SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.

HC Deb 17 July 1882 vol 272 cc724-832

Clause 5 (Delegation of powers of Land Commission, 44 & 45 Victoria, chap. 49).

MR. GIBSON moved, in page 3, line 36, to leave out "such," and insert "an." The clause provided that the Land Commission might by a special order delegate its powers, except that of making rules, to the Civil Bill Court, or to any Sub-Commission, or to any member of the Land Commission or of a Sub-Commission, subject to "such appeal (if any) to the Land Commission as may be prescribed." The object of the Amendment was to provide that upon all reasonable points there should be an appeal from the persons delegated by the Land Commissioners to the Commissioners themselves. It appeared to him that the words which he proposed to omit in this clause, if allowed to remain, would leave the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners, and the result would be that persons to whom the powers of the Commission were delegated would not be fettered by any control whatever. There was no guarantee in the Bill that there was to be an appeal from the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners; but, on the contrary, the provisions of the Bill, as it now stood, would enable the Government to select any Member of a Sub-Commission, no matter how little trusted, or how small his knowledge, to discharge very important duties, and then leave it as a discretionary matter whether there was to be any appeal or not. He believed there was absolutely no qualification whatever required for a Sub-Commissioner, to whom those duties might be delegated. He would not enter into any lengthened argument; but he proposed to move the three Amendments which stood in his name together, as they were consequential. The first proposed to omit the word "such," in order to insert the word "an." The next was to leave out the words "if any;" and the third proposed to leave out the words "as may be prescribed." The clause would then run— The Land Commission may from time to time by rule under this Act or by any special order delegate, subject to an appeal to the Land Commission, any power or duty under this Act," &c.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, leave out the word "such," in order to insert the word"an."—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'such' stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, he understood his right hon. and learned Friend to contemplate that there should be an appeal as a matter of right on all reasonable points; but what the reasonable points were his right hon. and learned Friend had not indicated. To a certain extent he went with his right hon. and learned Friend—namely, that on all matters of law there ought to be such an appeal; but in matters of fact it would be impracticable. If the Bill was necessary at all, it was also necessary that affairs under it should be wound up and these arrears disposed of as rapidly as possible; and surely matters of fact in regard to the conditions which controlled the application for benefit under the Bill might be left to any man of ordinary common sense without requiring him to be a lawyer. If they gave an appeal in every instance, no matter what their intention was, they would necessarily include matters of fact, and, instead of an appeal being given as a matter of right on all reasonable points, they would include an appeal on points that were most unreasonable.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had reserved, in moving the Amendment, his right of stating, at greater length, his views in regard to the necessity of the Amendment. He regretted that his right hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General for Ireland) had not given any indication whatever, which he might easily have done, what was to be the nature of the tribunal they were asked to trust. Would it be a legal tribunal, or a lay tribunal? Would it be an Assistant Commissioner who would know nothing about law, or have any respect for law at all? The Commissioners might appoint, not lawyers, but laymen, to discharge their duties, and he contended that against the decisions of such persons there ought in all cases to be the right of appeal. Surely it was a matter within the breast of the Government what the nature of the tribunal was to be, and he asked for a distinct statement from them whether they intended to retain the power of delegation to any member of a Sub-Commission who was not a lawyer, or to any man who had not had a legal training. The decision of questions which might arise under Sub-sections (a) and (b) of Clause 1, referred to as preliminary conditions—namely, that the rent payable in respect of the year had been satisfied, and that antecedent arrears of rent were duo to the landlord, might well be left to the discretion of the persons appointed to ascertain them. But it was a very different thing when they came to Sub-section (c), which fixed as another condition that the tenant was unable to discharge such antecedent arrears. That was a very vital question, and he contended that in every case it ought to be inquired into by some person, whether a barrister or solicitor was immaterial, who should have had a legal training, and that the decision should be subject to an appeal, with the penalty of imposing costs if the appeal were found to have been brought rashly or vexatiously. What he wanted to know now was, whether the preliminary administration of the Act would be given to one individual, and might that individual not be a person of legal training, and was it intended to insure that, no matter what the authority was, there should be no absolute right of appeal, but only a discretionary power to grant an appeal? He did not consider it any answer to be told that the Land Commission had the power of granting an appeal under the 7th section of the Bill. That was a most unsatisfactory answer, and he hoped the Government would be prepared to give a distinct answer now to the questions he had put.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) asked that there should be an appeal in every proper case; but how did his right hon. and learned Friend propose to proceed? Did he require an appeal in every case? He understood his right hon. and learned Friend to say "No."

