such a clause, and the consequence would be that if either of those two clauses were allowed to remain in the Bill the Market would not be made, and the poor of London would be deprived of the cheap food which it was the object of the measure to provide them with. But what matter? The Corporation would have vindicated their ancient Charter. Let them look at the circumstances of the times in which it was
    1926
    granted. It was a Charter of Edward III., granted 500 years ago. At that time the population of England did not amount to one-half of the population of London now. At that time the Corporation was the only public body which represented London; but the case was altogether different now, the circumstances had entirely changed. Could it be contended that the Corporation should continue to have the exclusive control over the supply of food for 4,000,000 people; that no market should be established outside the City without the consent of, and the payment of compensation to, the Corporation? Was such a claim to be tolerated? No House of Commons would sanction the claim that no Market should be established in any part of London except by the Corporation of the City, whose jurisdiction extended over something like a square mile. It would be intolerable, even if the Corporation had done their duty; and it was notorious that they had not. This very question had been a crying evil for years, and the Corporation did little or nothing until the Home Secretary moved in the matter. He hoped he had shown to the House that the effect of either of these clauses would be to entirely defeat the object of the Bill, and that they were unjust and contrary to public policy. He should like now to say a word as to the tactics of the Representatives of the Corporation in the House of Lords. He said "Representatives," because the Common Council had never sanctioned the application for clauses at all, and that was a matter of very great importance in the consideration of the question. When it was proposed in the Court of Common Council to ask for the insertion of Compensation Clauses the proposal was rejected by a majority of 7. The Court, with the votes of the Aldermen, decided only by a majority of 1 to oppose the Bill at all in the House of Lords; and a majority of 7 not to ask for compensation. But this vital point was held back from the Committee, for when it was proposed to bring it out, the Counsel for the Corporation got up and pleaded privilege, owing to the fact that the meeting of the Common Council at which that conclusion was arrived at was held with closed doors. In that way the fact that the Court of Common Council had decided by a majority of 7 not to ask for compensa-

    1927
    tion was not placed before the Lords. The circumstance was deliberately withheld from the Committee, and he was curious to know who was responsible for that action? He was also curious to know who instructed the Counsel to ask for these clauses? It certainly was not the Court of Common Council. They had decided against asking for them. Was it the Billingsgate ring? Was it the people who were concerned in carrying on the business of the Market at Billingsgate who obtained the insertion of these clauses? Perhaps someone would tell the House. In asking the House to reject these clauses, he only asked them to give effect to the resolution came to by the Court of Common Council. On the one side, they had the opinion of the minority of the Court of Common Council. On the other side, there was the opinion of the majority of the Common Council, of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and of the Vestries and District Boards of London, representing 1,500,000 of the inhabitants, all of whom desired the excision of these clauses. Could there, then, be a doubt as to what the decision of the House ought to be? He had laid the case as clearly and as fairly as he could before the House, and he thought he had shown that the Market at Billingsgate was utterly inadequate to supply the wants of the Metropolis; that it raised the price of fish, and that it diminished the supply. He had shown that the Corporation had done nothing adequate to meet the necessities of the case, and that it never would do anything. While they had given a great many reasons against the Shadwell Scheme, they had not said one word from beginning to end to show what the Corporation proposed to do. Nothing had been said about the intention of the Corporation to enlarge the approaches to Billingsgate, or to improve the supply of fish. The present Bill provided adequate accommodation. The House of Commons had approved of it, and a Committee of the House of Lords said that it was necessary. The public opinion was unanimous in the desire that the House should pass the Bill, and should cut out those clauses which, if left in, must lead to the withdrawal of the measure. The attempt which had been made to defeat the Bill was an unworthy attempt, an attempt made by a side-wind which he was sure the
    1928
    House of Commons would never endorse. The question for the House to decide was—would they prevent cheap fish from reaching the toiling millions of the Metropolis? Would Parliament stop the inhabitants of London from having the supply of fish which could be, and would be, brought to them, but which, as the Bill then stood, would continue to be denied to them? With these clauses no Market could be made, and fish would continue as dear and as scarce as at present. Without these clauses a splendid Market would be erected, and fish would be supplied to the poor plentifully and cheaply. That was the issue before the House; and he was perfectly certain that the decision they would arrive at would be the decision he was then asking them to come to—namely, to cut out these two clauses, and to make the Bill a measure that would confer inestimable benefits upon the whole population of the Metropolis.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    MR. MARRIOTTsaid, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) belonged to the Party who had recently formed an association with a most laudable object—namely, the object of defending liberty and property. But this Bill, if passed without these Amendments, would be a most direct attack upon both the property of a Corporation and of individuals. ["Oh, oh!"] An hon. Member said "Oh, oh!" but up to the present time Market rights had been as much property as land, or as any other description of property. Market rights had been granted by Charter, or given by Act of Parliament, and he was not aware of a single instance where these rights had been taken away without compensation having been given. It was not many years since the town of Manchester purchased the Market rights of Sir Edward Moseley for something like £200,000, and, having purchased the rights for that sum, they spent many hundred thousand pounds in building Markets. Suppose that House were to pass an Act by which a Market could be built close to an existing Market, every single individual who had advanced money for the purchase of those rights

    1929
    would lose the security on which the money had been advanced. That was exactly the case with the Corporation of London. The question was not now a question of cheap fish. He thought if it had been a question of cheap food, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would have been the last person to propose this Amendment. They would rather have believed in the hon. Member's sincerity if he had proposed protection or bounties on fish. Coming as this Amendment did from as hon. Member who was so fond of bounties and protection, he thought the House would look with suspicion upon his plea of cheap fish. The question did not affect the Corporation of London alone, but every Corporation in England. With regard to the Corporation of London, it was an undoubted fact that the Charter, with respect to Markets, did go back to the time of Edward III.; but he did not know that that was an objection against the Charter. If the Charter was not granted for proper purposes—if the rights of the Corporation had been abused, if the Charter was a wrong one, and if it could be amended, let the matter be brought before the House and discussed openly. It was not proper that the Market rights of the Corporation of London should be abolished by a side-wind; and they certainly would be destroyed if these clauses of the Lords were rejected. With regard to the Markets of London, no less than £2,750,000 had been advanced to erect them. All those who had advanced money had done so on the idea that the Charter was good. ["No!"] An hon. Member said "No;" he would have an opportunity of proving that presently. He made the assertion that the money had been advanced upon the security of the Market rights of the City of London, and if this Bill were passed without giving to the City the right of pre-emption and the right to compensation, that security was lessened. He found that in dealing with Gas, or Water, or Railway Companies, the House was always very jealous of doing anything which would limit the security upon which money had been advanced. But the case for the City of London was far stronger. Gas, and Water, and Railway Companies were Companies trading for the purpose of making money; but, by the Market rights of the City of London, not one
    1930
    farthing was made for the coffers of the City. The whole of the money obtained by those rights went to pay the interest on the money advanced. Up to the present time these rights of the City of London had never been interfered with except in one case—the case of Covent Garden. This Charter was granted in the time of Edward III., and the only Market rights ever given in opposition to the City of London were those given to the Duke of Bedford by Charles II. At that time Charles II. was by no means very favourable to the Corporation, and, by an action in the Court of King's Bench, an attempt was made to upset the Corporation rights. The City, however retaining all their own rights, determined not to interfere with the Duke of Bedford in respect to Covent Garden. To the construction of the Columbia, Hungerford, and South London Markets the City could have objected; but they did not—in fact, the City had never objected to retail Markets. The Cattle Market Act was passed in 1835, and in that Act a Compensation Clause, exactly similar to the one proposed in this Bill, was inserted. That clause now stood in that Act, and if a similar one were put in this Bill, the Corporation would have no objection to the Bill passing. But to come to the main question—the fish supply of London. Anything that could be done to make fish cheaper, by all means let it be done. The Corporation had had the question before it, they had examined the matter carefully, and they had come to the conclusion that there was great difference of opinion amongst fish salesmen as to whether there should be one or more wholesale Fish Market—opinion was generally in favour of one Market. The Corporation had found that with regard to Billingsgate the great difficulty was that it was easy to get the fish there, but it was difficult to get it away, so blocked up were the approaches by land. But it was found that three-fourths of the vans and carts going to the Market were those coming from the railway terminus with the fish brought to London by rail. The City of London, therefore, proposed to utilize the Market which was now at Farringdon, for all land or railway-borne fish. By doing this they would at once relieve the approaches to Billingsgate of three-fourths of the traffic which now went there, and there would then exist in London two distinct Mar-

    1931
    kets, one for water-borne fish, and another for land-borne fish. Before the House interfered with the rights of a Corporation like that of the City of London—and by interfering with their rights interfering with the rights of all the Corporations in England—this experiment might be allowed a trial. It was an experiment which the Corporation hoped would answer, and if it did not answer they would not object to the clause proposed in the other House—namely, that they should have the right of purchasing the rights of the Shadwell Company, which was a private Company. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said, "Oh, they may purchase the rights, but they will never exercise them." He could only say that if the City of London were to act in that way they would commit suicide. The Corporation of London knew that the eyes of England were upon them; they knew there were many sincere friends, like the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth), who were watching every one of their acts; and if they were to come to that House, and offer to make a purchase of the Bill, and did not make the Market, he was bound to say that when Parliament met again, be it in the autumn or next year, a Bill would very soon be brought in to compel them to build the Market at Shadwell. This was an attempt, by a side-wind, to attack the rights of Corporations, and by it an example would be set to attack the rights of individuals. He quite admitted that they could be overturned by an Act of Parliament, and this would be an Act of Parliament when passed; but it would be a Private and not a Public Act. He insisted upon this, that if the exercise of the authority of the City of London was called into question, it should be done so openly in that House, and when there could be a proper debate on the subject. The House was very desirous to reach the Public Business, and, therefore, he would not trespass further upon its time. He trusted, however, that the Members of that House would join together in rejecting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets. He had as great a desire as the hon. Member had for the cheapening of fish for the poor; but at the same time he desired, as the hon. Member should desire, that they should respect the rights of property.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, as time was very precious, and as this was a very simple question, he hoped the House would be able to decide it without further delay. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Marriott) had expressed great surprise that this Motion had been made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. He was not at all surprised at it, because the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) represented a population 10 or 20 or 50 times as numerous as that represented by the Corporation of London. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Marriott) had expressed surprise that this Motion should have been made from the opposite side of the House. He thought it more surprising that the opposition to the Motion should have proceeded from this side of the House. The case was a very plain one. No one denied that Billingsgate was a thoroughly bad Market, totally incapable of supplying the population of the Metropolis with fish. A private Company had come forward with a plan—which both Houses of Parliament said was a good one—for supplying 5,000,000 of people with fish. That being so, it being admitted that there was now a bad Market, and that this Company was willing to construct a good one—and all this was admitted in the Preamble of the Bill—what was done? Why, it was proposed that this new Market, one of whose merits was that it was to charge cheap tolls, was to be saddled with compensation to the proprietors of the bad Market. A proposition more extraordinary, more exorbitant, more indefensible, it was impossible to conceive. He would not admit that on this side of the House they were less careful of the rights of property than Gentlemen on the other side. He should be very much surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) disagreeing with him in the view he took on this subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Marriott) said this was an attempt by a side-wind to attack the rights of property. It was not a side-wind at all, it was the most plain and direct issue which it was possible to raise. The question was whether the House would maintain a monopoly which was proved to be enormously injurious to a population of 5,000,000 people, or whether it would not. He was extremely

    1933
    glad that this matter had been brought to an issue, and he had very little doubt what judgment would be pronounced by the House of Commons on the question.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he did not wish to take up the time of the House; but he felt bound to say he had been requested by his Colleagues on the Metropolitan Board of Works, a Board representing 4,000,000 people, to say the whole of them were extremely anxious that this House should reject these clauses. He held in his hand a list of 17 Petitions against these clauses, Petitions which, he thought, came in on Saturday. Personally, he trusted that the House would reject these clauses and pass the Bill in a shape which would be most beneficial to the people of the Metropolis.
    MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, he hoped the House would not reject these clauses. The Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works obtained, in the small hours of the morning, a clause authorizing him to make a Fish Market, and if the Metropolitan Board of Works was to be more trusted than the Corporation of London, the House would no doubt reject these clauses. If they would only remember how much work the Corporation of the City of London had done, not only in the matter of Markets, but in the matter of all good and wise work, they would hesitate before they rejected these clauses. They were going to give a private firm the monopoly which they refused to the Corporation. Surely the Corporation could manage the business better than a private firm. ["Question!"] The question was, whether they would have a good Market, efficiently and well managed—whether they would have it managed by the Corporation of London, which hitherto had always done its work well, or whether they would have it managed by He witt and Company. ["Oh!"] They might say "Oh;" but when they came to think the matter over quietly they would not contend for a moment that a private firm could manage a Market properly in the interest of the public. Mr. Hewitt was a large smack-owner; he imported his own fish; therefore they could not imagine he could manage the Market as well as the Corporation could. He had nothing more to say; but he hoped, and with great
    1934
    confidence, that the House would allow these clauses to stand.
    MR. W. H. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought it right that, as he was the Chairman of the Committee to whom this Bill was referred, he should say a word or two. He hoped the House would agree to the Motion which had been moved by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). To his mind, compensation in this case was neither required on the ground of policy nor on the ground of justice. It was quite certain that if this Compensation Clause remained in the Bill, the Bill could not proceed further; and that he should consider as nothing less than a public misfortune. The case brought before the Committee was one of the strongest that could well be. The scheme was proved a thoroughly good one, and he thought the opponents failed to shake it in any material point. He did not think it was too much to say that the Bill was, in fact, a necessity, not merely for the extension of the traffic in fish, and for the cheapening of the food—for which there was ample room in the Metropolis—but even for the proper and convenient transaction of the existing business. The evils of Billingsgate were notorious probably every Member knew something more or less about them. If any hon. Member only paid a visit to Billingsgate in the early hours of the morning, he would find that the real state of things exceeded whatever he had previously imagined. The City alleged that they had expended £272,000 upon the Market at Billingsgate. That might be true, but it in no way removed the great scandal that existed. Mr. Spencer Walpole, in his Report, said the present Market did not provide proper standing room, and its approaches were deficient. These requisites of a good Market would be fulfilled completely by the new Market at Shadwell; it would be four times the size of Billingsgate, and it would result in great good to everybody. The vote of the Common Council had been referred to, and he only mentioned it again because he thought its significance could not be overrated, remembering how strongly the different interests were represented in that body. With regard to the justice of the case, he noticed that in paragraph 10 of the Papers circulated the Common Council said that

    1935
    the Corporation ought to be compensated for the loss of revenue from which they paid the interest on the money advanced. It seemed to him that if such a position were allowed every Railway Company, against whom a competing line was authorized, might come to this House and obtain compensation for the loss it had sustained. The excuse for compensation in this case might be the infringement of the ancient Charter that the City possessed; but that Charter had been already infringed on various occasions, when, for instance, the Columbia, the Hungerford, and the South London Markets were authorized. The case of the Islington Market had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott). The Act authorizing the establishment of that Market was passed in the year 1835. He was not acquainted with the pros and cons of the case; but he certainly should be very much surprised if, in that case, there were the same imperative grounds of public advantage as in the present ease. During the last 20 years the City had expended a large sum of money, but they had really done nothing to mitigate the evils of Billingsgate Market, the state of which was a simple disgrace to the Metropolis. It appeared to him that the City were either unable or unwilling to do their duty in the matter of the fish supply of the Metropolis. And he did not hesitate to say that where there were immense difficulties in the way he thought the trust which the City held by virtue of the Charter of Edward III. must be regarded as having been defeated by the course of circumstances, and that it was time the Charter ought to be disregarded. It was supposed that by the establishment of a Fish Market at Farringdon the press at Billingsgate would be relieved. His own impression was that a Market at Farringdon would do nothing whatever towards the solution of this question. The evidence given before the Committee went to show that there must be one Market, and that a riverside Market. He could not believe that any legitimate loss would result to the Corporation. No doubt there would be diminution in tolls from fish, because the new Market would undoubtedly be a formidable competitor to Billingsgate. But it was absurd to suppose that there were not many other uses to which Billingsgate could be put, uses which would yield quite as much
    1936
    profit as was now derived from the Market. In conclusion, he must state his own conviction that this Bill was bond fide promoted in the public interest, and not to put money into the pockets of the proprietors. He thought the proprietors were entitled to carry out the work they had undertaken. The tolls of the new Market would be only half those of Billingsgate; and he trusted that the House would not hamper this Bill, which was of such immense importance, by attaching to it such conditions for compensation, for which there were no grounds either in policy or justice.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he wished to add one or two words to what bad been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. W. H. Gladstone). It appeared to him that the House should draw a broad and clear line between compensation which was due to private interests in cases of this sort and claims for compensation made on behalf of a public body. In legislation of this description the object was to promote the public good, and it would be hard if any private individual were to suffer. When they came to the case of a Corporation, or any other public body, it was important to remember that such, institutions existed for the public good; and if they failed in the performance of their duties they could not, and ought not, on that account to be able to establish any claim to be repaid out of the pockets of those private adventurers who performed the duty that they had failed to discharge. It would be a very ill day for this country if the doctrine of compensation to private individuals should be pushed to such an extreme as was embodied in this clause. He trusted the House of Commons would take this opportunity of proclaiming in most unmistakable terms that they would not grant compensation to a public body for an act which, if it might diminish the revenue of the public body, was rendered necessary by the public interest, and by a want of recognition by the Corporation of the duties which fell upon it.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he had only one word to say. As a Representative of East London, which was most concerned in this matter, he was anxious, on behalf of his constituents, that it should be understood that they did not regard this as a private matter in which the firm promoting the Bill was only interested. The matter had been taken up by nearly

    1937
    all the local authorities in East London—by the different Vestries and Local Boards and other bodies—large meetings had been held, and the question was felt to be one in which the interests of the whole population of London, and particularly the poorer population, was engaged as against the interests of an oppressive monopoly.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, as a Member of the Select Committee who inquired into this Bill, he wished to make one or two observations. In the first place, he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Gladstone) that it would be an excellent thing to put in the hands of a firm the monopoly of the fish supply of London. Messrs. Hewitt and Co., who were promoting this Bill, caught their own fish, landed it themselves, and sold it in the Market by their own auctioneers. If this Market at Shadwell were made the only Fish Market in London, Messrs. Hewitt and Co. would have complete control over the fish supply of the Metropolis. Before the Committee it was proved that the average price of fish sold in Billingsgate Market throughout the year was 2⅛d. per 1b., and that the price to the consumer was 7d. and 8d. per 1b. He very much feared that the public would be in the same position if the Market were at Shadwell as if it remained at Billingsgate. He believed that an inland Market at Farringdon would be one very useful to the public, and ought to be encouraged.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    The next Amendment, New Clause 54b (Providing for transfer of undertaking to Corporation of London), disagreed to.
    Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to two of the Amendments made by The Lords to the London River-side Fish Market Bill: "—Mr. RITCHIE, Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE, Mr. RAIKES, Mr. BRYCE, and Mr. FIRTH:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.

QUESTIONS.

  PORTUGAL—CLAIMS OF A RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
  1938
  Affairs, Whether the Portuguese Government, in 1879, withdrew a Concession for the construction of a Railway to Guimarens from an English Company, and transferred the Concession to a Portuguese Company, promising that it should be made a condition of the transfer that the Railway already constructed, and for which the sum of nearly £25,000 remained due to the Contractor, should be purchased at a valuation, and paid for within six months, and that the just debts of the old Company should also be liquidated; and, whether that promise has been repudiated by the Portuguese Government, notwithstanding the urgent remonstrances of the English Minister to the Court of Lisbon?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government have addressed urgent representations on the subject of Mr. Dixon's case to the Portuguese Government, through Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon. Papers on the subject shall be laid before Parliament.

FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—ILLEGAL SEIZURE—H.M.S. "JACKAL."
MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the officials of H.M.S. "Jackal," on 20th June, off Stornoway, in seizing, without cause, the herring fishing boat "Perseverance," of Stornoway, whereby a week's fishing was lost, the boat was left on the beach and much damaged, and the skipper kept prisoner for several days, but acquitted on trial, without hearing his counsel; and, whether he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances, with the view of compensating those wronged, and punishing the wrong doers?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Admiralty have received from the officer commanding Her Majesty's ship Jackal a report of the occurrences referred to by my hon. Friend. That officer appears, in the exercise of his powers under the Sea Fisheries Act, to have detained the fishing boat Perseverance in consequence of having found her equipment deficient in certain respects. The boat, notwithstanding his order, put to sea, and on her return a prosecution was, with the sanction of the Fishery Board, instituted against the master. At the trial of the case a good deal of contradictory evidence was given, and

1939
in the end the master was acquitted. The Admiralty, however, have no reason to attribute to the commander of the Jackal any want of discretion or of intelligence in the discharge of his duty. The boat was only detained three days, and not a week; she was not left on the beach, but was required to be beached by her crew, which is a usual custom. The petty officer who inspected her previous to her discharge saw no damage, and it is understood that she proceeded to sea immediately after the trial; and the master was not kept prisoner for several days, but was detained for one night only, on the advice of the Procurator Fiscal.

EGYPT—ARMAMENTS AT ALEXANDRIA—IMPENDING HOSTILITIES.
MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he could state approximately how many British subjects there are at the present time in Egypt, specifying particularly the numbers at Alexandria and Cairo?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Before the hon. Baronet answers that Question, perhaps he will allow me to put a Question to him of which I have given him private Notice, and which, it seems to me, arises out of this Question. We wish to know, not only how many British subjects there are in Egypt, but in what position they are at the present moment? I would also ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can give any explanation or information to the House with regard to the very serious reports which have appeared in the newspapers within the last two days?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House that I should answer the second Question first. The erection of earthworks at the port of Alexandria ceased on the 6th of June, as previously stated in both Houses. No information was received of any further hostile armaments until the 1st of July. On that day the Admiral telegraphed a report that it was proposed to sink stone barges and bar the channel. Information was also received that Arabi Pasha had forced the Khedive to apply to the Sultan for the withdrawal of a prohibition to strengthen the fortifications of the port. On the 3rd of July the Admiral was instructed to prevent any attempt to bar the channel, and to acquaint the
1940
Military Governor that such an attempt would be considered as a hostile act, which would be treated accordingly; if work were resumed on the earthworks, or fresh guns mounted, to inform the Military Commandant that he had orders to prevent it; and, if not immediately discontinued, to destroy the earthworks and silence the batteries if they opened fire, having given sufficient notice to the population, shipping, and foreign men-of-war. On the 4th the Admiral telegraphed that he had received a reply from the Military Governor and Arabi, who sent the Egyptian Admiral to give assurance that no channel obstructions were contemplated. On the same day he telegraphed that on the previous night two additional guns were placed in Pharos Castle, and that the parapet of the battery facing the sea-front was strengthened. He postponed the representations to the Commandant until the morning of the 6th, in consultation with the Consul General, in order to give time for British subjects to leave Cairo. On that day he wrote to the Commandant as follows:—
"Sir,—I have the honour to inform your Excellency that it has been officially reported to me that yesterday two or more additional guns were mounted on the sea defences, and that other warlike preparations are being made on the northern face of Alexandria against the Squadron under my command. Under there circumstances, I have to notify to your Excellency that unless such proceedings be discontinued, or if, having been discontinued, they should be renewed, it will become my duty to open fire on the works in course of construction."
To this letter a reply was received denying that works were going on. On the 7th, the Consuls General of the five Powers addressed the Admiral to ask—
"Whether you are satisfied with the reply of the Egyptian Government in reference to the fortification works. In case the reply should not be satisfactory we think we are in a position to obtain you assurances more complete."
To which he replied—
"If your influence with the Military Commandant induces him to act with sincerity, forbidding the continuance of fortifications, the object you aim at will have been obtained. Mere written assurances, in whatever terms they may be expressed, are of little value in view of the interests confided to me. I must strictly adhere to the terms of my communication sent to the Military Commandant should the slightest attempt be made to renew offensive works. In any ease, 24 clear hours' notice shall be given."
On the 8th the approval of Her Majesty's

1941
Government of his communications to the Military Commandant and the Consuls General was conveyed to the Admiral. On the same day he reported that guns were being mounted at Fort Adjemi, five miles from the port, and he was told, that that fort did not come under the prohibition. On the 9th, having been asked, by telegraph, whether he was certain of that fact of the armament which he had reported and which had been denied by the Commandant, he replied that there was no doubt on the subject. He also informed the Government yesterday that guns were being mounted at Fort Tilseli, which commands the new port. Under these circumstances, with the approval of Her Majesty's Government, he has given the foreign Consuls notice at daylight this morning, and will commence action 24 hours afterwards, unless the forts on the Isthmus and those commanding the entrance to the harbour are temporarily surrendered for the purpose of being disarmed.
MR. ONSLOW: May I remind the hon. Baronet that he has not answered my Question?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Mr. Cartwright telegraphed yesterday that nearly all British subjects had left Alexandria, and that the few remaining would embark early this morning. He had sent a letter to the President of the Ministry, announcing the withdrawal of the British Agency. Mr. Beaman, who had been left in charge of the Consulate at Cairo, was expected at Alexandria last night. Only three Englishmen have remained at Cairo. They are servants of natives, and elected to stay. There are some British Indian subjects who do not care to leave. The Maltese are believed to have all left. There are constant means of departure from Suez and Port Said, and all the British subjects in the Provinces who are known have received warnings.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I should like to ask whether it is true that French and other foreign vessels are leaving the harbour of Alexandria?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The terms of any communication which may have passed between Her Majesty's Government and other Governments on this subject cannot be given without Notice.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— MR. PEYTON.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. T. H. Peyton, a magistrate of Longford, made use of abusive and menacing language to Mr. John Manning, of Clornellan, New town for be, county Longford, on the night of the 28th June, and to his son, Mr. Patrick Manning, threatened to shoot Mr. Manning the elder with a gun which he had in his hand, vowed that he would have the younger Manning sent out of the country, and threatened to dash out his brains with the butt of the gun; whether the occasion of the magistrate's interference was that the Mannings were standing near a "bonfire" which was lighted according to custom in Ireland on that evening, an evening commonly called "Old Bonfire Night;" and, whether Mr. Peyton subsequently signed a warrant for the arrest of the younger Manning, and if he can say for what offence the warrant was issued, and what authority Mr. Peyton had for his action in these proceedings?
MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot enter into the merits of this Question in an answer in the House, as the whole case is to form the subject of a magisterial investigation. It is not the case that Mr. Peyton signed the warrant for Manning's arrest. The warrant is signed by Mr. Hill, the Resident Magistrate of the district.

