Commons Sitting of 14 July 1882

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLICE BILLS—Second Reading— Militia Acts Consolidation * [123].
Committee—Arrears of Rent (Ireland) (re-comm.) [213]—R.P. [Fifth Night].
Committee—Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance * [233]; Customs and Inland Revenue * [140–239].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Friendly Societies (Quinquennial Returns) * [228], and passed.
Considered as amended—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * [195].
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 4) *, and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—AGRARIAN OUTRAGES—RETURNS.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can give the House any information as to the number and nature of agrarian outrages reported in Ireland during the months of April, May, and June 1882, and the number of cases in which any persons have been convicted, committed for trial, or summarily punished for any, especially the more serious, of such outrages?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have just laid on the Table of the House a Return giving the information asked for by the right hon. Baronet with regard to agrarian outrages in the three months specified in the Question.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. P. J. DUFFY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. P. J. Duffy, of Belmullet, is still detained in Kilmainham Gaol; and, whether the Lord Lieutenant has reconsidered his case.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the case of Patrick Duffy, who is detained in Kilmainham Gaol on reasonable suspicion of arson, was considered by His Excellency on the 6th instant. He decided not to release him for the present, but will take the case again into consideration shortly.

  ARMY—MILITARY CANTEENS (IRELAND).
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that the Military canteens in Irish garrisons procure their supplies of groceries, provisions, &c. from co-operative stores, and whether Army officers are

  441
  largely interested in these co-operative stores as shareholders; whether it is the fact that Limerick bacon, supplied to soldiers recently in garrison at Limerick, had, in obedience to rules, to be sent across to London to be stamped with the brand of the co-operative store, and then sent back to Limerick; and, whether he will reform the rules for the management of canteens, so as to prevent a preference being given to establishments in which officers are interested over those of the ordinary tax-paying traders of the Country?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that the War Office does not interfere with the detailed management of canteens and coffee shops, each of which is under the control of a committee of regimental officers, as I explained in moving the Estimates. I have no knowledge of the sources of purchase at any particular station. Goods are obtained in the most economical way, and any profit goes to the benefit of the soldiers of the regiment. The system works extremely well, and I see no reason to interfere with the responsibility of the managers.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACTS—THE INDEPENDENT MUTUAL BRETHREN FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
  MR. AGLANDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that the Independent Mutual Brethren Friendly Society's Valuation Return shows an estimated deficiency of £147,000 on realised assets of £6,705; and, whether the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies has any, and, if so, what powers to compel the Society to put its affairs on a proper footing before taking in new members?
  MR. COURTNEY: I am informed, Sir, that the figures given in the Question are substantially correct. The Chief Registrar has no independent authority to compel a Society whose valuation gives unsatisfactory results to put its affairs on a proper footing. But upon the application of a certain proportion of the members—which in this case would be 500—the Chief Registrar has power to investigate the Society's affairs, and either to award its dissolution or to suspend his award so as to enable it to make the necessary alterations in its contributions and benefits,

  LAW AND POLICE—THE TREDEGAR RIOTS (SOUTH WALES).
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can confirm or deny the statements made in the "Cardiff Western Mail" and the "South Wales Daily News," in reference to the anti-Irish riots at Tredegar, to the following effect:—That the houses of at least sixty Irishmen were completely gutted, and that all the furniture in these houses was burned in the public streets; that not only men, but women and children were attacked by the mob; that, in the house of Patrick Harrigan, the mob set fire to the bed on which his youngest child, a few months old, was sleeping; that a woman was, in one case, stripped naked, dragged through a street, and beaten to a pulp; whether many of the women and children had to take refuge on the mountains at Sirhowy, and remain huddled together there for the night under severe showers of rain, and whether others had to hide in the churchyard of the town; whether, in many cases, owing to the entire destruction of their furniture and the robbery of all their provisions and money by the mob, a number of women and children were left without food for twenty-four, and sometimes forty-eight, hours; whether one woman has already died from the shock, and what is the total of persons killed and wounded; whether a bad state of feeling was known to exist for a considerable time between the Welsh and Irish population of the town; and if any precautions were taken to meet a riot such as afterwards occurred; if he could explain why the fifty or sixty special constables who were sworn in on Saturday night were not employed in the early part of Sunday; and whether, if, when they were brought into action on Saturday night in defence of Mr. Spooner, in the Circle, they did not succeed in immediately dispersing the mob; whether it is true that the military sent from Cardiff were sent back in consequence of a telegram, and, in consequence of this delay, did not reach the town until three o'clock on Monday morning, when the rioters had completed their work; and, if so, who was the author of this telegram; how many of the ringleaders in this riot have been arrested; and, if a Special Commission

  443
  will be employed to deal with this outburst of crime?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, although I have had several Reports since last Sunday upon this matter, there are some details which I shall not now be able to answer. I can, however, answer the more important points. In the first place, it is unfortunately true that a very serious and disgraceful riot has taken place at Tredegar, in which a large number of houses of the Irish and their inhabitants have been attacked and injured. I am happy to say that it is not true that any person has been killed directly in consequence of these attacks; but there has been an unfortunate case of a woman who miscarried and died, it is supposed, from fright and alarm caused by those proceedings. It is true that there has been for some time a strong feeling of exasperation in that district against the Irish population. In consequence of the knowledge of that ill feeling, precautions were taken on the Friday and Saturday preceding that Sunday by increasing the Police Force and swearing in special constables. These precautions did not, unfortunately, prove adequate on account of the extent of the riot, and on Sunday morning I received an application for military assistance, and orders were given and a force sent accordingly. It seems there was some delay in the arrival of the military, into the cause of which I shall inquire; but I am sure it was not due in any way to the action of the local authorities. I am informed that 10 persons are under arrest for taking part in the riot, and that proceedings against them will take place on Monday next, when, of course, the facts will be more accurately ascertained than at present. As regards further details in the Question, I think it better to postpone them until that investigation has taken place. Since Sunday tranquillity has been preserved, and the precautions taken have proved adequate.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought the answer was very satisfactory; but there were one or two points in reference to what took place on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given him no information. For instance, whether "in the house of Patrick Harrigan the mob set fire to the bed on which his youngest child, a few months old, was sleeping; and that a
  444
  woman was, in one case, stripped naked, dragged through a street, and beaten to a pulp;" whether the special constables were not brought into activity at an early part of Sunday; whether a number of women were obliged to take refuge in a mountain close by, and remain there under rain; whether the exodus of the Irish population from this district still continued; and, whether a man, who was brought up before the magistrates charged with throwing stones at the police, was let off with a fine of 10 s.?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that yesterday he sent down the Question of the hon. Member with a request that the information on the different points should be sent by telegraph to-day; but the replies received did not enable him to answer the Question fully. He found, however, that the statement about the woman being stripped naked, &c, was not correct. No doubt, as an attack was made upon these houses, a good number of these people were driven out. The special constables were spread over a wide extent of the town; but were unable to cope with the entire of the attack. He had no reason to think that the local authorities were to blame. As to the question about a man being let off with a fine, he had heard nothing of it.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS—PENSION FEND.
  MR. RANKINasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, in view of the generally expressed opinion of the Elementary School Teachers in England and Wales in favour of a system of compulsory subscription to a pension fund, the Government have taken into their consideration the question of establishing such a fund; and, whether, in order to facilitate the views of the school teachers on this matter, the Government would give as an unopposed Return the number and ages of the Certificated Elementary School Teachers in England and Wales?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have no evidence, Sir, that there is a general feeling among elementary teachers in favour of a compulsory pension fund. On the contrary, I believe, there is a great division of opinion on the question; and, while I think such a scheme would be

  445
  very desirable, if it were practicable, I cannot see how we could enforce subscriptions upon the teachers, seeing that we have nothing to do with the payment of their salaries. The Return asked for would entail much labour and expense; but I will consider the question, and communicate with the hon. Member respecting it. I shall be glad to do anything in my power to facilitate the establishment of a pension fund.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. JOHN LADRIGAN AND MR. DANIEL MACSWEENEY.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether His Excellency has yet given any decision in the case of Mr. John Ladrigan, confined in Kilmainham Gaol since the 17th February; whether Mr. Daniel MacSweeney, of Donegal, has been confined in Dundalk Gaol for over twelve months; whether his district is peaceable; and, if the Government can see their way to releasing him?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency has decided that he cannot at present order Mr. Ladrigan's release. I may inform the hon. Member that Mr. Jennings, as to whom he made an inquiry lately, as being in ill-health, has been released from detention.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ESTATES OF THE EARL OF KENMARE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received further information which shows the number of Lord Kenmare's tenants who were arrested under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act; whether it was twelve, and not three, four from the Farranfore district, and the remainder from about Rathmore; whether five of them are still detained in Kilmainham; and, if there is any reason in the existing state of their districts for their continued detention?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received further information on the subject of this Question. There were but three of Lord Kenmare's tenants arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act. Nine sons of tenants of his were arrested, and four of these are still
  446
  detained under the Act. Having regard to the fact that Lord Kenmare's caretaker was shot at and wounded last Sunday morning, His Excellency cannot at present order the release of these four persons.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—BOUNTIES TO IRISH MILITIAMEN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in reply to a question last year, he stated that he would give an undertaking that Militiamen arrested under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act would not be deprived of their bounties; and, if so, on what ground Sergeant James Bourke, who has been in the Clare Militia for the past eight years, and who was arrested under the Coercion Act in February last, has been refused his bounty by the commanding officer?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that I have made inquiry into this case, and I find that the officer commanding the 7th Brigade of the South Irish Artillery Division referred the matter to the War Office, and on the 4th instant he was informed that Sergeant James Bourke should receive his bounty. I presume that it has been paid to him.

  VACCINATION—ALLEGED DEATH OF CHILDREN AT NORWICH FROM EFFECTS OF OPERATION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has received a Memorial from Norwich, giving a list of eight children, four of whom have died, and the rest are in a dangerous condition, from the effects of vaccination performed by the public vaccinator on the 13th of June last; and, whether he will cause a searching and public inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case, and direct that facilities be given for the friends of the children to be duly represented at that inquiry?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, a representation as to these cases was received on the 11th instant, and Dr. Airy, one of the Medical Inspectors of the Board, was at once instructed to proceed to Norwich and make full inquiry into the circumstances. Ho is now occupied in the inquiry, which will be conducted in the usual manner, and the friends of the children will have

  447
  a full opportunity of making their statements to him.
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: Will they be allowed to have legal assistance?
  MR. DODSON: No; they will have an opportunity of making their statement.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)— PROCEEDINGS OF THE FLEET AT ALEXANDRIA.
  SIR JOHN HAY (for Captain PRICE)asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is true that two guns of Her Majesty's ship "Alexandra" split during the action of the 11th instant, and that the ship has had to withdraw to Malta for new guns; and, have any other failures occurred to the guns of the Fleet?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I would respectfully but confidently ask the House to allow mo to decline giving an answer to this Question, or to any other similar Question which may be addressed to me. I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Member and the House generally will perceive that it might be injurious to the public interest, while it is difficult to see what good could possibly be done, if it became the practice to publish to the world on such an occasion as this the detailed effect of an engagement upon the ships of Her Majesty's Fleet and their armament.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE SALVATION ARMY—RIOTS AT SALISBURY.
  MR. CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that Salvation Army riots have again broken out at Salisbury, and that, on Wednesday last, a crowd of more than a thousand persons surrounded the Army and assailed them with rotten eggs, bags of flour, fireworks, and other missiles, to the serious injury of many; if it is true that the Police did not interfere, and that the magistrates of Salisbury refuse to protect the Army assembled in the streets of that town; and, if he has yet recalled the circular issued by the Home Office to the magistrates throughout the Country on the subject of the Salvation Army, and issued fresh instructions in accordance with the recent decisions in the Court of Queen's Bench?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have no information in this matter, Sir. The
  448
  magistrates of Salisbury have not consulted me upon it. I have not recalled a Circular, because I have not issued a Circular, and I do not propose to issue instructions in the matter. If the magistrates ever ask my advice, I shall advise them to follow the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench; and, as far as I can observe, that course seems to have been taken here—a strict policy of nonintervention.

  SPAIN—THE ZAMORA WATERWORKS COMPANY.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have received any further communications from the Spanish Government since the 8th August last with reference to the payment of the amount due to the Zamora Waterworks Company from the municipality of Zamora, the Company up to the present having been unable to obtain any satisfaction?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, various communications have passed between Her Majesty's Minister and the Spanish Government since the date referred to, the latest Note received from the Spanish Minister of State being dated the 20th ultimo. The Spanish Government have pledged themselves to the immediate and final settlement of this question.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— STANGMORE NATIONAL SCHOOL —RESULT FEES.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether in April, 1878, Mr. Alexander Hamilton, Inspector under the Board of National Education in Ireland, refused to allow the teacher of Stangmore National School, in county of Tyrone, to earn results fees on the examination of six scholars who, he stated, had not made the requisite number of attendances; whether, upon the application of William Barcroft, esquire, patron of said school, an investigation was held by the Head Inspector of the district, Mr. James Morel, and as the result of such investigation the six scholars were proved to have made the requisite number of attendances, and three pounds ten shillings of results fees forwarded to W. Barcroft, esquire, for the teacher;

  449
  whether in 1880 the said National Board of Education advised the Department of Science and Art at South Kensington not to allow results fees to the same teacher; whether, on Mr. Barcroft again applying for an investigation into the state of the school, he received for reply that the National Board had full confidence in Mr. Hamilton; and, whether the Government will order the Report made in 1878, respecting Stangmore School, by Mr. Morel, to be printed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I find, Sir, that in 1878 results fees were disallowed to this teacher in eight cases, because Mr. Hamilton, the Inspector alluded to, reported that the requisite number of copy lessons to entitle the teacher to the fees had not been written. On the application of Mr. Barcroft, the patron of the school, the head Inspector was sent down to investigate the matter. In one case he found that the necessary requirements had been fulfilled; in the other seven he could get no evidence bearing on the matter in dispute; but, as a mistake was found to have occurred in one case, the National Board took an indulgent view of the matter, and paid the fees in all eight cases. In 1881 the Board, acting on a general rule, objected to the recognition of the science class of this school by the Science and Art Department, in consequence of the unsatisfactory condition of the school, as reported by the Inspector in his Results Report for 1880. The Board did send the answer to a further application from Mr. Barcroft, as quoted in the Question. The Reports of the Inspectors have invariably been regarded as confidential and privileged documents; and although I understand that the publication of this particular Report would cause no official embarrassment, I cannot consent to establishing the dangerous precedent of granting it.

  EGYPT—STATE OF AFFAIRS AT ALEXANDRIA.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will give instructions to Sir Beauchamp Seymour to take measures to ascertain definitely the position and condition of the Khedive; whether his life is safe; and, whether he is in need of succour? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be kind
  450
  enough to give the House the latent intelligence in regard to the Khedive?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. I will confine myself in answering the Question strictly to the Question itself, which relates to the position of the Khedive. We have received information both from the Admiralty and through Mr. Cartwright upon that subject. The information received through the Admiralty was to the effect that the Khedive is safe in his palace, garrisoned by 700 Marines. That is partial information, which is materially extended by a telegram received a little later this morning from Mr. Cartwright in Alexandria. It states that the Khedive returned to Alexandria at 4 yesterday afternoon from Ramleh with his family, having secured the loyalty of the guard of soldiers and the cavalry left by Arabi to watch him. He has sent for Sherif Pasha, and will summon all the leading Pashas and try to re-establish order in the town and in the country.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can state the reasons of the Government for not having ordered a sufficient force to land at or near Alexandria during the bombardment, in order to save the town from ruin, to protect the lives and property of Europeans, and to cut off the retreat of Arabi and the Egyptian Army?
  MR. MAC IVERwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he answered that Question, whether any further information could be given with regard to the objects which the Government had in view in bombarding Alexandria; also, why no efficient measures had been taken for the protection of British shipping using the Suez Canal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must beg the hon. Member for Birkenhead to have the kindness to give me Notice of his Question. It will be well that he should not assume in his Question that no effective measures have been taken. With respect to the Question of the hon. Member for Eye, of which I have Notice before me, I must ask to be excused from stating the reasons of the Government for not having done several things which the hon. Gentleman indicates, and as I think with very great forget fulness of a number of most important reasons that bear upon the conduct of the Go-

  451
  vornment in this question. My ground for declining to enter upon that is, that it appears to me distinctly to efface the line of distinction between Questions and a debate. When a debate arises, I shall be very happy to state the reasons which have guided the Government.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow whether there was any truth in the report which appeared in the newspapers, about a tea ship having been looted in the Suez Canal?
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYwished to ask whether the Marines who were said to be guarding the Khedive were English Marines or Egyptian Marines?
  An hon. MEMBER: Horse Marines.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Marines are English Marines. The Khedive is not exclusively guarded by English Marines. Ho is likewise guarded, according to Mr. Cartwright's telegram, by a guard of soldiers and cavalry left by Arabi, not for the purpose of guarding him, but for the purpose of watching him.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is still his intention to take the Second Reading of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill on Saturday; and, if so, whether, as it is the only Bill relating to Scotland introduced by the Government into this House, it will be placed first on the Orders of the Day?
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, he wished to ask whether he was aware that out of about 48 Scotch Members in the House last night, 36 were anxious that the Bill should come on, and that the opposition to it was really from a very small section?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My statistics of the number of Scotch Members are not so accurate or precise as those of the hon. Gentleman; but I am under the impression that a very largo proportion of the Scotch Members are desirous that the Bill should go on, and it will be brought to issue in the regular manner. With respect to the scope of the first Question, it is our intention and our pledge to proceed with the second reading of the Educational Endowments Bill
  452
  on Saturday. That, of course, presumes that the Sitting of the House is confined within a moderate number of hours, because it is not to be considered that this Bill is to be carried to an all-night Sitting. I am given to understand that the Electric Lighting Bill is not likely to occupy any great length of time, and, therefore, I am in hopes that the Scotch Educational Endowments Bill will be taken at a very early period of the day.
  MR. BUCHANANasked after what hour the Bill would not be taken?
  MR. O'SULLIVANwished to know whether the Prime Minister would not also put down the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Election Bill for to-morrow?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not do that, because the House had been asked to assent to a Saturday Sitting for a definite purpose.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he supposed it might be taken for granted that no other Government Bills besides those that had been mentioned would be taken on Saturday, and that no private Members' Bills would be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Of course, we cannot control the House; but we shall be parties to no other proposal.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think it has always been so understood.
  MR. BUCHANANasked whether the Educational Endowments Bill would be taken immediately after the Electric Lighting Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman declined to name an hour after which the Bill would not be taken? He should also like to ask whether the Prime Minister was himself one of the 36 Scotch Members supposed to be in favour of the Bill, and how many Members of the Government were included in that number?
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he gathered that the first Bill to be taken was the Electric Lighting Bill, and the second Bill was to be the Scotch Education Bill. He wished to know whether an hour could be fixed after which the Sitting would not be prolonged, or whether it was to be prolonged indefinitely, and whether private Members could put Bills down for the Sitting?
  An hon. MEMBER: Or Motions?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is in the discretion of private Members whether they put them down, and of the House whether it proceeds with them. The Government will move the adjournment

  453
  of the House when their Bills are disposed of. To fix the precise hour at which a Sitting shall close sometimes holds out a dangerous inducement to certain Members to prolong discussion. There is an understanding that the Sitting will be closed at a time compatible with the convenience of Members. Motions stand in the same position as private Members' Bills.
  MR. BRANDasked the Chairman of Committees, whether, considering the importance of the changes he proposed to make in the Standing Orders respecting Private Bills, he would put them down for some day other than Wednesday, when they could be discussed in a fuller House than on that day?
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that the state of Public Business would render it impossible to take them on Wednesday, and he would, therefore, put them down for Tuesday week.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—THE ORANGE PROCESSIONS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he had any official information as to loss of life or personal injury arising out of the Orange celebrations in the North of Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received the following telegram:—
  "Sub-Inspector at Newry reports a slight disturbance there last night (Thursday)) (luring which William Miller, shopkeeper, wounded Edward Kearney, labourer's son, aged 15, with revolver in the leg, not dangerously. Miller arrested. Police dispersed mob, which threw some stones. All quiet in an hour after. Motive party spirit. Sub-Inspector at Lurga reports some stone-throwing at police last night; Army Reserve man fired at police and was arrested; no harm done."
  There was likewise a riot at Omagh, in which an Orangeman was wounded, I believe slightly. These occurrences are unfortunate, and I am very sorry for the poor people who are wounded; but, on the whole, I hope the House will congratulate itself on the celebrations having passed off quietly.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL— THE LOANS CLAUSE.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What additional sum will probably be required under the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill for the purpose of making loans to tenants under £50 valuation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It will be my duty to propose the clause, and in proposing it I will give the best estimate in my power.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)— THE SUEZ CANAL.
  SIR HENRY PEEKasked whether it was true that the "Glenlyon" steamer had been looted by Arabs in the Suez Canal?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I suppose this Question would be more properly addressed to the Secretary to the Admiralty; but, in view of the great interest felt in the subject, I may say that I have made inquiries, and I find that neither at the Foreign Office nor at the Admiralty have they any official confirmation of the report. At the same time, I ought to add that on the receipt of the report steps were immediately taken at the Admiralty to ascertain its truth, and I understand that the Secretary to the Admiralty will be prepared to state them to the House.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In answer to this Question, and also to one previously asked with respect to the steps taken to protect vessels passing through the Canal, I have the following statement to make. Yesterday afternoon we asked the senior officers at Port Said and Suez whether traffic was proceeding as usual through the Canal. At half-past 9 last night, Commander Edwards of the Ready, at Suez, telegraphed in reply—"Canal traffic as usual." At 20 minutes to 12 last night, Captain Seymour, of the Iris, at Port Said, reported that several steamers were waiting to pass the Canal. The senior officer at Port Said has been authorized, under the circumstances, to employ the gunboats now stationed at Suez and Port Said to accompany British vessels passing through the Canal if it should be found necessary. Inquiries have been made as to the accuracy of the report in this morning's papers that the British ship Glenlyon was ashore in the Canal, and was being looted by Arabs, and we have just received information that the Glenlyon has passed through the Canal.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask whether the Government has any further information with regard to the state of affairs in Alexandria which they can communicate to