MR. GIBSON

In every case, if it is a lay tribunal.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, he had already stated that the Government could not undertake to give an appeal in every case. If the tribunal consisted of a land agent it would not be necessary to give an appeal in every case on questions of fact, but only on matters of law, where the tribunal would not have been conducted under the authority of a lawyer. His right hon. and learned Friend objected to matters either of fact or law being disposed of by laymen in regard to investigations concerning the ability of a tenant to discharge his antecedent arrears. Now, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) should not have thought that there was a landlord, or tenant, or agent in Ireland, or any unconcerned person, who would not in a few moments ascertain whether a tenant had been able honestly to pay the antecedent arrears. His own opinion was that a practical man would be able to find his way to a solution of that question much more satisfactorily and readily than any legal Court. Probably a practical man might not be as competent as a lawyer to decide a question of law; but matters of facts were in a very different position. His right hon. and learned Friend asked him what was to be the tribunal sanctioned by the Bill. That was already pointed out in the clause—namely, the Civil Bill Court, or any Sub-Commission, or any member of the Land Commission or of a Sub-Commission. His right hon. and learned Friend asked if they were going to single out a lay member, or a Sub-Commissioner, and not a legal member or a competent man, and his right hon. and learned Friend added that if that was their proposition then he should ask for an appeal, not only in regard to questions of law, but in reference to matters of fact. He could not see the logic of that argument, because a lay Sub-Commissioner would be perfectly competent to give opinions upon all matters of fact, and it was not necessary to provide an appeal from his decision upon matters of fact. But no matter who the Commissioner might be, whether he was a lawyer or a lay Commissioner, he had already admitted that it would be reasonable to give an appeal from his decision upon matters of law. Of course, it was the duty of the Government and of the Land Commission to take care that all investigations under the Bill would be conducted by competent, and not incompetent, persons.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General for Ireland) had admitted that in certain cases it was right that an appeal should be given, and he thought the Committee were justified in asking that if that was the opinion of the Government, they should introduce words into the clause to render it obligatory. He could not understand, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was so intended, that the construction of the words of the clause, as they now stood, really insured an appeal, even in cases connected with matters of law. As his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) had pointed out, there might be no appeal upon anything at all. The Attorney General for Ireland said it would be the duty of the Government, or of the Land Commission, to insure that a competent Sub-Commissioner was appointed to hear these eases. All he (Mr. Lowther) could say was that, if such a person could be found, he would be desperately hard worked, because he was likely to have all the work of his Colleagues thrown upon him. He was prepared to say, without hesitation, that as far as the performances of these gentlemen had been made public, the impression made upon his mind was that, as a class, they had not shown themselves competent, persons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about an "expert." He did not use that word, but he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to include in that designation a land agent, for instance, as being an expert in regard to the value of land. But what the Committee required to be assured of was, that he should be a person capable of sifting evidence. The name of nearly every Sub - Commissioner had been brought before the House from time to time as being unfit to decide points of law, or, in point of fact, to sit upon any public tribunal whatever. He would not refer to any of these gentlemen individually, but would only deal with them in the abstract, and it was a well-known fact that on separate occasions the names of nearly every one of them had been more or less brought before the House of Commons as a person unfit to discharge the duties intrusted to him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland talked of casting these duties upon all of the Sub-Corn-missioners.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, he had distinctly stated that there would be an appeal on matters of law, and he had drawn a distinction between appeals on matters of law and matters of fact. He did not consider it reasonable that there should be an appeal on a matter of fact, and he had stated why. He had no objection to introduce words into the clause giving the right of appeal on questions of law.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a concession; but he did not understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed, without reservation, to give an appeal even on questions of law.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

remarked, that he had not put any reservation upon the matter at all.

MR. J. LOWTHER

But the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not propose to give an appeal on matters of fact.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

Certainly not.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, it appeared to him that there ought to be an appeal on matters of fact. Public confidence had been rudely shaken in the Sub-Commissioners, who were popularly known in Ireland as sub-confiscators. ["Oh!"] He repeated that assertion.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

rose to Order. This tribunal was a judicial tribunal, and it was a standing rule of that House, he believed, that aspersions should not be permitted to be cast upon judicial tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman had taken every possible opportunity of making the same speech for the purpose of disparaging the Sub-Commissioners, and making imputations upon the manner in which they discharged their judicial functions.