IRELAND—DRAINAGE OF RIVERS—THE RIVER BROSNA.
MR. DILLONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that great injury is done every year by the flooding of the Brosna River in counties Tipperary and King's County; that the flooding of the Brosna has occurred since the drainage of the rivers from Kinnety to Birr and from Roscrea to Birr; works executed under the Drainage Board some years ago; that the farmers on the banks of the Brosna have done all in their power, by embankments, &c. to protect their farms, but unavailingly; that 556 acres are flooded nearly every year, and that the Shannon works at Meelick are likely to increase

1943
the flooding of the Brosna; and, whether, in view of these facts, he will direct an inspection to be made, and order such works as may be necessary to relieve the farmers from these floods, which have been caused by the operation of the Drainage Board?
MR. COURTNEY: NO complaints appear to have been received by the Government on the subject. But the floods at the place supposed to be referred to are probably due to back-water from the Shannon, and not to the drainage works mentioned in the Question, which were completed respectively in 1856 and 1874. The works on the Shannon at Meelick will not affect the matter; but, on the other hand, those at Killaloe will, it is hoped, greatly decrease the liability of the lands on the Brosna to being flooded. If the Brosna lands are found to be liable to floods, even after the completion of the Shannon works, the proper remedy will be the formation of a new drainage district for their relief.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CASE OF JEREMIAH KELLEHER.
MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Jeremiah Kelleher was evicted by Lord Kenmare five months ago; and, whether his two sons have been for seven months in Kilmainham Gaol?
MR. TREVELYAN: Jeremiah Kelleher was evicted by Lord Kenmare on the 31st of January. He redeemed on the 3rd instant, having paid the two years' rent which he owed. His two sons referred to are in detention under the Protection Act on reasonable suspicion of shooting at and wounding with intent to murder.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— MR. WILLIAM RUSSELL.
MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why Mr. William Russell is still detained in Kilkenny Gaol, when all the other suspects from county Tipperary have been released?
MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant having considered William Russell's case on the 29th of June, decided that he could not at present order his release.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— WILLIAM KENNEDY.
MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can now advise the Lord Lieutenant to release William Kennedy, arrested on the 16th March last under the Protection of Person and Property Act; and, if the district (Philipstown) is not and has not always been most peaceable?
MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency cannot at present order William Kennedy's release. He lives in the Edenderry district, where there has been, and is, much dangerous feeling. Several persons are "Boycotted," and under personal protection in the district. The state of the Philipstown district also is unsatisfactory.

THE BOARD OF MANUFACTURERS (SCOTLAND).
MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any portion of the Annuity paid to the Board of Trustees of Manufacturers in Scotland, in discharge of equivalents under the Treaty of Union, has at any time been expended in the purchase of works of Art for the National Gallery of Scotland; and, if it has, whether he will state to what amount it has been so expended?
MR. COURTNEY: The annuity in question, being a grant in aid, forms one part of the income of the Board of Manufacturers; and the fact that it is so implies a policy of interfering as little as possible with the disposal of the income of the Board. I have, however, reason to believe that the Board has not in the last 35 years devoted any of their surplus income to the purchase of pictures.

RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACTS —GRANTS TO UNIONS.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the total amount granted to unions in Ireland under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Acts, 1880, or any subsequent Act, either through the Board of Works in Ireland or the Local Government Board; and, whether it is proposed to submit a Vote to Parliament to repay to the Irish

1945
Church Fund or the National Debt Commissioners the amount applied as grants out of moneys raised on loan?
MR. COURTNEY: The total amount of free grants to Irish Unions has been £19,069. They were made under paragraph 3 of Section 2 of the Act 43 & 44 Vict. c. 14, whereby such grants were made a final charge on the Irish Church Fund. The financial transactions between the Church Fund and the National Debt Commissioners have nothing to do with the disposal of the receipts of the Fund. There is no intention of asking Parliament to reverse the decision arrived at by it in 1880.

PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— WORKS AT GOWLEEN TULLIG.
MR. O'SHEAasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in reference to Parliamentary Return No. 203 of this Session (in which it is stated that the works at Gowleen Tullig, county Clare, were completed last March at an expenditure of £255), Whether it is a fact that a further contribution of £15 from charitable sources has since been paid to the Board of Works in aid of a further Government grant of £45 for additional works at the place in question; whether the further grant of £45 was, in consequence, made by the Board for such works; and, if so, why no notice is given in Return No. 203 of the additional contribution and grant; and, if he will cause a Return to be made showing, in the same form, how this additional sum has been expended?
MR. COURTNEY: The statements in the Question of my hon. Friend are correct; and the further Government grant will be included in a Supplementary Estimate, shortly to be laid before Parliament. The grant could not be referred to in the Return, because it was not included in the Parliamentary grant of £45,000. If my hon. Friend wishes to know the details of the further expenditure, I will procure them for him at the proper time; but the amount is too small to justify a Parliamentary Return being made of it.

PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— WORKS AT GOWLEEN ROSS AND GERRAHIES REEF.
MR. O'SHEAasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What has be-
1946
come of the £7 stated, in Return No. 203, to have been saved on the works at Gowleen Ross, county Clare, the amount contributed from local and other sources, and by Government grant, having been £600, and the works having been completed for £593; and, whether, as the proportion contributed towards obtaining this grant was obtained through charitable associations, to relieve the prevailing distress, he will give orders that this sum of £7 be expended in providing fishing gear for some distressed fishermen in the neighbourhood?
COLONEL COLTHURSTalso asked, in reference to Parliamentary Paper of this Session, No. 203, What has become of the sum of £45 saved on the works at Gerrahies Reef, in the county Cork, the amount appropriated for such work being £220, and the amount for which the work was finished last October being only £175, and, as the money contributed for such work to obtain a Government grant was made up from charitable sources to relieve the prevailing distress, he will give orders for the expenditure of this sum of £45 on fishing gear for some of the poorest fishermen in that locality?
MR. COURTNEY: My hon. Friend (Mr. O'Shea) has noticed that the works at Gowleen Ross cost a few pounds less than was anticipated; but, on the other hand, those at other places cost more; and, on the whole, it will be necessary to spend somewhat more than the amount as yet provided by Parliament on the fishery piers and harbours included in the Return referred to. I may remind the House that the greater part of the £15,000, contributed otherwise than from voted moneys, was not subscribed locally, but came out of the gift of Canada at the time of distress. The same remarks apply to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the County of Cork, relating to Gerrahies Reef.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, as promised to the Member for East Cornwall last Session, he has taken into consideration the whole question of pensions to those teachers who entered upon their duties before May 1862; and, if so, whether, in view of the great

1947
and increasing distress among these teachers, and the inadequacy of the sum now voted by Parliament for teachers' pensions, the Education Department is prepared to apply to the Treasury for a larger vote than the present sum of £6,500 per annum, and. to what extent?
MR. MUNDELLA: I have consulted the Treasury on the question of teachers' pensions, and, having regard to the fact that a Committee of this House reported in 1872 that the Minute of 1846 gave no teacher a vested right to a pension, and that, in 1875, £6,500 per annum was given by the late Government as an ex gratid payment, and accepted by the House in final settlement of the teachers' claims, the Treasury declines to re-open the question.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE —THE REPORT.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received the Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture; and, if so, whether he can state when Copies will be issued?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he had not yet received the Report; but he learned from the Secretary to the Commission that there was reason to believe it would be forwarded in the course of next week or the week after.

PARLIAMENT—SCOTCH BUSINESS— EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
MR. DALRYMPLEasked the honourable Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs, Whether, with the view of expediting Scotch business, without having recourse to a Grand Committee, the principle of which has not been sanctioned by the House, he will remove the blocking notice which stands in his name, and use his influence with his political Friends who are Scotch Members of Parliament, and supporters of Her Majesty's Government, to induce them to remove the seven other blocking notices which arrest the progress of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill?
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,in reply, said, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman had very much overrated his influence with other Scottish Members; but he would state his own position.
1948
He had tried to elicit the opinion of his constituents on the subject. Two of the school boards had expressed themselves in its favour, and another body specially interested in the Bill had also declared in favour of the Bill, with one or two Amendments, which he meant to press. If he had no other communications against the Bill, he would withdraw the Notice standing in his name. If the Bill were referred to a formal Committee, or the clauses settled and discussed at an informal meeting, or if the Vice President and the Lord Advocate were to adopt such a course, he thought it not unlikely that something might be done.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. EDWARD JENNINGS.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that Mr. Edward Jennings has been removed from Monaghan Prison to Kilmainham on account of the state of his health; whether two doctors certified that his health was then very bad; whether he is aware that, previous to his arrest, Mr. Jennings was a long time in a hospital in Dublin; whether any medical report has been ordered by the Government upon his condition; and, whether he can see his way to recommending his discharge?
MR. TREVELYAN: Edward Jennings was removed from Monaghan to Kilmainham Gaol on the 7th of June, in order that His Excellency might obtain the opinion of a physician of eminence upon the state of his health; and on the 9th of June he was examined by Dr. Croly, the senior surgeon of the City of Dublin Hospitals, and Dr. Carte, the medical officer of Kilmainham, who certified that they did not consider his life in danger by further confinement. Jennings alleges that he was under medical treatment in Dublin in January, 1881; but I have no other information on this point. His Excellency is causing further inquiries to be made relative to the state of his district.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS—STATISTICS.
MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in England, show-

1949
ing that in the five months ending May 1882, no less than 1824 convictions (not including those obtained by the police or by kindred societies) had been recorded for cruelty to dumb animals, including instances of starving, houghing, burning, slowly bleeding, shooting, scalding, and worrying; and, whether, in view of the brutal character of these outrages in England, he will take any legislative steps to increase the punishment to which offenders at present are sentenced?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that in regard to the cruelty to which the hon. Member specially referred in the Question, he had received a letter from the Secretary to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in which that gentleman said there were only 61 cases, of which 48 were cases of starving by giving insufficient food. That left only 13 of the other kinds of cruelty. Ten of those were offences by boys in setting dogs upon cats, one for shooting, and one for scalding an animal. The Secretary to the Society went on to say that in Great Britain it would be no exaggeration to say that generally every citizen did everything he could to promote the detection of such crimes. In England, public opinion condemned cruelty, and there was no difficulty in obtaining the attendance of witnesses in such cases.
MR. HEALYsaid, that his figures had been taken from the Report of the Anti-Vivisection Society.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the total of 61 referred to the cases specifically referred to by the hon. Member.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether citizens interfered when husbands were beating their wives?
[No reply was given.]

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— PATRICK KAVANAGH.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether or not the time has now arrived when Patrick Kavanagh, now a suspect in Enniskillen Gaol, might be released, seeing that Killinkere parish, county Cavan, from which he was taken prisoner, is perfectly peaceable?
MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant had Patrick Ka-
1950
vanagh's case under consideration on the 19th of June, and decided that he could not order his release.

AFRICA (SOUTH)—CETEWAYO, EXKING OF ZULULAND—VISIT TO THIS COUNTRY.
MR. GIBSONasked Mr. Attorney General, What will be the status of Cetewayo within the limits of the United Kingdom; will he be regarded by Her Majesty's Government as free, or as a prisoner of war; if he is treated as a prisoner, and a writ of habeas corpus should be applied for on his behalf, what legal justification would be offered for his detention; is the Colonial Act passed for his detention spent by his release; and, is it intended to pass an Act for the indemnity of those who may assist in his future detention, similar to the Act passed in the year 1816,
"In consequence of Napoleon Buonaparte having been detained and kept in custody in the island of St. Helena?"
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I fear I cannot answer the five Questions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite so briefly as I should wish, for, without some explanation, my answer might give rise to misunderstanding. Cetewayo is coming to this country at his own special request. In order to do so, he quits the legal custody in which he now is upon certain terms. He has agreed to obey all directions given to him, and acquiesces in the right of Her Majesty's Government to make such future dispositions as to his custody as may be thought right. While in this country he will not, unless circumstances shall arise which are not now contemplated, be subjected to the actual restraints which generally accompany the position of a prisoner of war; but he will necessarily be always accompanied by someone who will be approved by the Government. This will, I think, give a practical answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first and second Question; but I do not desire to shrink from bearing the responsibility of the opinion given by the Solicitor General and. myself in March last, and which is referred to in Lord Kimberley's dispatch of March 9. We advised the Colonial Office that Cetewayo could, if the Government thought right, be treated as a prisoner of war, and we

1951
adhere to that opinion. [Mr. GIBSON: Treated now as a prisoner?] Yes, now. I am aware that a different view has been expressed elsewhere; and while I speak with, sincere respect for that opinion, my learned Friend and I adhere to the advice we have already given. While the country was at war with Cetewayo as King of the Zulus, he was taken prisoner by our Forces. No Treaty of Peace has been made with him, and no peace has been made which affects his status. My view is that the right to detain a prisoner of war continues until the country which captured him agrees to his release. I am glad to think that this view has been expressed by Lord Ellen borough and Lord Eldon. In reference to our right to detain Napoleon Buonaparte, the former said—
"From the consequences of that state of war he cannot be redeemed, but by the terms of such Treaty of Peace as we may make with him individually, or with others for him. Being once an enemy he can only be at peace with us by our act and consent, and, of course, upon such terms only as' we shall mutually agree upon."
And Lord Eldon said—
"The question is whether, if we have a right to treat him as a prisoner of war, it can possibly be inconsistent with justice or the Law of Nations that till some peace is made by Treaty with some person considered as his Sovereign, or till some peace is made with him, we keep him in prison in some part of the King's Dominions. I presume if we can keep him as a prisoner of war for a moment, we can keep him until some peace is made with him or including him."
The opinion thus expressed appears to have been entertained by the late Government, for Cetewayo was detained as a prisoner of war from the termination of the war in August, 1879, until July, 1880, when he was handed over to the authorities of the Cape Colony. As to the third Question, I cannot anticipate that any writ of habeas corpus can be applied for, or that any such motion would be entertained; but if it be, a Return would be made setting out the facts according to the truth. To the fourth Question, I say that I think that as soon as Cetewayo passes from his present detention, the powers of the Colonial Act will be spent; but that Act was passed to justify Cetewayo's detention by the Cape Colony on the ground that the Colony, as such, not having been at war with him, there was no power to detain him in the Colony. Imperial rights are
1952
not interfered with by its powers being expended. The last Question of my right hon. and learned Friend is calculated to give rise to a false impression. The Act of Indemnity passed in 1816 did not contain any indemnity on account of the detention of Napoleon Buonaparte, but only on account of certain orders which might have been given, or acts which might have been done at St. Helena under the urgency of the occasion in order safely to detain him. I will only add that on introducing that Bill into this House in March, 1816, Lord Castlereagh said he did not think that any Act of Indemnity was necessary, for he maintained our right to detain Napoleon Buonaparte as a prisoner of war, although a Treaty of Peace with France had been concluded, and Mr. Brougham said—
"Whether we consider Buonaparte as a prisoner of war not claimed by his own Government or in any other light, we have an unquestionable right to detain him, even by the Law of Nations, without any Act of Parliament."
I believe I have now answered all the Questions put to me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
MR. GIBSON: Will he be allowed any change of residence, and will he be allowed to go to Ireland?
[No answer was given.]

BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—INVENTORY OF STORES.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Board of Works in Ireland have yet made a complete inventory of furniture and other articles in their charge, as recommended by Lord Lansdowne's Committee, in 1873, and by Viscount Crichton's, in 1878; and, whether he can state the estimated value of such property?
MR. COURTNEY: The Board of Works have made a complete inventory of the furniture and other articles in their charge, and a general revision of it is now in progress, and is nearly complete. The value of such property is obviously extremely difficult to ascertain; but I am informed that it may be taken approximately at about £500,000.

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS—MR. MEEK.
MR. FITZ-PATRICKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

1953
land, Whether Mr. Meek, one of the Sub-Commissioners for the county of Armagh, is the same individual who gave evidence in favour of the tenants at Cookstown, in March last, before the Sub-Commission composed of Messrs. Fitzgerald, Comyn, and Mahony; whether, upon that occasion, the Sub-Commission in question fixed the fair rent of the tenants of Colonel the honourable Stuart Knox twenty-five per cent. above the amount which Mr. Meek swore was the fair value; whether, at the same sitting, the said Sub-Commission fixed the fair rent of the tenants of Mr. Bell thirty-three per cent. higher than the sworn valuation of Mr. Meek; whether the said Mr. Meek is the same person who gave evidence for the tenants at Magherafelt, on or about the 14th February last, before the Sub-Commission, composed of Messrs. Burke, O'Brien, and Davidson, and whether this Sub-Commission fixed the fair rent of Lawrence Madden thirteen per cent. above Mr. Meek's sworn valuation; whether one of the chairmen of the above-named Sub-Commissions publicly animadverted on the conduct of Mr. Meek in connection with his evidence; and, whether the Mr. Davidson, with whom Mr. Meek has since been associated as a Sub-Commissioner in the neighbouring county of Armagh, is the same Mr. Davidson who sat at Magherafelt in February last, when the land cases in which Mr. Meek was valuator for the tenants, were adjudicated upon?
MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Meek gave evidence of valuation on behalf of the tenants of Colonel Stuart Knox and Mr. Bell before the Cookstown Sub-Commission, which was constituted as stated in the Question. In the former cases the judicial rents were fixed at about 25 per cent above Mr. Meek's valuation, and in the latter cases they were fixed at about 36 per cent above his valuation. With reference to the rest of the Question, I have not yet received the information as to what occurred at Magherafelt; but the Land Commissioners have written to me explaining that the answer they sent to me in reference to a previous Question put to me by the hon. Member had reference solely to the Tyrone Sub-Commission. The cases referred to were Tyrone cases, and they accordingly limited their inquiries to that county. They are now making further inquiries with reference to the Maghera-
1954
felt Sub-Commission. If it should turn out that there was any inaccuracy in my previous answer, I must hold the Land Commissioners as entirely responsible for it.
MR. HEALY: Has the attention of the Chief Secretary been called to the language of the Marquess of Salisbury in "another place," in which, when speaking of a Land Sub-Commissioner, he referred to him as one of the most persistent persecutors of the landlord; and whether, in view of this statement, the Government thought it necessary to take any steps?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had seen the speech and regretted it; but he did not think it called for any action on his part.

CRIME (IRELAND)—RECENT MURDERS.
MR. FITZ-PATRICKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the threats used by three men named George Richmond, John Reilly, and Francis Grundy towards the widow of the man John Kenny, recently murdered in Dublin, and the danger she is now apparently in from the vengeance of the secret societies in Ireland, he will recommend that she be given such grant of money as will enable her and her family to leave the Country, and thus avoid the fate of the unfortunate man Bernard Bailey, who, though anxious to leave the United Kingdom, was refused the necessary pecuniary aid, and was in consequence murdered a few days afterwards?
MR. TREVELYAN: Careful steps have been taken for the protection of Mrs. Kenny and her children. I am communicating with His Excellency as to the question of her future safety.

IRELAND—PRISONERS DETAINED UNDER THE STATUTE 34 EDWARD III. c. 1.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the further inquiries he proposed to make, Whether he can now state the decision of His Excellency in the cases of Miss Hogan, Miss O'Neill, and Mrs. Hanlon, imprisoned in Tralee Gaol under the statute of Edward III.; and, what has been the result of his inquiries respect-

1955
ing the allegations put forward in the Question of the 26th ultimo?
MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency is still considering the matter of the release of these ladies. With regard to the latter portion of the Question, I find that the arrangement for the reception of visitors to prisoners in Tralee Gaol is that which existed under the late Board of Superintendence, and is as follows:—The visitor is between two gates, under cover, with a form to sit on, while the prisoner is at a distance of 11 feet, and in the open air. It is not the case that visits are interrupted by other prisoners or officers passing through the gates, and over precaution is taken to prevent any such interruption. It is in accordance with the Prison Rules that the female prisoners referred to in the Question have not been allowed to communicate with each other except in the presence of their solicitor or the matron. I may add that the existing arrangements for the reception of visitors are at present under the consideration of the Prisons Board, with a view to improvements being carried out, which certainly seem to me to be called for.

EGYPT—THE FLEET AT ALEXANDRIA.
MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, with regard to Her Majesty's ships "Alexandra," "Superb," "Inflexible," "Temeraire," and "Sultan," any one or more of them has, since the 11th day of June, been within the port of Alexandria; and, whether any of them are there now; and, if not, whether he has any objection to communicate to the House of Commons the same information with regard to their whereabouts that is already possessed by the Egyptian insurgents?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question for him. I am sorry to say the only answer I can make is to decline to give any information.

NAVY—H.M.S. "THUNDERER."
MR. MAC IVERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he can inform the House what has become of Her Majesty's ship "Thunderer;" and, if it is true that this heavily armed and formidable vessel is, from motives of economy, lying dismantled at Malta?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Thunderer is at Malta Dockyard, undergoing the usual repairs preparatory to being re-commissioned. The hon. Member will find her included in the programme of repairs at that Dockyard, on page 203 of the Navy Estimates for this year.

MALTA—FORTIFICATIONS—SLIMA HARBOUR.
MR. MAC IVERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the heavy ordnance recently sent to Malta for the new fort Tigné, at Sliema, for protection of the harbour, is mounted?
MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir.

NAVY—ROYAL MARINES IN EGYPT.
MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether a General Officer of Marines will be appointed to take the command of the force of Royal Marines now in Egypt?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; there is no intention to require the services of a general officer of Marines in Egypt; and, as a matter of fact, there is no force of Royal Marines now in Egypt.

ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS-LEGISLATION.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE(in the absence of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS), asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Government will endeavour to secure the passing of a Bill during the present Session to carry into effect the general recommendations of the Artizans' Dwellings Select Committee?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE(for the Secretary of State for the Home Department), in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to endeavour to pass such a measure in the present Session.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What number of the 2,476 cases of eviction which he stated had taken place in the first five months of 1882 were for non-payment of rent; in how many of such cases the Constabulary authorities have reported

1957
their opinion that hardship was caused to the tenant owing to his inability, from poverty caused by bad seasons, to pay the rent due; and, in how many cases non-payment was reported as due to unwillingness or fear of injury on the part of the tenant?
MR. TREVELYAN: I will lay upon the Table a Return of the number of cases of eviction in the first six months of this year, distinguishing the number of cases of non-payment of rent and cases of hardship.

IRELAND—USE OF BLOODHOUNDS.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any foundation for the report, now current in the Irish Press, that the Government have resolved upon the employment of bloodhounds for the detection of crime in Ireland?
MR. TREVELYAN: The Government have no intention of the sort—never had such an intention—and never entertained the idea of it.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS AT KILLASPAGBRONE, CO. SLIGO.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the local constabulary have reported that, on the 10th of last month, a landlord named J. T. Knox evicted a tenant named William Million, and a sub-tenant named Edward Gilgan, from the townland of Siberia, parish of Killaspagbrone, and county of Sligo; whether only Gilgan was reinstated; and, whether he was reinstated only in the capacity of a caretaker; whether it is the fact, as reported by Relieving Officer Feeney, at a recent meeting of the Sligo Board of Guardians, that the landlord violated the Law by not giving the Poor Law authorities of the district any notice of the eviction; whether the Irish Local Government Board wrote, on the 21st ultimo, to the Sligo Board of Guardians instructing them that the landlord, by his default, had subjected himself to a penalty of £20, which should be applied in relief of the rates of the eleotoral division; whether it is true that no steps have been taken to enforce the penalty; whether the readmission of one of the evicted persons
1958
as a caretaker leaves the liability of the landlord to the penalty unaltered, especially as he has issued public advertisements for the reletting of the lands, and the caretaker may at any moment he left without a shelter; and, what steps will be taken to recover the penalty for the benefit of the electoral division?
MR. TREVELYAN: The Constabulary have furnished Reports in reference to these evictions. It is the case that Edward Gilgan, the sub-tenant, has been reinstated as a caretaker. He lived on the farm; whereas the other man, William Million, lived half-a-mile away. The Relieving Officer did assert that the landlord had violated the law by not giving the Poor Law Authorities of the district any notice of the intended evictions; but it now appears that he was quite wrong in this, as he has since found the notice among his papers. I have a copy of it here; it is dated the 27th of May, and the evictions took place on the 10th of June.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. PATRICK C. KELLY.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why Mr. Patrick C. Kelly, of Athenry, is still detained in Galway Gaol, having been arrested so far back as November the 9th, and being charged only with intimidation?
MR. TREVELYAN: The Lord Lieutenant considered Patrick Kelly's case on the 6th ultimo, and decided that he could not as yet order his release.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—CLAUSE 8—"M'GAREY v. THE EARL OF GRANARD."
MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the fact that in the case of Michael M'Garry v. Earl of Granard the tenant served his originating notice to have a fair rent fixed at the "first sitting" of the Land Commission in October, that the case was listed for hearing at Mohill on 27th February, before the Sub-Commission, of which Mr. Cecil Roche, B. L., is the legal Commissioner, that Mr. Roche, on the landlord's application, against the wishes of the tenant, and after a private interview of considerable duration with Lord Gra-

1959
nard's agent, postponed the case without adequate reason; whether Lord Granard made use of the interval to eject the tenant for an old arrear, refusing to readmit him as caretaker, although his family numbers fourteen; whether, in consequence of the judgment in ejectment which followed his postponement of the case, Mr. Roche decided on the 30th ultimo, when it again came before him, that he was then precluded from entertaining the tenant's application, which he accordingly dismissed, though the tenant had not been evicted or even sued for rent when the case was originally listed; and, whether, if these facts are correct, he will consider the necessity of amending the Land Act, so as to prevent a similar failure of justice, and meanwhile will cause the Land Commission to impress on their Assistant Commission the desirability of discouraging groundless applications for postponement made by landlords, and the importance, when such applications are granted against the tenant's wishes, of requiring an undertaking that the delay should not be made use of for the purpose of eviction?
MR. TREVELYAN: I will answer this Question. The case referred to in the Question of the hon. Member was listed for hearing at Mohill for February 27, before the Sub-Commission, of which Mr. Roche is legal Commissioner. No application was made by the landlord for a postponement of the case, and Mr. Roche had no interview with Lord Granard's agent. The reason for the postponement simply was that there was not time to hear all the cases. With regard, to the rest of the Question the Land Commissioners inform me that they are ready now, if M'Garry's time of redemption has not expired—and they have reason to infer that it has not—to hear an application from him to have the time enlarged, so as to have a fair rent fixed with a view to the sale of his holding. This is their invariable practice, and they have taken steps for informing the tenant of it in order that he may take advantage of it if he is in a position to do so. Under these circumstances, the amendment of the Act, as suggested by the hon. Member, does not appear to be wanted. Mr. Roche appears to have taken an erroneous view of the matter when the case came before him on the 30th ultimo; but, no doubt, the Land
1960
Commissioners have since pointed out the proper procedure to him for his future guidance.
MR. HEALYsaid, that the time of redemption had expired. Mr. Roche admitted his error, and he wished to know what compensation the Government was going to give the tenant? There were some 90,000 cases before the Land Courts; and in many cases the time of redemption had expired owing to these postponements by the Courts. What were the Government going to do? Were they going to appoint a sufficient number of Sub-Commissioners to carry out the Act?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Lord Lieutenant had had repeated interviews with the Land Commissioners with special reference to the progress of their work. With regard to the case of M'Garry, it was the opinion of the Land Commissioners that he had still a chance; but if he had not, the hon. Member for Wexford' might renew his Question.
MR. HEALYsaid, that if this tenant was shut out from the operation of the Act, he should ask the Government what compensation they were going to give this man for this error of a Government official?