  455
  the House, either as to the state of the town or as to the amount of destruction; also, whether they can say anything with reference to the report that Arabi Pasha has left his Army?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: With regard to the last point, Mr. Cartwright, in his telegram, dated 7 a.m., a portion of which has been read, said that efforts were being made to disperse the mob, and that Arabi had fled in a boat on the Canal, it was not known where. His troops are believed to be dispersing; but it is somewhat hypothetical information.
  MR. M'COAN: Will the proceedings at the Conference interfere with or impede any further military action at Alexandria, should circumstances make it expedient?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I must really ask for Notice; but even with Notice I do not think it is a Question which it will be possible for me to answer.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the hon. Gentleman state how many thousands of Europeans wore massacred at Alexandria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Neither Sir Beauchamp Seymour nor Mr. Cartwright has mentioned a massacre. Several persons are mentioned as having been killed; but there is no mention of a massacre on a large scale. They do not use the word massacre.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not know whether or not an answer can be given to my Question—whether the Government can give us any general account as to the present state of things in Alexandria?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I think the statement of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was meant as an answer to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. It contains all the information we have.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In order to complete the answer, perhaps I may read a telegram which appears in the early editions of the papers, which is the only telegram received at the Admiralty. It is dated 7.10, and is as follows:—
  "Regret distance from cable ship impedes my telegraphing rapidly.
  "Have occupied Ras-el-Tin with marines of squadron, and spiked guns in six batteries opposite.
  "Alexandria still burning, but am clearing streets.
  456
  "Khedive safe in Palace, garrisoned by 700 marines.
  "Please express thanks of officers and men of the squadron for the gracious and kind message from Her Majesty.
  "Conduct of officers and men beyond all praise.
  "In reply to message from Her Majesty, majority of wounded doing well, including Lieutenant Jackson, of Inflexible."
  We replied to that telegram, stating that the proceedings of the Admiral were approved.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: Have the Marines been landed for police purposes?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: It was mentioned yesterday, in a telegram which was read, that Admiral Seymour was instructed to place himself, if necessary, in communication with the Ottoman Commissioner, Dervish Pasha. I would like to ask if the Government have any information as to the whereabouts and attitude of Dervish Pasha, and as to whether he is associated with the Khedive in these attempts to restore order?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Admiralty telegrams, because the Foreign Office telegrams are silent upon that point. I believe the whereabouts of Dervish Pasha were mentioned last night.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That was a short telegram received last evening to the effect that the Khedive and Dervish Pasha were reported safe on board ship in the harbour.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The Question is, whether he was associated with the Khedive in the attempts to restore order?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I beg to give Notice that on Monday I shall ask the Secretary for War, If it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that 5,000 mules have been purchased in Spain and Algiers, at a cost of not less than £100,000, and under what Vote in the Army Estimates this amount would be forthcoming; and, failing such provision, to ask how soon it is the intention of the Government to ask for a Vote of Credit?
  MR. CHILDERS: I can answer the Question at once; there is no truth in the report.
  MR. BOURKE: I wish to give Notice that on Monday I will ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  457
  Affairs whether he can give any information with regard to the Conference?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question, which I think is of some importance, and I hope that he will be able to answer it now. A telegram in The Standard states—
  "When morning broke on Tuesday"
  —that is, before the bombardment commenced—
  "a deputation of Turkish officials waited upon the Admiral, with a letter from the Ministry. In this communication the deputation, deprecating hostilities, offered to dismount their guns and give satisfaction to the British demands. The Admiral replied that the time for negotiation had passed."
  I wish to ask my hon. Friend, if that were so, whether that answer was given with or without the knowledge of the Home Government?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I saw the statement in The Standard; but we have had no sort of confirmation of it or any statement in the least in that direction from the Admiral. There is nothing in the least bearing upon the question. I would advise my hon. Friend to put any further Questions upon the subject to the Admiralty, because it more strictly concerns them.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: A similar statement has appeared in The Times. I beg to give Notice that I will repeat the Question to the Secretary to the Admiralty; and I hope that they will inquire into the truth of the report in the meantime.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I may say at once that no such information has reached the Admiralty.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Will my hon. Friend make inquiries as to whether there is any truth in it?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Admiralty have generally avoided sending inquiries to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, thinking it undesirable in the present circumstances to trouble him unnecessarily.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS: I beg to ask whether any information has been received as to the removal of the archives and records of the European Courts at Alexandria before the conflagration began?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: May I supplement that Question by an-
  458
  other? I understood the hon. Gentleman to have read only a portion of the telegram he had received from Mr. Cartwright. I wish to ask whether he could, without detriment to the Public Service, give any further information?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir. I have given almost the whole of the telegram. The small omission I made was one I thought in the interests of the Public Service. It was only two or three words. With regard to the archives and records of the Courts, no information has been received; but I think the matter is one of such importance that I will see that a telegram is addressed to Mr. Cartwright upon the subject.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the Prime Minister by what authority Mr. Cartwright makes use of the expression, which the right hon. Gentleman emphasized, that "the troops that were about the Khedive were left by Arabi for the purpose of watching him?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: Well, I do not know what the hon. Member means by "emphasizing." I merely called attention to the words themselves. Nor have we the means of knowing on what authority Mr. Cartwright makes his statement; but generally he has been very accurate and careful in the telegrams he has sent. Of course, in a period like this, he may be misinformed, and we must not take it that he is absolutely certain on every point; but we have very great confidence in his care and discretion.

ORDER 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.)
  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) (recommitted) BILL.— [BILL 213.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 13th July.]
    [FIFTH 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).
    CAPTAIN AYLMER CAPTAIN AYLMER moved, in page 2, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (4), which provided that a remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring should be deemed to be a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted. There were many cases in which it was quite possible the landlord might have made a remission of the rent which, under altered circumstances, he would not have made. He could himself mention a number of cases in which, under existing circumstances, there had been a remission, which remission, under the operation of the present Bill would never have been made, and he did not think the landlords should be bound by remissions they had made under very different conditions.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, leave out Sub-section (4).—(Captain Aylmer.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section 4 stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Government were altogether unable to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH moved, in line 17, after "landlord," to insert—
    "In writing under his hand, according to a form to be prescribed by the Land Commission."
    He explained that his object was simply to secure that the remission should have been made with some kind of formality, so that the Commission might be fully satisfied in regard to it, and also that there should be some additional security against collusion between the landlord and tenant. He thought that a little formality would be very advantageous for this purpose.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 17, after "landlord," insert "in writing under his hand according to a form to be prescribed by the Land Commission."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the Amendment seemed to him to be of a totally different character from the explanation
    460
    of the right hon. Baronet. Under the clause as it would stand, if the Amendment wore adopted, it would be necessary that any remission of rent by a landlord to a tenant should have been specified upon a written form. Although the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet did not actually state so, any remission made in any other way would not be taken into account. Of course, in regard to the future, the Amendment would be of little consequence one way or the other, except that it would impose a condition of formality which would give trouble. He considered it an unnecessary formality, but not one that would be of importance in its consequences. In regard to past remissions it might, however, have a very prejudicial effect.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that as a matter of principle the Government entertained very much the same view as the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). He did not gather whether the right hon. Baronet proposed to make it a condition of the remission that the landlord should have had a certain written form at his hand before ho granted it; but if the right hon. Baronet did, then the Government certainly could not accept the Amendment. Any landlord who had made an abatement in the past must be bound by it now. It would be very hard to ask the tenant to produce a paper before he was enabled to obtain the advantage of the clause, when the abatement had been a substantial and a bonâ fide abatement.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not wish to press the Amendment.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he thought it would be objectionable to harass the tenants by documents of this kind. It was quite clear that the Land Commission would ascertain the fact that a remission had been made before they consented to entertain the application.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment; but ho hoped the Government would draw the attention of the Commission to the matter, so as to provide that there should be no collusion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GIBSON MR. GIBSON moved, in page 2, line 18, to leave out "expiring as aforesaid," and insert "for which such remission

    461
    was made." The Amendment was directed to a question raised last night, and he had understood the Prime Minister to accept the principle of it. The object of the Amendment was to prevent an injustice being done by the Bill as it stood. Sub-section 4 of Clause 1, taken in connection with Sub-section 3, would enable remissions made for 1879 and 1880, of a large character, to be transferred to the year 1881, in respect of which year the landlord had never dreamt for a moment of making a remission. That was palpably absurd and unjust, and the Prime Minister was so impressed with the matter that he said he was willing to accept any Amendment that would prevent such a consummation being carried out. If the Government did not accept the Amendment, it would be necessary for him to state the arguments in support of it at some length, so as to make it overwhelmingly apply. Indeed, the matter was so plain that that fact constituted the difficulty of explaining the argument; but when be mentioned it last night, the Prime Minister accepted it in principle. He should be glad if any Member of the Government would now say whether they intended to accept the Amendment or not. As no one rose to give the assent of the Government, he presumed they were not prepared to accept the Amendment, and they must take upon themselves the responsibility of the delay which must be occasioned by putting him to the necessity of explaining over again what he had stated with clearness last night. He still maintained that Subsection 3 was a mass of confusion; but under that sub-section it was not only the possible but the necessary construction, taken in conjunction with Sub-section 4, that if the landlord in the year 1881 made a remission and settlement of arrears due in 1880, and said to the tenant—"I have now wiped off the arrears of 1880, and I am willing to allow you to start clear, and let bygones be bygones; if you are willing to give me 50 per cent for last year, I am willing to cry quits"—he could understand such a transaction, because it would be perfectly intelligible. But the effect of this subsection was violently to transfer that arrangement from the year 1880 to the year 1881, and to compel the landlord to treat a remission made in respect of 1879 under entirely different conditions,
    462
    and to transfer it violently to 1881, which was a good year in Ireland, and in respect of which the rent was completely secured. The object of the Amendment was to secure that a remission of rent made by the landlord should be attributed to the year the persons themselves intended; and he ventured to think that that was so patently just that nothing to the contrary could be urged against it. The way in which the provision stood at present was this. The sub-section was a very short one, and it said—
    "A remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted."
    [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND: Hear, hear!] The Solicitor General for Ireland cheered that statement. He (Mr. Gibson) did not know why, but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman did cheer it, he supposed he thought there was some mode of explaining it other than that which he had stated. [The SOLICI-TOR GENERAL for IRELAND: Hear, hear!] All he (Mr. Gibson) could say was, that he did not know what it was, and he would now proceed to show why it was he did not think it possible. The construction of Sub-section 3 was this. An artificial meaning in the earlier portion of the Bill had been given to the expression "the year expiring as aforesaid." That artificial meaning was contained in Sub-section a of Clause 1, which gave to the words "the year expiring as aforesaid" a definite and fixed meaning. Under Sub-section 3, every payment made by the tenant to the landlord "in or subsequent to the year expiring as aforesaid" was deemed to have been made on account of the rent payable in respect to that year; and then, in Sub-section 4, the remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year "expiring as aforesaid" was to be deemed a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted. It followed that if the payment made under Sub-section 3 was to be attributed to the year 1881, then the remission must equally be attributed to that year. That, in short, was the plain legal and sole possible construction of the words. It appeared to him that the Government refused to deal with all the words taken together, and, therefore, it was uncertain how they

    463
    proposed to deal with them in the ease of this sub-section. The proposal he now made was to insert in the sub-section words which, the Secretary of State for War and the Prime Minister, in clear and unqualified terms, last night said was the meaning and object of the Bill. The Prime Minister had taken up his (Mr. Gibson's) words, and said that the consequences he had pointed out were so patently unjust that he would accept any words to prevent such an injustice. He (Mr. Gibson) regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was not present. Although the right hon. Gentleman was a very difficult Minister to argue with, he, nevertheless, thoroughly understood the consequences of an argument, and rarely consented to run away from thorn. [A laugh.] Did the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) intimate by that utterance that he was of the same opinion?
    MR. SYNANsaid, no; ho had looked upon the statement as a complimentary one to the Treasury Bench generally.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the hon. Member would not compel him to withdraw the admission he had made. Taking up the Amendment, and assuming that the Government meant what they said, and that it was to be an honest provision, honestly worked, he could not understand why there should be any hesitation in accepting the Amendment. The reason ho proposed to leave out the words "expiring as aforesaid" was that the Committee might be able to get out of the technical difficulty of having the interpretation violently transferred from Sub-section 3 to Sub-section 4. By Subsection 3, payments made in antecedent years were to be transferred to the year 1881; and under Sub-section 4, the remissions made in antecedent years would be equally transferred. ["No!"] Well, that was a matter of opinion, and he would not surrender his own views unless his judgment was convinced in the matter. He asserted that that was the only construction the words wore capable of. He had considered the matter repeatedly, and until he heard arguments he had not yet heard, he should unquestionably maintain the opinion he had formed. Supposing the Government felt themselves in any difficulty, he would ask them to add, at the end of the clause, words which exactly carried out what was declared to be their intention
    464
    —namely, the words of which he had given Notice further on—
    "Provided such remission is actually made in such year, and on the actual amount of such rent, and no remission made for any previous year shall be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid."
    The last words in that Proviso were the words uttered by the Prime Minister last night. He (Mr. Gibson) had taken the very words of the right hon. Gentleman, and had put them in an Amendment before the House rose; and if that was the meaning which the Government attached to the clause and represented the desire which prevailed in their minds, why not put it into plain English so that everyone could understand what their meaning was, a meaning which, he must admit, would meet the justice of the case? He would reserve any further arguments until he heard the expression of the views of the Government, and it must be very different from what he expected before he would consent to surrender his own opinions.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 18, leave out "expiring as aforesaid," and insert "for which such remission was made."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, his right hon. and learned Friend had expressed his views in forcible language, and had declared that he did not understand the meaning and intention of this sub-section of the clause. Now, notwithstanding the assertion of his right hon. and learned Friend, it appeared to him that the Amendment proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend would merely have the effect of confusing the Bill and destroying the plain meaning of the clause. Subsection 3 and Sub-section 4 dealt with two entirely different things. Sub-section 3 dealt with imputed payments, and not to rent which had been remitted. As to what his right hon. and learned Friend said in regard to being treated unfairly, so far from there being anything unfair in the transaction, it was stated last night that, under Sub-section 3, all payments on account of rent made in or subsequent to the year expiring as aforesaid, should be attributed to the year 1881.

    465
    But Sub-section 4 dealt with a totally different matter. It dealt with reputed omissions, and it simply stated—
    "A remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted."
    That was not at all what was meant by imputed payment or otherwise, and an artificial meaning was given by his right hon. and learned Friend to the words "expiring as aforesaid." The real meaning of the sub-section was this. A remission by the landland of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect to the year 1881 should be deemed —so far as the landlord was concerned— a satisfaction of the rent so remitted. It seemed to him to be impossible to explain the meaning of the sub-section more clearly.
    MR. HEALYasked how long this kind of discussion was to be continued by a small knot of Members above the Gangway, who brought forward the same arguments night after night? The Committee had now been four days upon this clause, and yet they still found the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) pursuing the same obstructive course and wasting the time of the Committee by repeating the same arguments over and over again. As the Prime Minister pointed out the other day, if a similar course had been taken by the Irish Members they would have been very summarily dealt with. He would suggest to the Chairman that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), whose persistent obstruction of the Bill everybody knew should be Named.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not in the slightest degree surprised at the arguments of his righthon. and learned Friend opposite; but he entirely failed to follow them. It appeared to him to be as clear a proposition as possible, that if this sub-section stood as it was it would lead to the most absurd and ridiculous consequences. He would repeat, as shortly and as concisely as he could, his arguments to show that the clause would cause endless confusion. Under Subsection 3, all payments made by the tenants of the rent of 1881, "expiring as aforesaid," were to be considered to be made in satisfaction of that year's
    466
    rent. "Satisfied" was the Government word, and it had been pointed out that satisfaction could be given in either of two ways, partly by payment and partly by remission. Sub-section 3 dealt with questions of payment transferred from antecedent years—for instance, a payment made in 1880 to the year 1881. Pro tanto, that payment was a satisfaction. He now come to Sub-section 4; and the Committee would see that, in addition to an imputed satisfaction, there was an imputed remission—a remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable "in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid." He would pause there. Under the previous sub-section the year "expiring as aforesaid" was given an artificial meaning. Payments made for 1879 or 1880, provided they were made in the year 1881, were deemed to be made "in the year expiring as aforesaid." They were, therefore, in this position. In Subsection 4, "the year expiring as aforesaid" meant the year expiring at the last gale day of the year 1881; whereas, under Sub-section 3, an entirely different meaning might be given to it, because it was there provided that any payment made in 1881 was to mean a payment in respect of the year just expiring. Therefore, in Sub-section 4, there might be two meanings—first, a natural meaning, and then an artificial meaning, and if nothing was done to amend the clause it would lead to endless confusion. Ho should, therefore, feel called upon to divide the Committee upon the point.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that his right hon. and learned Friend had repeated his argument so often, and his meaning differed so much from the view which he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) conceived to be the only proper construction of the clause, that he had tried to discover what the object of his right hon. and learned Friend really was. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had carefully studied the clause more than once; and, after the best consideration he was able to give to it, it appeared to him to be absolutely free from the doubts which his right hon. and learned Friend attached to it. He would give his reasons very shortly for the opinion he held. The 3rd sub-section dealt with cases of the payment of rent. Pay-

    467
    merit made in 1881, although not intended to apply to 1881, would apply to 1881 under the Act. The word "payment" was used because no question arose under Sub-section 3 as to satisfaction at all. It was not a question of remission, but of payment. They were transferred as payments to the year 1881. That was done as a matter of course. He now came to the 4th sub-section, which dealt not with the question of payment at all, but with the question of remission exclusively. What was to be included in remission by the landlord?—
    "A remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted."
    What was meant by the words "the year expiring as aforesaid?" They could only mean the year 1881, and, therefore, the sub-section meant that the remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent, payable in respect to the year 1881, should be deemed a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted. That was to say, that wherever there had been a remission of rent in the year 1831, it should be deemed to be tantamount to the payment of rent. But his right hon. and learned Friend maintained that the remission of rent in 1881 was the remission of rent for 1879 and 1880. Now, that he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) distinctly denied. The words were as clear and as plain as they could be; and the subsequent Amendment could not be accepted because it was quite contrary to the intentions of the sub-section. The words of that Amendment were—
    "Provided such remission is actually made in such year, and on the actual amount of such rent, and no remission made for any previous year shall he credited to the year expiring as aforesaid."
    In other words, a remission now made in 1882 in respect of the rent of 1881 would not come within the clause. The Amendment, therefore, was extremely unsatisfactory. His right hon. And learned Friend stated that the Prime Minister had declared that his view coincided with that of the right hon. And learned Gentleman. No doubt, that was so. The Prime Minister said that if such a construction were to be placed upon the clause, it would be necessary to
    468
    guard against it; but the Prime Minister never said, nor did he think, there was any necessity for altering the words of the Bill. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was clearly of the same opinion, and he should, therefore, oppose the Amondmont.
    MR. GIVANsaid, that payment made on account of rent, or receipts given on account of rent, would apply to last year's gale, and the clause would do away with the reprehensible practice which existed among some landlords of crediting the payment to other years. He would point out to the Government that the words "on account of rent," introduced in the 3rd. sub-section, might be said to have the same meaning as the words "on account of rent" in the Act of 1860, and, consequently, receipts given up to a particular period for rent in 1881 would not be said to apply to the year "expiring as aforesaid." It was important that the words "payment on account of rent," should not be taken to mean "payment on account" in that way.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he would not divide the Committee upon the Amendment; but ho would allow it to be negatived, and he would take a division upon the last Amendment, slightly altering it so that it would read as follows:—"Provided no remission made for any previous year shall be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) was one that deserved consideration, and he would endeavour to deal with it before the Report. He did not think it would be necessary to make any alteration in the words as they were drawn in the Bill, but he would certainly consider the matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he begged to move, in line 19, after "remitted," to insert—"Provided no remission made for any previous year shall be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid."
    MR. HEALYrose to a point of Order. He wished to know if this Amendment could be moved now that the Committee had negatived the previous one, which, to his mind, expressed the same idea? The right hon. and learned Gentleman

    469
    now proposed a Proviso that no remission made for any previous year, should be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid, and he contended that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to do exactly the same thing by this Amendment as was proposed by the Amendment which had just been negatived.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I should like to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation before the Amendment is put, but I will propose the Amendment to the House now.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 19, after the word "remitted," to insert the words "Provided no remission made for any previous year shall be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the mere fact of the Chairman proposing the Amendment showed that it was in Order, and he could not see any point in the objection which had been raised by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He proposed to omit from the Amendment the words "such remission is actually made in such year and on the actual account of such rent." He thought that omission would obviate all mistakes, and the Amendment would then provide that no remission made for any previous year should be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he understood his right hon. and learned Friend to submit this Amendment originally as a consequential one; but it was now proposed to the Committee as a distinct Amendment. In its altered form it met with the view of the Government, but he did not think that it made the matter at all more clear. The clause was sufficiently clear as it stood.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought that it made the clause very much clearer.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the Committee had not yet seen the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. GIBSON: They are on the Paper.
    MR. HEALY: No.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The words moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are—"Provided no remission made for any previous year shall be
    470
    credited to the year expiring as aforesaid."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he saw no reason why these words should be inserted. He did not think they made the clause any clearer at all; and he entertained a very natural suspicion of any words which came from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He would, therefore, suggest to the Government that they should adhere to their own words, and not accept the Amendment.
    MR. SYNANsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee, because the Amendment would now set the Government view of the matter beyond all question. It was contended that there was an ambiguity in the clause as it stood, and he was of that opinion himself. The object of the Amendment was to show that remissions made in the year 1880 should not be applied to the year 1881, and that was only common sense and common justice.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the Amendment would limit the discretion of the landlord himself. Suppose the landlord was willing that a remission made in a previous year should be credited to the year 1881—and the case was quite conceivable, for the landlord in numerous cases might have accepted 80 per cent of the rent for 1879 or 1880, and would be quite willing that the abatement should be made applicable to "the year expiring as aforesaid"—if he were willing to allow the abatement in that manner, he should be allowed to do so.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, there was no fetter imposed in the least degree. The remission would be a remission of the rent of 1881.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he really thought the Government were doing a dangerous thing in accepting an Amendment of this kind without any consideration whatever. The clause ran—
    "A remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted."
    And the friends of the landlords now proposed to fetter the landlord's discretion by inserting the Proviso—
    "That no remission made for any previous year shall be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid."