THE CHAIRMAN

This is not a question of Order; but it is the practice of the House to speak with great respect of judicial tribunals. What the right hon. Gentleman now states is stated upon his own responsibility.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was not correct in his statement that he (Mr. Lowther) made the same speech over and over again for the purpose of casting reflections upon the Sub-Commissioners. As far as he could call to mind, he had scarcely ever alluded to those gentlemen except on one occasion, when he had certainly stated that they were popularly known in Ireland as sub-confiscators, and he felt bound to repeat that statement. He wished to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General for Ireland) whether, when the Government considered the propriety of framing words to insure an appeal in all cases of law, they would also consider the propriety of giving an appeal on matters of fact, when only one person was to constitute the tribunal, or when there was to be no legal person upon it?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, of course the Government would consider the matter so far as questions of law were concerned; but he could not give a pledge that there would be an appeal in ail cases on questions of fact.

MR. PLUNKET

remarked, that before the Committee divided upon this question it was right that it should be clearly understood what had been asked for by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson). He must say it appeared to him the proposal made by his right hon. and learned Friend was an extremely fair one. All he asked for was this—that a person dissatisfied with the decision of a Commissioner, or whoever the parties might be appointed to hear these cases, should have an opportunity of an appeal. Of course, if they made a strong tribunal in the first instance, they might fairly say that they would only give a right of appeal in certain cases; but, in the proposal of the Government, what his right hon. and learned Friend pointed out was that they would not even give an assurance that the tribunal of First Instance was to be composed of men who had had any experience or practice whatever in the sifting of evidence or the decision of technical questions. He ventured to submit to the Committee that questions as to the ascertainment of arrears due to the landlord might arise which would be questions of extreme difficulty and delicacy. His own opinion was that it would require a skilled person to decide these points, who should have had experience in regard to legal and technical questions, and who should have been able to observe the way in which judicial proceedings had been conducted. What his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) said was this—if they would assure him they were going to appoint persons who had had professional experience either as barristers or attorneys, then it would only be necessary to give an appeal on questions of law. He agreed with his right hon. and learned Friend that it would be extremely unsatisfactory if, while they were without any guarantee or assurance whatever as regarded the character of the persons who were to form the tribunal of a First Instance, they were to refuse to the Committee the satisfaction of knowing that there would be a right of appeal. The weaker they made the tribunal of First Instance the greater would be the necessity for giving an appeal. He would certainly make those who were to compose the tribunal of First Instance much more careful and effective in their proceedings if it were known that in all cases there would be a right of appeal.

MR. GREGORY

said, that anyone who was old enough to have had the experience he had had in the old Courts of Insolvency would admit that it was by no means an easy matter to come to a decision, even on matters of fact, where the fact was the ability, or otherwise, of persons to pay their creditors. The persons who came under the clause would have every inducement to conceal the truth, and it would not be very easy to extract the truth from them. The question involved in the Amendment was a very serious one, because if they appointed a Commissioner who had no legal knowledge, and was absolutely unacquainted with the ordinary methods for sifting evidence, great injustice might be done, and a good many false statements might be made. He thought it would be well for the Government to consider the matter, and see if they could not provide something more satisfactory than the clause as it now stood.

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, he thought it ought to be remembered—and the most bitter opponents of the Sub-Commissioners would not deny it—that among their ranks could be found competent persons to conduct such inquiries as would be necessary under this Bill. It would also be admitted by the most bitter opponents of the Bill that if the measure was to do any good at all it must be brought very speedily into operation; and if they were to have an appeal in every case, not only on ques- tions of law but on matters of fact, no one could say when the proceedings under the Bill would be likely to come to an end. They would have burning questions in regard to arrears of rent cropping up certainly for the next 18 months, and in the meantime other arrears would be accruing. He hoped the Government would stand firm by the clause, and that they would not accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

suggested that the Law Officers should give some definition as to what would be considered matters of fact before the Committee went to a division. So far as he could see from the wording of the clause, a man who owed his misfortunes to drink, and who suffered from delirium tremens, might cite that fact as a proof of his inability to pay. Would that be a question of law or fact? Again, a man might produce a receipt from a whisky dealer for the exact amount of his rent, showing the way the money had gone. Would that be a question of law or fact?