WAYS AND MEANS-INLAND REVENUE —THE CARRIAGE TAX.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will state the amount received for carriage licenses within the Metropolitan district as compared with the total sum derived from that impost; and, whether it is proposed to make a contribution towards the cost of highways within the Metropolis from the increased carriage tax, if it is approved by Parliament?
MR. GLADSTONE: The total amount of the Carriage Duty in 1880–1 was £548,000, and of that sum £52,000 is derived from the Metropolis. By the Metropolis I mean the district which is within the scope of the Metropolis Management Act. With regard to any contribution towards the cost of highways, we have already said that it will not be possible, in answer to Questions, to state what our plans will be with regard to particular interests, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to postpone that matter.

INDIA—IMPORTATION OF EXPLOSIVE OILS—RE-SHIPMENT OF PETROLEUM ILLEGALLY LANDED.
MR. ECROYDasked the Secretary of State for India, If it is true, as stated in the "Times" telegraphic intelligence, that a large quantity of petroleum, illegally landed some time ago on the banks of the Hooghly, and afterwards, by official direction to the Commissioner of Police, ordered to be trans-shipped within seventy-two hours, still remains, to the serious danger both of the shipping in the river and houses in the neighbourhood; and, whether the order for its trans-shipment has been suspended or withdrawn; and, if so, if he would state why?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have not received any communication on this subject from India; but I am informed that the question of the disposal of petroleum is still under the consideration of the Government of India.

CRIME (IRELAND)—THE ATTEMPTED MURDER IN CO. CLARE.
MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Government have received any information regarding the attempted murder yesterday in the county Clare, and if any arrests have been made?
MR. TREVELYAN: The Resident Magistrate at Ennis reports—
"John Doloughty when returning from Mass yesterday received an entire charge of small shot in the face, which destroyed his eyes and very seriously wounded him otherwise. He cannot recover. The man named in his dying declaration as having committed the act is arrested."

THE MINISTRY—THE DIVISION ON FRIDAY.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Prime Minister, Whether, in consequence of the division on Friday night, he had reconsidered his personal position?
MR. GLADSTONE: The time, I apprehend, has not come—and the hon. Gentleman might have known it had not come—for me to make a statement on the subject, which I can only do after the Questions have been put.
MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a Question in reference to this statement which appears in an eminent provincial journal:—
"The defeat of the Government is attributable to Mr. Goschen. He had been arranging the cabal for the last ten days. He made his speech to-night, and having done his Leader as much harm as he could, he ran away. It is also certain that a hint was given from the Cabinet, inasmuch as the Prime Minister had acted over the head of the Home Secretary and without the previous consent of the Cabinet."
I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether, so far as he is concerned, that statement is accurate?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I shall give no answer to that Question.

EGYPT—ENGLISH REFUGEES.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to ask the Prime Minister a Question, of which he had given him private Notice. It was, Whether it was the intention of the Government to propose to give some relief out of the public funds to the thousands of British subjects who were now refugees and destitute owing to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt?
MR. GLADSTONE: I am not able to answer the latter part of the Question, which states that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has brought these persons into that position. I might observe that in what he called his private Notice, the hon. Member said nothing at all of the fact that these sufferings were owing to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. As regards the Question, which is really important, as to whether provision has been made for the wants of those unhappily suffering persons, and with respect to the charge arising therefrom, Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the local authorities.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—SUSPENSION OF IRISH MEMRERS (SATURDAY, JULY 1)—THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
MR. CALLAN: I beg to ask the Chairman of Committees two Questions, of which I have given him private Notice. The first is, Whether the private and confidential note which he addressed to the London correspondent of The Scotsman newspaper in the Gallery did not in itself unmistakably convey that

1963
the object of the letter was to obtain publicity, inasmuch as the note substantially desired that he should communicate its contents to the Press? My next Question is, Whether on Saturday morning, immediately after the suspension of the 16 Members, he addressed another communication to a member of the Press, not connected with a Scotch paper; and, if so, what was the purport of that communication, and what were the reasons which induced him to make it?
MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I can readily answer the Question of the hon. Member. The letter to which on a former occasion he drew my attention as having been shown to several gentlemen of the Press without my knowledge was simply written by me to draw attention to what had been stated by me from the Chair in Committee—that I had Named the Members for continued Obstruction during the whole time the Bill had been in Committee. As the communication was marked "private and confidential," the hon. Member will feel with me, that a private letter shown without the knowledge of the writer is not public property, so that I shall decline to make any explanation with regard to it.
MR. CALLAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my second Question—Whether he addressed on Saturday morning another communication on the same subject to any member of the Press not marked "private and confidential"?
MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I have no other answer to give him, Sir.

LAW AND POLICE—RIOTS AT TREDEGAR.
MR. PARNELL: I have to ask the Home Secretary, Whether he can give any further particulars with reference to the disturbances at Tredegar; how many of the Irish population have been injured; whether there are any women and children among the injured; and, whether the authorities are taking steps for the protection of the Irish inhabitants of this and other towns in England and Scotland; and, if so, what are those precautions?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I received a telegram yesterday morning about 11 o'clock, saying that disturbances of a very serious character had occurred between the English and Irish
1964
populations at Tredegar, that further mischief was apprehended, and that the force of police there was not adequate to deal with it. Therefore, I caused communication to be made with the military authorities in order that if any assistance of that character were required it might be immediately rendered. The information I have stated was communicated to me yesterday morning in a very short telegram which gave no special details. I have received no further report today. The hon. Member will see I have taken every measure of precaution I could.
MR. PARNELL: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for any further details since yesterday morning, or as to whether the sacking of the houses of the Irish inhabitants is still being continued?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I take it for granted that the authorities would have asked for military assistance if any further disturbances occurred, and I have not heard they have done so.

IRELAND—THE 12TH OF JULY—ORANGE PROCESSIONS.
MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that it has been decided not to ask for extra police in Belfast on the 12th of July; also if his attention has been called to the statement in yesterday's "Observer," that the Orangemen had received special orders on this occasion to march through the most Catholic quarters of Belfast; and, whether, in view of this and of addresses and circulars to the Orangemen, he will tell the House that special steps have been taken to preserve life and order in the North of Ireland?
MR. TREVELYANcould only say that he was in constant correspondence on the subject of the approaching celebration, and he had reason to believe that the local authorities were quite alive to the necessity of taking measures to preserve order.
MR. PARNELL: Is it true that no extra police have been sent, and would not this be the first occasion on which extra police had not been sent?
MR. TREVELYAN: I will answer the hon. Gentleman to-morrow; but I am quite sure there is nothing unusual in the action of the authorities.

EGYPT—ARMAMENTS AT ALEXANDRIA —IMPENDING HOSTILITIES.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a Question I think he can answer at once. It is, whether, before the Fleet are allowed to bombard the Egyptian forts, any declaration of war will be made, stating the grounds on which it is intended to attack the Egyptians?
VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I should like to ask, if there is a declaration of war, to whom it will be addressed—to the Sultan, to the Khedive, or to Arabi?
MR. GLADSTONE: On this subject I have nothing whatever to add to the information which has been given by the hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I should not admit that attacking the Egyptians was a proper and accurate description of the measure to be taken; it is considered by us to be a purely defensive measure, necessary for the security of the Fleet.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whom the Fleet is going to attack, if not the Egyptian people?
[No reply was given.]
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to ask whether the Sultan, who was the Sovereign of Egypt, or the Conference at Constantinople had given their assent to the proposed bombardment of Alexandria?
[No reply was given.]
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he would repeat the Question to-morrow.
MR. C. SEELY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the bombardment of the Egyptian forts will not be, as a matter of fact, a declaration of war against Turkey; and whether, if that is the case, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to adopt the usual course of withdrawing Her Majesty's Ambassador from Constantinople?
[No reply was given.]
MR. C. SEELY: I do not often interfere; but it is idle to give Notice of a Question of this kind when the Fleet may commence operations at 6 o'clock to-morrow morning; and I beg
1966
again to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government would tell the House whether the action of the English Fleet, which we are told is contemplated, will or will not be a declaration against Turkey; whether, if that is the case, Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt the usual course of withdrawing Her Majesty's Ambassador from Constantinople in view of such a course; and, whether the adoption of that course is not, as a matter of fact, an infraction of the Treaty of Berlin and several other Treaties? I beg to ask that Question, and, if necessary, I will conclude with a Motion.
MR. GLADSTONE: The repetition of the original Question does not at all alter my position. I can perfectly understand that the hon. Member might have reasons for pressing the Question, and for urging the Government to give the best answer to it in their power, if that answer were an answer which could in any way influence the action or the policy of the Government; but no answer that I could give, or that the hon. Member could receive, could have that effect. That being so, the hon. Gentleman will see that he is putting to me a Question involving several assumptions, some of them of very considerable nicety, which I am by no means prepared to admit on the moment. I must certainly fortify myself by reference to better authorities before admitting that the assumptions which appear to be involved in the Question are correct assumptions. It is by no means with a view to baffle the hon. Member's purpose that I ask for Notice; but simply in order that I may be able to give an answer embodying full and accurate information.
MR. C. SEELY: I would ask, then, another Question. What is the object for which the Fleet is to bombard the Egyptian forts? As I understand it, there is no question whatever now of danger to British life and property.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not now confining himself to his Question, but is travelling into a matter of debate.
MR. C. SEELY: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman this definite Question—What is the object for which the Fleet is to bombard the forts of Alexandria; and, whether there is any danger to the lives and property of British subjects in Egypt?
MR. GLADSTONE: It is not a question of immediate danger to British subjects in Alexandria. I have very great doubt, at this moment, if there are any British subjects there. The instructions given by Her Majesty's Government have had reference to the security of Her Majesty's ships.
MR. C. SEELY: I am very sorry to be perpetually asking Questions. I again ask whether there are not sufficient ships in front of the harbour of sufficient power to destroy the Egyptian forts at any time that may be necessary—say in a week's time—even allowing that the Egyptians mounted all the guns in Egypt at the present time. If that be the case, what is the object of the bombardment?
[No reply was given.]

THE MINISTRY—PUBLIC BUSINESS —AN AUTUMN SESSION.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the House will probably expect to hear from me a few words in reference to what occurred on Friday afternoon. That occurrence was, so far as I know, an occurrence without precedent in the annals of this House. It was one on which I personally entertain views on which it is not now necessary to dwell, and which are possibly out of date. However that may be, I have thought it my duty to examine what has happened, in reference to its practical bearings, and likewise in reference to the peculiar responsibility of the Government at the present moment. The House has placed in the hands of Her Majesty's Government a power restrictive of liberty and domestic security, which the Government itself feels to be unnecessary. But the powers of the Bill generally are discretionary powers, and it will be the duty of the Government to exercise all such, and only such, of them as they may find requisite. With regard to this particular power to which I allude, I cherish the hope that no such necessity may arise. If, however, any such necessity should arise, it is obvious that the Government would lie under the very same obligation and responsibility with, respect to this particular power as they he under with regard to all the other powers in the Bill. That is all I need say to the House on this subject; but
  1968
  there is another matter to which, perhaps, the House will listen with greater interest. This is July the 10th, and some time ago Questions were put from the opposite Bench with respect to the intentions of the Government as to the future Business of the Session; and I then intimated that at an early period, when we had made considerable progress with the two Irish Bills before the House, I would endeavour to give information on that subject. I will now do my best to redeem that pledge. Of course, what I have to say pre-supposes that these two Irish Bills shall have become law. If anything should intervene to prevent them, or either of them, from becoming law, in that case the outline I shall now draw must be considered as not having been officially stated, and the Government will resume its full liberty of action. I have already stated, in substance, that we abandon all hope of passing any of the Bills which were announced at the beginning of the Session, except the Corrupt Practices Bill; and, of course, in speaking of the abandonment of Bills, I reserve secondary measures, and any Bills with respect to which there may not be any material difference of opinion, and from which no great expenditure of time may be expected. One important subject was left in doubt at the time when I last spoke, and that was the amendment of the Irish Land Act. Various heads, none of them touching the essence of the Act—the provisions relating to tenure—but still touching very important matters, have been raised, and have attracted, in different degrees, public interest, both here and in Ireland. As far as I recollect, among many others, there are, first of all, the provisions relating to purchase; then those relating to the date of the judicial rent; thirdly, the Emigration Clause; fourthly, the subject of leases, upon which I never spoke as of any large change, but with respect to which there is a recommendation of the Commissioners before the Government not altogether immaterial; and, fifthly, there is the question with respect to labourers, upon which also a recommendation of limited scope has been made by the Commissioners. There may be others; but I believe those are the principal questions. It is, in the judgment of the Government, quite impossible, with the prospects of Business

  1969
  before them, advantageously to attempt to lay any proposition before the House on any of these subjects during the present Session. That being the conclusion at which we have arrived, I took the opportunity of making it known to the House. There remains the transaction of the Public Business of the State, and the secondary Business to which I have already referred—the House will understand what I mean by that. Our course, therefore, will be upon the basis I have described, and after the two Irish Bills now before Parliament shall have become law, to wind up the ordinary Business of the Session, and ask the House to adjourn for a considerable time. Of course, the question we have had to weigh is, whether, considering the views we entertain as to the necessity of settling, if possible, the question of Procedure in the House of Commons—the question we have had to weigh is, whether we could properly, at the end of July or at the beginning of August, ask the House to address itself de novo to that complicated and important question? That would hardly, I think, be compatible with the expectation which has justly been entertained that that question should only be treated at a time when Members could attend in large numbers for the purpose of dealing with it. We have, therefore, arrived at the conclusion that, inconvenient as it may be to meet after a long adjournment, it would be less inconvenient and less unsuitable than to ask the House, after the exhausting Business of the year, to take up this question anew immediately at the conclusion of the ordinary Business. We shall probably propose an adjournment to some day in the second half of October. Our plan would then be to ask the House to apply itself to the subject of Procedure, and we shall certainly propose to the House to give precedence daily to the consideration of that question, in the same manner as has been done in the case of several Bills last year and this year. We believe that this will be for the convenience of the House; and it is not our intention, as far as at present formed, unless some important public necessity should arise, to trouble the House during that period with any other subject. At the close of the proceedings of the House in regard to its Rules and methods of action, we should propose that the Ses-
  1970
  sion should be wound up by a Prorogation in the usual manner. I have no particulars to state. I do not think the Government are in a position, nor do I think it would be right, so long before the time, to enter into any particulars with respect to the Rules of Procedure. Before we come to the close of the ordinary Business, I may be able to say something on that point; but I have nothing to state on the subject at the present moment.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked when the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill and the Indian Budget would be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that the Arrears of Rent Bill would have to be finished first, and it was doubtful whether it would not be necessary to take Supply immediately afterwards. Due Notice would be given of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and it might be convenient to read it a second time and commit it pro formâ that it might be reprinted. All hon. Members but one had withdrawn the Motions that stood in their name on the Order for the second reading of that Bill.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I will not attempt at this moment to enter upon some of the detailed questions which might arise out of the statement we have just heard. We shall be glad, of course, to know what order of Business will be taken after the Arrears of Rent Bill has been disposed of; whether the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill will be the first, and also when Supply will be taken. The possibility of a challenge of the Foreign Policy of the Government would be one which, I understand, we should be entitled to exercise at any moment; and if a challenge were made of that policy, of course the Government would provide a proper means for the discussion of any question that might be raised. At the present moment, however, I do not enter into any question of that kind. With regard to the serious statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made as to an Autumn Session, I think that it would be greatly to the convenience of the House, and would be fair to the House, that we should be told two things. In the first place, we ought to understand whether, by the postponement of these other Irish matters to which reference has been made, it is intended that we shall

  1971
  have another Irish Session after this, and whether we are again to go into all these questions, which will raise points of policy as to important portions of the Land Act. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, though there remained these matters to be discussed, he would not attempt them in the present Session. I do not quite understand whether the right hon. Gentleman means by the "present Session" the whole Session of 1882—that is, including the contemplated Autumn Session—or whether he intends that these matters should stand over for discussion till 1883; because it certainly raises a very serious question as to the expediency of proceeding in this manner, in a matter of such importance and of such a burning character, so as to keep it before us by bringing forward measure after measure. There are great considerations to be urged for going on with any Business that relates to Irish affairs before we take up other Business. The other question which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is, whether it would not be more fair to the House that we should have a more complete statement of the intentions of the Government with regard to the Rules of Procedure? It is now a long time since these Rules were under the consideration of the House. Much has happened since the debate upon them was adjourned, and important measures, with reference to which, no doubt, those Rules were considered in advance, have been proceeded with without any alterations of the Rules. There was, moreover, a period at which the Prime Minister himself contemplated a most material alteration in one of the most important of those Rules. That alteration has, however, never been made the subject of discussion in this House; but it is well known to hon. Members that such a suggestion was made some time ago. It would, therefore, be only fair that, before we were asked to make so great a sacrifice of public convenience as is involved in an Autumn Session, we should have some full and clear explanation of the views of the Government on the subject of the Rules of Procedure and the Irish measures which the Government intend to introduce.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe I have indicated the intentions of the Government on both the points mentioned by
  1972
  the right hon. Gentleman; but I will endeavour to set the matters before the House more clearly. I meant to convey to the House the opinion that it would be quite reasonable, before the ordinary Business of the Session is wound up, that the Government should be open to any question relating to the Rules of Procedure, or should, if necessary, make a statement on that subject, so that there shall be no doubt, at any rate, as to their principal proposal. With regard to the other Question, I intended simply to say that I did not think it was in our power to legislate upon these important matters, either in amendment of, or in addition to, the Irish Land Act during the present Session of Parliament. The present Session of Parliament includes, of course—in Parliamentary language—both the ordinary Sitting and the supplementary Sitting, which, as far as we are concerned, and as we may be free to act, it is our intention to devote exclusively to Procedure, and not to any of the other important proposals referred to.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any precedent for a Ministry which has suffered a defeat such as that of Friday last, and whose Prime Minister has committed himself to such grave statements as were then made by the right hon. Gentleman, continuing to conduct public affairs without first having a Vote of Confidence in themselves moved and carried in Parliament?
  [No answer was given.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) (recommitted) BILL.— [BILL 213.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Childers, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 6th July.]
  [FIRST NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

PART I.

  SETTLEMENT OF ARREARS OF RENT.
  Clause 1 (Settlement by Land Commission of arrears of rent).
  MR. TOTTENHAM MR. TOTTENHAM moved, in page 1, line 7, after "holding," insert, "or two or more holdings held by the same tenant." He said he believed it would not be necessary to press his Amendment.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there could be no doubt that the clause as it stood would apply to two or more holdings as well as to a single holding.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, after that assurance from the Prime Minister he should be satisfied, and would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, after the word "holding," to insert the words, "or two or more holdings held by the same tenant."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that that was the intention of the Bill, except in cases which were explained subsequently.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he entertained a very strong objection to the acceptance of the Amendment. It frequently happened that a tenant had a holding under £30 valuation, which would bring him within the meaning of the clause; and it was only reasonable where a tenant had two holdings, one of which was in the character of a house and not of an agricultural holding, that he should be enabled to come within the terms of the Act. It would be too bad to cut off a tenant from the benefit of the provisions of the Bill under such circumstances; and he would ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, in his view, if a tenant had a holding that was not of an agricultural character, say a house in Dublin or anywhere else, or a tenement such as a house or stable, it was intended, if that brought him above the value mentioned in the clause, he should not be entitled to the benefit of the Act? He thought it would be an exceedingly inconvenient thing for the Government to accept an Amendment of this character, and therefore he would ask the Irish Law Officers if it was intended to provide that the second and subsidiary holding should be also of an agricultural character, and not merely a holding of which the man was tenant?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that was the intention of the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TOTTENHAM MR. TOTTENHAM moved, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "thirty," and insert "fifteen." He said the object of the Amendment was to reduce the value of the holdings which would come within the operation of the clause from £30 to £15. He had taken that sum of £15 from the limit at which it was proposed to put the relief under the Seeds Act of 1880. Under that Act it was considered that a valuation of £15 was sufficiently high, and, that being so, he did not see why the same limit should not be observed in this case. He could not find that any Member of the Government who were then in Opposition joined in the discussion, either upon the second reading of that Bill, or in Committee upon it; and he, therefore, took it that they gave a silent assent to that being a proper limit. If it was considered necessary in 1880, after a succession of bad harvests, to put a limit of £15 upon the value of the holdings to be entitled to relief, he thought it was even more necessary to retain that limit in the present case after two of the best harvests which had been obtained in Ireland for many years. Under those circumstances, he thought the Committee could not do better than adopt the limit fixed by the Seeds Act of 1880.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10. to leave out the word "thirty," and insert the word "fifteen."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there had been a considerable difference of opinion expressed as to the limit of the operation of the clause, and as to whether the limit of £30 which the Government had chosen was on the whole the best. He was, therefore, not surprised at the objection raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tottenham), and it would be very difficult to define any strict principle upon which Parliament should act. At the same time, he did not think that the question involved came under the precedent cited by the hon. Member. The object of the Relief Act, to which the

  1975
  hon. Member referred, was purely an eleemosynary one, being nothing in the world but a gift of money for the relief of certain persons. Now, this gift was by no means an eleemosynary proceeding, but was more in the nature of an act of policy. In his opinion, it would be a very great boon to many landlords in Ireland as well as to the tenants; and he did not intend, therefore, to view it as an eleemosynary gift, and, consequently, he could not accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. The precedent pointed out by the hon. Gentleman in the Act of 1880 did not apply, and he was reminded by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that there was a precedent which was more applicable in the Act of 1881. They had taken the same limit as that inserted in the Act of 1881, because they considered it as the most fair to be taken as the standard in the present Bill. The whole matter of interference with arrears by means of public funds was a most grave and serious one. Many objections might be urged to it, and it was only commanding considerations that could overrule those objections. It was one of those things which, if they were to do it at all, they had better do not only equitably, but effectually, so as to remove the whole evil out of the way. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  MR. P. MARTINpointed out that a great number of tenants would be excluded by keeping the limit to £30, and he was glad to hear that the Government were prepared to reject any attempt to reduce it to £15. Many tenants would feel a well-founded discontent when, in consequence of the limit adopted, they were deprived of all assistance. The distress and want of means of too many of those above the £30 limit were facts well known to all resident in Ireland. If it was determined not to extend the principle of gift, why should not loans on easy terms be granted to the excluded tenants? He trusted for some favourable expression of intention in this direction from the Government.
  MR. GLADSTONEremarked that, although the Government had been in some doubt as to selecting a hard and exact figure, he was bound to say that they could not accede to any proposal for extending the principle of gift by an alteration upwards. He thought that
  1976
  would be a very great objection indeed. They had preferred to take their own precedent afforded by the Act of last year, and he could not accede to any policy of extending it upwards. At the same time, in regard to loans, it was a question to be considered whether the machinery of the Act of last year might not be made applicable to a higher assessment.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that was exactly the point upon which he had been about to make an observation; but it was unnecessary now that he should trouble the Committee, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman had indicated that the question of granting loans to tenants upon higher assessments would be favourably considered.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought it would be an advantage for the Committee to be made acquainted, without loss of time, with the views of the Government on the important points which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there might be a further demand upon the Exchequer in respect of loans in addition to the probable demand upon the Public Exchequer involved in the proposal now before the Committee. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government were prepared to consider a further demand in respect of loans with regard to holdings exceeding the limit laid down by the Bill. He took that to be the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, who would correct him if he were wrong. He thought the Committee was scarcely in a condition to consider and discuss the Bill as it stood now, unless they were made aware of what the ultimate demands on the National Exchequer would be. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would avail himself of the earliest opportunity of stating the intentions of the Government in that respect, so that the taxpayers of the country might clearly understand whether they were hereafter to be called upon to advance money under the colourable designation of a loan in addition to a gift. If that were so, the sooner they were informed of the fact the better.
  MR. M'COANwould ask the right hon. Gentleman to suspend his judgment on the point, and to hold his answer over for the present, seeing that he (Mr. M'Coan) had an Amendment further on