    471
    He wanted to know why the remission on the part of the landlord should be tied by an Act of Parliament? If he wished to make it credited to the year expiring, why should he not be allowed to do so? As far as he was concerned, he should divide the Committee against the Amendment.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): If credited by the landlord as against the year 1881, it becomes a remission of rent for the year 1881.
    MR. GIVANasked what would be the effect of the Amendment upon a remission made last year or the year before? Suppose a remission of 50 per cent had been made, was the landlord to revoke that altogether, or include it in the calculation of the rent of the Year 1881.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Amendment did not touch that matter at all.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, that, according to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, unless the abatement was actually made in 1881, it would not be included, because the Amendment distinctly said—"provided such remission is actually made in such year."
    MR. GIBSONsaid, ho had struck those words out of the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 31: Majority 182.—(Div. List, No. 261.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was generally admitted that there were some bad landlords in Ireland, and that being so, it was monstrous that these should be placed in the same category as the good landlords, and actually profit by the injustice they had committed. In those cases, when the Land Commission had fixed the judicial rent below the rent which the tenant had been previously paying, he proposed by the Amendment he was about to move, that the tenant should be allowed to deduct the amount that the Court decided to be in excess of the fair rent from the one year's rent which he was required under this Bill to pay to the landlord. Supposing that a man was rented at £30, and that another man, under a fairer landlord, was rented at £20 for a holding of the same value, it would be unjust that the land-
    472
    lord who charged the £30 should have the benefit of the excess in the payment made by the tenant for the one year's arrears. It might be said that he was interfering with contract; but he need hardly say that this argument was actually exploded. The Act of last year interfered with contract, and so did the present Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] It was a development of political life, and they must stand to it. He therefore dismissed the argument at once, and asked the Committee to consider the Amendment on its own merits. He thought hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree that it was only fair and reasonable that a man who had charged a fair rent for his land, should not be in a worse position than the man who had charged an excessive rent.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 19, after the word "remitted," to insert as a new sub-section the words—"If in the case of any holding in respect of which an application under this section is made, the judicial rent of same has been fixed prior to the date of such application, and the amount of the judicial rent is less than the rent previously payable in respect of such holding, the tenant shall, in satisfaction of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid, be entitled to deduct from the amount thereof the difference between the amount of the judicial rent and the amount of the rent actually paid in respect of such holding for each of the six years prior to the date of such application."—(Mr. Lubouchere.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    In line 3, to leave out from the word "application," to end of the Amendment, in order to insert the words "the judicial rent shall be the rent payable for the year expiring as aforesaid,"—(Mr. Givan,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR. GIVANsaid, he would remind the Committee that in the Act of last year the judicial rent did not come into operation until the gale day subsequent to the fixing of the rent, and, therefore, the old rents—the rack rents and excessive rents—would be in force for the purpose of "the year expiring as aforesaid." If, then, the tenant was to have relief, he should have relief of the kind indicated.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he appreciated the motives which induced his hon. Friend to bring forward this Amendment. He believed be wished, as far as possible, to make the Bill auxiliary to the Land Act of last year. It was impossible for anyone interested in the recent legislation not to consider the connection between the two measures; and it was equally impossible for anyone anxious that the Land Question in Ireland should be settled on a good basis not to wish that the present measure should induce people to apply for the benefits of the Land Act. But, after having considered this question very carefully, the Government had come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to introduce a provision that would affect the Act in the manner proposed by hon. Gentlemen. For Parliamentary reasons which were not of the lightest, they could not adopt the Amendment before the Committee. With respect to the argument of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), it was impossible not to wish that the landlord who had charged a moderate rent for his land should be placed in no worse position than the rack-renting landlord. But the hon. Member not only distinguished between these two classes of landlords; it must be allowed that he also distinguished between two classes of tenants. It had been said on frequent occasions that the Bill was a discouragement to the honest and hardworking tenant, and an encouragement to tenants of the opposite sort; but it seemed to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member would give a great advantage to the prudent and lucky tenant over the tenant who, though equally prudent, was less lucky; for the tenant who happened to be placed high on the list of applicants, and had had the judicial rent in his case fixed early, would have the opportunity of availing himself of the Amendment, while others less fortunate would be excluded. It had to be remembered that the operation of the Land Act would not be so rapid as they hoped the operation of this Bill would be when it passed into law, and, therefore, the fact of the judicial rent not having been fixed would exclude many from the benefit of the clause, and the effect of this would be largely to increase the discontent which was spread over the country. But the
    474
    Government had a stronger reason for objecting to this Amendment. It was impossible for them to depart from the principle of not interfering with the contracts of the past. Although the interesting allusion of the hon. Member for Northampton to the tendency of modern legislation was cheered by hon. Members opposite and by some hon. Members on that side of the House, he would point out that the landlord's right to receive the annual rent which he got before the case came before the Land Commission was the same as that under which he received the reduced rent under the operation of the Land Act.
    MR RYLANDSsaid, he acknowledged the great difficulty which his right hon. Friend had expressed on the part of the Government of dealing with an Amendment of this kind. Probably, in the exact terms in which the Amendment was proposed, his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton would not be likely to press it; but it must be borne in mind that the rents in Ireland were being reduced under the decisions of the Land Court 25 per cent. Now, he believed the entire rental of Ireland was estimated at £16,000,000, and this percentage of reduction would consequently represent a sum of £4,000,000 a-year; but, even if it were only £2,000,000 a-year that the Irish tenants had boon paying in excess of the total fair rent, anyone must see that this must have a very material effect on the arrears due from them to the landlords. His hon. Friend was anxious, if possible, that, in dealing with the arrears, there should be an equitable regard to the circumstances under which the arrears had accrued. He said that, while they were most anxious to protect the landlord at the expense of the tenant with regard to the tenant right, they ought also, if possible, to do something for the tenant in the unfortunate position in which he was placed in consequence of the arrears which had accumulated through rack-renting. He was not prepared to say exactly in what form this was to be done; but the subject was one well worthy of the attention of the Government, that, in dealing with the arrears, some attention should be paid to the circumstances under which those arrears had accrued.
    MR. SYNANsaid, he had no objection to the benefit which the hon. Mem-

    475
    ber for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) intended to confer on the Irish tenants. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had said one word in reply to the argument of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) in support of his Amendment. The only allusion to it on his part was when he said that the tenants who had not had the good fortune to get a judicial rent fixed for their holdings would be jealous of those who had. But he maintained there would be no jealousy of the kind in Ireland on this subject. On the contrary, ho said that those who had their judicial rents fixed would be complimented by the tenants who had not had that good fortune, He could see no difficulty whatever in the way of the Government saying that if a judicial rent were fixed, the judicial rent for 1881 should be the amount payable by the tenant who availed himself of the relief afforded by this Bill. It appeared to him that both justice and reason were on the side of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), and he presumed the hon. Member for Northampton would be disposed to withdraw the latter part of his Amendment.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he thought there was a good deal of force in some of the objections urged by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). His hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) was correct in saying that the Chief Secretary had not addressed himself to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), and the reason was probably because it was not on the Notice Paper. That Amendment appeared to him both moderate and reasonable, and he trusted it would be adopted. Hon. Members would be aware it had been anticipated that the landlords and tenants would meet and settle their differences without going into the Land Court; but that had proved not to be the case, and it was now known that a great length of time must elapse before judicial rents could be fixed for all the holdings. The effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan was simply that where the judicial rent had been ascertained, then for the purpose of considering the amount of the rent for the year
    476
    in arrear, which had to be paid by the tenant under this Bill, the standard of rent judicially ascertained should be referred to, and not the rack rent previously paid. It seemed to him that this proposal was a sensible one, involving no interference with the object of the Government in keeping the lines of the two measures distinct, and, therefore, he trusted it would moot with the approval of the Committee.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not attach much weight to the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had used against his clause. One of those arguments was, that because you could not do justice to all you ought not to do justice to some. The other argument was an old friend—"the sanctity of contract;" and practically it amounted to this, that because the Government had most legitimately taken away a large amount of property from Irish landlords, therefore they ought to regard what remained as doubly sacred. He preferred his own Amendment to that of the hon. Member for Monaghan; but, as he always wished to consult the wishes of the House, he was willing to withdraw it. In doing so, he ventured to suggest that the Committee should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan, and that then, if the sub-section were not accepted with the Amendment as it stood, they should go to a division upon it.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that almost all the arguments in favour of the Amendment were grounded upon the erroneous supposition that the landlord was to be paid the whole of the arrears of rent. But it was well known that only one year out of the three, or six, as the case might be, was to be paid under the Bill, and, therefore, the question only involved the difference between the judicial rent and what was called the rack rent for one year.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) practically ordered that the one year's rent should be paid to the landlord in its reduced shape before it became legally due. The Government could not make the clause retrospective for the benefit of one class of tenants— they must adhere to the lines of the Bill as it then stood.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the Government did not appear to have much faith in

    477
    their own Bill. The Irish landlords had been proved to be, on the whole, a set of thieves——
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYrose to Order. He asked the Chairman to rule that expressions of the kind made use of by the hon. Member for Wexford, in the present state of Ireland, were disorderly. They led to the commission of murder and other crimes.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Wexford used the words upon his own responsibility. The question of Order did not arise. If, however, an hon. Member heard strong words used, it would be competent to him to move that they be taken down.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the reductions of rent made by the Land Commission showed that the landlords had been robbing their tenants.
    MR. FITZ-PATRICKsaid, he would move that those words be taken down.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the words 'the landlords have been robbing their tenants' be taken down,"—(Mr. Fitz-Patrick,)—put, and negatived.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had met the statement frequently made in that House, that there were dishonest tenants, by the statement that there were also dishonest landlords. This Amendment, he said, was intended to meet the case of the dishonest landlords who had been rack-renting and robbing their tenants. The country had declared that this system should not continue; and the Amendment proposed to enact that where the rent was shown to be unfair, that unfair rent should not be paid by the tenant for the purpose of this Bill. It appeared to him a remarkable thing that the Government should refuse to adopt this Amendment in view of the fact that the rents paid by the tenants were declared to be unfair by the Land Court.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, although the words of the hon. Gentleman might not have been technically out of Order, he thought they should not be allowed to pass without comment, and, therefore, he called on the Government to express their opinion as to the propriety of such language being used in that House.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought no one could have any doubt as to the opinion of the Government with refer-
    478
    ence to expressions of the kind they had just heard. The hon. Member for Wexford had, in his opinion, used an expression unworthy of the House and unworthy of himself. He said unworthy of himself, because, although the hon. Member allowed himself a certain license of expression, he sometimes made valuable contributions to the debates. Although he regretted much the particular expression which the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitz-Patrick) had moved to be taken down, he must say that there might very well be some difference of opinion as to whether it came within the extreme category of expressions contemplated by the Rules and customs of the House. He had heard expressions equally strong made use of in that House in times of great political excitement—words of strong and exaggerated metaphor. But with regard to the epithet used by the hon. Member, he made no reservation whatever. He hoped the hon. Member, whatever might be the strength of his own feelings, would see the propriety of withdrawing the particular epithet used towards the Irish landlords.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think it right to state why it was that I could not rule the expression of the hon. Member out of Order. The question was one for the House, and not the Chairman, to consider. I thoroughly agree with the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the word employed was extremely improper to be used in debate, and I trust the hon. Member will withdraw it.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he felt, of course, as the Chairman had expressed it, that the word was one which it was improper to use in debate. He objected to it on that ground, undoubtedly; but he also objected to it on the ground that, in the present state of Ireland, such words applied to the Irish landlords as a body in that House, by a Member of the House, and allowed to pass unchallenged and unrebuked, were likely to have a very prejudicial effect, and even to encourage and suggest criminal and violent conduct. He thought it the duty of hon. Members to protest against such words being used on account of the bad impression which might go abroad if they were allowed to pass unchallenged.
    MR. CHAELES RUSSELLsaid, he disapproved of expressions of the kind made use of by the hon. Member for Wexford, not only because they might have an injurious effect out-of-doors, but because they weakened the force of the argument of the hon. Member who employed them. There were few Members of the House, in his opinion, more capable than the hon. Member for Wexford of supporting their views by cogent arguments. But, he asked, was it worse to say that the landlords were robbers than to say that the tenants were dishonest? For his own part, he deprecated the application of such terms equally to both classes.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he desired to acknowledge the courtesy of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but with regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), he must point out that, while ho took exception to words used on those Benches, hon. Members above the Gangway on that side of the House were in the habit of speaking of himself and his hon. Friends as thieves, assassins, and robbers. There was scarcely a Member of the Conservative Party who had not used most hurtful expressions with regard to Irish Members. As the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) had said, they heard continually of dishonest tenants. It was not a week ago since they heard of Irish tenants going off to America with their plunder. Those men, however, had not been proved to be dishonest, although it had been proved in the Land Courts that the landlords had, to the extent of 25 per cent, extracted unjust rents from the tenants.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHwished to know whether the hon. Member withdrew the words which he had been directed by the Chairman to withdraw?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had expressed a hope that the hon. Member would withdraw the expression made use of; but he could not direct him to do so.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, as he had always been in favour of the judicial rent dating from the time of application, so that the tenants might all stand on the same footing, he should vote for the Amendment before the Com-
    480
    mittee in the form proposed by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan). For the Amendment as originally put forward he could not have voted. He was inclined to believe that, if matters were left as they were, a great many landlords would make a settlement with the tenants with regard to the one year's rent which had to be paid to obtain the benefit of the clause; but that if the rule that the tenants were to pay on the judicial rent were once laid down, the landlords would hold out for the judicial rent on all occasions, and this he did not think would be for the benefit of the tenant.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words inserted.
    Question put,
    "That the words 'If in the case of any holding in respect of which an application under this section is made, the judicial rent of same has been fixed prior to the date of such application, the judicial rent shall be the rent payable for the year expiring as aforesaid' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 231: Majority 181.—(Div. List, No. 262.)
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, as it was desirable that all persons interested in the amount paid by the tenant into the hands of the Land Commissioners should have notice of the amount being about to be paid over by the Commissioners, he begged to move words which would give persons interested an opportunity of being heard on the subject when necessary.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 27, after the word "shall," insert "having first given public notice in the prescribed manner."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 28, leave out "as landlord."—(Mr. Givan.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, as he understood the Amendment next on the Paper in his name could not be moved in its present shape, he would not trouble the Committee with arguments in favour of

    481
    it on that occasion; but he expressed the hope that the Government would consider the propriety of inserting some words in the Bill which would prevent the incidence of public taxation on those portions of the rent which the landlord was compelled to forego under the provisions of this Bill.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, although he was not prepared to express a decided opinion upon the point then, the matter should receive consideration.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, if the Amendment he was about to move were not necessary, the Attorney General for Ireland would probably be able to state the reasons. In the case of the Parliamentary grant in relief of the Lancashire operatives in 1862, the question was raised by Mr. Bernal Osborne as to whether persons in receipt of public bounty were not thereby precluded from exercising the Parliamentary franchise? On that occasion Sir George Grey replied that under the Common Law persons in receipt of bounty or money given in charity by the State were disfranchised by the 3rd section of the Poor Act of 1832. Persons in receipt of parochial relief were disqualified also, that provision being extended to counties in the Act of 1857. He knew the Amendment would be regarded in some quarters as being vindictive; but he begged to assure the Committee that it had about it nothing of that character. The simple object was to ascertain whether persons who received charity, for it was nothing else, under the Act would be disfranchised? The Bill had been spoken of by the Government as a measure for the relief of poverty. The Prime Minister himself had stated that this was the object of the Bill, and he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) wished to know what was the difference in respect of the franchise between persons who received relief under this Act and those who received parochial relief? He had no wish to cast any discredit upon persons who obtained the advantage offered by the Bill; but he thought it should carry with it the disqualification imposed by the Common Law on persons who had recourse to the State in order to meet their private obligations.
    MR. PARNELLrose to Order. He asked whether the proposed Amendment came within the four corners of the Bill? It appeared to him that the hon. Mem-
    482
    ber proposed to disqualify certain persons from the exercise of the Parliamentary franchise, whereas the title of the Bill was, "A Bill to make provision respecting certain Arrears of Rent in Ireland."
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had considered the point of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and had decided, looking at all the circumstances of the case, that the hon. Baronet could move.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, so far from intending to impose any disqualification on the tenant who received the benefit of this Act, if the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would read the first line of the Amendment, he would see that the proposal was to exempt the tenant from what might be the bearing of the Common Law upon the case. He was speaking in comparative ignorance of what was the bearing of the Common Law upon the case, and he awaited the explanation of one of the Law Officers upon the point. But if, as he supposed, a person receiving relief under this Act would be disqualified from exercising the franchise during the year in which that relief was given, then he proposed to release him from that inability in consideration of his paying up his just debts accruing to the 31st day of December last year. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would inform the Committee what was the bearing of the Common Law on this subject.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 33, after sub-section (6) insert,—"(7) Any tenant in whose behalf antecedent arrears may be extinguished shall be subject to the same disabilities, in regard to the Parliamentary franchise, as persons receiving relief from the public funds, unless and until they pay the gales of rent due up to the making of the order on their behalf by the Land Commission, and subsequent to the last gale day of the tenancy in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the Bill implied that the tenants who had their arrears extinguished were not reduced to a state of poverty, because they would continue to work their farms in an effective manner. It was true that the tenants would be benefited by the Bill;

    483
    but it was the landlords who would receive a sum of money from the State; and therefore it seemed to him that it was they, if anybody, who should be disfranchised. He could not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, and trusted it would not he pressed.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he had already quoted the Prime Minister as describing the Bill to be a measure in relief of poverty. Now, he put it to the Committee whether, in making use of that expression, the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey that the Bill was for the relief of the landlords or of the tenants? If the Bill were really for the relief of the landlords, he did not think Gentlemen sitting on that side below the Gangway would have been found so readily voting for it. He asked for information as to the bearing of the existing law upon the position of those tenants whose obligations, under this Bill, were to be met for them by the State.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government were of opinion that relief of the kind contemplated by the Bill certainly did not disqualify. When he was asked whether the Bill was for the relief of the landlord or the tenant, ho could only reply that it was in relief of both. Ho was personally acquainted with Irish landlords who were hoping for the passing of the Bill; but, whatever might be the correctness of that view, ho was satisfied that the question could not be dealt with by the Committee in the manner proposed by the hon. Baronet.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he was satisfied with having moved the Amendment, and with having obtained the reply that the relief would not disqualify the tenant who obtained it. With the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, after sub-section (6.) add:—(7.) "The onus of proving his inability to discharge antecedent arrears under this Act shall rest with the tenant."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, although he saw no difficulty in the way of accepting the words moved by the
    484
    right hon. Baronet, yet, as they appeared to him to be quite unnecessary, having regard to the clause as now framed, he suggested that the Amendment should not be pressed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Amendment he was about to move was intended to apply a remedy to a practical defect in this Bill, which if allowed to continue would render the Bill, so far as its compulsory character went, useless. If the Amendment he proposed to move, or something amounting to it, were not accepted, it would result that those landlords who might have been disposed, under a compulsory arrangement, to permit their tenants to have the benefit of the Arrears Clause of the Act of last year, would arrange with their tenants under this Act, while those landlords who were not disposed to extend any mercy to their tenants would be in a position to deprive them of their holdings. As the law stood there was no power in any Court to stay proceedings for the recovery' of rent by action or otherwise. The County Courts had the power of postponing the issue of decrees and the execution of ejectments if an application were made by the tenant and good cause shown.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), interposing, said, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that he had undertaken to bring up a clause on Report dealing with cases where proceedings were pending. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member went in the same direction. The Government, he repeated, had prepared a clause, which they would submit on the Report, and which would cover almost the entire ground taken up by the hon. Member.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought it would be better that the whole subject should be dealt with in one clause; but after the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman he should not move.
    MR. W. H. SMITH MR. W. H. SMITH moved to add at the end of the clause the words—
    "Any application by a tenant under this section shall set forth the property of which the said tenant was in possession, or to which he was entitled, when the arrears accrued due, and the property of which he was in possession, or to which he was entitled, on the date of his application."
    His object was to prevent collusions as

    485
    far as possible in a matter of this kind; and he thought that if the tenant was called upon to make a statement in writing he would carefully consider what it was that he put down. He had no wish to cast any imputation upon the tenants generally; but there might be a disposition on their part to make very wild statements as to their capacity to meet the obligations they had entered into, and an unwillingness to conform with strict truth to the actual facts of the case when they found themselves dealing with the money of the State and the money of the landlord. The Bill was one which, undoubtedly, would tend to the demoralization of the tenant. There was very little doubt that it would have that effect, and it should be the endeavour of Parliament to diminish that demoralizing effect as much as possible. He hoped that everyone who was entitled to relief under the Bill would obtain it, but no one who was not entitled to relief ought to obtain it; and, therefore, the machinery by which the Bill was to be carried into operation should be distinct and clear, and the mode of procedure prescribed without any doubt or hesitation. Every tenant making an application for relief under the Act ought to be called upon to make a distinct declaration in Court as to the property of which he was in possession, so that there should be no mistake. He trusted the Government would see the necessity of inserting some such condition as this, and he would, therefore, move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, at end, add,—"Any application by a tenant under this section shall set forth the property of which the said tenant was in possession or to which he was entitled when the arrears accrued due, and the property of which he was in possession or to which he was entitled on the date of his application."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not think the words would come in very well in the place suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith). He entirely agreed with the object of the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not think it was necessary to set out these words. The Commissioners would be the persons who should say what information ought to be required before they were
    486
    in a position to arrive at a decision in reference to any particular claim. If the Amendment were adopted they might be required to go into transactions which occurred six or seven years ago. If it were necessary to introduce these words at all, they would be more properly introduced into the 7th clause. He did not think any such provision was necessary in the Bill at all; but if it should be necessary, then the Land Commissioners would be the proper persons to set out the nature of the information required. He hoped the right. hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he was ready to admit that there was some analogy between this case and an ordinary case of insolvency; but he wished to point out that when they had to deal with something like 100,000 cases the analogy between such a vast amount of cases and the few cases which went into the Bankruptcy Court ceased altogether, and the forms which applied to the application should be made as simple in their details as possible. He had no doubt that the Court would prescribe comprehensive rules, and that they would insure some mode of dealing rapidly with the case, so as to prevent delay in the working of the measure. He was afraid that the adoption of the Amendment would only occasion delay.
    MR. GBEGORYsaid, he was of opinion that the Committee should prescribe, as far as possible, all the directions for the instruction of the Land Commissioners. He was of opinion that they ought to indicate to the Commissioners that an application for relief should be made in writing, and that they should be made in a prescribed form. The Bill might contain a Schedule giving the form.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANwished to point out to the Committee that the setting forth of the information referred to in the Amendment might tend very much to mislead the Court, because it proposed that the tenant who made an application under the section should set forth the property of which he was in possession, or to which he was entitled, when the arrears accrued due. But that would leave an important element in the case out of consideration altogether, because, although he might be possession of, or entitled to, certain property, the condi-