MR. BRODRICK

said, there had been a great divergence between the opinions of the different Sub-Commissioners, and it was extremely unlikely that any general agreement would be arrived at now; and in a considerable number of cases injustice would undoubtedly be done unless the Government agreed to grant an appeal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Johnson) said that practical men only would take cognizance of these matters; but he submitted to the Committee that the majority of the Sub-Commissioners were not practical men, and they were now giving to the Sub-Commissioners work for which they were never intended. Whatever difference of opinion there might be about the ability of the Sub-Commissioners, there could be no difference of opinion about this—that the decisions they had already given in different parts of Ireland showed a great divergence of opinion, and it was quite certain that in adjudicating upon these new matters the views of the Sub-Commissioners would be still more divergent. But although they might differ on other matters, they were all likely to be strongly prepossessed in favour of the tenant, and in favour of giving something; and, as the House of Commons was the guardian of the public money to be given under this Act, they ought to take care that the tribunal appointed to make the preliminary inquiries should be a thoroughly competent one.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, he had heard complaints made in that House over and over again of the absolute uniformity of the decisions which had been given by the Sub-Commissioners; but now the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brodrick) said that there had been an extreme divergence in the views of the Sub-Commissioners, and that it was a proof of their incompetency to conduct the preliminary inquiries. It seemed that any argument was good enough to urge against the Sub-Commissioners. He had no intention of defending them at present; but he thought these attempts to discredit the working of the tribunal were not likely to increase its usefulness. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowther) said the Sub-Commissioners were known throughout Ireland as sub-confiscators. Now, in all probability, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) knew as much of Ireland as the right hon. Gentleman, and he gave to that assertion an emphatic contradiction. Any opinion that the Sub-Commissioners were at all likely to act in a manner that would lay them open to such a remark was, in his opinion, absolutely incorrect. His noble Friend (Viscount Ebrington) asked whether certain circumstances indicating that a man had spent his money at the whisky shop would constitute inability to pay his rent? He would remind the Committee that the principle involved in that question had already been discussed, and the Committee had decided that the matter was one not of the means by which the inability had been brought about, but whether, as a matter of fact, the tenant was unable, and that would be the matter for the Sub-Commissioners to inquire into. Undoubtedly matters of law might arise, and if they should arise there would be an appeal to the Commissioners themselves. They were not dealing with complicated rights, but simply with loans of money varying in amount from£2to £30. Of course, the vast majority of cases which would come before the tribunal would affect very small amounts; probably the average would be £7, or even less. It was right that there should be an appeal where any question of law arose, and that the Government had undertaken to provide. His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had said an appeal would be provided in every case where there was a difficult question of law.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had no wish to prolong the consideration of the clause by the time necessary for a division; but he wished to point out that the Government's view of the matter would be negatived if his Amendment were not accepted. Now was the time for dealing with the question of appeal in regard to matters of law. If the question were to be shunted off to the Commissioners, the object the Government professed to have would be entirely negatived.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

said, he had not understood his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) to complain of the decisions of the Sub - Commissioners. What his hon. Friend did say was that they had given very different views for the decisions they had arrived at, and that was a material point, because it showed that they wore not in accord upon the reasons which guided their action. Nevertheless, there had been entire uniformity in the way in which they had acted. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) said, truly enough, that there were many of the Sub-Commissioners who were capable of deciding these questions; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not mean to say that if a question arose in Derry it should be sent for decision to the county of Cork, in order that an experienced Sub-Commissioner might have an opportunity of considering it. Unfortunately, all these questions, as they arose, must be decided by the Sub-Commissioners of the district in which they did arise.

MR. WARTON

said, it was all very well for the Government to promise an appeal in regard to questions of law. It might turn out that questions of fact would arise, much more difficult than questions of law. There would be very few questions of law indeed, because the only question which would have to be proved was whether or not the rent had been paid. He could not understand the argument of the Solicitor General for Ireland as to the inability of a tenant. Dishonest tenants might, after the intimation conveyed by the Solicitor General for Ireland, proceed to spend all their money in drink, and, by that means, defraud both their landlords and their other creditors; reducing themselves to that agreeable level of inability which would bring them under the consideration of the Sub-Commissioners. Such a view was quite in accord with the general morality of the Bill. The Prevention of Crime Bill gave an unheard of appeal—namely, an appeal in criminal matters upon questions of fact; but now a measure was proposed which dealt purely with civil matters, and the. Government refused to recognize the propriety of any appeal at all.

MR. HINDE PALMER

understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) would be satisfied with an appeal on general questions of law without requiring an appeal also as to matters of fact. He understood that the Government were ready to concede that point, and, if so, why further prolong the discussion?