  1977
  which distinctly raised the question. He proposed to ask the Government to lend money to tenants whose holdings were valued at between £30 and £50 upon a small scale of interest.
  COLONEL BARNE,as a Representative of English taxpayers, expressed his regret that the Prime Minister would not accept the Amendment. The English taxpayers would be called upon to put their hands into their pockets in order to pay this gift; and if the limit were placed. at£15, instead of £30, they would be required to put their hands less into their pockets than they would be under the clause as it stood. It was quite evident that a farmer paying £30 a-year must be farming a considerable number of acres. They all knew it took £10 an acre, at least, for the farmer to stock the land, and, therefore, a man paying £30 a-year must be the possessor of at least £300; and he did not think a man who had £300 ought to receive assistance from the English taxpayers. He was, therefore, sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not accepted the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SYNANsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) he would move the Amendment which stood in his hon. Friend's name, and which proposed, after "year," to insert—
  "Or, in case it can be proved to the satisfaction of the Irish Land Commission that a holding valued over thirty pounds has been held, at the time of the passing of this Bill, by two or more tenants, whose separate portions are under the said value of thirty pounds, though not separately valued in the rate book."
  The object of the Amendment was to provide that a holding of upwards of £30 in value which for some years might have been in the hands of two or more tenants, instead of one single tenant, should be entitled to be regarded as a separate tenancy. Each separate tenancy of less value than £30 would be entitled to the benefit of the clause, and this proposal was to the effect that where such a separate tenancy should have been divided into two holdings, and to all intents and purposes was one holding, but owing to negligence had not a separate value given to it, it should come within the meaning of the Act. Unless the Act was made to apply to such ten-
  1978
  ancies, a great injustice would be done, because in most cases the default would only have arisen from negligence or omission. The Commissioners would be able to inquire into all such cases, and see whether they were bonâ fide holdings or not. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment, seeing that the Commissioners would have a complete control of the ease, and would not put any tenancy down as a holding unless they believed it actually to be one.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 10, after the word "year," to insert the words "or, in case it can be proved to the satisfaction of the Irish Land Commission that a holding valued over thirty pounds has been held, at the time of the passing of this Bill, by two or more tenants, whose separate portions are under the said value of thirty pounds, though not separately valued in the rate book."—(Mr. Syrian.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, and for this reason. The Amendment contemplated holdings over the value of £30, and, therefore, would include any holdings of whatever amount, very many of which were without the scope of the Bill. In point of fact, the Amendment as it stood would apply to holdings of an undefined value, and there was no reason why a holding of £1,000 should not be brought under the Bill.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had misconstrued the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)remarked that the terms of the Amendment were these—
  "In case it can be proved to the satisfaction of the Irish Land Commission that a holding valued over thirty pounds has been held, at the time of the passing of this Bill, by two or more tenants, whose separate portions are under the said value of thirty pounds, though not separately valued in the rate book."
  It was impossible for a moment to accept an Amendment of that kind, as they had already provided that the holdings dealt with should not be above the value of £30. If two tenants held a holding between them which was not valued at over £30, then both of those tenants would constitute one tenant, and

  1979
  would be entitled to relief under the Act if the holding were sub-divided.
  MR. GIVANapproved of the Amendment. It might so happen that a farmer, having two sons, had sub-divided his farm in. equal proportions. They would hold under the father's title, or some other title, and yet the landlord might never have recognized the severance of the holding. The consequence of that omission would be to make it one holding, although the two tenants would be holding the land for all purposes in severalty. And so it might continue for several years, although the tenants might have adverse interests and adverse titles. Nevertheless, to all intents, the landlord might treat it as only one holding. Therefore, he thought the clause ought to be applied to a case of that kind, and that no matter whether the holding was held as one holding, if it were practically divided between two or more tenants, and each of those tenants farmed a holding of less than £30 in value, he should have the benefit of the Bill. He believed the effect of the clause as it stood would undoubtedly be to exclude from the benefit of the Act a considerable number of tenants to whom it ought to apply, and he therefore trusted that the Amendment, or some similar Amendment, would be accepted by the Government. He wished to remind the Government that the same principle was already applied to the franchise.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the Attorney General for Ireland had forgotten the fact that the Commission would have ample means of ascertaining what the nature of the holding was. Personally, he could not understand upon what grounds the right hon. and learned Gentleman based his objection to the Amendment. No matter whether the holding was held by one ground landlord or not, two persons might have worked it for 30 years separately, and have paid the rent separately, and on account of some laches, not of their own, but of somebody else, they were to be shut out from the benefit of the Act. It might be that the fault rested entirely on the part of the poor rate collector. As the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) truly pointed out, for the purpose of the franchise the law recognized the right of these people to separate votes. He ventured to think that
  1980
  the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had not seriously considered the point, and, if so, he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give a distinct assurance to the Committee that he would do so before the Report stage of the Bill was reached, and that he would be prepared to make some proposal in the matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that the will of the tenant was not always executed; and, that being so, because there had been some technical default or other, it would be unfair to shut out two men from the benefit of the Act. He hoped the Government would make a concession upon the point.
  MR. MOOREsaid, he thought the Attorney General for Ireland hardly understood the real nature of the case. It was a common thing in Ireland for two farmers to live side by side on two farms which were practically co-terminous; but the holding had nevertheless been divided, owing to the easygoing agreement under which it was held, or, perhaps, from a disinclination on the part of the landlord to acknowledge a sub-division. The result was that each part, being under £30 value, ought to be separately valued; and they were actually held by the very class of persons for whose benefit the Government had brought in the Bill. This was a very common occurrence in Ireland, and he thought it desirable to make some provision for it in the Bill.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he believed there were two distinct classes of cases which would come within the words of the Amendment. One of them was the cases in which the sub-division had been made with the consent of the landlord, and the other was the cases in which it was unauthorized. He was prepared substantially to accept the Amendment if those cases were excluded in which the sub-division had been unauthorized by the landlord. There must be two or more distinct holdings, although they might not be separated in the rate-book. The words of the Amendment were not satisfactory; but on the Report he would bring up a clause to give effect to the intentions of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. W. H. SMITHunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to state that the Government was prepared to accept the

  1981
  principle of this provision in cases in which the landlord and tenant agreed to a sub-division.
  MR. CHILDERS: In cases in which they have agreed.
  MR. W. H. SMITHunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to say in cases in which the landlord and tenant had agreed that the holding, though actually one, had been virtually divided into two. Was that the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman? [Mr. CHILDERS assented.] That would clearly open the Bill to a larger number of cases than that to which, it was now confined.
  MR. CHILDERSwished to point out that it would not apply to cases in which the landlord and tenant might hereafter agree, but only to cases in which they had already agreed.
  MR. HEALY: And where the rent has been paid separately?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes; where the rent has hitherto been paid by two persons.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it would not be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to go into recent history, or he would find it difficult to draw up a list in which the rent had been paid at all. He thought he had noticed in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman some confusion between sub-division and joint tenancies. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the sub-division which it was the policy of the State to discourage. Of course, a sub-division was hardly involved in the Amendment. The Amendment spoke rather of joint tenants, although it did not specify that in distinct terms. It rather spoke of the same holding, and not of a sub-division of a holding which might be sub-divided, as was constantly the case unfortunately in Ireland, and two or more persons had a distinct portion of one holding divided between them. He thought the Amendment pointed to a case of that kind, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he was to find out what number of tenants there had been upon a holding, or how many persons were legally liable to pay the rent? He thought the Committee ought to understand, before they adopted the suggestion of the Government, whether the right hon. Gentleman meant by two or more persons, persons severally responsible to the landlord for their rent. Of course, if that was meant, then it would
  1982
  be a much smaller matter than if the suggestion were taken in a more general sense.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had already intimated that the words of the Amendment were not satisfactory, and that on the Report he would bring up a clause to give effect to the intentions of the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan).
  MR. SYNANsaid, that if the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) had listened to his observations, he would have found what the Amendment really meant. Although the Amendment was a general Amendment, he had confined his observations to cases where the holding, which was substantially a separate holding, had by reason of an omission not been separately valued.
  MR. PARNELLremarked, that, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he should like to draw the attention of the Government to an important question which might be raised in the working of the Bill, and which was referred to in an Amendment standing higher up on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham). It happened frequently in Ireland that a tenant held one separate holding, and was a joint tenant for commonage. He wished to know if the Government were not of opinion that by the adoption of the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Leitrim, two or more holdings held by the same tenant would not apply to separate holdings of this character, and so rule a tenant out of the Bill on the ground that he held a farm of a larger value than £30 a-year, although the holding of a larger value was held in common with other tenants? He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would deem it necessary to make some observation upon that point before the Bill reached the Report stage, or otherwise there might be a large number of small tenants with holdings under £30 in value, who would be exempted from the operation of the Act owing to holding a grazing tract exceeding that value in common with other tenants.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that question would not arise. The grazing right of a tenant would not be valued at all.
  MR. GIVANasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider whether the particular tenants referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) might not be valued for a dwelling which they might hold in common with 20 other tenants?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he did not think that a case of that kind could occur; but he would consider the matter before the Report. A tenant's commonable right would not be valued.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to have the case distinctly cleared up. He understood the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in a totally different sense from that which appeared to be understood by the Attorney General for Ireland. As he understood the hon. Member for the City of Cork, he desired to know whether a tenant, having a house and farm valued at £8 or £10, but also possessing rights over a tract of grazing land rated at a much more considerable sum, bringing him up higher than £30 in value, would still be included within the provisions of the Bill? He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wanted to know if the two holdings together were to be counted, or whether the tenant who had grazing rights elsewhere, for which he paid a considerable sum, was to be allowed to come under the Bill, because he was in possession of a house and land, separated from the grazing rights, the value of which was only £10?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that if he was tenant of two holdings valued at £30, he would not come within the scope of the Clause. He did not think that he had in any respect misunderstood the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the hon. Member for Limerick withdraws the Amendment?
  MR. SYNAN: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. LYONSsaid, there was one subject which had been mooted by the Prime Minister, and upon which he desired to move an Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman spoke, as far as loans were concerned, of tenancies of a higher value than £30.
  THE CHAIRMANasked where that came in?
  MR. SYNANremarked that there was not a word of the kind in the Bill at all.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he only wished, in conformity with what he had himself so long contended for, and with what the Prime Minister now assented to, to raise the question of the principle of "loan" in addition to that of "gift," and to introduce an Amendment dealing with cases of loan.
  THE CHAIRMANcertainly could not see where such an Amendment would come in the particular part of the Bill they were now discussing.
  DR. LYONSsaid, it would come in, because they were now disposing of the question of fixing a limit of £30 value in reference to the operation of "gift;" and he proposed to move an Amendment, after the words "thirty pounds a-year," to introduce the principle of "loan" to tenants above that limit.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONErose to Order. He wished to know if the hon. Member (Dr. Lyons) was in Order in moving an Amendment before the withdrawal of the Amendment now under discussion?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment had already been withdrawn.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he would move to insert, after the words "thirty pounds a-year," the words—
  "That the principle of a loan, repayable at five per cent for a term of thirty-five years, be applied to the case of all tenants above the limit of thirty pounds' valuation."
  They were now limiting the clause to tenants of £30 a-year, and he wanted to bring in loans to tenants above £30 a-year, so that they might be similarly dealt with.
  DR. LYONS(after conference with the Chairman) agreed to the insertion of his Amendment at the end of line 2, page 2.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would be better for the hon. Member to move the Amendment on the 2nd clause. It was quite possible to move it now; but it would come in better in the place he suggested.
  MR. D. GRANT MR. D. GRANT moved, in page 1, line 10, after "thirty pounds a-year," leave out to end of line 2, page 2, and insert—
  "On and after the passing of this Act, no process of eviction or other proceeding in law

  1985
  or equity shall be valid that has reference to any arrears of rent prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, until such holding has had a fair rent fixed for the statutory term, either by mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant or by a judicial decision of the Land Court. When such fair rent has been fixed all arrears of rent prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one shall then and there be settled, either by mutual agreement between landlord and tenant or by the decision of the Land Court, such arrears to be divided into equal half-yearly payments extending over the whole statutory term, and to be added to and form a portion of the future rent of the holding."
  The hon. Member said that his object in moving the Amendment was to put the clause in conformity with the intentions of the Bill. They had in Ireland a large number of tenants who had holdings of less than £10 a-year, and it might be fairly considered that a very large number of those tenants would come under the operation of the Act.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Amendment was altogether contrary to the spirit of the Bill, and would, in fact, constitute a new Bill, and a very important Bill indeed, laying down entirely new matter. The hon. Gentleman said that his Amendment would get rid of the objections to the Bill. It certainly would get rid of the objections to the Bill by the simple process of getting rid of the Bill itself. The Amendment was, therefore, a very serious one, and one which it was impossible for the Government to accept. The hon. Member proposed—
  "That on and after the passing of this Act, no process of eviction or other proceeding in law or equity shall be valid that has reference to any arrears of rent prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, until such holding has had a fair rent fixed for the statutory term."
  The Land Act, on the contrary, distinctly recognized the obligation of the tenant to pay the old rent until a fair rent was fixed, and to pay all the obligations which the old rent involved. Obviously, if a tenant were not bound to pay any rent until a fair rent was fixed, he would have very little motive to expedite the proceedings of the Land Court. But the Amendment was so drawn that it was not limited to cases in which an application to fix a fair rent had been made; but the landlord must
  1986
  actually wait until the Court had fixed a judicial rent before he would be in a condition to recover any rent at all. The second part of the Amendment was equally objectionable in principle, and fell greatly short of the requirements of the case. It enacted—
  "That all arrears of rent prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one shall then and there be settled, either by mutual agreement between landlord and tenant or by the decision of the Land Court, such arrears to be divided into equal half-yearly payments extending over the whole statutory term, and to be added to and form a portion of the future rent of the holding."
  The Bill preposed that the arrears of rent should be dealt with on an entirely different principle, and in what he ventured to regard as a much preferable manner. He did not think the Amendment would recommend itself to hon. Members on the other side of the House, and he trusted that the hon. Member would not press it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had a very easy task in demolishing the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, especially in regard to the second part of it, and the work which it professed to do. But the first part of the Amendment raised an important question, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do a great deal towards satisfying the people of Ireland, and in producing tranquillity, if he would state whether the Government were ready to introduce into the Bill some clause to provide proper safeguards against evictions.
  COLONEL NOLANpointed out that the Amendment in its present shape would virtually omit the whole of the Bill. It would completely destroy the landlord and very much injure the tenant. The Committee would then have the melancholy satisfaction of knowing that both were in the same boat. The question raised by the Amendment, if it were accepted, would disturb the whole of Ireland and would continue to be in operation for ever. He certainly thought the Amendment ought to be at once withdrawn, if the object of the hon. Member who proposed it was to benefit the tenants. It would certainly be most injurious to the tenants in small and poor districts, and particularly to his (Colonel Nolan's) constituents.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he should not have spoken upon this Amendment were

  1987
  it not that a point had been referred to in connection with it about which it was necessary that there should be an absolutely clear understanding. He pointed out that the Bill did not in the slightest degree propose to affect the landlord's right of eviction, except by the indirect method of paying off arrears. That was the statement very naturally made by the Prime Minister when the Bill was introduced to the House.
  MR. D. GRANTsaid, he rarely occupied the time of the House, and only when some point was brought forward worthy of discussion. He thought the question raised by the Amendment was large enough and plain enough to awaken a greater interest in the minds of the Committee than was at present felt in it. It would assuredly present itself again at a time when it would have to be looked at in a better light by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was willing to withdraw the Amendment, and leave the matter to be dealt with at a future time upon its own merits.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, the Amendment which I have to move touches one of the main principles on which the Government are proceeding in this matter, because it is to make the commencement of the process involved in this Bill dependent on an agreement being made between the landlord and the tenant. Now, the professed object of the measure is to give a fair start, as I understand it, to the Land Act of 1881. I understand the position of the Government to be that by the Act of last Session a certain Code of Land Laws has been laid down for Ireland, and that in future these may be expected to prove satisfactory, and to furnish the proper relations that should exist between the landlords and tenants. But I also understand that the Government consider it is necessary with a view to the arrears which have accumulated in the past to make some arrangements, and in that way to get rid of a difficulty which, as they say, prevents the fair working of the Act of last Session. Now, it seems to me that although it is a very important thing that as quickly as possible some arrangement should be come to with regard to the outstanding questions of the whole of the arrears, yet the method which is proposed by Her Majesty's Government is
  1988
  one more likely to disturb friendly relations between landlord and tenant than to promote them. After all, any arrangement between the two principal parties concerned in this matter under any system of Land Laws which does not entirely abolish landlordism—and I do not understand that the Government are prepared to go the length of doing away with that portion of our system—ought, if possible, to rest upon good feeling; and it seems to me that it would be most undesirable that we should, by violent and dictatorial legislation, do what I believe this Bill will do—namely, disturb and prevent the continuance of those friendly relations. As far as I can make out, the landlords and tenants are, in a great number of cases, endeavouring to accommodate themselves to the new law, and according to the statements we hear from the Government, and from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary especially, we are led to believe that in many cases arrangements have been made, are in process of being made, or were in process of being made, between the landlords and tenants until this Bill was introduced. But, undoubtedly, when, by the introduction of this Bill, expectations were held out to the tenantry that they would be able to obtain for themselves something very much more to their advantage than they could get by private arrangement with their landlords, a very great check was given to arrangements which seemed to be in process of fair and satisfactory settlement. Now, Sir, many of us have friends in Ireland whose cases may furnish instances of the correctness of that view. I myself have a friend who has property in the West of Ireland of some £7,000 a-year. This gentleman, after much trouble and negotiation, had arrived at what seemed to be a perfectly fair understanding with his tenants. Arrangements had been made with regard to arrears and future rents upon I terms very liberal to the tenants. But all of a sudden the introduction of the Arrears Bill gave things a new turn, and my friend received communications from his tenants very civilly but, at the same time, very clearly worded, to the effect that they saw there was going to be a new arrangement; that the Government were going to sweep off arrears by paying some portion of them for the tenants, and that, therefore, they must

  1989
  be off the bargain which they had made. I ask what is the effect of that kind of disarrangement of what was going on in Ireland? In the first place, it destroys altogether the hope of a satisfactory settlement in a great many cases, and in a great many others, if it does not actually destroy the hope of settlement, it puts off all chance of such settlement for a very considerable period, and it seems to me that speed in the present state of Ireland is really of the essence of any arrangement which should be made. It would be better for the prosperity of the Irish tenantry that you should be able in the course of 1882 to come to an inferior settlement than that you should have to put the matter to the year 1883, or, perhaps, 1884 and 1885, for the purpose of arriving at something which on paper might appear to be very satisfactory. Because all the time these things are going on, you must bear in mind that there is in existence an organization directed to the disturbance of the peace of Ireland, which catches hold of every possible opportunity and avails itself of every conceivable opening for increasing disturbance and preventing the reconciliation of classes. It is, therefore, most dangerous to keep questions of a burning character, such as the adjustment of rents, open longer than is absolutely necessary. This, then, is one reason why I am pressing upon the attention of the Government and of the Committee an alteration at the base of this Bill. If you wish to avail yourselves of the chances, and what are more than the chances, in favour of private settlement between landlord and tenant, I say you must allow ample elbow-room, and you must facilitate every arrangement to be made between them. Well, but then, if that is to be done, you must necessarily change the basis of the Bill on which you are now about to proceed. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister some time ago that we had to chose between two alternative processes. Either we must have the process of gift, in which case, he said, our Act must be compulsory; or we must have the process of loan, in which case our Act must be voluntary. I suppose, as the right hon. Gentleman says so, that must be true; but I confess I have never been able to master the argument on which that distinction is based. It seems to me possible to have either a voluntary
  1990
  gift or a compulsory loan—however, I will not enter into that question at the present moment. Whether what you propose should be voluntary or compulsory, I look upon it that you have to consider the question as opened by the Government; and I bear in mind, although I will not trouble the Committee by repeating the exact words, what was quoted the other night in the course of the discussion upon the Motion of the Speaker leaving the Chair—that last year the Government laid down in the most emphatic manner the proposition that any settlement based upon the compulsory arrangement of arrears would be demoralizing and objectionable. I do not see, if that mode of arrangement were demoralizing in 1881, why it should not also be demoralizing in 1882; I should imagine that the truth of the proposition did not depend upon the date at which it was put forward. At any rate, it was an axiom on principle firmly fixed on the minds of the Government last year, and I can hardly imagine that they have got rid of it at the present time.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not say that compulsory settlement of arrears was demoralizing.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he did not consider it demoralizing last year, or that he does not consider it demoralizing this year? Well, the right hon. Gentleman says he did not consider that it was; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who was then Chief Secretary, said that it was demoralizing in very emphatic language, and he was the Minister who was responsible for introducing the Bill of last year. I am in the recollection of hon. Members, and, according to my own recollection, the right hon. Gentleman the then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was, at all events, one of the Members of the Government who introduced the Bill of last year for the amendment of the Irish Land Law. That Bill contained a clause subsequently introduced for the purpose of dealing with arrears, and objection was taken to the mode of settlement proposed. Although we have some reason to believe we were in error, we always supposed that the Government were harmonious and united; but certainly we thought the late Chief Secretary was speaking in the name of the Government

  1991
  when he introduced and defended the clause I have referred to. At all events, he did it in the presence of the Prime Minister and his Colleagues, and they did not get up and rebuke him. That being the case, I think I was justified in saying, if there is any meaning in language, that the Government have called upon us to adopt a principle which last year they declared to be demoralizing. I believe a large proportion of Members of the House will so understand it, and certainly a considerable number of persons in the country. But if we are to have this Bill passed in its present shape—if we are to carry this measure with the compulsory character which it bears, and a settlement is made under it, I venture to say that such settlement will leave a grievance behind it. By that settlement you will leave a sense of wrong on the part of at least two of the three parties concerned—the landlord, who finds himself unjustly deprived of what he considers to be his right, and what in many cases would have been admitted even by his tenants to be his right; and the honest tenant who has paid his rent, and whose wrongs, I think, are not sometimes sufficiently acknowledged in this House. Then there is the tenant with whom no settlement has been made, but who is enabled to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill. You must leave in the mind of that man a sense of soreness or injustice. But I say you will do something worse than that. You will have demoralized him by leading him to believe that he has nothing to look to but agitation in order to get the fulfilment of his desires; he will have been taught that, although he has gained something now, if he wishes to get more it will be open to him to do so by the same means as have been hitherto employed. The Act of 1870 was not final; the Act of 1881 was not final; and to the tenant I am now speaking of the Act of 1882 will also not be final. There will be no idea of finality in his mind; he will believe he has nothing to do but to agitate sufficiently, and that then he will be pretty sure to get some further concession made. Let me ask the Government to consider what, besides the inconvenience of the length of time these things will remain open, is the inconvenience to the status of landlord and tenant. I confess I have not been able thoroughly to understand
  1992
  what that status will be; but so far as I am able to comprehend what has been told us, I imagine for some considerable time—that is until the date at which a further settlement can be made between any particular landlord and his tenants—the relations between the landlord and the tenant at present existing will remain undisturbed. Now, we ought to have some full and clear explanation on that point, because if you are to have a considerable length of time during which landlords and tenants are to remain on the same footing as they are on now, with the knowledge that at the end of that time a totally different state of affairs is to come about, and that the landlord is to accept considerably less than he believes to be his due, you will undoubtedly be keeping up a soreness, and you will place before the landlord a strong temptation to exercise his power of eviction, and the other rights which he has, before that time comes. I do not profess to have gone into any minute calculation as to the time which will be occupied in the settlement of this question. Undoubtedly, if we are to go into a careful examination of all the statistics bearing upon it, and especially into that difficult question as to the inability of the tenant to pay his arrears, a great deal of time must be spent, and it will be impossible in most cases that a settlement can be arrived at in the Court proposed by this Bill. I want to know if, during that time the relations between landlord and tenant are to continue as at present established, whether we shall not be exposed to after irritation, which is the thing you want to avoid, and whether we shall not be deprived of the present chance that, if you will only let matters alone, there will be a peaceful arrangement between the two parties? Surely hon. Members must see that an arrangement arrived at by something in the nature of give and take on both sides—reasonable concession on one, and reasonable pretensions on the other—is far more satisfactory than a violent and authoritative settlement coming from the Government. At any rate, the opportunities of challenging such settlements would be fewer than the opportunities of challenging settlements made under the authority of the Government, because it would be felt that the Government legislation was not final, and the tenants would in consequence be always agi-

  1993
  tating. I have said this much with regard to the advantage which voluntary settlement appears to me to possess over compulsory settlement. I also wish to add a word or two with regard to the effect which the change I propose would have on the working of the Bill. I say it would be of great advantage to the working of the Bill if you were to adopt this principle. In the first place, there is the question with regard to the inability of the tenant to pay, which everybody admits will be a most difficult one to settle. It is admitted, too, on all hands, that it will be almost impossible for the body of Commissioners, the Court, or whatever machinery you employ, satisfactorily to settle the question whether a particular tenant was or was not at a particular time capable of paying his rent. That was mentioned the other day in the course of the debate upon the second reading of the Bill, when it was said on behalf of the Government—"Oh; in this question you will have the advantage of the experience of the landlord, who will be able to give you material assistance in deciding the question from his knowledge of the tenant's circumstances." Well, I do not think that the landlord, under the circumstances proposed, is particularly likely to give you that assistance. But, assuredly, if you make the matter one of a voluntary character, a great deal of relief in the sense just referred to will be given in the demands upon the public time by the information afforded by the landlord, who will of necessity know so much more of the circumstances of the tenant than can possibly be known by the Court. The landlord, speaking as one who knows the circumstances of the tenant, may say—"It is impossible for me to assent to any such settlement as this;" and he may propose another mode of settlement satisfactory to both parties, and which will be more advantageous to himself, the tenant, and the public. That, I think, is a consideration which ought to weigh, and I think it is one in favour of voluntary instead of compulsory settlement. I need hardly point out that if that should be the working of the Bill, it would be of great advantage, not only in the saving of time, but in the saving of money which would otherwise be demanded from the State. You will still retain your power to examine into the tenant's inability to
  1994
  pay; and, as I have already pointed out, you will be assisted by the landlord in the preliminary inquiry to be made. Now, this is what I think we may say with regard to the effect of the change I am asking you to make upon the working of the Bill before us. But I wish to express my belief that this Bill, whether it works for good or evil, will, after all, be but a measure which deals with a fragment of the subject. It certainly does not deal with some of the more important remedies which ought to be applied, and which I hope in due time will be applied, to admitted evils. This Bill, I say, deals with the symptoms and not with the disease. Measures referred to in the earlier part of the evening, and which were passed over with some little carelessness, I think, will undoubtedly have to be brought forward again, and other questions will have to be hereafter discussed which will be in the nature of more serious remedies than this Bill offers for the secular difficulties and sufferings of Ireland. I say, in passing this Bill, you run great risk of setting aside, and actually impeding, the operation of more important measures; and I believe, by what you are proposing to do, you will render it still more difficult hereafter to introduce such measures as are desirable for the benefit of Ireland. I speak, for instance, of the dilemma which exists as to the poor districts in Ireland. It is well known that there are districts in which the condition of the people is one of absolute misery, caused not by inability to pay rent, but by the impossibility of their large populations raising from the soil sufficient for their own maintenance. Everyone admits that these cases ought to be dealt with in a different manner to that which you propose—that the mere remission of the arrears of rent, leaving the populations referred to under the weight of all their other incumbrances, would be insufficient, because it would leave them still fastened to the soil. Again, the Church Surplus Fund, which you are going to draw upon, and which some day, I presume, you yourselves will admit you have exhausted—that money might have been spent, and would otherwise be spent, in a much more profitable way. I repeat that, if you will allow those who ought to and do take an interest in the condition of their estates, and the farmers who are dependent upon them, to agree