    487
    tion did not require him to set forth what his liabilities were; and it was, therefore, only a one-sided representation that was contemplated by the Amendment, which, instead of being a guidance to the Court, would tend to mislead it as to the circumstances of the tenant. He thought that was a fatal objection to the Amendment.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the object of the Amendment was to apply to the payment of rent, and not to any liabilities or any other purposes; and, therefore, it was not necessary for the liabilities of the tenant to be set forth. If it were intended to make the measure a Bankruptcy Bill, then, of course, the observations of the hon. Gentleman would be relative. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to assent to the principle of the Amendment, but to object to its introduction in the present place.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had pointed out that if it were necessary to insert the Amendment at all, which he did not think it was, the proper place for inserting it would be in the 7th clause, and not in the present one.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he confessed that he attached considerable importance to information of the tenant's condition at the period when his arrears accrued due. The Land Commission would not be doing their duty if they did not ask and ascertain from the tenant what had become of any property he possessed at the time he ceased to pay rent. He intended to cast no aspersion upon anybody whatever; but it was only right and proper, when they were dealing with public money, as they were dealing with it here, and dealing with public morality, that they should follow up the matter strictly and carefully, and he should certainly not be satisfied unless some provision were made in the Bill in the manner he had suggested.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was willing to withdraw it at that stage.
    MR. WARTONregretted that there was so strong a disposition on the part of the Government to leave everything to the Court. Such important matters as those raised by the right hon. Gentleman laid at the root of the tenant's right to have this relief, and the conditions
    488
    under which the application was to be made ought to be distinctly stated in the Bill, and not left to be settled by the Commissioners under the 7th section. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would bear in mind that it was of the utmost importance that as little as possible should be left to the Land Commission in the shape of framing rules; and he trusted that as this particular question laid at the very root of the tenant's right to get relief, it would be borne in mind by the Government when the 7th section came under consideration.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he trusted that the Government would not allow a proposal of this sort to be entertained.' He thought it ought to be left to the Land Commission to frame what rules they would require in regard to evidence on matters of this sort. According to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, it might be thought that the tenant was making a statement of his affairs in the matter of his bankruptcy.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that if the Bill was really to be carried out, and the inquiry was to be a real one, as the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had asked the Committee to make it, then there ought to be an inquiry similar to that proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith). He trusted that at the proper time his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) would again propose his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, this would be a legitimate opportunity to review the clause, and to state the feelings which hon. Members on that side of the House entertained with regard to it. However, he would assure the Committee that it was not his intention to go again into questions which had already been fully discussed; but simply to say that, as far as his judgmeut was concerned, no alteration had been made in the clause which at all removed the objections he entertained to it. It was true that an important Amendment had been introduced by the Prime Minister, by which some direction was given to the Land Commission as to the mode in which they were to consider the

    489
    tenant's interest in deciding upon his ability to pay; but, as far as he could judge, that direction was so vague that one-half of its usefulness would be lost. Gift and compulsion were the two pillars on which the measure had been said to rest. These pillars still remained embodied in the clause, although it seemed, from last night's declaration on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that both were to be ignored in another part of the Bill. He felt so strongly the great objections that existed to the clause that he should say "No" to the Question that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that before the clause passed he wished to take that opportunity of removing a misapprehension which he found prevailed the other day in regard to some remarks of his respecting the Land Commission. His attention had been called, through the medium of a friend, to the fact that the Chief Commissioner had felt himself aggrieved by some observations which he (Mr. J. Lowther) had made, which he thought placed an unfair construction on a speech of his (Mr. Justice O'Hagan's) delivered upon the opening of the Land Commission. He (Mr. J. Lowther), in moving that the words "Land Commission" be struck out of the clause, had referred to what he considered to have been the lâches of the Land Commission; and he was reported to have said that the Chief Commissioner had laid down the doctrine that a tenant, apart altogether from his industry and capacity, should be able to live and thrive. He (Mr. J. Lowther) at first was only supplied with a brief report of the remarks the learned Judge was alleged to have made; but he had since been supplied with an exact report of what Mr. Justice O'Hagan said, and he found that what the learned Judge stated was this, that—
    "A rent which might be fairly paid, and yet permit a tenant not deficient in those qualities of industry and providence which are expected in any walk of life to live and thrive."
    He was glad to have an opportunity of correcting the matter, and without, at the present moment, expressing any opinion as to the propriety of those remarks, ho must observe that the qualification introduced into them seemed in the case of Professor Baldwin and other Sub-Commissioners to have been re-
    490
    garded very much in the light of a well-known intimation —"Don't nail his ears to the pump." However, he was glad to have the opportunity of making this explanation, and of removing any misapprehension which might have arisen from what fell from him on a former occasion. The report of his (Mr. Lowther's) speech had been somewhat condensed, and to that fact was due some of the misapprehension which had arisen. In regard to the clause, ho entirely agreed with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). He had no wish to make a second reading speech on this occasion, and he did not intend to avail himself of this opportunity for making one. Ho had not, as a matter of fact, made a speech, except a few observations partaking more of the nature of a personal explanation, either on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill or on the Motion "That the Speaker do leave the Chair;" and as the Government had promised to give further consideration to the question as to how far the tenant's interest in his holding could be rendered a security for the landlord and for the British taxpayer, he would not now discuss the clause. He would not, upon the present occasion, even say whether it was right or wrong that the property of the landlord should be taken away and handed over to his tenant without compensation. That was a matter of a very debatable character. He hoped the Government, at a later stage, would bring up words to enable the recently-acquired property of the tenant to be made available for the liquidation of his debts and the protection of the British taxpayer. In regard to the clause, they had been promised several Amendments at a later stage. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War state just now, in reply to his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith), that the present condition of the tenant's financial affairs was the only thing to be considered by the Government in framing their Amendments. What was necessary for the purpose of the protection of the taxpayers as well as the landlords, and was also necessary as a protection from the demoralizing effect of the Bill, was that it should be clearly proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal constituted under the Act that the tenant was

    491
    incapacitated by what might be called misfortune from paying his debts at the time those debts became due. That should be clearly borne in mind, and he thought that what the Secretary of State for War had said was a falling-off from the intimation which the Prime Minister had conveyed at an earlier stage—namely, that the tribunal must be satisfied that the tenant was incapable of paying rent at the time the rent accrued due. He hoped that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman were not to be taken as betokening any falling away from that position so far as the clause was concerned. However it might be amended his objections to it would not be pared down in the slightest degree. His objection to the whole Bill, he was bound in candour to add, was one of principle, and in no shape or form could any of its details be amended so as to remove his objections.
    MR. CHILDERSremarked, that what ho had said, or intended to say, was that the words that were proposed would carry the inquiry back six or seven years, and that what had to be investigated was the present inability of the tenant to pay. He did not know what the nature of the inquiry might be, or how far it might be carried; but ho thought that all matters of that kind should be left to the Land Commission. It would be quite out of the question to compel a tenant, who might have been in trouble since the famine year, to prove what his circumstances had been every half-year. Ho would not, however, continue the discussion, but would follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and avoid entering into contentious matter. He was glad to hear the statement of the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) in reference to the speech of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, because the misunderstanding in regard to what Mr. Justice O'Hagan had said had not been limited to that House, but had been carried further.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 (Modification in case of evicted tenant when restored to holding).
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had given Notice of various Amendments to this
    492
    clause; but although they appeared formidable on paper, they were merely in the nature of verbal Amendments. He proposed now, in line 6, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words "and full costs." The clause said that the Court should deal with the case as if the tenant had paid all arrears of rent up to the last gale day in the year expiring as aforesaid; but, otherwise, should proceed in manner directed by the Act of 1860. The Act of 1860 was the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act, or commonly known as Deasy's Act; but Deasy's Act, which this clause proposed to carry out, did not use the words at all. On the contrary, the words in Deasy's Act were "rent and costs," and unless the word "costs" were put in the 71st section of Deasy's Act it would not be put into operation. Deasy's Act required the tenant to have paid all rent and costs. He presumed that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would soon be sitting as a Judge; and if a case came before him in which it was shown that the tenant had only paid the arrears, and not the costs, then, undoubtedly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would decide that he had not complied with the terms of Deasy's Act. Ho thought that this Amendment was necessary in order to make Deasy's Act operative.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 6, after "aforesaid," insert "and full costs."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was unable to accept the Amendment. The effect of the proposal would be to place the tenant who had satisfied his rent in the same position as if he had paid both rent and costs. The Amendment did not even provide that the costs should be paid by the Treasury or the State. Now, the provision of the Bill was that the landlord, having incurred costs in getting a judgment, the tenant was only to be reinstated after paying the rent and costs; but if the Amendment were adopted, it would place the tenant who had only paid the rent in the same position as another tenant who had paid both rent and costs, and, in the first case, the landlord would be out

    493
    of pocket to the extent of his costs. A I proposition of that nature he considered to be altogether unreasonable.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the misapprehension of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the effect of the Amendment was a natural one, because, in point of fact, although his Amendment alluded to the question of costs, it did not in reality touch the question of costs at all. Deasy's Act said it should be lawful for a tenant to be reinstated on payment of rent and costs, which was to say that the tenant was to fulfil both conditions of paying rent and costs. But in this section no mention was made of the word "costs" at all, and, therefore, Deasy's Act could not be brought into operation. A Judge sitting in Court would say the Act required the Court to deal with the case as if the tenant had paid all arrears of rent; but if the tenant had only paid up all arrears of rent under Deasy's Act the Court would do nothing at all. He must have paid not only the arrears of rent, but costs as well. It did not prejudice the landlord in the slightest degree, because if the Court was not satisfied that the tenant had paid the arrears of rent and costs it would do nothing at all. If the Government thought the section carried out the law he would be quite satisfied; but his own opinion was that it did not.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRBLAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that, as the Bill now stood, the tenant asking for restitution would have to comply with the provisions of Deasy's Act, which were that he should have paid the rent and costs. The result of the Amendment would be that the tenant, on satisfying the rent, was to be put in the same position as if he had satisfied the rent and costs; whereas, by the clause, he would not only have to satisfy the rent, but to pay the costs also.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it seemed to him that the Amendment was required in order to place the tenant on the same footing as a tenant under the Act of 1860, and unless they adopted the Amendment he did not think they would put the tenant in that position. A tenant who had not been actually evicted would be entitled to save himself from eviction on paying rent, leaving costs to remain as an ordinary debt. He was not compelled to pay costs in order to
    494
    prevent himself from being evicted; but under this clause he was compelled to pay both rent and costs in order to be restored. His hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) proposed that he should be restored on the same footing, as regarded costs, as under Deasy's Act; and he gathered that costs could be wiped away, but would still remain as an ordinary debt, which could be recovered in the ordinary way. The nonpayment of costs, however, would not be a bar to the restitution of the tenant. He would, therefore, submit that if it was the wish of the Government to restore the tenant, and place him in the same position as regarded costs as the tenant who had not been evicted, they must accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy).
    MR. SYNANsaid, he thought the question had been discussed under a misapprehension. The clause provided for two things. It provided what the Court of Commissioners was to do, and it provided, also, what the Court, under Deasy's Act, was to do. What the Commissioners were to do was to make an order under this Act, and the costs had nothing to do with that order. But under Deasy's Act it was necessary that the person restored should have paid both rent and costs.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he concurred in the view expressed by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan).
    MR. GIVANregretted that he was compelled to disagree with his Colleague (Mr. Findlater). He thought the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was perfectly right, and unless the Amendment was adopted the clause would entirely fail to carry out its intention. Under what circumstances would the Act of 1860 come into operation? It would come into operation by the payment of rent and costs. Under what circumstances, as the clause stood, was it intended to make the Act come into operation. By a statement which did not comply with the condition of Deasy's Act—that was to say, it fell short in one vital point, and if the tenant applied for an order and asserted that the rent only had been discharged, then the Court would have nothing to do but say—"You have not complied with Duasy's Act, because you have not paid rent and. costs, and, therefore, you have no right to come here." He considered the ob-

    495
    jection of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to the clause was a very serious objection, and that it might defeat the operation of it altogether.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that the Bill dealt with rent, and not with costs. If a tenant were evicted under Deasy's Act, the law gave him a locus pœnitentiœ, and enabled him to come back at any period within six months on the equitable terms of satisfying all the rent due, and indemnifying the landlord for the cost of the proceedings he had undertaken. Under this Bill, it was provided that the tenant who had paid his rent, even though he were evicted by a competent Court, should be treated as having paid his rent once for all, and for all purposes, and, among others, for the purpose of obtaining restitution; but he must not only have paid the rent, hut also have paid the costs. It might be a great pity that the tenant should be required, before he was restored, to pay costs as well as the rent; but when ho obtained the order he was treated as if he had paid everything, and the Government could not consent to any Amendment that would defeat the landlord's right to obtain costs.
    MR. GIVANsaid, the clause empowered the Court to deal with cases in which the tenant had paid all arrears of rent and costs. The Court had no power to deal with a tenant who had paid arrears of rent only.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL TOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the Court would have no power to deal with a man who had paid his rent unless he had also paid his costs.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was astonished that the Government would not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan). This Bill proposed to put in operation certain portions of Deasy's Act. Now, Deasy's Act only came into operation where the rent and costs had been paid, and this Bill said the Court should deal with the case as if the tenant had paid all arrears of rent up to the last gale day, which meant that the Court would be able to do nothing at all under Deasy's Act, because the reference to costs was left out. Then, why not put it in the Bill and adopt the Amendment? It would not damnify the landlord in the slightest degree, because the Court would insist upon the tenant
    496
    paying both rent and costs. The Amendment was a technical one which did not affect the position of the landlord in any respect; but if it were omitted from the Bill he did not believe that any Judge would arrive at the conclusion that the provision of Deasy's Act had been complied with.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the only question was whether the object which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) professed to have was not better accomplished by the clause as it stood. He would undertake, howover, to consider the matter carefully, and he would confer with the hon. Member upon it, it being understood that without the payment of costs no right to restitution should be given. If the hon. Member could convince the Government that the insertion of the Amendment was necessary there would be no objection to accept it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), before he moves the next Amendment, that it seems to conflict with another Amendment placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), which comes below.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that would not be found to be the case.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Member had better explain the effect of his Amendment.
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in line 7, after "1860," to add the following words:—
    "For the purpose of enabling any such evicted tenant to make an application to the Land Commission under the first section of this Act, the Land Commission shall have power, on application made by him during the time limited for applications under this Act, by enlarge the time during which ho may redeem his tenancy, subject to such terms and conditions as may seem just."
    He said that such an Amendment was absolutely necessary in the clause, and for this reason—If five months of the term of redemption ran out, and the tenant only had one month left in order to bring the Act into operation, he would lose all claims to the benefit of the Act, because the term of redemption had run out.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 7, after "1860," to insert the words,—"For the purpose of enabling any such

    497
    evicted tenant to make an application to the Land Commission under the first section of this Act, the Land Commission shall have power, on application made by him during the time limited for applications under this Act, to enlarge the time during which he may redeem his tenancy, subject to such terms and conditions as may seem just."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Government had no objection to accept the Amendment. He understood its sole object was to provide that where the period of redemption had nearly run out it might be enlarged by the Land Commission for the purpose of enabling the tenant to come under the Bill. He thought, however, that the last words of the Amendment, "subject to such terms and conditions as may seem just," might be altered by leaving the terms and conditions under the control of the Land Commission.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he took exception to the course pursued by the Government in reference to this Amendment. It proposed, for the first time, not only to interfere with, but to arrest indefinitely, a legal process already obtained by the landlord. It was obvious that the line must be drawn somewhere in reference to this matter, because it was impossible that they could deal with every case which might be suggested was entitled to consideration. The law already allowed six months for redemption in cases of eviction for non-payment of rent on certain well-understood conditions—namely, the payment of arrears of rent and costs. The Government had already in the section dealt in the most drastic manner with the writ of ejectment; and now it was proposed to go much further. He thought that the section went a very long way, and he should have something to say upon the matter when the whole clause was put to the Committee. The Amendment proposed to go still further, and to give the Land Commission a power of indefinitely enlarging, and on some terms that might be no terms at all, the period of redemption, thus indefinitely keeping the landlord out of the possession of his farm, or the receipt of his rent. He could be no party to anything of the kind, and he should certainly divide the Committee against the Amendment, notwithstanding the fact
    498
    that it was supported by the Government. His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland said he was satisfied with the words of the Amendment, if the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would substitute for the words "such terms and conditions as may seem just," other words placing the terms and conditions under the control of the Land Commission, so as to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners. Now, he strongly objected to leave everything to the discretion of the Commissioners, and he would take care, in every possible way in his power, to secure in the Bill itself provisions showing exactly what it was they wanted the Land Commission to do. He had in his mind a case which had been brought to the notice of the Attorney General for Ireland by two hon. Members behind him, as to the way in which that discretion had been already exercised, and it was a good indication as to how it might be exercised in future. He referred to a case which had occurred in Queen's County, and it went by the name of "Owen's case.' He was unable to give the name of the tenant; but for the purpose of discussion it might be called Owen's case. In that case an application was made by the tenant under discretionary powers similar to those now proposed to be given to the Land Court, and the application came within the words "such terms and conditions as may seem just." The tenant applied under that provision to obtain an extension of time. The landlord, in answer to the application, said—"If you choose, in the exercise of your discretion, to give an extension of time, then I will ask you to protect my interest by requiring the tenant, who owes several hundred pounds, to lodge something in Court as a guarantee of his bona fides." In the exercise of a discretion exactly similar to that which it was now proposed to give, it seemed just to the Land Court to make no terms or conditions at all, and the result was that before the expiration of the extended time the tenant went away without paying a farthing of rent, and the landlord lost between £300 and. £400. He (Mr. Gibson), therefore, objected to the Amendment, because he felt that the discretion might be used in the same way again, and he was of opinion, that a line ought to be drawn somewhere. They ought not to go on indefi-

    499
    nitely increasing the six months' period of redemption to nine months or 12 months or 18 months. The law said six months, and the law must take its start at some point and must end at some point. It was desirable, if possible, to arrive at certainty, and that certainty must be arrived at by excluding some cases and including others which would be open to consideration. It was most desirable to end the uncertainty of litigation on the subject. There was already in the Bill a clause limiting the time for applications made under the Act—namely, Clause 11. It was limited until the last day of February, 1883; but there was a power given to the Land Commission to grant leave for an extension of time until the 30th of Juno, 1883. As he had said, the line must be drawn somewhere. The right of redemption was already given for a period of six months. Of course, it would always be said that a tenant who was near the end of the six months was not in as good a position as a tenant who was only at the beginning of it. Thus a tenant, with only two months to expire, was worse off than the one who had the full six months, and the tenant who had only one month was still worse off. But these questions wore questions of degree, and it was necessary to arrive at some degree of certainty. It would, therefore, be wiser and better, and on the whole more just, to stand by the provisions of the existing law.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he did not follow the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) as to the exercise of the discretion of the Commissioners; but he would point out what his right hon. and learned Friend appeared to have overlooked—namely, that the only discretion given by the clause was a discretionary power to extend the period of making applications under Deasy's Act. If that discretion were exercised, it would require all the conditions of that Act to be observed; and one of those conditions was that a tenant could not obtain restitution without having paid the rent and all the costs, and he must also have paid and satisfied all subsequently accrued rent up to the time when the application was made. The discretion was not a discretion, therefore, given to the Land Commission to deal with that subsequent
    500
    rent in any way; but it was left as a matter of law to be determined by the Court to which the application was to be made. There must not only be a certificate under the Act that the rent had been satisfied up to the time of the decree, but that all succeeding gales of rent which had accrued in the meantime had been paid. That would prevent the possibility of any injury being inflicted upon the landlord, because a decree could not be obtained until all the old arrears and all the accrued arrears were paid off. If the clause was to have any operation at all its effect ought not to be defeated by shutting out persons who would otherwise come to it. The Government had arrived at the conclusion that, under all the circumstances, the tenants should have this right, but only after they had satisfied all the rent down to November, 1881. It was provided that the application must be made early in 1883, and no tenant could get a decree until he had satisfied the rent of the accruing years, that rule of law being strict and unbending.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that, if he understood the matter rightly, the main reason for this Amendment was to prevent evictions, which would be a considerable hardship. There were a vast number of tenants already under notice of eviction, who were liable at any minute to be evicted, and there were a number of others who had been evicted, and were already out of possession. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was an endeavour to extend the advantages given by the Bill, so as to cover this class of cases. It seemed to him that the main argument for the passing of the Bill was that the right of eviction had been unfairly used, and if a mode of providing a remedy could be devised, to reject that mode was to reject the main object of the Bill. He confessed that ho thought if the Bill were passed, excluding, as it would, without this Amendment, from its operation a very large class of tenants who were now under notice of eviction, and preventing them from obtaining the right of restitution, the measure would fail in one of its principal objects.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the proposal before the Committee was of a very serious character. It practically amounted to an unlimited extension of the period of

    501
    redemption. He should be prepared to move, when the Question had been put, that the period of redemption be limited to two months.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 106: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 263.)
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Amendment, to insert the words "such enlargement of time in no case to exceed a period of two months."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Committee had, by the last Amendment, decided that a discretion should be left to the Land Commission as to enlarging the time during which an evicted tenant might redeem his tenancy. He saw no reason, therefore, why that discretion should be in any way limited.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he thought it would be reasonable on the part of the Government to assign some limit to the discretion which was to be exercised by these Commissioners, who were comparatively unversed in the exercise of such large powers as they would have conferred upon them by this Bill. He therefore trusted Her Majesty's Government, if they were unwilling to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), would name some alternative period which they would be willing to adopt.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it was admitted, he believed, by the Government that the discretionary powers conferred upon the Land Commissioners by the Act of last year had resulted in the formation of precedents which they themselves were surprised at. Now, he thought that Parliament, when it imposed certain compulsory obligations on parties, as was the case in this Bill, should make up its own mind as to what it wanted to be done, and that the responsibility of making rules should not be cast upon the Land Commissioners, except, of course, in the case of those rules which related to ordinary procedure. Having regard to the experience of the last three months, he thought the Government might undertake that, before the Bill left the House,
    502
    they would bring up some words limiting the discretion of the Commissioners in the direction indicated.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 186: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 264.)
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to state, with the indulgence of the Committee, that although the division which had just occurred might be taken as absolving the Government from the pledge which they had previously given, yet, looking at the matter from the equity of the case, they were still willing to consider whether they could name a term that would serve to limit the period of redemption. It was necessary that it should be well understood on the other side of the House that the Government undertook to consider this matter solely from their conviction of the general equity of the case.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the object of the Amendment he was about to propose was simply that in cases where the Land Commission was satisfied that the purchase of the tenant's interest in his holding was made primarily with the object of enforcing payment of arrears, and that the holding was, at the date of application to the Court, subject to no tenancy created since the date of purchase, they might set aside the sale of the holding. He did not think it was a wrong thing to say that in a case where the tenant's interest had been sold by the landlord for the purpose of getting his rent, on the conditions set forth in his Amendment, the Commissioners might order him to be reinstated. Therefore, he said, where the Court considered that the landlord's action in selling the farm had not been for the purpose of obtaining property in the farm, but for the purpose of getting payment of arrears, that the tenant should not be in any worse position than if he was an evicted tenant. But he wished to go a step further, and to say that where no new tenancy had been created, and the interest of the tenant had been sold simply for the purpose of obtaining rent, the Court should have power to give the tenant the benefit of this Bill. He put it to the Government, as a matter of policy, whether it would not be desirable that the tenants who, by the law as it at present stood, would be excluded, should be