MR. GIBSON

said, he had already stated more than once that if an inferior and purely lay tribunal was constituted, then there must be a general appeal; but if his Amendment were negatived, the Government would be prevented from providing that there should be an appeal even on questions of law.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 235; Noes 140: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 268.)

MR. BRODRICK

, in consequence of the refusal of the Government to grant an appeal, moved to leave out the words which authorized the Commissioners to delegate their duty to any Sub-Commissioners. He asked the Government to consider the position in which the Committee were now placed in regard to this clause. During the time those attacks had been made upon the Sub-Commissioners, no defence of any sort had been attempted by the Government. So long as these statements were allowed to go unrefuted, it could not be satisfactory to include the Sub-Commissioners as a tribunal in any Act of Parliament. A pledge had been given early in the Session by the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. W. E. Forster) that he would inquire into the objections which had been raised, and endeavour to put the case of the Sub-Commissioners before the House; but from the time the right hon. Gentleman went out of Office, that pledge had remained unredeemed. These men had been charged with ignorance, incapacity, and partiality in the exercise of their duties. There had also been statements made against their knowledge of law; and he was bound to say, that while he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) as to the attitude some of the Sub-Commissioners had taken, the majority of them acted as if they neither knew law nor regarded facts. He had been told by some hon. Members on this side of the House that it would not be discreet to exclude the Sub-Commissioners from these tribunals, because it would be impossible to find competent and honest men in Ireland to discharge the duties. It was said that they had already got down to a low class of persons, and that it was undesirable to go lower down. Now, if it were impossible to find men in Ireland competent to carry out the provisions of this Bill, he thought they ought to send over Englishmen to do the work. It was essentially necessary that they should get hold of some tribunal which would be clear of the traditions of the Sub-Commissioners, and clear also of the inducement to give large sums of money in the shape of compensation. If the Government insisted on placing such men on the Commission, it would come to this—that they would have men' employed in adjudicating in the cases of men who had been their private friends or clients, and to whose good offices they would commend themselves by their lavish distribution of public money. Some of the Sub-Commissioners had recently canvassed for others, and would probably soon canvass for themselves, the men to whom the money was to be given. He did not mention that fact as an imputation against the Sub-Commissioners so much as against the impropriety of appointing men whose tenure of office was so brief upon this new tribunal. It must be borne in mind that they had been appointed for very short periods, and at very inadequate salaries. They would shortly return to their ordinary functions, and they would be very anxious to obtain the good offices of those whom they had served during their short judicial term. He did not intend to trouble the Committee with objections to individual Commissioners or particular decisions. These had been brought before the House on former occasions, and were subjects of daily comment; but he put before the Government the broad fact that dissatisfaction undoubtedly existed, and that in forming such a tribunal and refusing an appeal, the Government were giving the surest pledge that the proposed investigation would be illusory, and that the safeguards in the Bill were intended to be disregarded.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 39, to leave out the words "or to any Sub-Commission."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or to any Sub-Commission' stand part of the Clause."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken stated that no defence of the Sub-Commissioners had been offered by the Government, although a defence of them had been promised by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). The hon. Member said that the charges made against the Sub-Commissioners were charges of ignorance, incapacity, and partiality. Now, it was quite true that those charges had been brought forward in that House on several occasions, both by the hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick) and several other hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not understand that a mere allegation of that kind, even coming from the hon. Member, was any charge which those interested in the administration of the law were either called upon to answer, or were in a position to answer. Mere words of general accusation or abuse did not afford the opportunity of defence. He had heard very strong language used against these men, who were servants of the public, who were discharging a difficult duty cast upon them by law, and whose discharge of those duties was not facilitated by the mode in which they were habitually treated by certain Members of that House. He must say that nothing more unfair and nothing more contrary to the English spirit of fair play they might have expected to see in that House, he was unable to conceive. It was utterly impossible to offer a defence to charges so preferred. They did not single out the individual attacked, nor did they name the particular case. They said nothing of how the ignorance, incapacity, and partiality had been displayed. His right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) did undertake that in case any question in reference to the Commissioners and their appointments was brought before the House, he would be prepared to defend his action in the matter. He was quite sure that his right hon. Friend was in the same position now. The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) said he was not attacking the Sub-Commissioners so much for their ignorance, incapacity and partiality, as the circumstances of their appointment, and the circumstance that they were only appointed for a short time, and that they had taken part in political affairs before they were appointed. But these were circumstances which did not affect this particular question as to the discharge of their duties at all. The charges were charges of breaches of duty, incompetency, and incapacity; but he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) said that up to the present time no such charge had been brought against the Sub-Commissioners in that House in a way that would enable the House to deal with it. If such an accusation were directly made against any Sub-Commissioner, the Government, if they thought the individual attacked was in the right would certainly be prepared to defend him. He believed the Sub-Commissioners had discharged their duty to the best of their ability. They were still discharging their duty, and their discharge of their duty had not been challenged in any way that could be fairly taken hold of. There had been appeals against their decisions, some of which had been affirmed, and others refused. The decisions of the Sub-Commissioners had, in the vast majority of cases, been affirmed; but, no doubt, on one or two points of law the higher Court had arrived at a different conclusion from the Sub-Commissioners. It appeared to him that what they required under this Act was the appointment of practical men acquainted with farming matters; and he expected when the Act came to be administered, and inquiries were instituted into the preliminary conditions, that they would be conducted with justice and without the necessity for instituting in every case a regular law suit. Under these circumstances, it seemed to the Government that the accusation on which the Amendment was based was one that it would be cruel for the Committee, in the absence of evidence, to adopt; at any rate, no reason had been shown as yet why these duties should not be intrusted to the Sub-Commissioners.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