  1995
  with the latter in the manner indicated by my Amendment, you will be doing more good than by forcing them to adopt the manner of settlement you propose with reference to their just interests as owners of the soil. A great deal more good might have been done if, instead of forcing the payment of arrears, you had introduced the voluntary element. That is a wholly different proposal from that contained in the Purchase Clauses. An advance by way of loan would have placed the tenants in a very different position; and it would have worked out in quite a different way from the principles which are involved in this Bill. But I cannot anticipate questions of this sort. I only refer to the point for the purpose of showing that you, by your legislation, are preventing and cutting away the ground from the proposal which ought to be made, and might be made, and properly discussed, in connection with the difficulties of Ireland. I, for one, entirely object to this piecemeal method of legislation, as I shall say at the proper time. But as we have to deal with it now, I am anxious that it should be on a basis that will not exclude the possibility of dealing with more rational and more promising measures, and measures more suitable to the condition of the country. After all, look at these districts. Some of them are of a character which cannot support the persons placed on them. The only way to make them do so is by the expenditure of a liberal amount of capital. But what you are doing destroys the chance of capital being introduced. You are driving away capital from the country by your measures for the compulsory confiscation of the rights of the landlord; and, on the other hand, you are fixing the tenant to the soil by the nature of the assistance you are giving him. It may last for a time. You may enable him to go on for a time; but your assistance will be of no advantage to him when the time comes, which is certain to come, when he will have the disadvantage of bad seasons. I would apologize to the Committee, for having gone at some length into this question. It is one of the greatest importance, and involves one of the principles on which this measure rests, and, as far as we have the means of judging, it is not a principle at all essential to the Bill. The Government
  1996
  themselves did not introduce their measure last year on the principle of compulsion. On the contrary, they repudiated the principle of compulsion. This year, when the measure was introduced by the hon. Member who sits below the Gangway on this side of the House (Mr. Redmond), they declared that they would give it their consideration, but without pledging themselves to one principle or the other. They took notice of the gravamen of the principle to be drawn between loan and gift, and the principle of voluntary action as against compulsion. After a time they elected, whether on their own motion or in consequence of the pressure put upon them from another part of the House I cannot say—they elected to proceed on the principle of compulsion and gift. Now, I think the House has a fair right to exercise its own judgment on that question. I think the House has a right to consider the question in all its bearings. I am conscious that hitherto we have been very far from considering the question in all its bearings. But I know that others better acquainted with the matter than I am are prepared to supplement my observations; and I am satisfied that the Committee, looking at the great and paramount importance of the question now raised, will exercise a sound and unbiassed judgment upon the proposal submitted to them.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after the first word "the," to insert the word "joint."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'joint' be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONE: This is the first time within my Parliamentary experience that I have ever heard the Leader of the Opposition rise upon a particular Amendment—of importance it is true, but of limited scope—and take the opportunity of discussing the whole Bill, and travelling beyond the Bill, and going into questions of the Land Act entirely outside the Bill. I must say that the right hon. Gentleman has set an example which, I believe, if followed in another quarter of the House, would lead to very summary proceedings. I remain under this disadvantage, that I must allow the observations which the right hon. Gentleman has made in the wide field over which he has travelled to remain unan-

  1997
  swered, because I must confine myself to that portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which appears to have some faint degree of relevancy to the Amendment. [Mr. WARTON: Oh!] Notwithstanding the displeasure of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), I am compelled to say, however painful it is to differ with so great an authority, that I shall confine myself to those portions of the speech of the right hon. Baronet which have some faint relevancy to the Amendment he has moved, and which, as I have said, is, no doubt, an important Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be better to have a defective settlement in 1882, and a better one in 1883. Now, I do not know the meaning of the difference between 1882 and 1883. So far as the action of Her Majesty's Government is concerned, the question will not be postponed till 1883.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I may explain that what I said was that the question would not be settled until the Courts had operated upon the different cases submitted to them, which would not be until 1883 or 1884.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation. It does not, however, appear to me that time would be gained, but that it would be lost, by the adoption of such a method. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have disarranged the arrangements which have been made in Ireland, and that he has a friend who has arranged with his tenants to settle their arrears; and he assumes that that arrangement was pursued by others in Ireland, and that this friend and his tenants are patterns of all the other landlords and tenants in Ireland. But they are no such thing. The right hon. Gentleman's citation of one case is almost frivolous, when I point out that the general object of the Bill is not for my own friend or the right hon. Gentleman's friend, but for the mass of the tenantry in Ireland. Has the clause of the Act of 1880 operated upon the whole mass of the tenantry? It has failed to do so, and it has failed within so little of being an entire failure, and proof is so adequate with respect to it, that we propose to allow even those who have come under arrangements to undo those arrangements, and come under the present Act. Yet the right hon. Gen-
  1998
  tleman says that we are about to disarrange what is now going on in a satisfactory manner. That statement I entirely deny, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to prove it. On the contrary, speaking roughly, out of the tenants in arrear in Ireland I do not believe that more than one in 100 has settled under the clause of the Act. If that be so, what is the use of talking about the inexpediency of disarranging the arrangements of a satisfactory character now going on with the consent of both parties? It is the opinion of the Government that this question is one of great importance, and the only way of dealing with it is the plan we propose. The right hon. Gentleman says that we shall leave upon the minds of the landlords a grudge and sense of wrong by the confiscation of their property under this Bill. I do not hesitate to say that, lightly as the word "confiscation" has often been used before, there has never been a case in which it has been used with so much levity as it now has been by the right hon. Gentleman. Anyone who knows the character of the Irish arrears knows that where they exist they have depreciated in market value far below their capital value. They have been long used for purposes entirely unknown to English landlords—namely, to place a power in the hands of the Irish landlord to establish his control over the holding, and not with any view towards the recovery of them. I would venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman a fact which has been made known by the researches of the Land Court. Probably he has seen the letter of Lord Clanricarde, in which he states that he has postponed the collection of his rents, and added them to the arrears. That is the old Irish practice—not to give abatements in order to meet the necessities of the time, and to make the tenants safe against future claims, and to allow the tenants to start fair in the future; but to let the rent stand against the tenants, so that it may be made a lever in the hands of the landlord to compel the tenant to agree with any increase of rent, or to comply with any other alteration in the conditions. Who ever heard in England of selling the arrears upon an estate?—I speak in the hearing of Gentlemen concerned in the management of estates—Who ever heard in England of the sale

  1999
  of the arrears on an estate? But in Ireland it is a common thing to sell arrears of rent upon an estate. ["No, no!"] Who said "No!"
  MR. BRODRICK: I said "No!"
  MR. GLADSTONE: Then I will tell the hon. Gentleman who says "No!" that the practice has been noticed in an Act of Parliament, which recognized and sanctioned it. I am astonished that any hon. Gentleman acquainted with Ireland should not have cognizance of that fact.
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not the practice now.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I never said it was the practice. If I had said that it was the practice, I should have asserted that it was the universal rule. I said it was a practice, and a common practice, in Ireland. I am happy to know that there are a large number of estates in Ireland upon which there are as few arrears as upon an English estate; but a bad practice has existed for the outgoing landlord to hand over to the incoming landlord a mass of arrears. The arrears are never expected or intended to be recovered; but they serve as a power in the hands of the landlord. Yet the right hon. Gentleman now comes forward and tells the Committee that, by the manner in which the Bill deals with this mass of arrears, we are confiscating, forsooth, the property of the landlord, when we are going to give him, in a multitude of cases, a great deal deal more than he could by any possibility otherwise obtain. So much for confiscation. But there is another point—that on the tenant's mind there is a sense, not of grievance, but of demoralization; and that demoralization, says the right hon. Gentleman, was urged as an argument against the principle of gift by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). Now, the arguments have been used in solidarity by every Member of the Government; but it must not be supposed that each Member of the Government was obliged to answer for every word spoken by every other Member of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, I happen to know, took a particular view in connection with the circumstances in which the principle of gift was proposed, because it made no reference to the ability of the tenant to pay. But my right hon. Friend never said, and I believe I am correct in saying
  2000
  he never thought, it would be demoralizing to assist with a gift from the public funds those tenants who were unable to pay. My right hon. Friend, upon whom the right hon. Gentleman charges this doctrine, himself has spoken in this debate in favour of the present Bill, and in favour of the principle of gift. In reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about finality of legistion, I think, after the circumstances referred to in connection with the Purchase Clauses, to speak of finality of legislation is only encouraging a renewal of agitation. And now I come to the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. No doubt it would be desirable if we could work this thing through a joint agreement between landlord and tenant, and such a proposal would have my commendation. But the fact is that we cannot so work it. The right hon. Gentleman says, with truth, it is not desirable that the Legislature should interfere in these relations. Certainly, it is not; but the hard necessity of the Irish case, the dictates alike of humanity and policy, have obliged us to put out of view those minor considerations, in consequence of the weight of the major considerations connected with the condition of Ireland and of its people. It is too late to say we could only adopt a method of joint procedure after the Land Act of last year. The House of Commons, by a vast majority, adopted—and the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman in the House of Lords, in a large majority, adopted—a law which was founded, not upon joint action, but upon action which was voluntary as regarded one party, and compulsory as regarded the other. That is the principle which the Government have assumed as their starting point. Well, now, I want to know if the principle of compulsory action is necessary for the tenantry of Ireland in general, is it less or is it more necessary for that portion of the tenantry of Ireland with whom the Committee are going to deal? I grant you that objectionable clauses may be made when this sort of compulsory action is taken; but we have taken the greatest pains to make the provisions of the Bill equitable. I do not hesitate to say that I believe, in a great number of cases, this Bill will confer a large pecuniary boon upon the landlord; and it is only the policy involved in the measure which makes it justifiable to propose

  2001
  such a Bill. But I put this argument—if, in. the case of the tenantry of Ireland who pay their rents, it was necessary to give to the tenant, on high public grounds, the power of drawing his landlord into Court, is it not tenfold more necessary on the part of the tenant who, not by his own fault, but by inability, is prevented from paying his rent, and is shut out from the benefits of the Land Act, and can obtain no relief from the Court? This Amendment deliberately proposes to withhold from these tenants the assistance which Parliament and the Party of the right hon. Gentleman in the House of Lords has given to every other class. I will not further detain the Committee on this subject. It appears to me that, after having tried the voluntary system for arrears, which has failed, and after having established the principle of compulsion in the case of the stronger part of the tenantry, it would be quite impossible to adopt a contrary system in the case of the poorest and weakest of the tenantry of Ireland. If the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, what would be the effect? In 1883, in 1884, and afterwards, this question of arrears would crop up, staring us in the face, and would again be a source of social disturbance and disorder, and prevent Ireland from having that peace for which we are making so many struggles and sacrifices.
  MR. FITZ-PATRICKsaid, his right hon. Friend had shown that his proposal would be a great advantage to both landlord and tenant. He could not see any objection to that proposal. He himself knew a case in which the acting upon the principle of that proposal was beneficial. The other day a meeting was held of tenants on an estate with which be was connected. They stated their wishes; he talked the matter over with them, and an agreement between himself and the tenants was the result. In almost all cases where the landlord and the tenant came together the matter was discussed with forbearance, and a settlement without difficulty was the result. He confessed that he did not see any objection in any way to the Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet; because if they forced the tenant to enter into an agreement, he was immediately induced to believe that he had something at stake, and he would say—"I have no wish to wipe off this one year's arrears."
  2002
  If they forced the landlord to agree, then, vice versa, the same thing happened, and they made him angry. The Prime Minister said the object of the Bill was to help the poorest tenants—tenants who could not help themselves—but the Bill would not do that at all. The tenantry who were the poorest of all would not be reached by this Bill. The very poorest tenant had nothing literally. He had his tenant right, which he was not allowed to sell; and if he was told to pay a year's rent, how could he do it? He believed that the adoption of the Amendment would be of advantage in removing a portion of the grievances of the Irish landlords. The Prime Minister said the arrears had been depreciated in value. But what caused that depreciation? Through the inaction of the Government for some time after the Land League commenced operations, the arrears became large, and the tenants had never been allowed to wipe them off. The Prime Minister said it was a common practice to sell arrears; but he was perfectly convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman would make further inquiries, he would find it was not a common practice either to sell arrears or to allow them to accrue, and then utilize them against the tenant.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he had advocated the principle of loan instead of gift, but he could not support the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He believed it was absolutely necessary that the principle of compulsion should be adopted if the Bill was to have any operative effect at all. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Fitz-Patrick) mentioned that in his own county a mutual understanding had been arrived at in reference to arrears; but the cases referred to were not cases contemplated under the Bill. In the first place, the tenants whom the Bill proposed to relieve were tenants with whom it was not possible to make such arrangements, and the adoption of the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet would render the Bill absolutely worthless. As to the sale of arrears, he also thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Fitz-Patrick) was mistaken. There was no doubt that arrears could be sold. He knew one remarkable case in which arrears of 20 or 30 years were sold. The estate had changed hands three times, and the tenants were at this moment groaning under the arrears

  2003
  which had been sold by the owner of the estate at least twice. He had no wish to mention the name of the estate; but he would do so if it were considered necessary.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had never heard of a single instance of the sale of arrears except the one mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), which was the case of an estate sold in the Incumbered Estates Court. As regarded the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, he felt that the effect of the Bill, if it were passed as it had been drafted without the Amendment, would do great harm in one direction. At present there were a great many cases settled out of Court, under the Land Act, and he believed it was the wish of the Government that as many as possible should be so settled. But if Parliament placed this power in the hands of the tenant, they would in future prevent any settlement from being carried out by arrangement; and he thought that was the settlement referred to by the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the clause in its present shape would interfere with arrangements between landlord and tenant. If the Amendment were accepted, the tenant would be more likely to come to terms with his landlord, and would be disposed to say—"I am able to wipe off all my arrears, except a small portion, and, therefore, I am anxious to make an arrangement." The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Colthurst) had referred to arrears which had grown up for 20 or 30 years; but what it was proposed to wipe off by this Bill was the arrears which had accumulated in Ireland within the last three or four years. He was quite satisfied that if the Amendment were not accepted it would be difficult to bring about an amicable feeling between landlord and tenant, or to induce them to enter into mutual agreements out of Court.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, the adoption of this Amendment would not be conducive to the tranquillizing of Ireland, and if hon. Members desired to bring about a better state of things there they ought not to accept it. It would make the action in the case more cumbersome, and the settlement would undoubtedly be delayed; and the mere fact of people having to agree as to whether or no the Bill should be availed of, would in many
  2004
  cases prevent any action being taken under it at all. The hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitz-Patrick) had argued that the clause ought not to be in the Bill in its present form, because it could not be put in action owing to the fact that some of the tenants could not pay the year's rent. The hon. Gentleman might as well say that the medicine prescribed for a patient could be of no use because it might not be successful in some cases. But he held that in the vast majority of cases the Bill would be useful. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), in supporting this Amendment had contended that the clause would demoralize the tenant; but he would point out that the tenant would be just as much demoralized if he were to get the money by the aid of the landlord as if he got it upon his own application alone. He had spoken on the subject with many landlords in his own county, and he was satisfied that a large number of landlords in the West of Ireland would like the Bill to pass. For his own part, he believed that practically the landlord would be benefited by its passing in its present form. With regard to the Amendment, he repeated that it would make the Bill useless, and, if after being rejected in that House, it were introduced in "another place," he should certainly vote against the Bill in consequence. The Amendment, if adopted, would take off about 90 per cent of the value of the measure.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, hon. Members on that side of the House had spoken strongly in favour of this Amendment, and had urged the great desirability of maintaining joint action on the part of the landlord and tenant in Ireland. Now, nothing could be more desirable than that, and everyone would echo the wish that, in a matter of this kind, both parties should be agreed. But the House would be aware that, practically, no such joint action could or did exist, and it was for that reason that Parliament had had to legislate between the two parties. Had there been this joint action the Bill would not have been required. He was unable to understand on what ground the Amendment was pressed on the Committee. All the clause proposed to do was to remedy a defect in the Bill of last year which proved fatal to the Arrears Clause, by

  2005
  making it a condition that there should be a joint request for the application of State funds to the liquidation of arrears. The landlords had not responded to this condition, and the present Bill was brought in for the express purpose of enabling the poorest and most wretched tenants in Ireland to initiate action for themselves. But there was nothing whatever to prevent the landlord and tenant coming together and making their arrangements. The clause simply enabled the tenant of an obstinate landlord who desired to clear his estate to apply to the Court for relief in the matter of arrears in his own name. He was clearly of opinion, after the experience of last year, that there should be an opportunity of making separate and distinct application on the part of the tenant, and he was at a loss to understand why hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, in the supposed interest of Irish landlords, should propose and press for this joint action on the part of the landlord and tenant.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he desired to make a few observations before the discussion closed. In the first place, the Amendment seemed to him to be one which the Government might have received in, at any rate, a friendly spirit, inasmuch as it was merely proposed to introduce into this Bill the very principle contained in their own Act of last year. The proposal was simply to make it a condition that there should be joint action on the part of the landlord and tenant to have the arrears settled in the manner provided; but he was compelled to call attention to the extraordinary manner in which it had been received by the Prime Minister. His right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had introduced the Amendment, after due Notice and in his own name, and no one could say that it did not challenge one of the most important, although not the main, principles of the Bill. Now, in putting forward his views on this subject, his right hon. Friend addressed the Committee certainly for less than half-an-hour, and, in doing so, he avoided, as far as possible, any topics which had no direct bearing on the point with which he was dealing. But the Prime Minister, in a speech of great length, attacked his right hon. Friend in language which, as far as his experience wont, had never boon used by
  2006
  the Head of the Government to the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said if the discussions in Committee were to be conducted in. future in the spirit and style adopted by the right hon. Gentleman who had proposed this Amendment, very strong measures would have to be taken. Why, he had never in his experience heard such an assertion. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have remembered that this principle, which he now thought ought to be disposed of in, perhaps, five minutes, was one of the principles which, they were told, redeemed the Bill of the Government last year from the charge of demoralizing the people. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not responsible for what was spoken by his Colleagues; but certainly he sat beside them, and never challenged the words they uttered. Having regard to what had taken place, he was bound to say that the manner in which the Leader of the Opposition had been met on the occasion of his introducing an Amendment to the Bill beyond comparison important, did not augur well for future proceedings in that House. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister went on to say that the Government were charged with confiscation. But how did the right hon. Gentleman meet that argument? Why, by a wild charge against the landlords of Ireland generally—that they allowed their rents to run into arrear, not from any motive of toleration or compassion, but simply, as he said, for the purpose of obtaining a leverage over their tenantry. He should like to know how many estates the right hon. Gentleman could point to on which that had occurred? The right hon. Gentleman, with no shadow of authority, had made that sweeping charge against a body of honourable men. But how did he support the charge? He said—"Do you really deny that; don't you know there is an Act of Parliament which recognizes the fact?" The right hon. Gentleman, however, carefully abstained from telling the Committee to what Act of Parliament he referred. There was the Incumbered Estates Court Act; but in what sense did that deal with the point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman? Was it in the sense in which he endeavoured to deal with it in Committee, and which had probably been put into his head by some impar-

  2007
  tial adviser—namely, that this was an Act of Parliament which sanctioned some scandalous transaction whereby the landlords were permitted to sell property on which arrears of rent had accumulated? Nothing of the kind. The Act simply allowed arrears of rent to pass with the property, and certainly did not legalize the practice alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. He said it was too bad that the Prime Minister should rise in his place at the beginning of a debate upon an Amendment which touched the most delicate relations between landlord and tenant, and make charges of the kind on no better foundation than this. He had listened to the remarkable speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and considered that it was as likely as anything to lead to heated and protracted debate. He said, on the authority of those who put forward the principle contained in this Amendment last year, that this principle, and this alone, could redeem the present legislation from demoralization; and, further, that if they left it to the landlord in every case to disprove the inability of the tenant to pay, they would leave to him an impossibility—a task that the late Chief Secretary, when he was a Member of the Cabinet, declared to be impossible of performance. If that were so, then the Government, by refusing to accept the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, offered a direct reward to those dishonest tenants who had abstained from paying their rent, in order to get their arrears wiped out—which he (Mr. Plunket) charged again as an act of confiscation on the part of the Government—and, moreover, they gave discouragement to those who had endeavoured to do their duty and pay their rents.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken stated that he had never known a case in which arrears of rent had been allowed to accumulate in the manner indicated by the Prime Minister, and he challenged that right hon. Gentleman to name the Act of Parliament to which he had referred. He could not but think that a good deal of the feeling that existed on the opposite side of the House with reference to this question of arrears was due to a misconception as to the practice of the Irish landlords. Everyone must be aware
  2008
  that when bad seasons occurred in England, the landlords then, as a rule, remitted a portion of the rent. Nothing could be more common than to see that such and such a landlord "has remitted 10 or 20 per cent of his rents;" and he was sure that during the recent bad times the English landlords had at various periods remitted what, on the whole, amounted to the rent of one year. But that was not the case in Ireland, and it never had been. The practice there had not been to remit rent in times of depression, but to allow it to accumulate in the shape of arrears. It was in illustration of that practice that the Prime Minister had quoted the letter of Lord Clanricarde, which said he had not remitted rent in 1879, but added the rent to the arrears. That, he maintained, was the old practice in Ireland, and he would refer, as an illustration, to what took place in the Incumbered Estates Court in 1847–8. In those years large arrears were accumulated on many estates in Ireland; these were kept up for years afterwards without the slightest intention on the part of the landlords ever to collect them; and when the estates were sold in the Incumbered Estates Court it was the practice of those who bought the estate to purchase the arrears—here, again, not with the object of collecting them, but for the purpose of holding them over the tenants. That practice assumed such importance that in the year 1858 a clause was introduced to enable the Incumbered Estates Court to permit the sale of arrears to the purchaser of the property, so that he might use them either against the tenant as before, or be able to recover them in his own name from the tenant instead of from the vendor. It was to this clause—the 58th section of the Act—that the Prime Minister referred. The practice of leaving arrears uncollected, as against the remission of rent in bad times, in his opinion, threw a great deal of light upon the present condition of affairs in Ireland. They had had three of the very worst seasons known in Ireland. He ventured to say that 1877, 1878, and 1879 were the worst years known there since the Famine of 1846–7; during those three years large arrears had accumulated, and it was with those arrears they had now to deal. It was of the greatest importance to remember that tenants

  2009
  were practically unable to avail themselves of the Land Act of last year to go into Court; and this power the landlords were now making use of. It was on this account that it was necessary to deal with the question in the manner proposed by Her Majesty's Government. But the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite struck at the root of the Bill, and would, if it were adopted, render it useless. They had already had experience of what its effect would be, in the way it had impeded the operation of the Bill of last year. The Act of 1881 was based on the voluntary principle, and it had failed; and it was, therefore, impossible to proceed upon the same principle now. The landlord and tenant in Ireland were so far apart that they could not come to any agreement on this question; it was therefore absolutely necessary that the Legislature should interfere, and the only way they could do so effectually was on the principle of compulsion. For these reasons, he hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SALTremarked, that the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Macfarlane) had stated that if the word "joint" were inserted it would have no value whatever, because it would be open to the landlord and tenant to make exactly the same joint arrangement without the Bill as they could make under the Bill.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I said that the Bill, as it stood, without the word "joint," would not prevent a joint arrangement being made.
  MR. SALTsaid, he had understood the hon. Member to say that a joint arrangement could be made without the Bill—that the joint arrangement proposed in. this clause would be just as good without the Bill as with the Bill. But he wished to observe that, even if the word joint were inserted, the Bill would still confer great benefits both on the landlord and tenant. A large grant of money, a remission of rent, and a settlement of claims would still be obtained.
  MR. MACFARLANEexplained that he had intended to convey that the non-introduction of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon would not in any way prevent the landlords and tenants agreeing
  2010
  to make a joint application, and that the Bill, as it stood, reserved to the tenant the right to make an application without the consent of the landlord.
  MR. H. R. BRANDsaid, he thought that the Amendment, if accepted, would entirely destroy the efficacy of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had based his arguments in favour of the Amendment on the supposition that there was a chance of a friendly settlement between landlord and tenant being arrived at. Now, looking at the present state of affairs in Ireland, he would ask the Committee whether there was the slightest chance of any such friendly settlement in the immediate future? In view of the agitation which had led to the Land Act of last year, the Land Act itself, and the evictions reported from Ireland, was it likely that the landlords and tenants would join together and make this arrangement voluntarily? He thought it unreasonable to suppose anything of the kind would be done, and, therefore, it seemed to him that the only course open to the Government was to proceed in this matter on the principle of compulsion. The test that was to be applied to the alleged inability of the tenant to pay was, no doubt, a very difficult one, and would lead to considerable discussion. But, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, the landlord was the individual best able to speak from his own knowledge on that point, and he (Mr. Brand) could not conceive anything more unfortunate than to make the landlord both the medium of application on the part of the tenant and the judge of his inability to pay. He understood the object of the Bill was to enable the tenants to take advantage of the increased facilities given to them by the Land Act of last year, or rather to prevent them suffering a loss of these advantages by eviction on account of their arrears of rent. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, then, amounted to giving the landlords power to place a veto upon that arrangement. What would be the natural object of the Irish landlords? He did not speak of all; but there was a certain number of them who would wish to push their claims strongly and partially, and their object would undoubtedly be to prevent the tenants from obtaining the advantages offered to them by the Land Act of last