    503
    enabled to obtain the benefit of the Bill? He trusted the right lion. Gentleman would see his way to the acceptance of the Amendment which he now begged to move.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 7, after "1860," insert, as a new paragraph—"If in the case of any holding to which this Act applies, it shall appear that the landlord has recovered judgment for any arrear of rent of such holding, against the tenant thereof, and that, under execution issued to enforce such judgment, the tenant's interest in such holding, having been offered for sale, has been purchased by the landlord, or some person representing him, the Land Commission, on the application of the tenant during the time limited for applications under this Act, and on being satisfied that the purchase of the tenant's interest by the landlord was made primarily with the object of enforcing payment of such arrear, and that the holding is, at the date of such application, subject to no tenancy created since the date of such purchase, may, subject to such terms and conditions as may seem just, make an order setting aside the sale of such holding, and thereupon, on such order being made, the tenancy in such holding which had existed immediately prior to the sale, shall revest in the tenant as if such sale had not taken place. On any such order having been made the Land Commission may, on the application of either landlord or tenant, make an order, under the first section of this Act, in the same manner as if, and such order shall have the same effect as if the sale of the holding as aforesaid had not taken place."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Government could not assent to the principle that where the landlord had purchased the tenant's interest in the holding in the open market, the tenant should be entitled to reclaim his tenancy. At the same time, the Government quite recognized the object which underlay the Amendment of the hon. Member, and they were not unwilling to forward it so far as it advanced on the lines of the Bill, and did no injustice to anybody. The condition upon which the Court should have power to set aside these sales should be that it must be done with the express consent of the landlord. It must, in fact, be a transaction similar to that which lately took place in the case of certain tenants who had been evicted from the estate of Lord Cloncurry. Every one of the tenants of Lord Cloncurry was reinstated after the relation of landlord and tenant had been entirely determined. That was
    504
    owing, not to compulsion, but entirely to a concession on the part of the landlord. He thought if the hon. Member were disposed to alter his Amendment so that an application of the tenant should be made with the express consent of the landlord, no new tenancy having been created, that the Committee would accept the Amendment.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that the latter part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was hardly intelligible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had laid it down distinctly enough in his opening sentences that the Government could not admit into the Bill the principle that when the landlord had purchased the tenant's interest in the open market the tenant should be reinstated in his holding. But, having established that impregnable proposition, he went on to quote the case of Lord Cloncurry, who had reinstated his evicted tenants after their relations with him as landlord had been entirely determined, and suggested that the Government would consider the Amendment favourably if the reinstatement proposed took place with the express consent of the landlord. But it appeared to him that the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland was unnecessary, because Lord Cloncurry was able to do this without any Bill, or action on the part of the Land Commissioners. If the alteration which the Attorney General for Ireland was willing to accept provided that the consent of the landlord should be obtained to the tenant's application, and it was shown to be necessary to bring the matter within the purview of the Bill, there might be something to be said in its favour; but he pointed out that such an alteration was of a very different kind to that on the Paper, and it was certainly one of which Notice ought to be given.
    And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again this day.

QUESTION.

  EGYPT—THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Before the Sitting is suspended I wish to put a Question to the Government. There is

  505
  a rumour again that the Suez Canal is stopped; no ships passing through. I wish to know, Whether the Admiralty have any information with regard to that; and, also, whether they have any information with regard to the reported looting of the ship Glenlyon
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, no such information has reached the Admiralty as that to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded—to the effect that the Canal is stopped. With regard to the Glenlyon, I stated at 2 o'clock that we had been informed on good authority—in fact, the information came from the owners of the vessel—that she had passed through the Canal. Since that time the owners have sent to the Admiralty to say they are not sure that she has passed through the Canal. I am bound, however, to say I am told from other sources that it is generally believed she has passed through. There the matter stands at present. If I hear anything at a later period of the evening, I will let it be known.
  The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDER OF THE BAY.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) (recommitted) BILL.— [BILL 213.]
  Progress resumed.
  Amendment (Mr. Healy) again proposed.
  MR. BULWERsaid, he was alarmed by the suggestion made by the Attorney General for Ireland that the Government were inclined to consider this Amendment with some degree of favour under a possible state of circumstances, those circumstances, he understood, being an arrangement between the landlord and tenant, by which the landlord should agree that the tenant should obtain the benefits of the Bill. He (Mr. Bulwer) wanted information as to what was the meaning of the Government in throwing out the hope that they would favourably consider this Amendment under certain circumstances. What were the circum-
  506
  stances under which it would be possible to apply the Bill? Let them take the typical case which had been cited—that of Lord Cloncurry's tenants. He was not going to enter into the merits of that case; but there had, unquestionably, been a great deal of unmerited vituperation uttered against Lord Cloncurry. As he understood it, Lord Cloncurry's tenants had refused to pay their rents, and his Lordship had taken the legal measures he thought justifiable in order to enforce payment. He was unable to make them pay, and, therefore, he turned them out. He took from them the property which they possessed—namely, the tenant right—and sold it, and so recouped himself as far as he could. He got a portion of his rent, and, at the same time, got rid of his tenants. Supposing Lord Cloncurry had not reinstated his tenants, as he (Mr. Bulwer) was glad to believe he had done, those tenants would be in a position hereafter, if Lord Cloncurry was minded to agree with them to do so, to take the benefits of this Act. But he (Mr. Bulwer) did not see how this Bill could apply to such a case as that, for the hypothesis was that Lord Cloncurry had got rid of his tenants and had got his rents. This Bill was applicable to the case of tenants who were in arrear; but a man who had got rid of his tenants, and had used his powers to obtain his rents and had got those rents, had as much as the law would allow him to get. What possible arrangement could he make with those persons to bring them within the Act?—because the hypothesis was that they had gone, and were, consequently, strangers to him, and that they owed him no rent. There would be no arrears of rent to which this Bill would apply, and if that were so, he thought it was rather an illusory encouragement to hon. Members below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House to say that this Amendment would be favourably considered under certain circumstances. It might, perhaps, be his ignorance—["Hear, hear!"] Well, hon. Members below the Gangway were familiar with these matters, no doubt, and it might be owing to his ignorance that he failed to imagine the circumstances under which this Amendment would apply; but he certainly was at a loss to perceive how it could apply to such a case as that

  507
  he had suggested. He took the case of Lord Cloncurry and his tenants to give the Attorney General for Ireland an illustration of what ho meant in the application of this Amendment. He repeated, however, that he only asked for information; and, no doubt, the Solicitor General for Ireland would be able to enlighten him. It was perfectly illusory to say that the Amendment could apply to the ease of a landlord or tenant whose relations terminated, it might be, some five or six years ago, the farm having remained vacant in the hands of the landlord ever since. To say that the tenant in a case of that kind was to pay one year's rent, and the Irish Church Fund or the Consolidated Fund was to pay another year's rent for him, in order that he might regain his position as tenant, though evicted some four or five years before, was, to say the least, startling. He could not see that it was possible that this Amendment could apply where the relations of landlord and tenant had been determined by due process of law before this measure became an Act of Parliament. However, he only desired to know exactly what it was at which the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland was directed.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL TOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that what his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland proposed was to introduce into the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite the words "with the express consent of the landlord." In any case, the course of obtaining a judgment had been adopted with the same object as obtaining an ejectment—in order to enable the landlord to resume possession of the land. If at a sale the landlord bought the tenant right, he would then become the owner of the holding, and he would enter into possession. He would have a valid title against the tenant, and the tenant would be deprived of all remedy against him. Very often the landlord and the tenant treated the matter as though an ejectment for non-payment of rent had been obtained, the tenant being re-admitted as if no such transaction had taken place. What was suggested here was that the landlord, having obtained a judgment for his rent, and having issued execution, and become himself the purchaser—very often only
  508
  nominally—frequently reinstated the tenant on the payment of arrears, or such amount of the arrears as he saw fit. That was an arrangement that had been often carried out; and that was an arrangement to which the Committee would agree. If it should be a proper thing in the case of an ejectment for non-payment of rent, he did not see why it should not be so in the case of an arrangement between the landlord and the tenant.
  MR. BULWER: Do the arrears of rent remain due, or have they been satisfied?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, they were practically merged into the judgment debt, and if that debt had been satisfied, then the arrears of rent would no longer remain, either in form or substance. It was usually the case in purchases of this kind, when the interest of the tenant was put up for sale by the sheriff, for the landlord to become purchaser at a nominal figure. For instance, if the landlord's claim against the tenant was for £50, he might become a purchaser for £5. The debt was not paid, and he might claim the rest at any time when the tenant came into possession again. If it were not for this measure, it would be quite open to the parties to go behind the judgment and re-open the matter. The landlord could not be compelled to accept such an arrangement under this clause; but it was open to him to do so. He agreed with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) that if the tenant were a person perfectly able to satisfy the landlord he would not come under the Act at all. It would be necessary not only that the landlord should have obtained judgment, but that the tenant had got means to satisfy the claim. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) did not see why they should not be able to make this case precisely as if the judgment had been obtained. What was sought by this proposed Amendment was only to place the tenant in the position, with the consent of the landlord, which ho would have been in without that consent if the landlord had only pursued his other alternative course. The Government had only suggested the mode in which they thought this matter could be settled.
  MR. BULWERsaid, he did not quite follow the hon. and learned Solicitor Gene-

  509
  ral for Ireland in this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that when judgment was recovered the rent was gone, but a debt remained. If the tenant succeeded in making a fortune, the landlord might come down on him at any time for that part of the debt that was still unsatisfied; but the proposed arrangement would undo the effects of the judgment and put the sum of money due to the landlord, which was now a debt, upon a different footing. It was only on the supposition that he owed "rent" that the tenant would come under this clause and could have that rent remitted on certain conditions. He did not say that he quite understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument; but, as far as he could understand it, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had answered the difficulty he (Mr. Bulwer) had suggested.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Amendment of the Government did not in the smallest degree meet the point he had in his mind. But it was possible that in the case of a limited number, say, of a few dozen tenants over the country, agreements might be come to with the landlord, and the suggested Amendment might be of some service. He had no option but to withdraw his Amendment, either that it might be amended hereafter, or that a new one might be brought up by the Government.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, perhaps the Committee would allow him to say a word with regard to it, because he had come in hurriedly just before the Sitting was suspended, and had not an opportunity of speaking on it. He had not yet quite grasped what the proposal was; but, as far as he understood it, the Attorney General for Ireland had resisted the Amendment that was introduced by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), but was prepared to accept it with an important modification—that was to say, he undertook to consider it before the stage of Report and bring up a clause which would carry out the views he had expressed. He (Mr. Plunket) should be very glad indeed if he could realize in any degree what it was that the Government proposed to do. The meaning of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford was quite plain. The object aimed at by
  510
  the suggested change, the hon. Member pointed out, was quite a different thing. The hon. Member for Wexford proposed that in these cases, where the practice had been lately resorted to by landlords which was formerly very rare indeed, and was not in the least necessary, of having recourse, in the face of the land agitation and the programme of the Land League, to the plan of proceeding against their tenants for the rent which was due at the time as a debt, and not by the ordinary and regular process of ejectment for non-payment of rent—the hon. Member proposed that in these eases the results of the action taken by the landlords should be reversed—that the tenant should compulsorily be able to upset the effects of the judgment which the landlord might have recovered, and then to put himself back into the same position as he would have been in if he had never driven the landlord to adopt the course he had followed, and to enable the tenant also to apply under this Bill to the Land Commission. Such a suggestion as this was one which should not for a moment be entertained by the Committee. It would be utterly unjust, and would confirm—consecrate almost—the proceedings of the Land League, which Parliament had been attempting during a great many months to counteract, partly by preventive measures— or preventive in the view of Her Majesty's Government—and partly by the present measure. The Attorney General for Ireland, he (Mr. Plunket) understood, said he could not accept the Amendment as proposed, but would consider whether he could not adopt it under another form. What was the change, then, that he proposed to effect in it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that in the case where the landlord had recovered a judgment for any arrears of rent against the tenant, an execution had been issued, and the tenant's interest had been sold in the open market and purchased by the landlord, there the application of the tenant during the time for application under this Act with the express consent of the landlord might be entertained. He (Mr. Plunket) could hardly realize himself a case in which this proposal of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland could possibly be applicable. He agreed very much

  511
  with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer). He did not understand on what basis the Amendment was to operate. As far as he knew, these proceedings would be judgment to sell for the recovery of arrears in the eases of tenants who were well able to pay, but who for one reason or another declined to do so. Those were tenants who would not be reached at all, and who would not come under the proceedings of this Bill. Then, in the next place, it was a curious thing that when proceedings had been taken, though there might be debts still outstanding, the debt for arrears of rent would be quite independent of 1he holding of the tenant. It seemed to him (Mr. Plunket) to be an anomalous thing which was contemplated by the clause which was intended to be brought up. He failed to realize how it would do all that was intended. He might say, without pledging himself to an opinion as to what his position would be when he saw the clause as it was brought up, that if there should be any individual case—for he believed they would be very few indeed—in which the tenant had been sold up in this way when he was really unable to pay his rent; and if the result would be to put him back again in friendly relations with his landlord, in the position that he held before, and to enable him to pursue his business as a husbandman, he (Mr. Plunket) would be only too glad if some way of effacing the unfortunate relations of recent years might be discovered. He should be only too glad to see tenants who might otherwise be driven into revolt against the landlords put back in their old position. One word more, and he had done—because he wished to reserve a final opinion upon the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman until he saw it on the Paper. Reference had been made to the case of Lord Cloncurry. If ever there was a ease where misery, controversy, and disaster was brought on the tenants of an estate by a combination to refuse the payment of rent, there never was one of a more pronounced character than that of the tenants of Lord Cloncurry. He was glad to see from the newspapers of to-day—he had not seen the details, but he saw the fact stated—that the tenants had come to some arrangement with Lord Cloncurry. He (Mr. Plunket) himself thought that that Nobleman deserved
  512
  the greatest credit for the position he had taken up—for having taken so much trouble, and for having accepted so much odium, in refusing to be dictated to by the tenants who demanded a uniform reduction of rent. Lord Cloncurry had very properly refused that demand, although he was perfectly willing to deal with the cases of individual tenants when the people came to him and made reasonable proposals.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would suggest that the Committee should allow the Business of the House to proceed. The Government would bring up a clause on Report, and now, since they had been discussing the matter more than half-an-hour, he thought it would be well that the hon. Member should be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the effect of this Amendment had been entirely misconceived. References of a misleading character had been made to the case of Lord Cloncurry. When landlords all round him were giving large abatements of rent to all their tenants, Lord Cloncurry refused to give a penny to his tenants by way of abatement, and the result was that the tenantry had found themselves obliged to set themselves against him. His Lordship had proceeded against them, and had involved them in considerable expense in the matter of costs; and not only that, but he had forced them to sell their farms, whilst he had become the purchaser, and the tenantry had had no alternative but to allow their holdings to go to the auctioneer's hammer. The tenantry had done that, certainly in a great many cases, merely from sheer inability to pay the costs of the proceedings. The Government must see, if they wished, as they had so frequently declared it was their desire to have peace and order restored in Ireland, that a very serious element in the restoration of that peace and order would be the adoption of a plan such as this, which would enable tenants who had been deprived of their holdings, under such circumstances as those which had been referred to, to re-enter their farms.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was quite sure that the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) in making his appeal to the Committee was a good one. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman's

  513
  object was to save time. The Government, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, were going to bring up some proposal on Report to effect the object pointed out by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), even if their Amendment were not in the same words as that of the hon. Member. Well, he (Mr. Warton) was also anxious to save the time of the Committee; but he thought the best way to do so was not to follow the suggestion of the Government, but to recommend to the Committee that, when a proposal of this sort was brought forward, the best thing they could do, instead of waiting for a proposal from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, which, when he brought it forward, they were absolutely sure would not be accepted, would be to give a clear expression of opinion that they would not adopt any clause of the kind. That would be a real saving of time. He could not let the matter pass without making his protest against the principle which had been adopted, since the division of Friday last he supposed, of proposing to reconsider the points upon which concessions were asked from them, and determining to bring up modified proposals on Report. It would be a saving at the present moment of a great deal of time if the Government would refrain from making concessions to the Party of disorder. If they would refrain from doing that, they would get all the support they desired from the Members of the Conservative Party.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to move the insertion of the following new paragraph:—
  "If it shall be made to appear to the Land Commission, in the case of any holding to which this Act applies, that the landlord of such holding has recovered judgment for any arrear of rent of such holding against the tenant thereof, and that, under execution issued to enforce such judgment, the tenant's interest in such holding, having been offered for sale, has been purchased by the landlord, or some person representing him, or by some third person, the Land Commission, on the application of either landlord or tenant during the time limited for applications under this Act, and whether the tenant has or has not been evicted from the holding, may, on being satisfied that such tenant has been reinstated as tenant of such holding, make an order as if, and such order shall have the same effect as if, the sale of the holding as aforesaid had not taken place."
  514
  There was a slight similarity in the conditions of his two Amendments. Where the tenant had been put out of his holding by a sale, and the landlord had agreed to re-instate him, then, if there were any arrears hanging over the man, the Amendment would give him the benefit of the Act. If must be borne in mind that where the landlord had reinstated the tenant he had frequently made it a condition that the antecedent arrears should be paid, and a case of that kind had been brought under his notice by several tenants in the county of Limerick. It was to meet these cases that he had drawn up this Amendment. His object was to secure that, where a landlord had agreed with his tenant to re-instate him, and there were still some arrears owing, the condition of the reinstatement being that the tenant should clear off those arrears, the tenant would have a right to the advantages under this Act as if he had not been evicted. He did not see why, in such a case as that, the Government should not apply a clause of this kind.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 7, after "1860," insert as a new paragraph:—"If it shall be made to appear to the Land Commission, in the case of any holding to which thi8 Act applies, that the landlord of such holding has recovered judgment for any arrear of rent of such holding against the tenant thereof, and that, under execution issued to enforce such judgment, the tenant's interest in such holding, having been offered for sale, has been purchased by the landlord, or some person representing him, or by some third person, the Land Commission, on the application of either landlord or tenant, during the time limited for applications under this Act, and whether the tenant has or has not been evicted from the holding, may, on being satisfied that such tenant has been reinstated as tenant of such holding, make an order as if, and such order shall have the same effect as if, the sale of the holding as aforesaid had not taken place."—(Mr. Mealy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that not from any spirit of desiring to make concessions unnecessarily, but simply because it seemed to them a matter well deserving of consideration, inasmuch as this Amendment was very much of a similar character to that which had already been proposed, and which the Government had proposed to consider, the Government would ask the hon.