said, the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had given a direct challenge to hon. Members on that side of the House to substantiate the assertions they had made in regard to the conduct of the Sub-Commissioners. In point of fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised, instead of the small Amendment of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick), the whole question of how these Sub-Commissioners in Ireland discharged their duties. ["No!"] The hon. and learned Gentleman had repudiated that there was any ground for questioning the mode in which the Sub-Commissioners had discharged their duties. Now, he (Sir Hervey Bruce) contended that there was, and he thought the majority of the Committee would agree with him. That, however, was neither here nor there. He should be very sorry to bring a charge of gross partiality against any of the Commissioners; but be distinctly brought the charge of ignorance and incapacity for the performance of the particular duties to which they had been appointed. Many of them had never known anything about land, except, perhaps, going out from their places of business in the evening for a walk, before they were appointed Sub-Commissioners. It was not necessary for him to particularize individuals. The fact was quite known to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) who appointed them. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER dissented.] All he could say was that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not know the fact that many of the people appointed were not connected with the land in any way, but were people connected with business in the town, he was the only person who was ignorant of that fact. He did not like to say anything strong against the right hon. Gentleman; but he ought to have known this fact, because it was very well known to every body in the district. A case occurred only last week in which a Sub-Commissioner heard the application of some tenants of his own. [Hear!"] The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was welcome to his cheer. The more the hon. Member abused the landlord class in Ireland, the more they were convinced they were doing their duty as men of honour and as magistrates in the country, and the more they believed that they would earn the respect of the people amongst whom they lived. Now, let him turn to the consideration of the action of the Sub-Commissioners who decided in some of his cases last week. In giving his decision, one of the Commissioners said——

MR. HEALY

rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Baronet was allowed to go into particular cases which had been heard before the Land Commission?

THE CHAIRMAN

the hon. Baronet will be in Order, if he endeavours to show that the Sub-Commissioners are not fit to exercise their duties; but he cannot go into a general statement of their inefficiency under another Act.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

concluded, from what he had heard, that the same Sub-Commissioners would be employed under this Act as were employed under the Act of last year, and he wanted to show that by a very curious process they came to a conclusion on a very important point. It had been said that in his case the Commissioners had reduced the rents on the evidence of a certain gentleman—that gentleman was Mr. Robertson. It was necessary to state what that gentleman was in order to make the matter clear. That gentleman came over to Ireland as a young man—he was not then a valuer, and had never learned valuing—to do some drainage work. He did not do that work badly, and then he (Sir Hervey Bruce) made him his steward. In that capacity, however, he was a failure, and he (Sir Hervey Bruce) was obliged to get rid of him. Mr. Robertson then entreated of him to admit him as tenant of the home farm. He (Sir Hervey Bruce) was advised by his people of business not to employ him in that capacity; but, believing he was not a bad sort of man, he did admit him. Mr. Robertson completely failed as tenant of the home farm; in fact, he brought the farm to such a state that it was with difficulty he (Sir Hervey Bruce) afterwards got a tenant. Mr. Robertson brought proceedings for damages, and afterwards took a farm in Scotland. The landlord there did not care much for him. Undoubtedly, Mr. Robertson had suffered whilst in Scotland so much from paralysis, that both his body and mind was enfeebled; and yet it was upon his evidence that Mr. Greer said he had lowered his (Sir Hervey Bruce's) rents.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he rose in consequence of the remarks the hon. Baronet (Sir Hervey Bruce) had made with regard to what he (Mr. Forster) must have known at the time he appointed the Sub-Commissioners.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