  2011
  year. He repeated that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give the landlord power to veto the Act; and as this would be fatal to the Bill, he trusted the Committee would decide against the Amendment.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he wished to mention two facts which had come under his notice, having a considerable bearing on the statements which had been made in the course of this discussion. In the first place, he had had in his hand a bundle of writs served in the county of Roscommon for rents outstanding from seven to 13 years. Again, within his knowledge it had been acknowledged to be a good system to keep always a year's arrears hanging over the tenants in order to bar them out from the benefit of every Land Act passed in that House.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was incorrect in stating that it was the invariable practice that the arrears should be added to the arrears of previous years. He knew several estates in his own county (Leitrim), the owners of which pursued the opposite system.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) say that it was the usual custom in Ireland to keep from seven to 13 years' rent hanging over the tenants.
  MR. DILLON: I said that in one instance in the county of Roscommon I had the writs in my hand.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that in that case the argument did not apply, because what the hon. Member stated only showed how lenient the landlord had been in not calling upon the tenants who were unable to pay the rent in question. But it occurred to him to ask—supposing the arrears were forgiven the tenants, would they be able to pay their rent in future? That question, he thought, deserved serious consideration, although it had been passed over very lightly by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) spoke of the Famine of 1846 and 1847—the two bad years—but the Committee must bear in mind that the necessity existing then was ten times greater than it was in the years 1877 and 1878. The two periods could not be compared. But there was no Arrears Bill brought
  2012
  forward then. Why was an Arrears Bill brought forward now? It was to help right hon. Gentlemen sitting upon the Treasury Bench who were endeavouring to conciliate hon. Members on that side below the Gangway, who had shown that they were not to be conciliated even by these means, and also materially to help and work out the Land Act of last year. It had been stated over and over again that the rights of the landlord were to be protected; but what rights had been left to him excepting that of the power of eviction? He ventured to say that although there were some landlords who had used this power to the extreme, yet, taking the general body of them, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in introducing the Acts of 1870 and 1881, they had done their duty honestly and fairly, and with great consideration to their tenants. And yet their reward was that they were not to have any voice in the settlement of a question so vitally affecting them, as that of arrears of rent. Take the case referred to by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). Supposing that the man died—an event which was as likely to happen in Ireland as elsewhere—what position would the landlord be in who, as was generally the case, had to recover the arrears not for himself, but for others, for whose benefit they were left, and he was responsible for them—what position would he be in when the arrears were given up? He said this was a question which most seriously affected the interest of the landlord, and which ought to be carefully considered before the Committee deprived the landlord of the right of saying anything with regard to these arrears. But he also pointed out that the landlord who had been generous to the tenant, and the tenant who had done everything in his power to meet his liabilities, were both especially to suffer. The landlord who had not called upon his tenant to pay was now to be mulcted of the arrears due to him, while the tenant who had striven to pay his rent, and had done so, was to receive no consideration. But the men who had attempted to avoid all their engagements were to receive every consideration—those were the men who would be benefited by the Bill when it became law. It was because he thought these were serious and damag-

  2013
  ing matters, so far as this question was concerned, that he should give his hearty support to the Amendment before the Committee. With regard to the argument of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. H. R. Brand), that the adoption of the Amendment would render the Bill useless, he pointed out that although the Amendment might be said to be at variance with the principle of compulsion, still it could not be considered otherwise than as fair and reasonable to those landlords, whom the Prime Minister admitted had done their duty in Ireland.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he should be very sorry to approve anything in the nature of injustice towards Irish landlords. He pointed out that one of the objects of the Bill was to relieve tenants who were weighed down with a burden of arrears, which had accumulated through misfortune and circumstances over which they had no control. Now, if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition were carried, the whole of the benefits of the Bill of last year would be taken away from a large mass of the Irish tenantry. The case stood thus. There were two adverse parties—debtor and creditor—the former the tenant, the latter the landlord; they had before them a Bill for the purpose of relieving the tenant, and the Amendment proposed that the tenant should only get relief when he had obtained the consent of the landlord to apply to the Commissioners. Why, it might as well be contended that a man, seeking redress of a wrong, should not commence an action at law without the consent of the defendant. But the Bill allowed the landlord to go into Court if he thought fit to do so, and then, unless the tenant took action in the matter, there was nothing to prevent the landlord showing that the tenant's claim was unfounded, and that he was able to pay. If the Amendment were adopted, it was clear that the object of the Bill would be defeated. Without using strong language, the Amendment might be described as an affront to the Bill; and he should, for the obvious reasons stated, vote against it.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that both the Bill and the Amendment were of importance, and could not be disposed of by strong expressions of opinion, or by strong epithets towards those who put forward their views in connection with them. He
  2014
  did not believe the Amendment would kill the Bill, to use the phrase of an hon. Member who had spoken in the course of the discussion. Undoubtedly it was an Amendment which would lead to important considerations in reference to the measure, but to considerations which were entitled to be presented to Parliament and to the country, and upon which they might fairly ask and claim the judgment of the House. The object of the Amendment, as it would strike one at first blush, was tolerably fair. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken argued as if the landlord ought not to have any voice in the matter. Of course, it must not be forgotten that they had reached times when all their bearings with relation to ordinary transactions had been lost.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not quite correctly represented me. I did not say that the landlord as the creditor should not have a voice in the matter. I said he would have a voice in it—that he could go before the Court and, if it were the case, show that the tenant's claim was unfounded.
  MR. GIBSONadmitted that the tenant could go before the Court; but his protest would be worthless, because the tenant could bring him in whether he liked it or not. The Committee were asked to assent to the proposal that there should be a joint application on the part of the tenant and the landlord; in other words, that the landlord was to have a voice in the matter, and be considered before calling a portion of the Act into operation. From the opposition it had received one would think that the proposal was of a nature never before heard of. But the words proposed by his right hon. Friend were actually taken from the Arrears Clause of the Act of last year; and, although they lived rapidly now, it was rather startling to be told that the words of the Ministry, which were thought to embody good and sound statesmanship eight or nine months ago, were no longer to be tolerated, and to find that the Leader of the Opposition, who felt it his duty to propose their admission into this Bill, was exposed to the observation that he was very well off in not being dealt with in a summary manner for his temerity in arguing in support of his own Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minis-

  2015
  ter, however, in replying to the Leader of the Opposition, had occupied but five minutes less than he had in laying his views before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) stated it was of no use to go back on the Act of 1881, which contained the principle that the landlord should have a voice in the disposition of his own property, because the clause had failed. But did it fail on that account? There was no validity in the argument, and the House was not in a position to affirm that the clause had failed on the principle of option. Anyone who took up that curious section would find reason after reason why it should have failed, quite irrespective of the principle of option. Take one of the reasons which at once presented itself. It failed because no landlord, unless driven by poverty and distress, would undergo the primary condition—namely, that the tenant, having got the loan largely for his own benefit, was not to be the person to be answerable for it, but the landlord. If that, as he believed it to be, was an abundant reason for the failure of the clause of the Act of 1881, he was at a loss to know what would be a good reason. The Prime Minister, feeling it was necessary to deal with the question, said—"Oh; but in the Act of 1881 you enable the landlord or the tenant to do everything relating to the tenancy, and it is rather too late now to say that you require a joint action on the part of the two in reference to arrears." But he had to remind the Prime Minister that in the same Act of 1881 the difference was that the tenant might invoke the Tenure Clauses alone, and that the landlord might invoke the intervention of the Court. It was felt necessary to admit some words, and in the Tenure Clause there were the same words as his right hon. Friend now moved. The precedent for this proposal of the Government was to be found in the Bill of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond), which dealt with the Land Act and the stopping of arrears, and in which, as might be expected, the landlord was ignored and taught his proper place. But the landlord was given no voice in the matter, and to the tenant alone was given the right of invoking the intervention of the Court with reference to arrears. This
  2016
  Bill was, in substance, the same as, though in words slightly different from, the Bill in question, because it left the tenant, and the tenant alone, absolute master of the position. The tenant could go into Court when he pleased. But if the landlord did so with the approval of the tenant, the latter, with a gesture of contempt, if he pleased, could simply set the action of the landlord at naught by not complying with the condition resting on the tenant of paying one year's rent. In this way the landlord was bound neck and heel; and what use, then, was it to put in that the landlord might go into Court, unless it was for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of the country? It was a curious thing, bearing in mind the relations of the parties, to say to the tenant that he could do all sorts of serious things in reference to the property of the landlord, and that he could do them against the wish of the landlord, and without conference with him. He did not at that moment say whether it was just or unjust; but it struck him as a grave and startling proposal, only to be justified by exceptional and peculiar reasons. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with this matter in several ways. Amongst others, he dealt with it in reference to the state of the country; but he had not, he thought, presented any broad view which would illustrate either to the country, or to those who read the debates, why it was that the landlords were absolutely denied any voice whatever as to how the property was to be managed in this most cardinal point. Now, attempts had been made in one or two parts of the House to show that what he would call "old bookkeeping" arrears, dating from the Famine years of 1847 and 1848, had been handed down on the estate books. They knew that on some estates that might be so; but, of course, it was not the practice generally, and when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was pressed on the subject, he at once admitted that he was only dealing with a limited class of estates, and that his illustration was not to be supposed to represent the entire state of facts. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), too, contributed to the debate from his knowledge of the whole of Ireland one solitary case of these arrears in the county of Roscommon. Still, assuming that these old

  2017
  arrears were more common than was actually the case, he could then understand the argument that they ought to be dealt with in some compulsory way; but, few and far between as they were, to say that this special and peculiar class of arrears were to be taken as an illustration of the general state of facts to be dealt with by this Bill was a thing which would not stand one moment's consideration. They were dealing with normal, and not abnormal, arrears—with arrears which had been permitted to accrue by the forbearance of the landlords during the last three years, and there were 50 or 100 cases of this kind for every one of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Tipperary. He did not think the Prime Minister considered the Amendment from the point of view of argument; he was more desirous of making an attack upon the Leader of the Opposition. If this Amendment were accepted, there would be an immense advantage gained in the working of the Bill, because it would remove one of the greatest difficulties in the way—namely, the danger of litigation. If the Bill were to become law, it should be capable of application with comparative promptitude; but with the conditions now affixed to it, there was the most absolute certainty that it could not come into action for a considerable time, because the Government had sown the seeds of 180,000 or 200,000 lawsuits; and unless they accepted, the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, they had guaranteed that one of the parties would feel that he was aggrieved, and that he was bound to have recourse to law for the vindication of his rights. But if the Government accepted the proposal that the landlord and tenant should jointly apply, would not that remove one of the great difficulties out of the way of the operation of the Bill? Because, if they agreed together to apply to the Court and invoke the operation of the Act, it would, of course, be on the understanding that the tenant was unable to satisfy the antecedent arrears. That in itself would sweep away a great cause of litigation, and it would be a circumstance that would be likely to lead to the greatest possible smoothness in the working of the Act. Of course, that would still leave the question open as to the right of the Treasury and the public to be satisfied of the inability of
  2018
  the tenant to pay; but he ventured to say that no serious or resolute offer would be made by any Government official to show that the tenant was not as poor as he said he was. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister stated that he knew the landlords were in favour of the Bill, and waiting for it to pass. If that were so, where was the danger of making them one of the two persons whose joint sanction should be necessary to put the Bill in operation? Either the landlords were willing or unwilling that the Bill should take effect. If they were unwilling, the Government were taking away their property without their consent; but if they were willing, then they were refusing to accept this Amendment without reason to justify their refusal. Now, what would be the effect of the compulsion which it was proposed to apply to the landlords? They would, of course, feel they had been treated in an unfair and unreasonable way, and this of necessity would tend to widen the breach and to prolong litigation between the two parties. Again, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. H. R. Brand) had said that the acceptance of the Amendment would be fatal to the Bill. But he saw no reason why it should be so. He assumed the Government were prepared to accept some Amendments; he did not suppose they meant to lay down the line of the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. The Amendment of his hon. Friend was serious and substantial; but, at the same time, it would leave the Bill capable of large and wide operation. It was competent to the Government to say they would not accept it, of course; but in that case it would be open to hon. Members who thought with him to give it their loyal support on division.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had appealed to the Committee to discuss, this matter calmly, and in so doing he seemed to cast a reflection on the speech of the Prime Minister; but he was sure the Prime Minister's rhetorical humour had not exceeded in warmth or energy what the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for the University of Dublin, themselves both good speakers and appreciators of rhetoric, usually enjoyed. However, he proposed to say nothing which would

  2019
  call down the censure of the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon himself; but he should like to answer the charge of inconsistency which had been brought against the Government for not allowing under this Bill a joint application on the part of the landlord and tenant, seeing that the principle was contained in the 59th clause of the Land Act of last year. Now it seemed to him there was an absolutely conclusive difference between the present Bill and the clause of the Land Act which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) had quoted. For in that clause the relief given to the tenant was by means of a loan, and surely it was unreasonable to say to a man that he must borrow money to pay his debts whether he liked it or not, and that he must pay it back by instalments at the will of another person, without his having the power of saying whether he would borrow the money or not. For that reason it would be quite impossible for the Government to allow in this case the landlord to have a governing voice in the matter. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman would admit that they certainly could not give a governing voice to the tenant under the 59th clause of the Act of last year, and that was the reason why joint application was enacted. The right hon. Gentleman, in supporting the Amendment, said the Government ought to have introduced into this Bill the principle which governed the Act of last year, and he contended that they were disturbing the arrangement made under the Arrears Clause of that Act. However that might be, the 59th clause of the Act had undoubtedly failed, because under it only some £30,000 had been applied for, and of that amount about £5,000 had been paid off. They must, therefore, take warning from the Bill of last year, and the Government had determined that this clause should not be a failure. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government must not disarrange the arrangements made under their own Arrears Clause; but when it was remembered that the small holdings in Ireland yielded a rental of £6,000,000 a-year, and that under the clause of last year only £30,000—that was only £ per cent of the rentals—had been asked for, he must say there really was nothing left to disarrange. The right hon. Gentleman, said they had been dealing with
  2020
  arrears which had been allowed to accrue through kindness and consideration. Now, he was very far from questioning the motives with which Irish landlords had allowed those arrears to accrue. He was quite sure they were those which were attributed to them by the right hon. Gentleman; but they had a right to say that that kindness and that consideration were not altogether directed by a just judgment. The other day he was reading a letter of Lord Clanricarde's which appeared in the newspapers. He must say he thought that letter a most significant and a most curious one in one respect. He was reading from the point of view of a person who was interested in English land, from the point of view of a person who knew how the difficulties of recent seasons had been treated by English landlords. A particular passage of the letter began by speaking of the great distress which had taken place on the estate, and then, proceeding in a tone of kindness and consideration just like that described by the right hon. Gentleman, Lord Clanricarde went on to say—
  "That under these circumstances I did not insist upon the payment of 50 per cent of the year's rental, but I allowed it to be added to the arrears."
  He did not hesitate to say that Lord Clanricarde's action was entirely different from the action of those English landlords who, instead of adding 50 per cent to the arrears of the tenant, freely forgave the 50 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Government for practical reasons why this joint application by landlord and tenant could not be accepted by the Government. It went to the root of the Bill, and if it was accepted by the Government, the Government might just as well drop their Bill, because it would be as ineffective as the Arrears Clause of last year. Now, in the first place, the landlord was able, by refusing his consent, to prevent the Bill coming into operation in the case of a particular tenant. The landlord, if he was a bad landlord, might make conditions which would bear very hardly upon the tenant. He might make it a condition that he should have in one year 18 months' or two years' rent paid down. He might make it a condition that the tenant should give up part of his holding—in fact, to leave it to him to make

  2021
  what conditions he liked would be reducing the Bill to nothing more or less than to waste paper. The landlord, instead of making a condition regarding money, might make a condition regarding the holding. There were landlords in Ireland who found it to their advantage to consolidate their holdings, and they might make it an absolute condition that holdings might be consolidated before any of the tenants should have the benefits of the Bill, and in order to overcome these difficulties and induce the landlord to go into Court—to come within the operation of the Arrears Bill—the only possible way in which to induce them to do this would be to very considerably increase the pecuniary inducement, and to alter the financial conditions of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment said the Bill, if it were by joint application, would increase the good feeling between landlord and tenant; whereas the Bill, if it were by separate application, would diminish this feeling. He could not remember one single argument which the right hon. Gentleman adduced to support that position. On the contrary, he was sorry to say that at this moment, for reasons which it was not necessary to go very far to seek, there was not the best feeling—there was not the usual good feeling between landlords and tenants in Ireland. He was sure one could not in many cases blame the landlords that this feeling did not exist; but he called to witness some very powerful evidence, the evidence of a witness who certainly would be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the evidence of the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland), who, in the debate on the second reading of the Bill, gave his idea of the present feeling between landlord and tenant in Ireland, that feeling which the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious not to shake or disturb. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) gave his idea in a sentence, the metaphors of which were confused, but the drift of which it was impossible to mistake. The hon. Gentleman said the litigation resulting from the operation of the Land Act had divided landlords and tenants into two hostile camps, and left behind it some feeling of bitterness. Without accepting the form of that sentence, he could not but allow that besides that
  2022
  litigation which the hon. Member spoke of in the course of the last two years, a great deal had happened to throw landlords and tenants into opposite directions, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) drew from that an entirely different deduction from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He thought it very important that the benefit of this, as he thought, most beneficent Act could be secured by both sides on the application of one party. Parliament should not oblige landlords and tenants to come to a joint decision to apply. His own belief was that if either the landlord or the tenant appealed for the benefit of this Act the feeling resulting would be common to both, and that this Act would do as much as legislation could do to do away with that unpleasant feeling which had been described by the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland). The right hon. Gentleman threw it in the teeth of the Government that a very powerful and important Member of the Administration last year spoke of a separate application for the purpose of coming under the Arrears Clause as demoralizing. The right hon. Gentleman, it was true, could not exaggerate what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had said on that occasion; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had asked him (Mr. Trevelyan) to state in his (Mr. Trevelyan's) speech to the Committee that he (Mr. W. E. Forster) applied the epithet "demoralizing" to machinery which did not duly recognize an inability to pay. If that inability to pay were to be insisted upon, then the demoralizing character of the Arrears Bill in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford and everybody else would be diminished, and, he (Mr. Trevelyan) hoped, destroyed. One argument he entirely agreed with—namely, the accelerating character of the proposed Amendment upon the operation of the Bill; but it would quicken that operation by cutting out those cases in great numbers where it would be of the greatest assistance. The Government desired to have the action of this Bill rapid; but they were still more anxious to have it thorough. They wished to have it thorough, comprehensive, and all-embracing, and unless it fulfilled those conditions the Government felt that it could not be final. If the right

  2023
  hon. Gentleman's Amendments were adopted, he feared the Bill, so far from being all-embracing and comprehensive, would be extremely limited in its sphere.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was glad to see the Prime Minister had returned to his place, because, after the kindly reference the right hon. Gentleman had made to him, he felt it was but due he should say something. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to refer to his (Mr. Warton's) high position. He was sure that remark was not made in any unkind spirit or as a sneer. He considered it but a playful joke, having reference to the lofty Bench on which he usually sat. The exclamation which called for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to himself he made, because he heard the Leader of his Party attacked in what he considered very strong language. He cared little for himself, and very little would cause him to reconsider his personal position; very little would cause him to resign his seat in that House. This question had been forced upon the Committee by the Government themselves. His Parliamentary experience was not long; it was confined to this present Parliament. But during his experience he had never heard a Leader of one of the recognized Parties in the House attacked in such strong language as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had been attacked by the Premier. He might say that while they had complaints made on the one hand that the Leader of the Opposition took too long to consider this question, they had other complaints made that this was a matter of vital importance striking at the very root of the Bill. Surely, if this Amendment were of vital importance it was worthy of a somewhat prolonged consideration. He was struck very much with the jubilant tone adopted by Members on the Treasury Bench. It was easy to say that last year's clause was a failure. Why should not this be a failure? Why were they to say that this would be any more successful than the measure of last year? It was a question not only of gift or loan, but also of compulsion, and they ought to look carefully and philosophically at the elements of the question, so as to consider to what the failure of last year's clause was due. The hon. Member for Galway
  2024
  had talked about patent medicines; but it was the habit of quack doctors, when one remedy failed, to say they had some other which would be thoroughly efficacious.
  MR. J. LOWTHER(who rose amid cries of "Oh, oh!") said, he should not feel himself justified in being deterred by the disorderly interruptions from, the other side of the House from saying a few words on this Amendment. He had not, as a matter of fact, had an opportunity of addressing any observations to the Committee upon this stage of the Bill, and he trusted the Committee would now allow him to say a few words on this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant made a defence of the speech of the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Lowther) could not help thinking that had the right hon. Gentleman been present when that speech was delivered he would have been painfully impressed with the fact that the language of the Prime Minister, although it came, no doubt, from the bottom of his heart, certainly partook of the character of menace. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, addressing the Leader of the Party opposed to him in Parliament, spoke of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as being such that if they had emanated from another quarter of the House which he indicated, they would have necessitated the adoption of what he ominously called certain measures. He (Mr. Lowther) ventured to say that that was language which had never been used in the House of Commons before. He accepted it as a re-assuring incident that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, sitting next to the Prime Minister, and doubtless having received his permission to do so, tried to minimize those oracular utterances to which he (Mr. Lowther) had referred. He trusted that in future they would be at liberty to discuss this Bill without fear of having their observations called in question in a manner with which they had recently become familiar. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister must remember that, as Members of the House of Commons, they were guardians of the public purse. He had always understood that one of the primary obligations resting upon a Member of the House of Commons was to jealously guard the

  2025
  purse of the country. What was this Bill? They were asked by it to commit the taxpayers to what he must say was an unknown liability. [Cries of "Question!"] The hon. Gentleman who cried Question was none other but one whom he had always thought to be ex-officio, par excellence, the guardian of the public purse—namely, the Secretary to Her Majesty's Treasury.
  MR. COURTNEY: I never cried "Question"—I simply said it was a second, reading speech.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Gentleman might have deferred that observation until he could have made the Committee acquainted with his sentiments in a more orderly manner, although he fully agreed with the hon. Gentleman that his (Mr. Lowther's) observation was one that might very fairly be urged on a second reading, though it was also distinctly applicable to the present discussion. He would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) went to limit the imposition of the burden on the public purse. The Amendment proposed that this obligation should not be imposed upon the public purse unless both parties were agreed that it should be imposed. It had been stated that this was, in reality, a "No Rent" Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister endeavoured to reply to that by quoting some remarks which had been communicated to the public prints by Lord Clanricarde. What did that letter amount to but this—that in his (Lord Clanricarde's) neighbourhood, and, in fact, in a large portion of Ireland, the introduction of the Bill had resulted in a general stoppage of the payment of rent. This measure was very fairly described as a "No Bent" Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) combated the proposition that the effect of the introduction of this Bill had been demoralizing. What could be more demoralizing than for the honest tenant to be told that the money which he had spent in the payment of his rent had been money thrown away; that if he had chosen to retain that money in his own pocket he would have been a richer man now, and perhaps he would have had more limbs on his body and more members in his family? The Government had by the
  2026
  introduction of this Bill, dealt a heavy blow to morality in Ireland.
  MR. SYNANrose to Order. There must be some limit to the discussion of this Bill, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was addressing himself to the Amendment? In his opinion, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was one only suited to the second reading.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to come to the point.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Chairman's anxiety should not be long delayed. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself stated that this Bill rested between the two pillars of gift and compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman had selected the principle of gift as opposed to that of loan, and he (Mr. Lowther) thought that what he was now addressing to the Committee was very pertinent to the Amendment under discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had said that arrears in Ireland were of a totally different character to arrears in England. What was the evidence the right hon. Gentleman adduced in support of that proposition? Why, he said that in England, although doubtless arrears were allowed frequently, or at any rate sometimes, to accrue, there was no Act of Parliament that recognized the sale of arrears. The right hon. Gentleman did not give him (Mr. Lowther) the reference to the Act of Parliament to which he was then alluding; but he (Mr. Lowther) understood the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the Landed Estates Court Act. The reason why there was no English Act of Parliament precisely on all fours with the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act was because there had been no need for such an Act in England up to the present time. ["Question!"] The hon. Gentleman who cried "Question!" was evidently not thoroughly conversant with the subject. Had the hon. Gentleman been present when the Prime Minister addressed the Committee, he would have found that the right hon. Gentleman specially quoted that Act, and dwelt with marked emphasis upon the fact that there was not on the Statute Book, as applied to England, any section which dealt with the sale of arrears. The right hon. Gentleman was doubtless aware that they had not hitherto had an