  515
  Member to allow that proposal to stand over for Report as in the ease of the Amendment just withdrawn.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, he thought the attention of the Committee had not been sufficiently directed to the effect of this clause. As he understood these clauses, where there had been a sale of a tenant's interest, they would put the landlord and tenant in a position to receive the benefits of the Act, although, at present, by the process they had adopted, those persons would not receive these benefits. These clauses would very much extend the money payments under the Act, and he had not thought it possible that such a proposition could be made by the Government. What would be the money cost? No doubt, it would be very great, for this was a question which was of direct interest to the landlord as well as to the tenant. It was not solely a tenant's question. When a landlord had deliberately availed himself of a legal process against his tenant, when the tenant's interest had been sold and there was no money due, was it right that, by the action of this clause, he should be put in the position he would have been in if he had not taken that legal process—namely, the position of being able to get a grant from the Government? Certainly not; and yet it was now proposed to put the landlord again in his former position—nay, he would be by these clauses put in a much better position than he was before. Though there would be some gain to the tenant, there undoubtedly would be some also to the landlord; and he (Mr. Whitley), as an English Member, protested against a money payment of this kind. He thought the principle of the Bill was entirely wrong, and that these clauses were another step in the wrong direction. The clauses would let the people see that by these means they could put themselves in the position of obtaining that which they never hoped to obtain. Ho certainly trusted that the Government would consider this matter very fully on Report, before they brought forward the clauses they had intimated they might have to propose.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government would carefully consider the matter, and if they found that it would involve a very considerable pecuniary payment they might have to hold their hands. The opinion of the Government,
  516
  however, was that these cases would be very small in number. The hon. Member did not boar in mind that all the tenants in this position to obtain the benefits of the Act must have paid a year's rent, and must have been in a position of inability to pay anything else. It would be impossible for anything like collusion to take place. But all these matters would be well considered before the Report, and before the Government announced to the House the exact words of the clause they proposed. There was one point which must not be lost sight of—namely, the limit of time. It would be impossible to apply a clause of this kind to a period anterior to 1881.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, they had been given to understand that the object of this Bill was to prevent eviction; but he did not understand that any tenant who had been reinstated could be evicted. If the object of the Government was solely to prevent eviction, any Amendment of this kind would be really unnecessary. Perhaps it might be alleged that the landlord might wish to recover his debts as any other creditor would wish to do. The Government wore bringing under the provisions of the Bill a set of cases which they did not profess hitherto to have contemplated; and if the landlord was only allowed to sue for his debt and not to evict, why were they not to deal in the same way in the Bill with other creditors who might wish to sue for their debts? If they introduced provisions of this kind, and wished to provide, not merely against a case where the landlord could evict in the ordinary course, but could sue, it appeared to him that they would have to deal with a great many other creditors besides the landlord. If that was so, they ought to be very careful before they adopted clauses of this kind.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the Bill was introduced for the purpose of preventing evictions, and hon. Members seemed to be alarmed that every eviction which had taken place would be affected; but that was not the case. (Suppose they were introducing a Bill to prevent the spread of small-pox, preventive measures would be taken in it; but it would not be necessary to deal with every case of the disease which had occurred. If the Amendment were

  517
  adopted, it would remove a cause of very great heartburning.
  DR. LYONSsaid, there were particular classes of tenants who would come under the provisions of these clauses—namely, tenants who had been practically re-instated by their landlords, and tenants who had borrowed money at exorbitant interest, and who struggled on with a mill-stone round their necks. Those landlords and tenants who had entered into friendly arrangements, the landlords having out of good feeling remitted part of the arrears, should not be deprived of the benefits of a Bill they would have had the advantage of if it had been in existence when those arrangements were entered into. There was one class of case which he thought was that which hon. Members opposite had in their minds, and which made them oppose the present proposal—namely, those who had persistently, with money in their pockets, refused to pay their rents. It should be borne in mind that all cases had to be subjected to the closest inquiry as to the ability of the tenant to pay. What it was intended to do by the new clause would restore the tenants to a condition of solvency, would enable them to go on comfortably, and would do away with ill-feeling between landlords and tenants.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the Committee that they are discussing an Amendment which the hon. Member who moved it has been desired to withdraw.
  MR. BULWERsaid, the position of the Committee was this—that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had withdrawn his Amendment, or proposed to withdraw it. The Government, on the understanding that the Amendment was to be withdrawn—he had no doubt it was on that understanding that the promise of the Government was given—had proposed to deal with the matter on Report. It was on that understanding that the clause had been withdrawn, for if that promise had not been given, the question would most probably have been pressed to a division. What he wished to point out was this—that the Government were going to take this matter into consideration. He (Mr. Bulwer) wished to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the case of the landlord—and he would dismiss altogether
  518
  from his thoughts questions affecting the tenants. Well, the landlord, they would suppose, had a tenant who had not paid his rent, and he had dealt with that tenant in a manner such as he was quite entitled to do by law—he had got rid of him, having obtained such compensation or such part of his rent as he could. It might be that the landlord would say—"If I allow this man to come into this farm again, I may get the advantage of this Act, and I shall then be able to get something out of the Government—I shall get a year's rent which I cannot get now. That will be better than for me to leave the tenant to go into the hardware or some other trade on the chance that he will make a fortune, and I be able to press for my debt when he is no longer impecunious. Were the Government really going to do this—to allow the landlord, who had turned his tenant out and got rid of him, and of his rent and all claim to his rent, to have another chance of obtaining his money, which he had now turned into an ordinary debt? It must be borne in mind that it was no longer rent after the law had been put in force, but it was a debt. Were the Government going to allow the landlord to get back the late occupier as a tenant, and allow him to call that rent which had become a debt by the judgment of the Court? Were they going to allow a debt to be turned into rent, and to be treated as arrears of rent? Was the landlord to be allowed to re-instate a man into his farm and treat as rent the debt for which he had got judgment? It would neither be fair to the landlord nor the tenant, and it certainly would not be fair to the State, that the Consolidated Fund should be called on to incur the liability which the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had so graphically pointed out.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the Government were not so hasty as the hon. Gentleman. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) had undertaken to give this matter careful consideration before any proposal was submitted to the House; and when the proposal was submitted, it would be for the House to say whether it was deserving of approval or not. It did not appear to him that there was any difficulty as to principle in this mat-

  519
  ter. If the landlord, who had two legal modes by which he could get rid of the tenant, chose to pursue one or the other, it did not follow that it was improper or impolitic to allow a landlord who had taken one course to remain in exactly the position he would have been in if ho had taken the other course. The landlord who had pursued the one course was in one sense very much in the position of the landlord who had pursued the other, apart from the legal technicality. These were two processes which wore used for obtaining the same ends. It would, of course, be a necessary condition to the tenant availing himself of the clause that he should owe rent which he could not pay.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that, under ordinary circumstances, when a proposition was made to withdraw an Amendment he should not have said a word about it; but if the Government would insist upon accepting these absurd proposals, it was desirable that they should be discussed to some extent.
  MR. MOOREsaid, he did not see why there should be any grave objection to this Amendment. The people who would be affected by the Amendment were those who had been extremely ill- advised; but Parliament was now passing a Bill to wipe out old scores. The question was whether it was worth the while of Parliament, for the sake of a few exceptions, to continue this war and to continue the prevailing angry feeling. There were two ways in which to put down discontent. The one was by force, and the other by conciliation; but the Government had adopted a mixture. He would not speak of the Coercion Act they had just passed. This was a measure of conciliation; and he did say to the Committee that as long as these men had been evicted from their farms in consequence of the evil advice given them last year, and so long as these men were found in huts close to the farm, or in the adjoining villages watching with a jealous eye their former holdings, the Government must make up their mind to treat them with force or with conciliation, because so long as they remained in their present position outrages would occur. He hoped that the House, having passed the most sweeping Coercion Bill of modern times, would not think it worth while to exclude the men in question from the benefits of this Act, but
  520
  bring them in and give the country some chance of settling down.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, ho desired to reserve entirely his opinion on the subject until he saw the form in which the Government intended to bring forward the Amendment. At the present time he was unable to imagine in what form the Amendment could be put forward so as to be entertained by the Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLbegged to move the Amendment standing in his name to provide for something more than the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), which the Government had adopted a short time ago. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) proposed that where an evicted tenant had a period of redemption still unexpired he might apply to have it extended. The present Amendment provided that where the period of redemption of an evicted tenant was expired the Court might, if it thought fit, upon the application of the tenant, extend the period of redemption, and put the tenant in the same position as he was before the period expired, provided the farm was still vacant. It might be thought that this was rather an extreme proposal to make; but if they looked at the history of the last two years, and to the fact that the Government during that time—since the 1st of May, 1880, the date which he (Mr. Parnell) fixed for the retrospective action of his Amendment—had been engaged in an unavailing attempt to protect the smaller Irish tenants, and that during those two years, owing to the admitted fruitlessness of their attempt with regard to these smaller tenants, a very large number had been evicted, and the period of redemption of large numbers of them had expired, he thought it was not unreasonable to ask consideration of this Amendment from the Government. What was the case? When the Government came into Office in May, 1880, they had their attention directed to the pressing necessity which existed for stopping evictions in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. W. E. Forster), brought in a Bill called the "Compensation for Disturbance Bill," in

  521
  order to check these evictions, more especially with regard to the smaller tenants. Hon. Members knew the fate of that Bill. The consequences, or one of the consequences, of that Bill, was that a very large number of tenants, notwithstanding all the exertions of the Government, had lost their rights in their holdings. This Arrears Bill had been brought in for the purpose of supplying the deficiencies in the Act of 1881 in regard to the question of arrears, more especially in regard to the smaller tenants in Ireland; and he submitted that it was reasonable and just that, when it was pointed out by himself and his hon. Friends to the Government that many of the evicted persons were located in different parts of Ireland, living in hopes that the day might come when they might be permitted to return to their little holdings—the right which the Act of 1881 sought to confer upon them—it was reasonable to call upon the Government to undertake retrospective action in so far as it was necessary to do justice to these people. In punishing the districts of Ireland the Government had adopted the principle of retrospective action, and he asked them also to do justice retrospectively in the way ho now proposed. The number of these tenants might not be very large. He had no means of estimating how many of the tenants who had been evicted since May, 1880, had been actually restored to their holdings; but, whether they be 100, or 1,000, or 5,000, he submitted this Parliament ought to show itself strong enough to do justice to them, and not to permit the action which destroyed the Compensation for Disturbance Bill in 1880, and the subsequent action which prevented the Government from inserting an efficient Arrears Clause in the Act of last Session, to consign these people to rash and hopeless despair. He had the utmost confidence in recommending this Amendment to the Government.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 7, after "1860," to insert as a new paragraph:—"Any tenant evicted from a holding to which this Act applies, for non-payment of rent since the first day of May one thousand eight hundred and eighty, and who, from lapse of time, is not entitled to apply, in pursuance of the seventy-first section of 'The Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860,' for a writ of restitution, may, during the time limited for application under
  522
  this Act, apply to the Land Commission for an order enlarging the time during which he may redeem his tenancy, which order the Land Commission, on such application, and on being satisfied that the holding in question is at the date of such application subject to no tenancy created since the eviction took place, shall have power to make, subject to such terms and conditions as may seem just. On any such order being made, the Land Commission may make a further order, under the first section of this Act, in the same manner as if, and such order shall have the same effect as if, the tenant had not been evicted."—(3Ir. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the present proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was quite of a different nature to those they had been discussing for some hours past. In this case the separation of the tenant from his holding was complete. He had been evicted for five or six months. The time of grace had passed, and he had no further connection whatever with his holding. The proposal was that, after the separation between a tenant and his holding was complete, he should, in spite of this complete separation, be restored to his holding, and, by this process, receive the advantages of the Bill. The Government could not accept such a proposal as that. It was quite different in substance to those which the Government had consented to consider before Report, and they could not possibly consent to it.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was greatly to be regretted that the Government, expressing itself through the medium of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, should give its decision upon a most important question, without permitting a single Member of the Committee to offer a single comment upon it. He thought that was a very unwise course to take, and he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had precisely understood the bearings of these two Amendments. The first Amendment that the Government had promised to consider was one, in his mind, of a much more questionable character than the Amendment which the Government had contemptuously, and with out the slightest argument, rejected, because this Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) applied principally to all small and poor tenants who had been evicted for no fault of their own, but simply in consequence of their

  523
  poverty and misery. This Amendment applied to those tenants who existed in the South and West of Ireland, and in the counties of Kerry, Mayo, Connemara, and Galway, and these persons were now living in a state of the greatest, wretchedness, very often taking shelter under the rocks, with a few sods of turf before and around them. These persons were entitled to the first consideration of the House and of this Committee, and anything that could be done to restore them to a position of comparative comfort ought to be done. He should like to ask what harm in this remedial legislation could possibly come from allowing such tenants, in cases in which the Land Commissioners were convinced they might be restored because their holdings were not utilized by anybody else—what harm could come from allowing them to go back to their small and wretched homes, which were to them life itself? What were the class of tenants comprised in the former Amendment which the Government had consented to consider on Report? They were tenants who, in the majority of instances, could well pay their rents, but who let themselves be evicted at the dictation, or on the advice, of the Land League, which had promised to protect them. Now, the Government were going to do something for these men who had done that which was wrong. He certainly did not object; on the contrary, ho wished to Heaven they were all restored to their holdings; but these tenants were certainly not half so deserving of the protection of this House as the small and miserable class of tenants to whom the present Amendment referred, and he thought it deeply to be regretted that the decision of the Government should have been given in a way which showed that there had been no consideration of the question at all. He did not, for his part, know what this Bill was to do for the tenants of the South and West of Ireland, unless it was to restore them to their holdings. This Amendment would enable the Government to do that. A great many things were to be reconsidered on the Report, and ho hoped the Government would see their way to unsay what they had said, and by the admission of this Amendment do a great deal to pacify the country. Many reasons could be advanced to induce Her Majesty's Government to take a fa-
  524
  vourable view of the present Amendment.
  MR. SEXTONwished to lay stress on the fact that the Government had accepted an Amendment identical in principle to the one now proposed. The Government had agreed that a tenant who had been evicted, and whose period of redemption had not expired, might apply to the Land Commissioners for the benefit of this Act. More than once the Prime Minister had described this measure as an Act of mercy, an Act not bound by stringent rule; and it was on the ground of mercy that he would ask the Government to give a favourable consideration to this Amendment. He hoped the Government would not stand out on so small a point as the expiration or non-expiration of the period of redemption. Four or five thousand of the families referred to by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had been evicted between the 1st of May, 1880, and the beginning of this year. They were families of the poorest class, families evicted because they were unable to pay their rent, and not because they followed what the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell Henry) called bad advice. How could the Government consider the Act would be effective so long as 4,000 or 5,000 families were allowed to wander about smarting from a sense of wrong? They were living in the wooden huts provided by the Ladies' Land League; they were living in unspeakable misery; and one and all were looking to the day when they might be allowed to resume possession of their farms. From the point of view of men desiring the restoration of peace and order in Ireland, how could peace and order be restored if 4,000 or 5,000 families evicted in the last two years for the non-payment of rents, which the Courts of Law now declared unjust, were excluded from the benefits of this Bill? His hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) did not propose to interfere with any farm on which the landlord had taken a new tenant. If the landlord had been able since May, 1880, to get anyone to take the farm, it was not proposed that there should be any interference; but in a case where the farm remained vacant, where the landlord had been unable to make the farm a source of revenue, it was said that not only the interest of the tenant, but the interest of the landlord also, demanded some

  525
  such settlement as that now suggested. It was unnecessary to inquire from what cause the farm was vacant. It might be owing to a stringent public opinion; but he questioned the discretion of the landlord if he preferred the farm vacant rather than let. Perhaps the Government might see their way to some compromise. The date May, 1880, had been selected because the Government, in a new clause they intended to propose, had fixed upon that date. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had said that the tenants referred to in this Amendment were separated from their holdings. So were the tenants referred to in the Amendment accepted by the Government. There was a sort of undefinable local tie subsisting between a tenant and his holding; and he (Mr. Sexton) hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) would reconsider his decision. He was sure there was no Member of the Government more anxious to put an end to any cause of disturbance in Ireland than the right hon. Gentleman; and, therefore, he would ask him, between this and Report, to consider how it could possibly be expected that peace and order would be restored if these evicted people were allowed to wander about Ireland without farms? If the right hon. Gentleman could not assent to the date 1880, would he consider whether he could not assent to some date last year? If they could not take in all the evicted tenants, let them take in as many as they could.
  MR. SHAWsaid, it seemed to him there was one element that was present in the Amendment which the Government had promised to consider that was absent from the present Amendment, and that was the consent of the landlord. That was of great importance, and if the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) who moved the Amendment would allow the consent of the landlord to be brought in, he (Mr. Shaw) did not see why the Government should not consider it as well as the former Amendment. It would be a very hard case to force on a landlord, tenants who had been for a long time unfriendly towards him, and between whom and the landlord there had been a kind of war. He did not think the restoration of relations between such parties would be good for either of them; but if the landlord
  526
  agreed, he could not see why the Government should not give the tenants an opportunity of being restored to their holdings. It was all very well and easy to say that these people acted under bad and foolish advice. The people must be taken as they were. It was a fact, that could not be ignored, that in Ireland there were 4,000 or 5,000 families outside their holdings; there they were, an element of disturbance; and if this Bill were founded on the policy of restoring peace and good order in Ireland, it would be a very wise thing if the Government would see their way consistently with what was right and just to the landlord to give an opportunity to both parties to come together again. He knew of cases in his own county in which the landlord was as anxious as the tenant that a reconciliation should be brought about. As it was, there the parties were, looking at one another; many of the tenants were in great poverty and ready to engage in any disturbance which might arise. It would be politic for the Government if they could see their way to accept the Amendment in some form or other.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he was sorry to trouble the Committee; but, as a Member representing a constituency of English agriculturists, who had suffered from bad times as much, if not a great deal more, than the agriculturists of Ireland, he wished to point out to the Committee that the Government were being asked perpetually to grant further concession and further concession. The Government had already had two Amendments pressed upon them by the Irish Members below the Gangway, both of which they had agreed to consider and bring up again in another form on Report. Although it had been shown to the Government that the Amendments which they were going to propose on Report would increase the amount that would be required from the Imperial Exchequer for satisfying the claims under the Act, the Committee were told the amount would not be very large. But now the Government were asked to consider other words on Report with regard to this matter which would still further increase the amount which would be required to be paid over from the Imperial Exchequer. Although the amounts individually might not be very

  527
  great, he would remind the Committee that "mony a mickle maks a muckle," and that if they proceeded at that rate they would very shortly arrive at a very large amount. The sum required might be so increased that they would have the Income Tax increased to a very large extent. It must be remembered that a good deal of the money would come out of the pockets of the agriculturists of England, who, as he had said before, had suffered from hard times as much, if not more, than the agricultural tenants of Ireland. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) wished by this Amendment to afford some compensation or some consideration to tenants who had been evicted from their farms, those farms not having been, since the eviction, occupied by another tenant. The Committee had heard a very moving description of the unfortunate people who had been turned out of their farms—they had heard of the people sheltering under rocks and pieces of turf. No one could feel more for these wretched people than ho did, and he was sure the Committee would be glad to afford them all the consideration that could fairly be extended to them. But a still further question was raised. Those tenants who had been turned out of their farms, and whose farms had been occupied since the eviction by other tenants, were in exactly the same unpleasant and uncomfortable a position as those tenants who had been evicted, and whoso farms had not been occupied by other tenants. If the Government chose to give way in the manner now suggested, hon. Members might very fairly go to the Government and say—"You have considered the case of those tenants who have been evicted from their holdings, and whose holdings have not been occupied by other tenants; why are you not prepared to relieve those unfortunate tenants who are in exactly the same wretched position, but whose farms have been re-occupied; why are you to leave the latter class of tenants out in the cold? Surely, by the laws of justice and right, you ought to give them also some further consideration." And so, if the Committee were to go on in this way, they might go on for ever and ever. There was no knowing where they would stop in this matter; therefore, he trusted the Government would stand to their guns and not give way.
  MR. EDAWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped the Government would be resolute in this matter. There was all the more necessity for firmness on the part of the Government after what had been said by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in reference to some of the matters which had taken place with respect to these evicted tenants. The hon. Gentleman said the tenants had been kept out of their holdings by causes into which it would not be well too curiously to inquire; the cause, he said, might be the prevalence of a stringent public opinion. The Committee knew what stringent public opinion meant. They knew it meant the terrorism of an organization which had been in existence in Ireland. To say that wherever this terrorism had been so vigorously and effectually exercised, that the landlord had been deprived of the power of letting his land for any length of time, the workers of that terror should be rewarded by seeing the tenant put back in his holding and granted public money, would be the most serious step in support of the system of terrorism which could possibly be taken. He hoped the Government would stand by their resolve; he hoped that if there was to be any attempt to modify the views of the Government, it would be done, not as had been suggested, by private conversation, but by a discussion in this House, the reasons for which modification might be publicly canvassed. The hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) said that if the Amendment were modified by inserting words providing that evicted tenants might apply. subject to the con-sent of the landlord, for relief under the Bill, the matter would be entirely altered, and the Government might fairly accept the Amendment. Suppose the Amendment to be adopted on condition that it contained a proviso requiring the consent of the landlord, let them see what would be the result. A tenant who went out in the month of June, 1880, who had been encamped in a Land League hut near his holding ever since that time, and whose holding had been vacant ever since the eviction, owing to the action of the Land League, would be entitled to go to the landlord and say—"Now, if you, instead of taking another tenant, let mo in, we can jointly go the Government and get a grant of public money." A pressure

  529
  would be put on the landlord, an inducement would be offered to him to lend himself to the tactics of the Land League. If the Government were to express any sort of concurrence with this proposal, whether it did or did not contain the proviso that the application should be made with the consent of the landlord, what chance would landlords in Ireland have of getting fresh tenants for the farms which were vacant? Why, Parliamentary sanction would be given to that authority which had kept these farms vacant. It was upon the large grounds of general policy that he hoped the Government would refuse to accept the present Amendment. There was just one other observation he wished to make. The noble Viscount (Viscount Folkestone) had pointed out the inequality which resulted from the acceptance of the Amendment. Very few people had been allowed to take farms from which tenants had been evicted, and because that had been the case, the Government ought not to accept the Amendment.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that within the last few days the Prevention of Crime Act had been passed, and it was now in operation all over Ireland. He would ask, whether, in view of that fact, it was wise or politic to keep 4,000 families out of their holdings, and not give them a chance of returning? What difficulty could there be in the way of the acceptance of the Amendment upon the conditions laid down by the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw") and by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton)? The hon. Member for Cork County had suggested that the evicted families should have an opportunity of going back to their holdings, subject to the consent of the landlord; and the hon. Member for Sligo had suggested that an application to be re-instated should only be made in case the holdings were still untenanted. Having regard to the operation of the Prevention of Crime Act, and to the statement made by the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), that many landlords were anxious for a reconciliation, it would be very impolitic not to accept the Amendment upon the two conditions laid down.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he could not help observing that this was one of a series of Amendments which was bringing within the scope of the Bill a much
  530
  larger number of persons than was originally intended. It did not seem to be contemplated for a moment that if these Amendments were accepted, they would create a considerable disturbance in the financial calculations of the Government. The Committee were asked to admit to the benefits of the Bill certain classes of persons to whom it was not originally intended the Bill should apply. This was asked because the people had suffered some hardship or other; but, do what they would, a large number of cases must be excluded from the Bill, and persons must be shut out from the benefits of the measure who felt that the Bill ought to be extended to them. Hundreds of persons were now sought to be brought within the scope of the Bill. The line must be drawn somewhere, and he thought the Government would act consistently, and with some regard for the calculations they had made, if they adhered to the principle laid down, and not extend the Act to a subject which was not cognate to it.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he desired to support the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) in asking the Government to reconsider this subject. It would be greatly to be regretted if persons were excluded from the operation of the Bill who had a fair claim to be re-instated. He had already said that this was not a fitting opportunity to make a retrospective and inquisitorial examination. He would like to point out that there were two classes of persons concerned in this matter. There were tenants who were evicted before the Land League had created what had been euphemistically described as a stringent public opinion. There were others, and they were large in number, whom he had in view when, two years ago, he proposed a measure for the relief of impending distress and for the stoppage of eviction in Ireland by a system of "loans" to tenants in arrear. He believed that this latter class of persons were fairly and equitably entitled to share in the operation of the Bill. The other class of tenants were in some respects rather more needy than any other body in Ireland, because, in too many instances, they had been, unfortunately for themselves, easy dupes of representations which it was afterwards found utterly impossible to carry out. These people had fallen between two stools. They