I spoke of what the right hon. Gentleman ought to have known.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, if he understood the hon. Baronet correctly, he said that many of the Sub-Commissioners had no knowledge whatever of the value of the land, and knew nothing at all about land; that, in fact, they were men of business whose occupation was in the city. The hon. Baronet, however, did not mention any names. It was a perfectly new idea to him (Mr. Forster) that many of the Sub-Commissioners knew nothing about land, and he believed it would turn out to be a mistake. The legal Commissioners, of course, were not ostensibly appointed for their knowledge of land. They were appointed for their knowledge of law; and with regard to the Sub-Commissioners, he was unable to call to mind any sort of corroboration of the hon. Baronet's opinion. He had not the slightest doubt that the hon. Baronet held his opinion with perfect sincerity; but he (Mr. Forster) could not remember appointing any gentleman to whom the hon. Baronet's remarks would apply. The hon. Baronet had referred to a case in which he was personally interested. If the time of the Committee was to be taken up by the consideration of every case in which either the Representatives in that House of the landlord class, or hon. Members representing the tenants, were specially interested, many weeks would elapse before the Committee would get to the end of this discussion; but that, of course, was a matter for other persons to deal with rather than for himself. He must, however, say that when charges were made against individuals, especially individuals who had a most difficult judicial duty to perform, the general custom had been, up to this year, for the hon. Member making the charge to give Notice of his intention to do so, in order to allow those whose duty it was to defend, if it were proper to do so, the accused, to obtain the requisite information in the matter. In the present instance, for example, how was it possible for his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) to make an answer to the remarks of the hon. Baronet? In common fairness to Mr. Greer, the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to be in a position to ask Mr. Greer for his version of the story. He thought the hon. Baronet, however much he might feel aggrieved, would see that in future, before he brought forward charges in the House of Commons against gentlemen who had a very difficult duty [to perform, he ought to give proper Notice of his intention to do so. He (Mr. Forster) thought the House would credit him when he said that he appointed the Sub-Commissioners as far as he could with impartiality. In making the appointments he tried to ascertain in every case that the gentleman had knowledge of land, that he was a man of integrity, and that he was a man of fearlessness—that he would carry out his own belief of what was right, undeterred and un-alarmed by what might be said of him by either side. He thought it would be very difficult to find another case of so many gentlemen being appointed to perform such important duties, and who had performed their duties so well as the Irish Sub-Commissioners. No doubt they had given dissatisfaction to both sides; but it was utterly impossible that in performing such duties as they were called upon to discharge they should not give some dissatisfaction. Over and over again he had heard, from both sides, testimony of the devotion and industry with which the Sub-Commissioners had done their duty; and when regard was had to what the Sub-Commissioners had to do, to the fact that affairs in Ireland were not in a very satisfactory condition, and also to the fact that the Sub-Commissioners' influence was greatly weakened when unfair charges were brought against them, he might fairly appeal to hon. Gentlemen not to bring charges against the Sub-Commissioners without an opportunity being given to the persons against whom the charges were made of defending themselves.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

assured the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) that when he came down to the House he had no intention of saying one word about the Sub-Commissioners. He was only prompted to do so by the taunt which was thrown across the Table by the Solicitor General for Ireland.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment made a general charge against the Sub-Commissioners, and he was answered by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, who said it was strictly unfair to make general charges. The Solicitor General for Ire-land was followed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Hervey Bruce), who made a specific charge, mentioning the name of an individual Sub-Commissioner. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) then rose and said the hon. Baronet was not proceeding fairly. If hon. Gentlemen were neither to make general charges or specific charges, how were they to conduct their business? How was it possible to legislate if the Treasury Bench disapproved of both general and specific charges?