  2027
  Incumbered Estates Court or Landed Estates Court in England. If the doctrine of free trade in land were applied to England, as hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House seemed to desire, perhaps they would have had a clause dealing with the question of arrears. The right hon. Gentleman trod on dangerous ground when he called in question the quotation made by the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), whom he (Mr. Lowther) was glad to see now in his place. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford was reported to have said that the principle of compulsory insistance upon the settlement of arrears would be demoralizing. This was said to have been the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman last year. His right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) intimated that what was said from the Treasury Bench by a responsible Minister of the Crown, representing in that House the Irish Government, to be demoralizing in 1881 might not impossibly partake of that character in 1882. No doubt, as the Chief Secretary just now said, a great deal had happened recently; but he (Mr. Lowther) was not aware that matters had proceeded so rapidly that what was demoralizing in 1881 had become just and proper in 1882. Different doctrines had been propounded from the Treasury Bench as to the responsibility of Ministers for the sayings of their Colleagues. The Prime Minister deprecated the doctrine which he said was being laid down by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), to the effect that there was a solidarity amongst Members of the same Administration as to the particular sayings which might be used in the course of their speeches. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister repeated that he was in no way bound by the opinions expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who at the time held the Office of Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster.) He (Mr. Lowther) certainly understood the Prime Minister to say it was unreasonable to insist upon a solidarity of the views and expressions of opinions of the Members of Her Majesty's Government. He must remind the Committee that only a few days ago
  2028
  a very different doctrine was propounded by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, in solemn terms, addressed the House of Commons, and said that every Member of the Government was represented by any one of his Colleagues.
  MR. CAUSTONrose to Order. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was now confining his remarks to the Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMANcould not say that the right hon. Gentleman was strictly confining himself to the Amendment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to Order. He asked the Chairman whether he was aware that the right hon. Gentleman was only following the example set him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote)?
  MR. J. LOWTHERfeared he must have failed to make himself clear even to the Chairman, because he was distinctly replying to, and actually quoting, the words of the Prime Minister. He had yet to learn what qualifications the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton) possessed for enlightening the Committee on points of Order. He must inform the hon. Gentleman, who apparently required information on the subject, that an essential element of debating was to be permitted to reply to a speech delivered in the course of a debate. He (Mr. Lowther) was quoting a speech delivered by the Prime Minister when the hon. Member (Mr. Causton) gave vent to his disorderly interruptions. He believed that the other hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who had just interrupted, was not present when the Prime Minister spoke, or else he would surely not have taken exception to his (Mr. Lowther) replying to observations made by the Prime Minister. During the years he had had the honour of a seat in that House—[Mr. M'COAN: Question! Question!] The hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), whose Parliamentary experience was not of long date, would, no doubt, when he had had sufficient experience in Parliament, be prepared to admit that it had always been held that in Committee, as well as in the House, Members were within their legitimate rights of debate in replying to a speech delivered by another hon. Gentleman, especially when that hon. Gentleman was the Prime Minister.
  MR. SHEILappealed to the Chairman whether the right hon. Gentleman was now addressing himself to the Question immediately before the Committee?
  MR. J. LOWTHERmust really object to these interruptions. [Cries of "Go on!"] An hon. Member said "Go on!" To be subjected to unseemly interruptions such as he had been subjected to deterred him from going on; and when he was replying, or endeavouring to reply, to the Prime Minister's speech delivered in the course of the debate, it was not calculated to promote the order of debate or the progress of the measures before the House if hon. Members who had not heard the previous speeches rose to Order and contended that replies to previous speeches were not admissible. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, among other observations, charged the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition with calling in question, in the course of the debate in this Committee, a measure which he (the Prime Minister) said had been sanctioned by the Upper House of Parliament. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The Prime Minister now shook his head; he had evidently forgotten what he himself had said. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) was calling in question a provision of a measure which had been sanctioned by his Friends in the Upper House of Parliament. He (Mr. Lowther) was, perhaps, now in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. Now, this opened up a point which he thought the Committee would do well to dwell upon for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman had said, in point of fact, that if in either House of Parliament the Members of the Conservative Party did not oppose by every means in their power every proposition subjected to their consideration, they became participators and accomplices in the proceedings of the Government. ["No, no!"] What else did the words of the right hon. Gentleman moan but that? And, therefore, he thought the Members on the Opposition side of the House, at any rate, would be wise to consider very carefully how they should deal with Amendments like the present. If they did not divide upon the ques-
  2030
  tion, the right hon. Gentleman would say that they had acquiesced in the course proposed by Her Majesty's Government. It therefore became the duty of the Conservative Party to be very careful how they proceeded in matters of this importance. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would not be prepared to controvert his argument when he said it was the duty of all of those who strongly opposed this Bill, both in its principles and in its details, to offer every opposition they could to provisions like the present. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brad ford (Mr. W. E. Forster) last year en lightened them upon one point which had been declared—
  MR. R. T. REIDrose to Order. He wished to ask the Chairman whether the time had not come when the right hon. Gentleman should be required to address himself to the Amendment before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am bound to say that I do not think the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman are very much in reference to the Amendment before the Committee, which is simply whether the word "joint" should be inserted.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, as to how far he was justified in alluding to the observations of previous speakers he would not now dwell upon; but he would say that the interruptions which had taken place had not in a single instance emanated from any Member who possessed, by experience, at any rate, any claim to assist the Chairman in the duty of presiding over their discussions. Now, as there appeared to be a very decided determination on the part of some hon. Members to anticipate the return to that House of those Members who might not have had the advantage of being present during the greater part of the discussion, and as there appeared to be a desire—[Mr. CAUSTON: Question! Question!]—as there appeared to be a desire on the part of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton) and other hon. Gentlemen to insure a division before the return to that House of many hon. Gentlemen who had, like himself, been debarred from the opportunity of hearing the discussion, he should curtail his observations within the narrowest possible compass. He must draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that if the applications under this

  2031
  Bill were to be joint on the part of the landlord and tenant, it would tend to diminish the demands which this clause would necessitate from the public purse. There was a great deal to be said in favour of a universal remission of all arrears; but he himself was not prepared to advocate it. He could understand the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister coming down to the House and saying that, as a matter of public policy, it was advisable that all arrears of rent should be remitted at the sole expense of the State. He (Mr. Lowther) would certainly take exception to any such doctrine; but, at any rate, he could understand it being advocated. The House of Commons was bound to consider that it was its duty to guard the public purse, and that it must subject to the closest scrutiny any attempt made upon the public funds. He trusted the Committee would not consent to claims being made upon the public purse which were not justified by the concurrence in this matter of both landlord and tenant.
  MR. VILLIERS-STUARTsaid, that he was an Irish landlord, and as a charge had been brought against his order, he felt bound to say a word in their vindication. Until that night he had never in all his life heard of arrears being sold. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had said that remissions of rent were never made in Ireland except on condition of their being added to the arrears. Every one of the great landlords in his (Mr. Villiers-Stuart's) county made remissions of rent in 1879, and he did not think that in a single instance the remissions were added to the arrears. As regarded the Amendment before the Committee, he could not support it, because he was of opinion that unless this Bill were made compulsory it would not be successful.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he rose for the purpose of asking hon. Members opposite to give a reasonable and fair consideration to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). It seemed to him that questions affecting the condition of Ireland were far too important and too grave to be dealt with in a hurried manner; and he could not help feeling that they ought to strive, without distinction of Party, to do that
  2032
  which would restore good feeling between landlord and tenant. That which [would restore peace to the country; that which would make people feel ready to invest money in Ireland; that which would give hope for the future, was I deserving of the most serious attention; and he asked hon. Members opposite to join hands with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon in amending the Bill in such a manner as would conduce to the well-being of the Sister Isle. He hoped hon. Members opposite would exhibit a continuance of that spirit of independence which had lately been visible amongst their ranks. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would restrict the mischievous operation of the Bill, and it would cause the disturbed relations between landlords and tenants in Ireland to be settled in a just and amicable manner. He was not one of those who objected to an expenditure of public money under this clause; but he did insist that whatever expenditure was made should be made for the real good of the people of Ireland. Let them accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and they would find the clause would prove beneficial to the Irish people. To put the matter on the lowest and most selfish grounds, was it not immensely to the interest of Great Britain to make Ireland satisfied and contented? The only way, in his opinion, to make this clause useful would be by the acceptance of the Amendment. If this Bill was to be made useful, something must be done in the direction which the right hon. Gentleman proposed. Parliament must do something to restore good feeling between landlord and tenant—to make both parties cooperate for the good of the country. He should be sorry, in deference to the Committee, to stand between it and the division on this Amendment; and therefore he hoped that hon. Members opposite would put aside their Party leanings and do that which was best for Ireland.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, at that hour, it was the evident wish of the Committee to divide, and he was not going to stand between it and the division longer than was necessary to answer one observation of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was the practice in Ireland—[Mr. GLADSTONE: A practice.]—a practice, if the right hon.

  2033
  Gentleman preferred the indefinite article, to sell arrears in Ireland; that arrears were, in fact, sold as an article of merchandize. Speaking with probably more experience of Ireland, but certainly not with the same experience of Parliamentary life and of the world as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he must say he had never known of a single case where the sale of arrears had taken place; and he must add that an observation more unfounded in fact had never emanated from anyone in that House.
  MR. GIVANsaid, he must give a flat contradiction to what had just been (stated by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tottenham). He had had, for many years, experience of the sale of estates—an experience more extensive than the hon. Member, or, perhaps, many other Members who had spoken on this matter. He knew that with regard to sales in the Landed Estates Court it had been a frequent practice to sell arrears, and to sell them separately, as the Landed Estates Court was empowered to do. He had never known of a case where arrears had been bought at a small figure for the purpose of being remitted; but he had known of them being bought in order that they might be kept existing against the tenant. The most had been made of arrears by landlords in Ireland. What was the fact proved before the Commissioners of Appeal in the case of Mr. Newton, of Derry? It was proved he had bought an estate in Donegal, and, finding the tenants were unable to pay the arrears, he added the interest on the money, and made it a permanent increase in the rental of the estate. Those hon. Members who had spoken in the course of this debate in contradiction of the statement of the Prime Minister had made statements in utter ignorance of the practice of Ireland. He had known not only arrears sold by the Landed Estates Court, but by private owners; and he could quote instances of sale well known to many hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Givan) must be supposed to apply to some of the Irish landlords sitting on the Conservative side of the House. All he could say was, from his knowledge of the selling of estates in Ireland—and he was happy to think that he had not the knowledge
  2034
  of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he did not wish to have the knowledge that the hon. and learned Gentleman sometimes exhibited—it had not been the practice of landlords, when selling their estates, to sell the arrears on the estate. What the Landed Estates Court Judge did in his business he (Sir Hervey Bruce) could not tell; but he himself sold some estates some few years ago, and he did not sell the arrears. He simply got the number of years' rent that he agreed for, and what became of the arrears he did not know.
  MR. GIVANsaid, in reference to what had just been said by the hon. Gentleman (Sir Hervey Bruce), he must say that he had never had any action in the sale of estates personally.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, there could be no doubt that when an estate was sold in the Landed Estates Court arrears of rent were often sold with it. There was no question about it. But he was positive that in the experience of the hon. Member who had just sat down no case had ever been known of a landlord selling an estate to one person and the arrears to another.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 248: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 244.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the next Amendment, which stood in his name, related to the question of the tribunal which was to administer the Act. The Government proposed that the Land Commission should have the duty of carrying out the Act cast upon it; but it seemed to him there were very strong reasons why some other tribunal should be constituted or utilized for the purpose. It was most important that the tribunal selected should possess public confidence; and he said, without hesitation, that the Land Commission had hitherto failed to elicit that confidence. The Land Commission had certainly, hitherto, not shown itself to have that impartiality and discrimination which was essential to every tribunal laying claim to the possession of the confidence of the community. He did not wish to detain the Committee by going in detail into the reasons why he thought they would do well to substitute any other tribunal for the Land Commission. He had pointed out that the special tribunal

  2035
  he had referred to just now might be said to be not exactly in the position of Cæsar's wife. They had heard to-day a statement to the effect that a County Court Judge had laid down some rather strange doctrines as to the method by which a fair rent was to be arrived at, and that he had adopted a remarkably rough and ready plan in arriving at the end he had in view. It had been said that the Judge placed Griffith's valuation on the one hand, and the actual rent on the other, and, by going between them, conceived that he had arrived at a fair rent. He (Mr. Lowther) did not say that he had endorsed such a course as that, nor did he think the Government would endorse it either; but, at the same time, he should not be right in casting discredit upon the whole body of County Court Judges on account of one gentleman who had charge of this important function having so far forgotten his duty to his country. Those who know the County Court Judges of Ireland must be aware that they were far more competent to deal with questions of this kind than the Land Commission. What was the Land Commission? Why, it was essentially a political tribunal. It had, as a matter of fact, been stated by the Chief Commissioner that his Court could not be guided by the ordinary rules that regulated the conduct of a judicial tribunal, and that they had to see that the tenants lived and thrived. There were very sound reasons why the Committee should hesitate before they cast these duties upon the Land Commission. He said emphatically, as he had said on a previous occasion this Session, that the Land Commission had been constituted on a distinctly partizan basis. On the occasion to which he referred, the Prime Minister had taken exception to the remark, and had said that one member of the Commission, at least, was not of his (Mr. Gladstone's) political opinion. He (Mr. Lowther) had ventured to question that statement; and he repeated now what he had said before—namely, that the Commission was chosen on principles that hitherto had never guided the Government in the selection of a judicial tribunal. The Government themselves had stated that the composition of the tribunal had been determined on with a view of securing gentlemen in harmony with the spirit of the legislation they were called upon to administer,
  2036
  and that was a delicate way of saying that they were partizans of the Government. If the Bill was to work well and smoothly, he contended that it was necessary that there should be public confidence in its administrators. The administration of the measure should be, as far as possible, secured from prejudice and bias.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "Irish Land Commission," and insert the words "county court judge for the division within which such holding is situated."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Irish Land Commission' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, which was wholly inconsistent with the character of the administrative arrangements of the Bill. It was necessary that in regard to this measure, and in regard to the Land Act, there should be unity of action. The conditions required that there should be one authority presiding over the entire operations; otherwise it would become most difficult—nay, impossible—to conduct them in a manner in the slightest degree satisfactory. But the right hon. Gentleman proposed to strike out the supreme and central authority, and to substitute for it a number of gentlemen entirely independent of one another, who would have no means whatever of arriving at a unity of action. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not in the slightest degree object to the Amendment on the ground that it was supported by the argument that the Land Commissioners were unworthy of confidence. It would be seen, when they came to a later clause, that they had provided that the Land Commission might have power to work through a variety of persons who would fall within a very wide definition, and amongst whom County Court Judges might be included. He objected to the proposal on administrative grounds, in the first place because it was absolutely necessary there should be this central authority for the purpose of securing unity of action. He was bound to say he had a second reason, and it was this—he entirely challenged the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Land Commission. He (Mr. Glad-

  2037
  stone) maintained that the Land Commission did possess public confidence. ["No no!"] Well, he had never said that it possessed the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman; but he might venture to express an opinion as to the view entertained with regard to it by the public. The Commission was composed of gentlemen whose names had met with the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and whose proceedings had been strictly legitimate. It was quite true that he himself, and perhaps some other Members of the Government, had stated that the gentlemen to be appointed to administer it should be gentlemen who would work in the spirit of the Act and of the Legislature which passed it. It was their duty to conform to the mind of the Legislature responsible for the measure. The Amendment now proposed would, if adopted, be injurious, indeed ruinous to the Bill, therefore he must oppose it.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, this was a most important question which had been raised by his right hon. Friend, because it was not merely whether the County Court Judges should be substituted for the Land Commissioners, but whether the Land Commission should be the tribunal to administer the Act. He did not wish to enter into the question of whether the Land Commission did or did not possess the confidence of the Irish people; but he would venture to repeat that for saying which he had been sharply taken to task the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright)—namely, that he was confident that, at any rate, no inconsiderable number of the Sub-Commissioners did not possess anything like the general confidence of the Irish people. In saying that he was not so much blaming the persons who were placed in the position of Sub-Commissioners, as he was referring to the fact that by the very terms of their appointment, by the salaries which they received, and by the temporary nature of their appointments, it was utterly impossible for Her Majesty's Government—however good their intentions might be, and however much care they might exercise in making the selections—to find persons competent to fulfil the very difficult and delicate duties which devolved upon the Assistant or Sub-Commissioners. But what
  2038
  was the proposal in this Bill? They had already a Commission overwhelmed with work. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had told them, in the course of a speech he delivered the other day, of his sanguine expectation that the work of the Land Commission, under the Land Act of last year, would be completed by August, 1883. But the right hon. Gentleman had based his expectation on figures that were erroneous. He had told them that there had been 78,700 applications made to the Court, that 21,511 had been disposed of, and that, therefore, there were only 57,000 remaining. As a matter of fact, however—as appeared from a Return issued on Saturday morning—there were between 9,000 and 10,000 more applications than the right hon. Gentleman had estimated, leaving 68,000 to be decided by the Commission. There was all this work before the Land Commission, irrespective of all their more important duties in the matter of breaking leases and of giving decisions on appeal—duties all of which must, of course, fall upon the Land Commission itself. He had said enough to show that it would be utterly impossible for the Land Commission to perform the duties imposed on it by this Bill. It was said that the object of the Bill was to suspend evictions, and in that way to enable the tenants to obtain the benefits of the Land Act. Well, it was essential, if that was to be done effectively, that, it should be done speedily; and if there was a long delay—if the work of hearing applications were to remain in abeyance until August of next year, the Bill would be practically useless. Then, if the Land Commission itself could not undertake the duties which they proposed to impose upon it under this Bill, could the Sub-Commissioners? He did not think so—their hands appeared to be already full; therefore, it was proposed that the Land Commission should be able to delegate its powers to other persons besides the Sub-Commissioners. In a sub-section of Clause 5 the Government said—
  "The Land Commission may, from time to time, with the assent of the Treasury, appoint fit persons to investigate and report as to the existence or non-existence in the case of holdings of the preliminary conditions required to be proved for the purpose of orders under this Act, and as to the value of such holdings."
  And it went on to say—

  2039
  "And the Land Commission, or Civil Bill Court, or any Sub-Commission, or any member of the Land Commission, or of any Sub-Commission dealing with an application under this Act as respects any holding, may adopt any such report, or any part thereof, as may seem expedient, and may from time to time direct a fresh investigation to take place, or may themselves or himself take evidence in respect of the subject-matter of such investigation."
  Everything depended upon the investigation of all the circumstances of each case on the spot. All those delicate investigations, about which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had told them the other day—those inquiries as to the means of the tenant, as to the value of his tenant right, the stock on his farm, his money in the bank, and all those circumstances by which they were to determine his ability or inability to pay his arrears—would have to be investigated and settled by persons locally employed for the purpose; and it would be utterly impossible for any central tribunal, whatever it was, in practice to depart from the finding of these local investigators. And who were these local investigators to be? They were persons for whom the Government had laid down no qualification whatever in the Bill as it was now before the Committee. They would not be able to obtain for this purpose the services of persons even as competent as those whom the Government had already appointed on the Sub-Commissions. The Government would only pay these people small salaries, and the appointments would be even more temporary than those of the Sub-Commissioners. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would venture to say that for the real administration of this measure they would have to depend upon the work of those who events would prove were even less deserving of the confidence of the country than the worst of the temporary Sub-Commissioners. If that were the case, he certainly thought they were entitled to some better defence than the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had offered for his proposal as it stood in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Amendment was that it was opposed to the principle of unity of action which it was desirable to maintain. The right hon. Gentleman said it was desirable to have a central authority to superintend the rest, and to lay
  2040
  down rules for the guidance of those to whom they would have to delegate their powers. That might be; but what was the nature of this Bill? Was it not, in all the circumstances of the case, practically a Bankruptcy Bill for the tenants? Could they not, then, do this—he merely threw it out as a suggestion—avail themselves, under the Act, of the services of the Bankruptcy Court, strengthening that Court if need be, and employing the County Court Judges and other officials, who were already experienced in Bankruptcy jurisdiction? Why should they not entrust the Bankruptcy Court with this power of central administration instead of the Land Commission, which, as he had already shown, was rendered utterly incompetent by its present duties to perform any new functions. He trusted the Committee would hear from right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial Bench not only objection to the proposal of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowther), but, what was more important, the required defence of the proposal of the Government. It ought to be shown to the Committee how it was possible for the Land Commission to discharge the new duties which this Bill, if unamended, would impose upon them—how the duties which the Commission would be compelled to delegate to others would be likely to be performed by the gentlemen they would obtain to undertake them; and, in short, how it was proposed to provide that which was essential to the success of the measure—namely, adequate working machinery, without which the investigation would degenerate into the farce which some hon. Members of that House had for a long time intended it should become.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, being anxious to see how, in the course of his speech, he would contrive to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowther). That right hon. Gentleman made a definite proposal; he proposed that, instead of the Land Commission, the authority to administer the Bill should be the County Court Judges. That had been met by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) with a statement that was overwhelming—namely, that it was impossible to hand over the general administration of

  2041
  the Act, involving, as it did, the careful preparation of rules and regulations, and the appointment of persons to deal with each case, to a number of co-ordinate Judges of second rank in all parts of Ireland; and then the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), evidently impressed very much with the arguments of the Prime Minister, had suddenly changed his ground, suggesting that, not the County Court Judges or the Civil Bill Courts, but the Judges in Bankruptcy in Dublin should administer the Act; that they, with their knowledge of Bankruptcy proceedings, would form an excellent central authority, and that the Civil Bill Court should operate under them. That, so far as he understood it, was the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: These Courts have already Bankruptcy jurisdiction, and are under a central authority.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman supporting the Amendment—which evidently was not admissible after the speech of the Prime Minister—had diverted his argument to the point that the administration of the Act should be relegated to the Bankruptcy Court, and that the Civil Bill Courts should carry out the general system under that Court. He would point out that, so far as he was aware, the Judges in Bankruptcy in Ireland knew practically nothing about land; that it was entirely foreign to their experience. He was informed that these Judges were engaged almost exclusively in the consideration of matters arising out of commercial matters. There was a large amount of business of this kind done by the Judges in Bankruptcy in Ireland, and to confer upon them the administration of proceedings in connection with arrears of rent would be practically to render the Act unworkable. Besides, the Amendment came altogether in the wrong place. The question of who in detail should administer the Act all over Ireland was set out in the 5th clause of the Bill. The persons to whom the powers should be delegated were expressly indicated. Reports would be made by the persons appointed by the Land Commission to make them, and would be submitted, in the terms of the clause, to—
  2042
  "The Land Commission or Civil Bill Court, or any Sub-Commission, or any member of the Land Commission, or of any Sub-Commission dealing with an application under this Act."
  So that, when they came to the 5th clause, they would be able to see to what extent the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman could be carried out, and whether the powers should be limited to Civil Bill Courts, or extended as in the method proposed—that was to say, that not only should the County Courts be charged with the administration of the Act, but the Land Commissioners and the Sub-Commissioners. He would propose that the Committee should not accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowther), but should leave with the Land Commission the power of framing the rules—for that was a power they could not delegate to anyone else—and of directing the business of the local authority, and, when they came to the 5th clause, should turn their attention to the question of who should be selected to administer the Act. As to the opinion of the right hon. Baronet about the confidence reposed in the Land Commissioners by the public, that opinion, he might point out, was not shared by the great majority of the House. The majority of the House did place confidence in them, and, so far as he (Mr. Childers) had heard, that confidence was shared by the great majority of the people of Ireland. The business of the Land Commission was of such a novel character that there might have been cases where great difference of opinion arose; but he believed that as the business of the Commission advanced the confidence the public would repose in it would become greater and greater.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had said that the majority of the House and the majority of the Irish people had perfect confidence in the Land Commission, and on a question of such importance, no doubt, the Committee would desire to act fairly. There were two sides to this question—the landlord's side and the tenant's side—and he thought it could not be contended that the landlords of Ireland had that confidence in the Land Commission which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed, and which he had claimed for it on behalf of the House. There was one question which struck him (Mr. W. H. Smith) as ex-

  2043
  tremely important. The right hon. Gentleman said the Land Commission was especially qualified to deal with this question, because it was a question affecting the land. Well, he (Mr. W. H. Smith) could not himself see that it was a land question. The question to be decided was whether the tenant was or was not able to pay the rent due, and that was a question eminently fitted for reference to a judicial person who was accustomed to try cases where debts were claimed, and where payment of debts was refused. He apprehended that never in the history of England or of Ireland had a question of greater difficulty been placed before any set of men than that of deciding whether the rent claimed from a tenant could or could not be paid. Anyone who had any knowledge of the facts of the case must know the extreme difficulty of deciding the question. Well, should the body who would have to decide the question decide it on political grounds and popular grounds, or judicially, as a matter of right or wrong? If the question were to be decided judicially, then the officials to be entrusted with the duty of administering the Act should be selected from a judicial point of view; and then, he could not help thinking, the Amendment of his right hon. Friend was a just and proper one. How did the Government propose that the 150,000 or 200,000 cases that would have to be disposed of within a reasonable time should be dealt with? If the measure was to be a success from any point of view, the steps taken should be such as would enable the cases which arose under it to be disposed of within a few months; for to allow their settlement to hang over for months, and perhaps years, would be to inflict the greatest possible amount of trouble and disorder on Ireland. By what kind of means did the Government propose to examine into the capacity of 150,000 tenants to pay their arrears of rent? Everybody knew that the difficulty which would prevail in Ireland would be a difficulty infinitely greater than anything that could prevail in England. The habits and customs of the people were such that it would be enormously difficult to rightly and properly decide a question of this kind. There was not only the interest of the tenant to be considered, but there was also the inte-
  2044
  rest of the landlord and the interest of the estate to be borne in mind. All these conditions were such as seemed to require from the Government a statement of a definite course—an idea of the means by which a decision in each particular case would be arrived at within a limited period of time.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had put a question which was clearly out of place, the subject of it having no connection whatever with this Amendment. The question before the Committee was simply one of constituting the central authority. When they came to the 5th clause, the right hon. Gentleman would be entitled to call on the Government to show whether they had adopted the best means for providing instruments for the administration of the Act, whether those instruments ought not to be manifold, and whether the proceedings to be taken ought not to be expedited. The Government would be prepared to show that they had made provision for the greatest number of instruments that would be at all competent to do the work. But the question now under discussion was the selection of a central authority, and that central authority the Amendment which had been moved would destroy altogether, setting up in its place some 30 County Court Judges. Surely that, upon reflection, could hardly commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowther). There was an argument which would have to be considered when the proper time came—an argument with reference to the Land Commission. It was said that it was at present full of work, and, that being so, it would be a legitimate matter for discussion whether the Land Commission should not be strengthened. The question might be very reasonably raised, although he might say that the Land Commissioners themselves entertained no doubt whatever of their capacity to deal with this Bill; and, for his own part, he believed that body would be better qualified than any authority they could select to perform the duties.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Question which was put by the Chairman was, whether the words "Irish Land Commission" should be omitted. If the Committee thought the Bankruptcy Court in Dublin would be a better tribunal than the County Court Judges to

  2045
  substitute, he would have no objection to accept the alteration. He was quite in the hands of the Committee on the point; but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) was quite wrong in thinking that the present Amendment would be more properly moved on the 5th clause. He was sorry if he had not made his meaning clear, but it was that the Committee would not be justified in laying the duties of the central authority on the shoulders of the Land Commission, which was constituted in a one-sided manner—which had, in his opinion, generally failed satisfactorily to discharge the duties laid upon it, and which was notoriously overworked. It was stated that it would take many years for the Commission to perform the duties that now devolved upon it; and he considered the Committee would be unwise to cast further duties upon it.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had at first proposed to substitute the County Court Judges for the Land Commission; but having found that it would be impossible to do that, he said—"Well, put in whom you please—I don't mind; but I object to the Land Commission." He (Mr. Childers) contended that it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to make a specific proposal, if he thought it desirable to move an Amendment at all, and not to leave it to chance for an acceptable authority to be selected. The Government said the Land Commission was the best authority, and they adhered to the proposal of the Bill.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) seemed to forget on whom the burden of proof lay. The Government made a proposal, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowther) objected to that proposal, and had called upon the Committee to consider what should be suggested in its place. It was the part of the Opposition, as critics of the Bill, to say whether they were satisfied or not with the proposal of the Government. It would be impossible to put off the discussion, because if they allowed the Land Commission to be named in the 1st clause, there would be no opportunity for amendment subsequently. The most reasonable course would be to strike out the words objected to, and substitute something of this kind—"tribunal ap-
  2046
  pointed by this Act." That would leave the matter open for settlement when they came to the 5th clause.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government could not adopt that suggestion, as they were distinctly of opinion that the Land Commission would be by far the best qualified tribunal.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to point out that the Tories appeared to have very short memories. It was only that day that the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) had brought forward an accusation against Irish County Court Judges, suggesting, by implication, that those functionaries knew nothing about the Land Question. Now, however, the Front Opposition Bench wanted to take away jurisdiction from the Land Commission in a matter connected with the land, and confer it upon the County Court Judges.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 249; Noes 177: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 245.)
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the Sub-sections (a), (b), and (c) dealt with the conditions with which the tenant would have to comply before coming under the operation of the Bill. The Prime Minister, when introducing the Bill, stated that the intention of the Government was that the tenant who was in arrear should pay one year's rent before he could apply to the Land Commission; and then, after a certain investigation, a portion of the remainder of the arrears was to be paid by the State to the landlord, and that none of the landlords was to get more than one year of arrears, no matter what the amount might be. He had no doubt the Prime Minister wished to adhere to the letter of the undertaking, or rather the arrangement, which he had laid before the House; but he proposed to move an Amendment which would strike out the 1st sub-section of Clause 1, and he believed he should be able to give good and cogent reasons for his proposal, which would not make any difference in the conditions; it was only intended to simplify the Bill, and to remove two sub-sections which were ambiguous and unintelligible. This Bill was very complicated in its provisions, and, therefore, he thought the conditions should be made as simple as possible.