  531
  were in a most unfortunate position; and it would be a very regrettable thing if they were to extend the operations of the Act so widely as to take in the greater body of the tenants of Ireland, but, at the same time, exclude any class, especially any class against whose exclusion good arguments could be advanced. If this were done, it would only load to a smouldering of agitation, and to a feeling of dissatisfaction. There was, undoubtedly, all over Ireland, a tendency to return to the ways of peace and tranquillity, and the more wide-spreading they allowed an Act like this to be the more sure they were to bring about a general feeling of peace and contentment. Many people had been severely taught what it was to go in the teeth of common sense and of law; and when there was a desire on the part of every class of the community to settle down and return to peaceful avocations, it would be very much to be regretted if a considerable body of persons were to be excluded from the operation of this remedial legislation—a body of persons who were not in a position to leave the country by emigration, but who, if they wore excluded from the benefits of this Bill, must live in a condition of enforced wretchedness. Notwithstanding the statement of the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), he would ask the Government to take this matter seriously into consideration.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he wished to say that, having listened attentively to the debate, he earnestly hoped the Government would take the Amendment into consideration on the lines laid down by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw). He made that recommendation on the grounds of humanity and of policy. Only a very small sum of money would be required—about £30,000. It was not wise to leave outside the benefits of the Bill a number of starving people, who might become recruits for the army of outrage; and if English Members had seen, as he (Mr. Laing) had, the wretched condition of these poor people, he was sure they would not grudge this relief.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, the pressure sought to be put upon the Government by hon. Members during this discussion showed the danger and folly of any Government introducing a Bill of that description not founded on the first
  532
  principles of political economy—morality. Every hon. Gentleman who had clients of his own was anxious that they should be introduced within the scope of the Bill, and thus the Government were pressed to take in a number of people not hitherto included.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that when a proposal of that kind, which had been before the Government 100 times, and been fully considered, was made, he conceived it to be a duty to express at once the strong objection to it which they entertained. Ho was bound to say that a great deal which had fallen from hon. Members still more convinced him of the impossibility of making any concession in that form. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). proposed that when a tenant had been completely evicted and had got no successor, be should be entitled to resume his holding and to get the benefit of the Act; but if ho had been evicted and had had a successor, he should have no such right. In the latter case, it stood to reason that it would be impossible to replace him. He (Mr. Childers) had been much impressed by the forcible way in which the case had been put by several hon. Members, and particularly by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke), as to the great injustice that might result from not restoring a tenant who had a successor and restoring one who had not. That would mean that a tenant who had been able to bring such pressure to bear upon the landlord as to prevent him from getting another tenant should get the benefit of the Bill, whereas the tenant who had not brought such pressure to bear would be excluded. Of the two classes, if there was one who had a moral claim on the consideration of Parliament, it was the tenants who had not put that pressure upon the landlords. The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) suggested that the evicted tenant, with the consent of his landlord, might be allowed to return to his holding, though the six months' period had elapsed. But they had already provided for that at the beginning of the 2nd clause.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that it was to meet a failure of agreement between the landlord and tenant from one cause or another that he had proposed this Amendment. Many of these tenants,

  533
  and he feared the majority of them, were unable to pay the year's rent which this Bill required. They had exhausted their slender resources; and, as regarded this particular class of tenants, he would urge the Government to consider whether it would not permit the Court to pay two years' rent instead of one, where the landlord was willing to re-instate the tenant. Such a provision would tempt the landlord to settle in many cases where no such inducement was now presented, and in that way a large number of tenants, who at present had no hope before them, would be re-instated, and put in a position by which they might become prosperous and peaceable members of the community. Otherwise he did not see how it was possible for the great majority of tenants, especially those evicted since 1880, to pay the arrears which the Bill required; and the additional expenditure would be very small, and would not, in all probability, appreciably increase the amount required from the Imperial Exchequer. This suggestion, together with another, whether the Government should consider the question of paying the costs, in some cases at all events, he desired to recommend to the consideration of the Government even on Report. This was a class of poor tenants who, admittedly had been evicted because they were unable to pay their rents; and in his experience, the vast majority of tenants had been bonâ fide unable to pay their rents, and had been evicted, not because of their obedience to the "no rent" manifesto, but simply because of their poverty. In this way the class of deserving tenants whom it was desired to protect would have an opportunity of being reinstated and becoming fairly prosperous; or, at all events, if they found it necessary to emigrate, they would do so without the feeling that they had been wrongfully deprived of their holdings.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he wished to point out the fallacy in the argument of the Secretary for War—that was the supposition that all the tenant farmers were evicted because of intimidation. That was not so at all. Nobody had been more averse to evictions than he had, and nobody condemned them more than he did; but he felt bound to say that in the vast majority of instances the farms were not vacant because of intimidation, but because
  534
  there was nobody ready to take them. In England there were hundreds of farms vacant at this moment because the state of agriculture had been very bad. Still there were in Ireland 3,000 or 4,000 evicted farmers who must be dealt with in some way or other. Many of those people were as innocent as men could be, and many of those who were guilty were as much to be pitied as the victims of intimidation. The Government ought to consider this question in all its length and breadth, and endeavour to restore something like peace to Ireland.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Application of Act to existing leases).
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

PART II.

  SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISION".
  Clause 4 (Powers of Land Commission).
  MR. GIBSONsaid, this clause adopted a vicious system of drafting which had been over and over again condemned by the House. The Government had laid themselves open to criticism, which he was about to put forward.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No Amendment can be moved with reference to the Schedule which is not before the Committee. It is the invariable rule for the Committee not to consider a Schedule which is not before the Committee. That requires to be done on the Report.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he would, in that case, propose to modify his Amendment by saying, instead of "satisfied," "hereafter provided."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee cannot consider an Amendment which is not before it.
  MR. GIBSONthought his proposal would avoid that difficulty. The Committee would rightly understand his object after a few words of explanation. This clause proposed to say that for the purposes of this Act the Land Commission might exercise all the powers vested in them under the Act of 1881. Everybody knew now that the Land Act of

  535
  1881 contained a vast number of powers, some of a very plastic and peculiar character, and some of them referable to a special state of facts. It might be that some of those powers would be applicable to this Bill, while some of them would be partially applicable, and some of them very slightly applicable to the Bill, while others might be entirely inapplicable. He objected as strongly as possible to powers under the Land Act which were not at all appropriate or germane, and some of which were inconsistent, being pitch-forked into this Bill. Many people in Ireland were not able to follow the complicated construction of an Act of Parliament, and would not know what were the powers under the Act, or what it was they ought to obey or submit to. The Committee were entitled to ask the Government to indicate with precision, either by reference to the Land Act, or by special provision, what they exactly meant, and that was precisely his object. He was satisfied that if the Land Act of 1881 was to be incorporated as to its powers with this Bill, it would need the closest and most anxious consideration even by lawyers. As to the powers of the Land Commission, he had read the Land Act with all possible attention, and also this Bill, and he was bound to say that, even after one or two readings of the powers, he found considerable difficulty in knowing or guessing what was present to the minds of the Government when they said the Land Commission under this Bill might exercise all the powers vested in them under the Land Act of 1881. Ho should be very glad if the Government would indicate what was present in their minds; and he was the more anxious to ascertain this because he found later on, in the first paragraph, that any number of Commissioners might in particular determine in the case of any holding who was to be dealt with as tenant and who was to be dealt with as landlord. The words "in particular" had come into Acts of Parliament very often, and were likely to lead to confusion. What did the phrase mean? If the powers covered by the words "in particular" were already included in the general words as to the powers vested in the Commissioners for the purposes of the Land Act, what was the meaning of saying "in particular" hero? Was it
  536
  meant under the Land Act the Commissioners had power to determine who was to be dealt with as tenant and who as landlord for the purposes of the Act? If that was the intention of the drafting, he was not aware of any such power under the Land Act. He did not desire to go further into this matter now, and only wished to indicate in as general a form as he could the reasons why he proposed this Amendment; and if the Government would suggest, either now or later on, that they would deal with this question in a reasonable way, he was quite ready to accept any statement from them in entire good faith.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 17, after "powers," to insert "hereafter provided."—(Mr Gibson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that substantially the powers to be incorporated in this Bill were those contained in the 48th section of the Land Act, and if the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment he would endeavour to provide against any difficulty.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Amendment he would propose was merely placed on the Paper in order that ho might ask the Government why it was necessary particularly to refer to the power of the Commission to determine in the case of any holding who was to be dealt with as the tenant and who as the landlord.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, leave out from "and" to "Act," in line 23, inclusive.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he was unable to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not sure that the next Amendment in his name did not follow a like case. It appeared to him that the first paragraph of this clause incorporated the section by way of reference, but did it in a peculiar way.

  537
  The words "in particular" appeared to him to govern a great number of things, and what the meaning of the words "in particular" was he could not make out. The words he had sought to omit seemed to be governed by the words "in particular." If it was only intended to show that there was a doubt as to who was to be dealt with as a landlord, he did not understand it; but if it was intended to ascertain who were the creditors and to constitute them in the position of a garnishee, he should object, because there was no such provision with reference to creditors and a tenant. Then the clause went on—
  "All powers vested in the Court by the thirty-seventh section of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, in respect to the distribution of purchase moneys, in the same manner as if the moneys so payable."
  He admitted that these words were governed by a previous statement, and if the Government would undertake to consider how far they could deal with this question he would not say another word.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. LOWTHER MR. J. LOWTHER moved, on behalf of the hon. Member for North Northumberland (Sir Matthew White Ridley), to insert the following Amendment. After "moneys," in line 30, to add as a new paragraph:—
  "The Land Commission may, of its own motion, or shall, on the application of any party to any proceeding pending before it, unless it considers such application frivolous or vexatious, state a case in respect of any question of Law arising in such proceedings, and refer the same for the consideration and decision of Her Majesty's Courts of Appeal in Ireland."
  He did not know whether there was any objection to this Amendment on the part of the Government; but if there was, he hoped they would reconsider the question. This Land Commission was a most exceptional tribunal, and it had wholly failed hitherto, whatever fate awaited it in the future, in gaining the slightest public confidence. The tribunal was essentially of a partizan character, and the members of it were selected on the very ground that they were in harmony with what the Prime Minister called the spirit of the Act, which he had no hesitation in saying was one of the greatest Acts of confiscation which ever received the consent of Parliament.
  538
  This was beyond dispute, because it had been stated in public that the Land Commissioners were all in harmony with the spirit of the Act, or in other words, with the spirit of confiscation.
  MR. GLADSTONEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman said in the spirit of confiscation?
  MR. J. LOWTHERreplied, that he had said in harmony with the spirit of the Act, and he thought that was a convertible term with confiscation. It was avowed that those gentlemen entertained opinions which were decidedly one-sided with respect to the rights of property. Those gentlemen had been appointed to constitute this tribunal, and he thought he should not be contradicted when he said they had not yet succeeded in disassociating the public mind from the idea that their opinions were preconceived as regarded those rights. That being the case, he thought it most important that an appeal should be given, at the instance of the parties, to a purely judicial tribunal. If the Government wished to have the law administered judicially and fairly, they would be disposed to give a chance of appeal from a tribunal composed of gentlemen who, doubtless, with every desire to disassociate themselves from any idea of partizanship, were distinctly an association of partizans. He thought there could be no objection to this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 30, after the word "moneys," to add as a new paragraph the words,—"The Land Commission may, of its own motion, or shall, on the application of any party to any proceeding pending before it, unless it considers such application frivolous and vexatious, state a case in respect of any question of Law arising in such proceedings, and refer the same for the consideration and decision of Her Majesty's Courts of Appeal in Ireland."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he hoped the Government would not accept this Amendment, because what was wanted was summary jurisdiction and the means of disposing of small sums rapidly. The sums likely to come under the Act would only be small, and the cost of appeals would be very large; and not only that, but appeals would delay the settlement of cases, and in that way the object of rapidly quieting the country would be

  539
  defeated. Under the Land Act very-large sums were involved, and it was perhaps necessary to give appeal; but here it was necessary to have the small sums rapidly settled.
  MR. E. STANHOPEthought the Government might accept something which would have the same effect as the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken had misapprehended the object of the Amendment. This was not a proposal for general appeals; it was only a proposal that there should be an appeal on points of law. The Land Commission, as at present constituted, contained only one Legal Commissioner as such; and, that being so, it was not unreasonable to provide that in these cases, as in all other cases where questions of law were decided by a single Judge, there should be an appeal.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the very fact that there never was an Act in which such points of law had arisen as would arise under this Act was a reason for facilitating the points of law. He regarded this Bill as a rough-and-ready measure; but its object was to give peace to Ireland, and not to permit litigation for the employment of lawyers. He hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment, but would adhere to a tribunal composed of one lawyer and two men of common sense.
  MR. SHAWsaid, from one point of view he could not see how the Government could resist this Amendment, and thought they must have been carried away by the arguments in support of it. This was not the first time when the right hon. Gentleman had declared the Land Commission to be a failure, and he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had a personal dislike to the Commissioners. He had said the Commissioners were interested in politics. [Mr. J. LOWTHER: They are partizans.] Borne of the Judges had sat in that House—on the same side, but he thought they were as likely to give proper decisions as any other body of men. He did not think anything could be more indefinite, or more inconsistent with the position of a Privy Councillor, than that a Gentleman who had held the highest position in Ireland should endeavour to bring a Court of Law into discredit. Nothing could be worse than that proceeding, and he thought the House should in some way show its abhorrence of it.
  MR. BULWERsaid, he was astonished at the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) upon the statement that the Land Commissioners were partizans. Their decisions had been overruled in almost every case where a point of law arose. He was not surprised that the Courts above should overrule the decisions of gentlemen who simply ran a stick into the ground and said the land was worth so much. The hon. Member had taken the right hon. Gentleman to task for what he had said; but he himself did not scruple to tell the House that gentlemen now occupying seats on the Bench in Ireland were partizans because they had sat in this House. [Mr. SHAW: I never said that.] He had understood the hon. Member to say that those who were placed to review decisions of the minor Courts were gentlemen who had sat in this House, and on the same side; they were, therefore, Party men, and he presumed that that meant partizans. He was surprised also to hear the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) say that because an Act of Parliament bristled with questions of law, that was the reason why those questions should be referred to gentlemen who knew nothing about law. Of course, if that was the principle to which the House was committed and was going to act upon, it might as well be that military questions should be referred to clergymen, and legal matters to the hon. Member himself. That might be all very well; but he ventured to suggest that there were a great many legal questions that might arise under this Act. They were not trumpery or trivial, and he would remind the hon. Member that our law was made up of decisions on small matters; and it was better that the law should be settled than that it should be uncertain and involve constant litigation. He believed that one decision by a competent tribunal would go far to settle any question that might hereafter arise.
  MR. FINDLATERsaid, that the Commissioners had actually confirmed the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he considered the argument that questions of law should be referred to a Court of Appeal very strong. He was surprised that no Member of the Government had risen to explain the matter. He thought the House was entitled to ask the Govern-

  541
  ment how they expected cases of law to be decided apart from the Commissioners if there was to he no Court of Appeal.
  MR. TREVELYAN: The arguments of the Government are very short, but I cannot but regard them as sufficiently practical. I must say a single word on the speech by which this proposal was put forward. If it would have been difficult under any circumstances to have accepted this Amendment, the difficulty is greatly increased by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Since I have held my present position, the point with which I have been least gratified during the debates in this House has been the tone taken in different parts of the House about the Courts in Ireland, which appear to me to be bulwarks of liberty. During the discussion of the Prevention of Crime Bill one hon. Member made remarks against the Courts of Law which I regretted to hear; and I have heard with positive dismay the high-coloured language of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, directed against a Court which, I am satisfied, has the confidence of the great body of the people—a confidence so strong that I do not think anything the right hon. Gentleman will say can shake it. With regard to the repartée of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), that seemed to me as legitimate a repartée as was ever made. The right hon. Gentleman said the Land Commissioners were partizans, and the hon. Member for the County of Cork replied that the Judges had likewise been partizans. If ever there was a legitimate House of Commons' repartée it was that. The substance of this Amendment we cannot accept, because it has been brought forward in the shape of an expression of want of confidence in the Land Commission. Under the Land Act of last year very large sums of money were to be spent. The tenant right, which was one consideration, amounted, in no infrequent cases, to many hundreds of pounds; but now the cases are all confined to sums of money or loans of £30; and it is necessary that controversies relating to those sums—or, rather, not so much the controversies as the administrative questions—should be settled as quickly as possible. The business under the Land Act was distinctly contentious in some cases; under this Bill the business
  542
  will not be contentious, it will be much more of an administrative nature. But there is one consideration which, in the absence of any other, should weigh with the Government. If you give an appeal to the High Court, who is to pay the costs? The people; but, by the very construction of the Bill, it is taken for granted that they cannot pay. This consideration, if there was no other, would weigh with the Government; but, above all, the Government were anxious to make this an administrative Bill, in which the judicial element shall be only sufficient to see that justice is done, as far as possible, between the Treasury and the persons concerned; and this appeal to the High Courts would be entirely at variance with that idea.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he quite agreed that the Bill should be so constructed as to give speedy and ready justice; but, at the same time, care must be taken that the Bill did not become an engine of gross injustice. The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) had always been regarded as a kind of apostle of common sense, that being a rôle which he especially liked to play. Ho (Mr. Shaw) did not dislike lawyer's as individuals, but he had a kind of suspicion, if not a dislike, to the abstraction of the Profession. He did not believe in law, but in a super-common sense; that was the kind of thing the hon. Member liked, and so did he himself; but he liked common sense according to law. That was exactly the difference between them in this important matter. With regard to the Amendment, he quite admitted upon the question of discretion as to ordinary facts, on the ground of expense and administrative details, it was neither wise nor sensible that there should be an appeal as of right in every case. The more rapid the decisions were the better. He admitted, also, that in matters of importance, not involving large sums of money, a rough-and-ready decision would be valuable. It was suggested by the Chief Secretary that this was a mere question of machinery and administration, and that there was no room for any but the most petty and trumpery questions of law, which he rather seemed to think would be questions of simple technicality. Questions of simple technicality would never have been taken to a Court of Appeal; but the very first line of the

  543
  1st clause indicated an important topic of decision which must be borne in mind—namely, whether the holding was one to which the Land Act of 1881 at all applied. There might be very nice legal points arising, and it was true that in every case that had come before the Court of Appeal the decisions of the Commissioners had been reversed; the impartiality and soundness of the Commissioners could, therefore, not be trusted as being proved to ho reliable. But he would pass from that, and come back to this one point. What was involved in the question as to a holding being within the Land Act of 1881? Two things—first, was the holding to be brought within the Land Act for the purpose of getting an application under the Arrears Bill? That was a matter of a temporary character, to be disposed of in a couple of years, involving, perhaps, only £50 or £60. But it might last for ever if it was decided by the Land Commission that the holding was within the Land Act of 1881. That decision might operate not only for the purposes of the Arrears Bill, but for all time. So that, if an appeal was not given, the Land Court might, by a rapid decision, for a temporary purpose, bring a holding of great importance under the Act of 1881, and so seriously affect the whole status of a landlord's property. It would be a gross and scandalous piece of injustice not fairly to consider whether the landlord should not have the same sort of protection which the Legislature of last year thought it necessary to give for the general administration of the Land Act of 1881. Then there was another point. The Prime Minister had on the Paper a new clause, which practically made this a new Bill. It appeared on the Paper to-day for the first time, and introduced the question, not of the limit to £30 valuation,. but of £50. That would practically apply to every holding. He should be glad if the Government would indicate that they would deal with the particular topics he had raised; but in the event of their not doing so, he thought the Amendment ought to be adopted.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the object of the new provision was to provide relief, and he wished the Committee to consider what was the state of things
  544
  already as the Bill stood. The question came before the tribunal in which the money at stake was, measured by the rent, a maximum of £30 valuation; that was a matter which must be adjudicated upon once and for ever. The Bill was an administrative Bill, and its jurisdiction must be exercised only once, and it could not so mould the law of England as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Bulwer) suggested. It was a mere administrative Bill dealing with loans, the maximum being £200, and the minimum £2 or £2 10 s. If the law erred, it erred in giving an appeal too readily, because it would be found that where an investigation was conducted in the first instance by Sub-Commissioners, there was an appeal given to a Court containing one of the Justices of the High Court of Justice in Ireland specially familiar with the topic. If the Bill was to give relief, there would be an appeal with reference to the maximum of £30; an appeal would cost, at the very least, as much as the amount to be given in many cases. The Bill differed essentially from the Land Act of 1881, which dealt with vast rights of property. In dealing with one or two such matters there was propriety in giving an appeal to determine the question of right; but in this Bill, which was intended for the relief of the poor who were not able to pay even the rent, an appeal would be practically a denial of justice; therefore, he asked the Committee to give no encouragement to the Amendment. Abundant appeal was provided, and nothing more could be sought in the interests of justice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the limit was £50, according to the limit of the Prime Minister. That might be so; but, as he understood, it would extend the limit in cases where the landlord and tenant agreed to apply for an appeal. That was the essence of the Amendment, and there could be no question of appeal in that at all. The right hon. Gentleman had been hard driven to find some topic upon which it would be conceivable to take the opinion of the High Court of Justice, and the one question was to be, whether the holding came under the Act of 1881 or not? He did not share in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's apprehension that even if there was a decision it would bind the parties for all time. For these reasons, it seemed

  545
  to him that there was no principle in the Amendment, but thought it a mischievous proposition as holding out the prospect of litigation. The ordinary Courts had power to deal with a maximum of £.50; but the Courts, under this Bill, would deal with amounts up to £500, and their decisions would he subject to one appeal. The Amendment sought very much more, and upon every principle he would ask the Committee to say that this was not a case in which appeal should be given.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that in the course of the proceedings of the Land Commission in all these numerous cases of poor tenants, who ought not to be put to expense, there would arise some very difficult questions of law indeed; and the proposal of the Amendment was that the Land Commission should have power, upon its own motion, and not on the application of any party, to allow points of law to be decided by the Courts above. The Land Commission, when it found a number of cases involving points of law, ought to have absolute power, without any cost to the poor tenants, to submit these points to the Court above.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the words in the Amendment—
  "Or shall, on the application of any party to any proceeding pending before it, unless it considers such application frivolous or vexatious."
  The effect of these words was that unless the application was frivolous or vexatious the Commissioners would be compelled to submit every point of law to the Court above if the parties wished it. Those words, which were not in the Act of last Session, would enable a great number of cases to be referred to the Court of Appeal at an enormous expense to the parties, and those would be cases in which that ought not to be done.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that was not his point. He would divide the Amendment into two separate propositions, and if the Government objected to one part which would involve a charge, there was another part which would not.
  VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, ho was greatly astonished at the speech of the Solicitor General for Ireland, and the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. First of all, the Chief Secretary
  546
  for Ireland said it was not necessary to have any appeal, because the people could not afford to pay. It appeared to him that if that was a proper principle with regard to Ireland, it would apply equally to England; and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would be able to sustain the argument that in England a man was to be barred from an appeal because he was not able to pay for it. Then the Solicitor General for Ireland said this would do away with the rights and interests of the poor, and he thought it might be asked that the right of appeal should be granted on behalf of the poor as on behalf of the rich. It was idle to argue that this was a one-sided matter. If there was to be an appeal at all, he did not think the question of the cost ought to enter into the account at all. He thought the Amendment was reasonable, as it was much more desirable that questions of law should be tried by a permanent Court than be relegated to a Court for temporary purposes.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, there was an appeal provided for under Subsection 3 of Section 7, which said that in every case where applications had not been heard by the Land Commission—upon which was one of the Judges of the land—there might be an appeal to that Commission.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, there was no appeal to any judicial tribunal. This was a point on which ho should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee; but he would not detain them more than a minute before going to a division. There, however, had been a remark made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with regard to the judicial tribunals in Ireland being subjected to the criticism of that House, respecting which he desired to say a word in reply. He (Mr. J. Lowther) would point out that his complaint against the Land Commission was that it was not a judicial tribunal at all, and that it was essentially a tribunal of partizans. That was what he had said on more than one occasion. The hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), who seemed to have great solicitude for his (Mr. J. Lowther's) reputation, which he was glad to think the hon. Member admitted he possessed at all, regretted that he (Mr. J. Lowther) should criticize that body