  2047
  Sub-section (a) of Clause 1, and Sub-suction 3 should be read together. The tenant was to pay the rent payable in respect of a yearly tenancy
  "Expiring on the last gale day of the tenancy in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one (which year of the tenancy is in this Act referred to as 'the year expiring as aforesaid') has been satisfied," &c.
  Then Sub-section 3 provided that all payments which were made on account of rent by a tenant
  "In or subsequent to the year expiring as aforesaid, shall be deemed to have been made on account of the rent payable in respect of that year."
  These conditions seemed to him very exceptional, and he could not understand what was meant. He imagined the object of the Prime Minister in inserting Sub-section (a) was to recognize the obligation of the tenants to pay rent, and to enable tenants coming under this Act to repudiate the "no rent" manifesto. It was, however, perfectly clear that any tenant who paid rent, whether with reference to the year 1881, or any other year, equally repudiated the "no rent" manifesto. Therefore, he could not understand why the Act was complicated by these sub-sections. Those conditions brought the Act into collision with one of the most difficult things to settle—namely, the running of the hanging gale. What he proposed was to leave out after "that the" to end of sub-section, and insert—
  "That a year's rent, or the equivalent thereto, has been paid on behalf of the holding during the twelve months expiring on the thirtieth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, and."
  Then he should propose to strike out Sub-section 3, and that would make it clear to every tenant that if he wanted to come under the Bill he must, by a certain day, pay a year's rent. As the Bill stood, that was not compulsory on the tenant. He was sure that it was the intention of the House that the Bill should be effectual as to arrears, and it was quite possible that any tenant whose arrears were cleared off under this Bill would start afresh with two and a-half years' arrears, because he was not bound to pay at the date of his application—not until the case came on, and the last date at which he could make his application was the last day of February, 1883; and that date might be extended, in some
  2048
  cases, to the 30th of June, 1883. He would take the most sanguine view of the time by which the work could be done by the Courts, and he believed that the last application would not be settled until a year after being lodged; and, therefore, tenants would be coming up in 1884 with reference to arrears due in 1881. They need not have paid any rent between 1881 and 1884; and if the unhappy landlords in the meantime, getting neither arrears in 1881 nor rent subsequently due, proposed to evict the tenants, some astute gentleman on the part of the tenant farmers would probably ask the Ministry of the day if it was not true that the landlords were trying to make evictions contrary to the intentions of the Arrears Act? He thought that was likely to occur, but that such a difficulty would be obviated if his Amendment was adopted. He was not particular about the words; he wanted to lay down the principle that a year's rent must be paid by a certain date, and that such payment should not have reference to any particular year—that was to say, that when that amount was paid, all the arrears due up to the date mentioned in the Bill were to be cleared off. The only difference between his proposal and that of the Government was this—in each case a year's rent would have to be paid by the tenant, and the maximum would be one year; he proposed to make that payable by a certain date with reference to the year to which it belonged, and not to any particular year; and in that way he would avoid difficulties which were raised by the sub-section. He did not know whether he had made his point quite clear; but, if not, then he would state it in another way. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) understood it, it would not be necessary to go into further detail, and he would simply move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 14, to leave out after the words "that the" to end of sub-section, and insert the words "That a year's rent, or the equivalent thereto, has been paid on behalf of the holding during the twelve months expiring on the thirtieth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, and."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought he understood the noble Lord's meaning; but, at the same time, he did not think the words proposed would carry out that meaning. Sub-section (a) and Sub-section 3 were very long, and possibly not very clear; but the fact was, the whole of the arrangements in connection with the hanging gale were by no means clear, and it was impossible to express what was meant in fewer words than were inserted in the Bill. What was really meant by the Government was, that the rent due in respect of 1881 should be paid, whether the year ended in September or November, and whether the hanging gale was three or six months, or one year. That was the reason why it was necessary to employ these terms; but if it was possible to express to the tenants of Ireland in fewer words what was intended, the Law Officers of the Crown would be very glad to do so. The real object, however, was, as the noble Lord had put it, that the amount due for 1881 should have been paid. The noble Lord proposed, in order to make matters clear, to substitute—
  "That a year's rent, or the equivalent thereto, has been paid on behalf of the holding during the twelve months expiring on the thirtieth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, and."
  That meant that if a year's rent was paid on the 29th of November the provisions of the Bill would be satisfied. That was clearly out of the question, as it did not require that it should be rent for the year 1881; and, inasmuch as the words of the clause expressed that intention more clearly than the words proposed by the noble Lord, he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. The statement in the Bill was perfectly simple, and, as at present advised, the Government thought it was clear enough. The noble Lord said that the Bill did not provide that the rent should be paid in respect of one year; but the Bill, in fact, provided that the rent should be expressly so paid.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved that the noble Lord, in his Amendment, had adopted the words "rent paid," instead of "rent satisfied." There was a great deal of difference between these two expressions. Both the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) demanded that the rent should have been paid, and if an amount due
  2050
  was compounded, it was evident that by the sub-section a remission of rent was to be satisfaction of rent—in other words, it was to be no rent at all. On the second reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) expressed gratification at the prospect that the payments would be collusive rents; that meant no rent at all, because the landlord and the tenant would come together and make an arrangement by which the landlord would get a sum of money from the public funds without any money having been paid by the tenant. If the rent was to be paid, let the word "paid" be substituted for "satisfied."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was more satisfactory than what he should have conceived to be a clear construction of the Bill. His noble Friend had done good service in giving attention to this matter, whether the actual words proposed were inserted or not. The Government only proposed that the rent should be paid up to the last gale day of 1881, leaving nearly a year's rent, which would have accrued before the Bill came into operation. He did not think that was a wise way of beginning to work an Arrears Bill. They proposed to stand upon their own figure, and, as he understood, proposed that a year's rent due in 1881 was to be paid or satisfied—that was to say, the payment was to be made in and for that year, and it was to be either by cash payment or made up of two gale days, which, according to custom, would be taken to satisfy the rent, subject to deductions in which the landlord might acquiesce in respect of that year. Assuming that to be the intention, that was not the construction of the Bill, because Sub-sections 3 and 4 must be read in connection with the sub-section now before the Committee, and they had caused an immense amount of apprehension. The words of the sub-section were far more susceptible of misconstruction than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The words were—
  "All payments on account of rent made by the tenant to the landlord in or subsequent to the year expiring as aforesaid, shall be deemed to have been made on account of the rent payable in respect of that year."
  Although the rent might have been otherwise arranged, the Act would come in and break through the receipt and

  2051
  disturb any deliberate appropriation between the landlord and the tenant, although in view of bad seasons in 1879 and 1880, the landlord might have consented to accept 50 per cent. and cried quits with the tenant for the rest of the rent. That had happened in very many cases, and how was it to be dealt with in view of the Bill and of the right hon. Gentleman's statement? It would have no bearing on the construction of the Bill, because such a payment was not a payment for and on behalf of the year 1881. That was the view of the right hon. Gentleman; but that was not the construction of the Bill, because the Bill said that, although a rebate and remission should have been made for 1879, if money was paid in 1881, it would have been deemed to have been paid contrary to the then intention of the parties, while Sub-section 4 said the remission made in respect of 1879 should be regarded as having been made in respect of the year expiring on the last gale day of 1881. It was obvious that the drafting of the sub-section upset the intention of the Government as stated by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BRODRICKpointed out that the noble Lord's Amendment raised one point which had not caught the attention of the Government. If payment was admitted in respect of this year, that would broaden the scope of the Bill, and increase the amount of the money to be paid by the Government. If that was so, although he fully sympathized with the proposal as to the date of application, he did not think the Amendment could be carried out.
  MR. GORSTsaid, the first thing necessary was to understand what the Government intended, and having learnt that, the Committee could consider what words would carry it out. He thought the extent of the proposal of the Government was that a tenant should, before coming under the Bill at all, evince his honesty by paying a year's rent, which, in the opinion of the Government, he was able to pay. According to the Bill as it now stood, that test year for which the tenant was to pay was to be 1881. The ground the Government took up in the Bill of last year was thus shifted, because in that Bill they had a test year which was not 1881, but the year which expired on the last gale day before the Act of 1881; that would be half-a-year
  2052
  in advance, the year expiring in May, 1881. So that last year it was the opinion of the Government that the tenants were able to pay rent which began in 1880 and ended in May, 1881. This year, however, they had shifted their ground, and the only year for which they required the tenant to pay was the year beginning in November, 1880, and ending in November, 1881. He thought it right the Committee should know why this year the Government adopted 1881 as the test year, while last year they took half of 1880 and half of 1881. So far as he could understand the Amendment it would aggravate the mischief of the Bill, and make the year for which the tenant was to pay rent, not 1881, which the Government selected, but the year 1882; and the year 1881, in which, according to the Government, the tenant should pay rent, was thrown into the arrears. He differed from his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) as to the charge being aggravated as the Bill stood, because the total amount the landlord was to recover was limited. The charge on the Church Surplus Fund or the Consolidated Fund would not be aggravated; but the loss of the unhappy landlord would be aggravated, because, instead of getting 1881 paid and half the antecedent arrears and half 1882, he would get only the rent for 1882 and half the antecedent arrears. That would involve a gross injustice to the landlord.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it seemed to him that the Conservative Party were endeavouring to support the Amendment by arguments other than those in their own minds. The Amendment meant that the tenant must pay the rent of 1882, and in the meantime the landlord was to have the full right to evict a tenant for the whole rent; that was the meaning of the noble Lord's Amendment, and it was carefully concealed. If the noble Lord's speech had not been understood it was because he did not wish it to be understood. The Amendment was still worse than the clause, because it deferred the application of this Bill to November 30th. The Government gave time up to February for the applications to be made; but the noble Lord insidiously proposed that unless a tenant had paid rent due on the 30th November he should not have the benefit of the year. Nothing more preposterous in the interests

  2053
  of the landlord had been put forward than this Amendment.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, it was easy for the hon. Member for Wexford to say that he had not spoken what he meant, and that the Amendment was impossible; but the Amendment was perfectly clear. Everybody knew that six months' grace was allowed for the payment of rent in Ireland, and what he proposed was that the tenant must pay a year's rent by the end of November, 1882. Then, the tenant having paid this year's rent, arrears up to November, 1881, would be wiped off. This Bill dealt with arrears of rent up to the last gale day of 1881, and his Amendment was that a year's rent during the year ending on November 30, 1882, should be paid in inference to these arrears. His contention was that the year's rent which was payable under the Bill by the tenant should be paid by a certain date, and should not be credited to one particular year, and in that way Sub-section 3 and its complications would be got rid of. He would not, however, press the Amendment; but when the end of the sub-section was reached he would propose an addition to carry out his idea.
  MR. GORSTasked the noble Lord whether these words would express what he meant—
  "That a year's rent, or the equivalent thereto, in respect of the year expiring on the last gale day of 1881, shall have been paid."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, he thought there would be no difficulty in understanding his Amendment, but he would endeavour to explain it in a few words. His intention was distinctly to provide for that time during which at present no rent was payable. At the present moment the rent was to be satisfied up to November, 1881. What position did that leave the matter in? If no application was made in respect to the Bill until February next year, there would then be two gales due. If the Land Commission exercised their discretion and put off the application to June next year, there would then be three gales due, and he wished to put it to the Government whether that would not defeat the whole object of the Bill? He thought the Government could not ask the Committee to vote money for the
  2054
  settlement of arrears if such a sore as that was left open. When the Bill was introduced, he was much struck by a letter which the Prime Minister read from an Irish landlord, which said that until applications had been settled no rent could be paid. Until the tenant had been before the Court and obtained a decision as to what sum he should receive it would be impossible to extract money from him. With regard to the time, he had fixed the gales at two or three, because a great deal had been heard about the time it would take for the Land Commission to settle the applications, and if the Commission were allowed even six months to get through the work, the Government must be prepared to find another gale due. He believed it would be a kindness to the tenant at this moment to insist upon any settlement being a complete settlement. The landlords were making a sacrifice of antecedent arrears; the Government sacrificed a year's rent; and the tenant himself would pay a year's rent. He did not wish to bring into the argument any suggestion as to the Bill being introduced against the interests of the landlords, and he objected to gales being allowed to remain over; and if the Government allowed that, and forced the Committee to accept the Bill in its present condition, leaving this enormous unpaid liability to accrue, that would lead to demoralization, and he was convinced that the same state of things would again occur, and that if rents got into arrears from November, 1881, the strongest arguments would be used against the landlords if they took advantage of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 14, to leave out from the word "year," to the word "satisfied," in line 18, and insert the words, "tenancy since the last gale day of the tenancy, in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty, has been satisfied up to the date of application."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the proposal amounted to this—In addition to the rent for the year ending 1881 there should be paid all the rent which should have accrued subsequently to that time, possibly the entire year of 1882.
  MR. BRODRICK: Except the hanging gale.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the Bill did not propose to deal with the rent subsequent to the last gale of 1881. As a matter of fact, where any gale existed—the last gale of 1881, say—it would not be admitted until June, 1882. Under these circumstances, the Bill did not intend to deal with the payment. It proposed to deal with no rent subsequent to 1881; but every tenant taking advantage of the Bill must have paid the rent of 1881, either by gale due or in some other way which was taken as payment. It did not propose to interfere with the interests of landlord or tenant in any subsequent gale. It was assumed that the crop of 1881 would have enabled the tenant to pay the rent of the subsequent years; but it was not intended to impose upon him more severe terms than the payment of the rent of 1881.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought there was something to be said against the arguments of the Solicitor General for Ireland. It was true the Bill did not propose to deal with any rent subsequent to 1881; but what was to be the position of the land-land and the tenant with respect to such rent? The Prime Minister had stated the other day that since this Bill had been proposed there had been a considerable cessation of the payment of rent in Ireland. That rent was at the present moment rent due in June, 1882. Supposing a tenant, who was able to take advantage of the Bill by the payment of rent due for 1881, went before the Court, and, though being in a position to obtain the benefits of the Bill, was also in arrear for the first half of 1882 and continued in arrear for the second half, and perhaps even for the first half year of 1883, before his case was decided—what would be the position of landlord and tenant under those circumstances? Looking at the condition of things in Ireland, it could not be anticipated that that rent for the first half of 1882 and the subsequent gales would be regularly paid; but was the landlord to evict the tenant for not paying such rent? Then, what would be said of the cruel and unpatriotic conduct of the landlord if he did evict? An eviction for rent due subsequent to 1881 would absolutely prevent
  2056
  the tenant from deriving any benefit from this Bill, while at the same time he had fulfilled the conditions under which he was to obtain such benefits; on the other hand, if the landlord was not to evict, the tenant might go on without paying for three or four years.
  MR. GLADSTONE: We cannot undertake by this Bill to have a new system of rules and remedies to secure the payment of all rents without evictions. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman refers to the position of a landlord and tenant in respect to rents due for the period after November, 1881. That position is to be exactly the same in regard to that rent as it would be to other arrears. I grant there may be a period for which the Bill does not provide; but I do not think we can undertake to give this Bill such scope as that it shall secure the payment of all rents up to the period at which application may be made. What it does is this. We have at the present time before us a great number of tenants who are burdened, not only with the present rents, but with the past rents, and that load of past rents makes it impossible for them to cope with the present rents; and the purpose of this Bill is to relieve them of the load of past rents, so that then there may be reasonable hope of their being able to cope with the present rents. Consequently, I think there is no reason to anticipate the non-payment of those rents when they are relieved of the burden of past rents.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would do him the justice to believe that he had never intentionally distorted any argument used by any hon. Member—he never had done any such thing, and he never would. He had tried to explain that the expression of his—an act of cruelty on the part of the landlords—to which reference had been made, referred to those landlords who had pressed their tenants for rents in 1877, 1878, and 1879—which he, rightly or wrongly, had described as very bad years—and had so deprived them of the advantage of the Land Act. He had never said that even in ordinary years, such as last year, the landlords had not had full moral as well as legal right to take advantage of any remedy they might have against the tenants who did not pay their rents.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he thought that if hon. Members had read the Amendment they would have found that it was just the same as the Bill. The Amendment proposed to leave out from the word "year," and insert—
  "Tenancy since the last gale day of the tenancy in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty has been satisfied up to the date of application."
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that, instead of paying one year, perhaps the tenant might have to pay one year and a-half before the 1st of November if this Amendment were adopted. The Committee were putting a pauperizing test, and were asking a man to pay this money when they admitted that he was very poor. A tenant would be able to pay a year's rent, because he would have made his arrangements for such payment; but he would not be able to pay a year and a-half.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he did not wish to keep the Committee from a division, but he wished to put a question to the Government which he had already asked, and which he thought he had a right to have answered. He wished to know why the Government had fixed on the year 1881, when, in connection with the Bill of last year, they thought the tenant was able to pay the rent of November, 1880, and of May, 1881? The provision of the Act of last year was an intelligible one, for the harvest had not been so satisfactory; but he could not say the same of the present provision. Why did they throw the rent, after a good harvest, into the arrears?
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the whole thing seemed to him to turn on the rapidity with which this section was put into operation. If the machinery the Committee provided for working the Act was sufficiently extensive and efficient, there could be no accumulation of rent since November, 1881. At present only one half-year's rent was due since November, 1881, which was the period with which this section dealt. It seemed to him that they might leave this point and take care to provide, when the time came, for working the Act.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, that, if this year happened to be a bad one, the Bill might prove to be absolutely useless. He wished to provide that the rent should have been not necessarily paid, but satisfied up to the date he mentioned
  2058
  in his Amendment. There should be an opportunity for an arrangement to have been made between the landlord and tenant.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that the system in practice on many estates of having a hanging gale would project the rent six months beyond the last gale day of 1881, and would make some of the rent payable in 1882.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to know why a different period had been taken in this Bill to that taken in the Bill of last year? They had been told that the reason was that the years which had been selected were those in which the tenants could pay their rents. Well, if a tenant could pay his rent last year, he could pay it this year.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the year 1881 had elapsed, and the Government thought the most convenient year to take was the full year elapsing last before the time of the passing of the Bill.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he could not see why tenants were to have the benefit of the Act if they did not pay their rents during a good year.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 187; Noes 124: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 246.)
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

PARTNERSHIPS (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Monk, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Barran, Mr. Lewis Fry.)

[BILL 179.] COMMITTEE.
[Progress 29th June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

PART I.
Of Partners and their Liability and authority in respect of Partnership Dealings.
Clause 6 (Partnership defined).
Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. HORACE DAVEY MR. HORACE DAVEY moved to leave out Sub-section 2.
MR. MONKrose to Order, and said the Question was, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
CAPTAIN AYLMER CAPTAIN AYLMER moved to report Progress, on the ground that it was impossible at that time of the night to deal with the Bill properly.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Captain Aylmer.)
MR. MONKsaid, this Bill had been re-committed so long ago as the 5th of June, and the only opportunity which a private Member had of bringing it on was at a late hour. If the hon. and gallant Member would allow the Bill to proceed, he (Mr. Monk) believed that it could be soon disposed of.
MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) spoke in a very cheerful tone as to this Bill having been in Committee for a considerable time. The difficulty of the Bill was that it affected to be a complete Code, and yet it was not to affect all our commercial interests, and it could not be disposed of in this way.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 53: Majority 12.—(Div. List, No. 247.)
Question again proposed.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he supposed, after the indication given by the division, the hon. Member (Mr. Monk) would not proceed. The hon. Member must be aware that the real sense of the Committee was entirely opposed to going on with the Bill now; and he would, therefore, propose that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. GORSTurged the postponement of the Bill, especially as the Chairman had not the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown. It was clear that a Bill of this kind was not one with which the Committee could safely proceed without the assistance of the Law Officers, and he felt sure the hon. Member would not proceed.
MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not think his hon. Friend would think it wise to proceed, in view of what was the evident sense of a considerable portion of the Committee, At the same time,
2060
he thought the hon. Member was entitled to some sympathy, as he had always been met by proposals for reporting Progress or leaving the Chair.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed.
MR. T. C. BARINGprotested against allowing the Bill to go on at such a late hour. This Bill affected the whole of the commercial interests of the country, and it was wrong to proceed with it under these circumstances.
MR. MONKappealed to the Committee to agree to allow him to go on with the Bill on another night, if not now. He would put it down for tonight; and he would remind hon. Members that this Bill had gone through a Select Committee of the House, and had been carefully considered by distinguished lawyers, and by the President of the Board of Trade, who was perfectly prepared to go on with it now. Although Progress had been moved from the other side of the House, the hon. Members for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) and Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) had both urged him to go on with the Bill. Under present circumstances he should not proceed, but would move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Monk.)
MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he thought one reason why hon. Members objected to the Bill was that it was condemned by far higher authorities than those who sat on the Select Committee.
MR. WHITLEYsaid, the Bill had been carefully considered, and had the approval of the commercial community generally. He was certain it had the approval of the community which he represented (Liverpool), and he believed, also, every other commercial community of importance in the United Kingdom. He had not yet heard any definite objection to the Bill, and he hoped the Committee would consent to go on with it.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he believed the Bill had the approval of Mr. Justice Lindley, who was, perhaps, the highest authority that could be men-

2061
tioned on this subject. If hon. Members would now consider the proposed Amendments they would see that they were principally on points of detail. He regretted the absence of the Law Officers; but if they could not be present, the Committee must do the best it could without them. He thought that after so much trouble had been taken, and so many Members had sat up night after night in order to take this Bill, it was a little hard for hon. Members who did not care very much about it to come and raise objections. He hoped, at all events, that on some occasion the Bill might be proceeded with.
MR. ECROYDsaid, he was a Member of the Select Committee which examined this Bill, and he believed it was one of considerable importance to the commercial community, and would enable men of business to understand more clearly what the Law of Partnership was.
Motion agreed, to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

LUNACY REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 230.]
(Mr. Hibbert.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. HIBBERT,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it proposed to make two alterations in the present law with regard to asylums. One proposal was to empower the Lord Chancellor to deal with properties of £2,000, instead of £1,000, as under the present law, and the other was to restrict the number of visits to lunatics in private asylums. At the present time the Visitors visited these asylums four times a-year, and that number of visits was found to be unnecessary, as in such cases the lunatics were mostly under the care of relatives or friends; and the Lord Chan-
2062
cellor had suggested that, if the law were altered in this way, it might be possible to visit all the lunatics under the Lord Chancellor at least twice a-year, instead of only once. In that way both public and private lunatic asylums would be visited twice a-year.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 4) BILL.
  Resolution [July 7] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. PLAYFAIR, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. COURTNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.

MOTIONS.

  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to continue certain Turnpike Acts, and to repeal certain other Turnpike Acts; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 233.]

  PASSENGER VESSELS LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee,
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Licences to retail Intoxicating Liquors on Passenger Vessels in Scotland.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 234.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.
  LONDON: CORNELIUS BUCK, 22 PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.