  547
  But he might venture to suggest the reason why the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) had a fellow-feeling with the Land Commission. The hon. Gentleman, he believed, had been a very distinguished ornament of a body that was not very widely dissimilar from the Land Commission with respect to the elements of its composition. He referred to the Bessborough Commission, upon which there were four partizans out of five, the hon. Gentleman being one of them. No doubt the hon. Member was solicitous for the reputation of a partizan Commission; but he knew the hon. Member had only made his remarks, so far as they related to him (Mr. J. Lowther), in good humour.
  MR. WARTON(who, on rising, was received with loud cries of "Divide!") said, that, when silence was restored, he would make one or two short observations. Let them see what the Government really meant by rejecting this Amendment. They said, in the first place, that the Land Commission might not, of its own motion, refer any point of law—that was to say, that though it might be anxious to refer a point of law upon a certain case, upon the decision of which so many hundreds of other cases might depend, it would not be allowed to do so. That point had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who, he thought, had put it very neatly indeed. Curiously enough, this Land Commission was a body whom the Government trusted. The Conservatives had been reproached for not putting such confidence in that Commission; but the Government themselves showed how little confidence they had in that body when it suited their purpose not to have confidence. As this Bill progressed, and as the different concessions of the Government were made to the Party below the Gangway, it became more and more likely that many points of law would arise before the Commission. Amendments of the nature of those suggested by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) absolutely bristled with points of law. If the Bill had been left in its original simplicity, there might, perhaps, not have been so much necessity for amendment; but before they reached the Report stage they would find that an enormous number of points of law would have arisen. He had only
  548
  one thing more to say—[Crien of "Divide!"]—but that would take him some time to explain, unless he was listened to. It was this—that the condemnation the Conservative Party had put upon the | Land Commission seemed to be really tacitly understood by the Government in another respect. They seemed to assume that the Land Commission would always find in favour of the tenant. The Solicitor General for Ireland seemed to assume that they would not find in favour of the landlord—perhaps some order was to be sent round quietly to the Land Commission, as it had been in a previous case, to intimate that these cases were to be decided in favour of the tenant, and not of the landlord.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 171: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 265.)
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he wished to move to leave out from "moneys" to the end of the clause. This omission was something of the same nature as that proposed by the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), though it took rather a different view of the position. His (Sir Hervey Bruce's) Amendment was simply to leave out the words—
  "The Land Commission shall not be subject to be restrained in the execution of their powers under this Act by the order of any Court, nor shall any proceedings before them be removed by certiorari into any Court."
  It appeared to him that these were words which ought not to be left in the Bill, and the arguments which were to be used in favour of that proposal were somewhat similar to those in favour of the Amendment which the Committee had just decided. The Solicitor General for Ireland had failed to convince him (Sir Hervey Bruce) of the undesirability of having a Court of Appeal as a check upon the Land Commission, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had given a rather extraordinary reason why there should not be this appeal. The right hon. Gentleman had given an extraordinary reason for not agreeing to the proposal of the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire; and he had patted on the back the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) for an ob-

  549
  servation he had made. Ho (Sir Hervey Bruce) was glad the hon. Member for the County of Cork had showed a greater discretion than the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell) had said that if anybody would look at the Bill he would see that there were ample powers in it for the purpose pointed out, and that they would be able to refer cases to three gentlemen, one of them being a legal authority, and the other two well qualified to consider questions affecting the land. The hon. Member might be right, because he had, no doubt, had some experience in this matter; but, at the same time, as he would see, the clause said, "only one of them," and that would enable either of the Commissioners to hoar an appeal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had put a Question a few days ago to the First Minister of the Crown as to the condition of the Land Commission, and its not being necessary for all the members of the Commission to sit together; and the Prime Minister bad replied that the Chief Commissioner acted in this matter in accordance with the powers of the Act, but not according to the intention of the Act when it was passed. It had been his (Sir Hervey Bruce's) endeavour since that time to get the question raised in order to ascertain whether the sitting of two members of the Commission was in accordance with the law. But he had always been told that he could not raise that question. He thought it was an extremely hard case that in a Bill affecting the interests of so many people, some of them, perhaps, well off, some in moderate circumstances, and others who were very poor, there should be no power of letting parties appeal from their decisions, or rather the decisions of those gentlemen who were backed up all over the country on account of their political views and services. When he spoke of the Land Commission he spoke from practical experience No doubt many of the Sub-Commissioners were men of honour, and fit to transact all the ordinary business of life; but they were no more capable of judging of the value of land than he himself should be if he went into a strange field. They were no more qualified to value land than would be the right hon. Gentleman the
  550
  Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant if he were called upon to do so. He (Sir Hervey Bruce) said that if the whole decision in cases under the Arrears Bill were to be left to one of the Chief Commissioners it would be most unjust and unfair, and there fore he moved that Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 30, to leave out from the word "moneys," to the end of the Clause.—(Sir Hervey Bruce.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he took it that the question really raised was the conduct of the Sub-Commissioners; and he must say, with all deference to the hon. Gentleman, that it appeared to him that he would be doing better service to his own cause if, instead of such general charges, he would bring forward particular instances of misconduct on the part of the Commissioners. He (Viscount Ebrington) thought that the Government would be likely, if only for their own credit and from the instinct of self-preservation, to select the best persons they could get to discharge the duties of the Commission. As far as he could judge, the Sub-Commissioners, taking them as a body, would compare favourably with Justices of the Peace, either in this country or in Ireland. They heard from time to time of specimens of Justices' justice which would compare with the wildest decisions of which Sub-Commissioners were accused, not unfavourably to the latter. He had a table which had been prepared by a Committee of Irish landlords, purporting to show the general value of Irish land; and it appeared that the Land Commissioners, in their judicial decisions, had placed the rent at an average of 11 or 12 per cent above Griffith's valuation, and only 1 per cent lower than the amount which appeared from that table as the general average rent of Ireland. It also appeared from the Returns that the average of the rent decided on by the Commissioners was as much as 42 per cent over Griffith's valuation; so it was obvious that the general run of cases submitted to the Commissioners must have been cases in which the rent was very much in excess of the valuation.

  551
  He knew perfectly well that Griffith's valuation was an uncertain guide as to the value of laud in Ireland. It might be worth little or it might be worth much; but when they found in cases affecting 200,000 acres that the average was as high as that, and they also found, on the information of those who understood the question very well, that the proportion of land in Ireland lot as high as 40 per cent over the valuation was very small, it was likely, in his opinion, that the cases which had come before the Commissioners were, as a rule, cases in which the rent was high, and he thought, taking one ease with another, they had done justice to all concerned. It was possible that they had not given satisfaction to the landlords, because it was not always satisfactory to an individual to find that a decision had been given attaching a lower value to one's property than he thought should be attached to it. Special cases were from time to time submitted to the House and the Committee in which the Sub-Commissioners had apparently very unjustly reduced rents which had been regularly paid for a long series of years. Special cases could only be met by special eases, and he knew of a case in which the landlord's own valuator reduced a rent which had been paid regularly for upwards of 50 years by a very substantial amount indeed, and the reason the valuator gave was that the land was not worth as much now as it was formerly. He presumed the Commissioners had in many cases acted on the same principle. It was a fact that the tillage land in Ireland did not produce as much as formerly. If hon. Gentlemen would compare the amount of the produce in 1850 and 1860 with the amount of produce in 1870 and 1880, they would find that the general produce had diminished; and if they had regard to one species of produce—potatoes—they would find that the average produce had diminished from 4½ tons to 3 tons per acre.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONErose to Order. He desired to ask the Chairman whether the noble Lord was confining himself to the Amendment before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord is certainly travelling beyond the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONbegged to apologize to the Committee. He understood the question was the competency of the Sub-Commissioners generally to carry out this Act. Of course, if the Chairman ruled him out of Order, he should say no more.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped a vote would be taken on this Amendment. The words which it was proposed to omit were words which excluded the power of a Court of Law to interfere with the action of the Land Commissioners, even if the Court thought that that action was wrong. It would be a very mischievous tiling to prevent a Court of Law stepping in to keep the Land Commissioners right.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, everybody would admit that his noble Friend (Viscount Ebrington) had argued the case of the Sub-Commissioners very much better than it had hitherto been argued on the Ministerial side of the House. His noble Friend's argument seemed to rest upon two pillars, to use a metaphor now in fashion. The first argument was that the Land Commissioners substantially agreed with the Bessborough Commission.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, that what he had stated was that the Commissioners' decision agreed with what appeared to be the general rule in Ireland, according to the information of the Irish Land Act Committee, which was a very different Body to the Bessborough Commission.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURbegged the noble Lord's pardon if he had not caught his words correctly. The second argument of the noble Lord was that substantially the Commissioners had the confidence of a large majority of the Irish people. That was urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; but he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) must point out to the Committee that the mere fact of a large majority of the Irish people having confidence in the Land Commissioners did not prove that the Commissioners deserved that confidence. The Irish people in this connection meant the Irish tenants. Not unnaturally the majority of the Irish tenants had confidence in the Land Commissioners, because they habitually decided against the landlord. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour)

  553
  had no doubt that a debtor would have confidence in any Court which decided in his favour.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, this provision was taken bodily from the Land Act of 1881. The Land Act provided—
  "The Land Commission shall not be subject to be restrained in the execution of their powers under this Act by the order of any court, nor shall any proceedings before them be removed by certiorari into any court."
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that in the Land Act of last year there was the power of appeal provided. It was because there was no such provision in the present Act that it became dangerous to exclude the jurisdiction of a Court. In regard to one class of Statutes in this country it had been found very mischievous to exclude appeal.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington) seemed to have misunderstood him. He did not mean to impute any personal impropriety to the Sub-Commissioners; but he said they were not men, from the point of position and ability, fitted to carry out the object for which they were appointed, and that they listened to the evidence of inexperienced instead of to that of experienced valuators. He would like to know how the noble Lord had arrived at his figures, for, if he understood the noble Lord correctly, he said the Commissioners were fixing the rents 11 or 12 per cent above Griffith's valuation. In his (Sir Hervey Bruce's) part of the country, that was far from the case; they, in fact, were fixing the rents far below Griffith's valuation. It had been said that the Sub-Commissioners visited every farm upon which they were called upon to adjudicate; but he (Sir Hervey Bruce) would ask what a timber merchant could possibly know about the value of land? In the matter of his farms the two Head Commissioners were legal gentlemen, so they were not likely to know much about the value of land. They sat up in their Court with great dignity, in wig and gown, and disregarded the evidence of the Court valuer, by fixing the rents very much below what he had recommended.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, his figures were of a general character; but he should be pleased to show them to the hon. Baronet (Sir Hervey Bruce).
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 93: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 266.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH moved to add at end of line 34, page 3—
  "All bankers, managers of post office and other savings banks, collectors of agricultural returns, and other persons shall be bound, on receiving a notice from the Land Commission, to produce, when and where required, all books, papers, and documents within their custody, power, or procurement, referred to in such notice."
  He called the attention of the Committee to this subject on the 3rd clause of the Bill, and he would endeavour to explain, in a few words, the Amendment he had now placed on the Paper. He had always felt, as, he thought, many hon. Members had felt, that one of the great difficulties in this measure was that of insuring a full and complete inquiry into the ability of the tenant to pay his arrears. It was necessary to endeavour to point out, at least to the Commissioners and to those who were to administer the Act, that the inquiry should be searching and thorough, and to confer upon the administrators of the Act all the powers necessary to make it so. In the debate on the Motion "That the Speaker do leave the Chair," he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said it was very difficult to see how the Government could distinguish between the cases of those tenants who were able to pay arrears, and the case of those tenants who were unable to pay the arrears. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), replying to him (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) at that time, admitted that the matter was one of considerable difficulty, and went on to say—
  "Under our plan every person applying for an advance will be forced to render an exact account of the state of his affairs. We shall know what sum he has due to him, what sum he has in the savings bank, what stock ho has on his farm, the value of his furniture, and the general circumstances in which he lives, and we shall thus ascertain whether he is in that state of destitution which will enable him to come justly and ask for a portion of this gift."—[3 Hansard, cclxxi. 1642.]
  Those words pointed as clearly as words could point to an inquiry which should be as searching and as thorough as any inquiry under the Bankruptcy Act would be. What he desired to do by this

  555
  Amendment was to empower the Commissioners to conduct such an inquiry, and to give them certain powers which were obviously necessary if the inquiries which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said should be held were to be held. He desired to give the Commissioners, in reference to this point, powers similar to those enjoyed by the Court of Bankruptcy. It was of great importance that they should have some words in the Bill directly authorizing the Commissioners to make such inquiries as he proposed. The Committee knew perfectly well the light in which this matter was viewed by some hon. Members opposite They had heard within the last few clays the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), and more than one of the hon. Members representing Northern counties in Ireland, deprecating an inquiry of this kind as an inquisitorial thing which ought not to be allowed if the Government wished this legislation to succeed. But it must be borne in mind that the money of the taxpayers should not be wasted, and that they ought to endeavour to escape that widespread demoralization which would be caused if advances were granted to persons who were not really entitled to them. The only way in which they could insure that such sums should not be so granted was by making the inquiries, so far as they could, searching and thorough. What the Committee ought to do was to insert in the Bill a direction to the Commissioners, and leave it to them to carry that direction out.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 34, at end, add "all bankers, managers of post office and other savings banks, collectors of agricultural returns, and other persons shall be bound, on receiving a notice from the Land Commission, to produce, when and where required, all books, papers, and documents, within their custody, power, or procurement, referred to in such notice."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that the power which he wished to introduce in the Bill was of very great importance. He was convinced that no inquiry could be real and valid without the power which the right hon. Gentleman wished
  556
  to have introduced. The power, however, was included in the words which ho (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had undertaken to introduce in the Schedule. While he agreed with the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view, he must say the Amendment was wholly unnecessary, because the Schedule would provide the power now sought to be given to the Commissioners.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he would not have made a remark upon this Amendment if he had been as clear upon it as the Solicitor General for Ireland appeared to be. It was obvious that this was an Amendment framed in the interests of the public, and of the public Treasury, because it was the Treasury of the public that was interested in ascertaining what were the means of the tenants. Bankers, and the other classes mentioned, were to the last degree unwilling to come forward and give information, and obviously and fairly so, because confidence was the essence of their business. If there was no such distinct power such as ho thought there ought to be, he had a very strong opinion that if the parties were left' to put their own construction upon the possible meaning of the powers of the Court of Chancery, practically nothing would be done. With reference to the policy of such an Amendment, if the State gave a great gift, to enable the tenants to pay their debts, the State was entitled primarily to satisfy itself that the people were unable to pay, and for that purpose they must be able to exact the fullest declaration of the affairs of the tenants, and to require the attendance of every person who could throw any light upon the pecuniary position of the tenant, bearing in mind that the debtor was distinctly interested in keeping back the fact that he possessed any property, and that the class of persons picked out by this Amendment were the people who would be most desirous of withholding that information, and not to disclose how their clients stood with reference to them, or to anyone else. The answer to this was plausible. It was admitted by the Solicitor General for Ireland that the Amendment was reasonable, fair, and just. Yet the way it was met was this. The Government proposed a new Schedule to do everything that could be done under this Amendment, and said there was nothing whatever in the Amendment that would not be as clearly done in the 48th section of the Land Act. He questioned that, be-

  557
  cause he believed there was a distinction. In proceedings in the Court of Chancery each litigant was supported by particular arguments; but that was not the position of the Land Commission. The Land Commission, in administering its jurisdiction, had two parties before it, and it also had a strong neutral interest to consider, which interest, being the State, was guarded by this Amendment. If the landlord and the tenant were the sole parties interested, it would simply be a litigation between the landlord and the tenant; and the analogy between the Land Court and the Court of Chancery would be complete. But the peculiar point in which the analogy was not complete was that there was a gift, not from one side to the other, or a loan from one side to the other, but a gift from a third party, that third party being the State. Therefore, it was, at all events, open to some question whether these powers, which applied to the Court of Chancery and to the Land Commission, and to the Act of 1881, would equally apply under the exceptional jurisdiction of this Act. Even assuming that it might be argued as a matter of strict and rigid law, and be so interpreted by a Court of Law, that these powers might possibly be deputed to the Land Court under this Bill, he took other and higher ground. This power should be administered with all due forbearance and caution, respecting, as far as possible, the confidence placed in the bankers and other persons mentioned in the Schedule, and it was of great importance that parties who sought the benefit of the Bill on the ground that they were unable to pay their debts should be warned by a plain provision under the Act of Parliament that they were liable to have these witnesses called against them if they gave a false account of their property. This Amendment must be taken in connection with the Amendment already suggested to the House—namely, that the tenant should be called upon, when he applied to the Court for the benefit of this Act, to show that he was unable to pay his debts, and to indicate what property he had on the face of his application. If the Act told the tenant that he would be likely to have the banker and others to contradict him if he had given false evidence, that would be an enormous moral check, and might save hundreds and thousands of pounds. That was an argument he placed
  558
  as high as any doubt that might be cleared by a legal decision. He thought the Committee would do great good by placing this Amendment in the Bill, for if it could do no good it could not do any possible harm.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was surprised, after the explanation of the Solicitor General for Ireland, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) should desire to place this Amendment in the Bill, and he could not see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. The Committee would understand that when the Act of last year was passed it was necessary to give a power to the Court of full examination; and, in order to do that, the best way was to confer on that statutory Court, not all the powers, as the right hon. Gentleman said, of the Court of Chancery, but all powers for the purpose of forcing examination of witnesses. It was quite evident the House ought to give similar powers to the Court which would have to inquire into these matters. Why should they depart from the expression in the Act of last year giving generally powers to be transferred? If they once began to minimize they would raise a difficulty as to whether the Court had those powers which were expressed in the Act of last year. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the analogy would be complete; but that in Chancery there were two parties who raised particular issues, in respect to which the Court applied powers which did not exist here. That was true; but in Chancery there was a question at issue, and, the subject-matter having been determined upon, how could it be said that there was no analogy if the comprehensive powers conferred on the Court of Chancery were conferred on this Court? It was suggested that no attempt should be made to particularize these powers; but the right hon. Gentleman who moved to have these powers in the Schedule was now putting into the Schedule those extensive powers which were given to the Court of Chancery, and which included all the powers that could be wanted. He was not satisfied with his own view; but now supported an Amendment which was most faulty in reading, because it only applied to certain persons, but raised doubts of a most objectionable character.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked whether it was or was not the fact that the Post Office Acts protected Post Office Savings Banks in a particular way, even against the powers of examination possessed by the Court of Chancery? He had heard that that was the fact, and he very much questioned whether there would in any case be a readiness on the part of the Post Office authorities to allow their accounts to be examined. If there was one class of banks which more than another should be inquired into he thought it was these Post Office Savings' Banks, because they would most probably hold the small accounts belonging to persons who would be likely to come under this Act.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman is under an entire misapprehension. To produce a local postmaster would be perfectly useless. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that the postmaster stands in the same position towards the Post Office depositor as the Secretary to the Trustees of the old Savings' Banks depositor. The local postmaster knows nothing whatever. Ho does not keep the books or the accounts. The depositor himself is the keeper of his book, and ho comes to the local postmaster from time to time, and has an entry made, and then takes the book away. The power of the Court will be exercised against the depositor himself, and it will be the duty of the Court, if it thinks fit, to require the depositor to produce his book; but the local postmaster has no power to assist the Court.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, ho thought the Post Office could tell whether the man kept a book or not; and suggested that the Government should consider whether they should put in a Proviso enabling this tribunal to obtain the transcript of the documents which would appear on the accounts. Would there be any difficulty in providing that a transcript, signed by a responsible official, should be produced? The Prime Minister said the depositor alone was possessed of the book, and the official only made an entry; but he supposed there was some record as to how many people had books. It was so in London, and a letter to the Post Office in London would elicit the fact whether a person who said he could not pay his debts had a book or not. If there was no great inconvenience to the
  560
  Public Service, such a power must prove a great check. If the tribunal gave a man money to pay his debts, they must inquire, to a certain extent, into his affairs, to find out if he was entitled to this gift; and if some information could be given without inconvenience, it might cause a vast saving to the public, and act as a check to people who had not the slightest title to assistance.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he thought the time of the Committee was not well occupied with this discussion. This Bill concerned the poorest class in Ireland—the small tenants — whose valuation reached no higher than £30 per annum. These were the people the Committee was asked to suppose had banking accounts. This was something farcical to those who knew the condition of those people. They were unable to save anything; they were unable to procure decent food and clothes, and yet the supposed savings of these rack-rented tenantry were to be called into account. There would be nothing to produce, and how anybody could suppose anything to the contrary astonished him. Then the agricultural returns wore to be brought against the tenants; but those returns were compiled from information voluntarily given by the Irish tenants, and they had been thanked in the returns for giving the information. But when once the Irish tenants knew that the particulars they gave would be used against themselves, they would refuse to give it, because they would feel that such information would some day subject them to a great deal of annoyance and trouble. Prom any point of view, this Amendment seemed to him absolutely ridiculous.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
  MR. BULWERsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) seemed to think there was only one class of tenants—the poor and honest; but there was also another class, neither poor nor honest. A case had been lately published in the papers in which a man, who had declined to pay his rent, on being threatened with legal proceedings, had pulled out of his pocket £120. It was one thing to give power to the Court to enforce the pro-

  561
  duction of evidence if the Court thought fit; but what he wanted to know was, whether, if he, as a landlord, came before the Commission, he could use this power in order to prove his case or disprove that of his antagonist? In English Courts there was a process by which access could be obtained to the hooks of the saving's banks; and was the same power to be provided in Ireland as was now possessed by the litigant in any other part of the Kingdom?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the powers of the Land Court were exactly the same as the Chancery Court, or any other Court, in regard to enforcing the production of documents on its own motion.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

QUESTION.

  THE MINISTRY—RUMOURED RESIGNATION OF MR. BRIGHT.
  MR. CALLAN: As I see no Cabinet Minister in the House, I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Richard Grosvenor) if he can inform the House whether the rumour that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) has resigned his seat as a Member of the Cabinet be true?
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR: I regret to say that I have no information to give on the subject.
  MR. WARTON: Oh, you regret it!
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.