MR. GIVAN

said, he would not feel justified in saying one word to the Committee at this stage but for the interesting story the Committee had heard from the hon. Baronet (Sir Hervey Bruce). It was right the Committee should be possessed of some little more information on the subject in order that they might come to a just conclusion. He wished the Committee to know that Mr. Robertson had no official position in connection with the Land Commission. In the cases alluded to by the hon. Baronet he was brought forward as an independent witness on the part of the tenants. The hon. Baronet had said it was upon Mr. Robertson's evidence that Mr. Greer based his decision. He challenged the hon. Baronet to contradict this—that the reason given by Mr. Greer for the re- duction of the hon. Baronet's rents was that upon his (Sir Hervey Bruce's) purchase of the estate he had arbitrarily increased the rents, and had refused to listen to any reason or any excuse on the part of the tenants.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

I beg to contradict that that was not what Mr. Greer said in his speech.

MR. GIVAN

said, he would give the hon. Baronet the precise words of Mr. Greer. What Mr. Greer said was— When he (Sir Hervey Bruce) proposed to increase the rents, the tenants asked him to appoint one man and they would appoint another, and the hon. Baronet said 'No' The tenants next proposed to have an arbitrator appointed by the hon. Baronet himself, and they would pay the costs; but he refused"—[Sir HERVEY BRUCE: Pure imagination.]—"and adhered to his own rents which he had arbitrarily fixed.

THE CHAIRMAN

The conduct of Mr. Greer is not the Question before the Committee. The Question is, whether the Sub-Commissioners are capable of exercising the functions under this Act?

MR. GIVAN

quite agreed with the Chairman that his (Mr. Givan's) observations were somewhat out of Order; but he asserted that the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Hervey Bruce) and of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick), in making a general condemnation of the Sub-Commissioners, were equally out of Order. The decisions of the Sub-Commissioners had been repeatedly brought under the notice of the House, but not a single case had ever been brought forward in which it could be shown the Commissioners had acted ignorantly, incapably, or partially.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, if anyone had done anything to depreciate the judicial qualities of the Sub-Commissioners and to call in question their impartiality, it was the Solicitor General for Ireland. He (Lord George Hamilton) would trespass upon the attention of the Committee for a minute or two while he laid before them a few facts, for the accuracy of which he would vouch, and then he would ask whether it was likely Conservative landlords could have confidence in some of the Sub-Commissioners? The Solicitor General for Ireland's appeal to the great agricultural constituency of Londonderry upon his election was this—"If the Conservatives are left to work this Land Act they will appoint Conservatives to act as Sub-Commissioners. If you support me I will take very good care that is not the case." After the Londonderry Election three gentlemen were appointed Sub-Commissioners, every one of whom had taken a more or less active part in the election. They were Mr. Greer, Mr. Cunningham, and Mr. Meek. He was not going to call in question any of the decisions; but he desired to point out that the Chairman of the Sub - Commission in the county of Tyrone was a practising barrister in the Circuit of which Tyrone formed a part. It had been an invariable rule not to appoint barristers to even County Court Judgeships in the counties in which they practised, but this gentleman was appointed for one year. He intended to resume his functions as a practising barrister, and it was a matter of absolute certainty that the persons to whom he would look for briefs were the solicitors who had practised before the Law Court of which he was Chairman. Mr. Cunningham was the Chairman of the Liberal Association of the County Donegal, and he had taken a great part in reference to the Tenant Right Union. A good many of the landlords of Tyrone were Mr. Cunningham's political opponents, and the undoubted impression which the unfortunate speeches of the Solicitor General for Ireland, followed as it was by the appointments he (Lord George Hamilton) had referred to, created was that Mr. Cunningham, and others of the same stamp, would be biassed in his decisions against those who differed from him politically. Turning to County Armagh, he found that Mr. Meek had recently been appointed Sub-Commissioner. Mr. Meek was the tenant of a farm valued, he (Lord George Hamilton) believed, at £25. Mr. Meek gave most extraordinary evidence on behalf of some tenants in Dungannon. His evidence was disregarded by the Land Court then sitting in Dungannon; but what happened? He was appointed Sub-Commissioner in the immediate neighbourhood in which he gave this extreme ex parte evidence. The man might be perfectly qualified to act as Sub-Commissioner; but he (Lord George Hamilton) thought his appointment to a district in which he had taken a very leading part as a politician was not fair to the man himself, and not fair to the Land Act he had to administer. The Irish Government appointed the Sub- Commissioners, but the Land Commissioners distributed them over Ireland. The Government said these persons were perfectly fitted to act as Sub-Commissioners, and the Land Commissioners said that if they were qualified to act they might act anywhere. The result was there was a shuffling of responsibility. It was all very well to talk of these Sub-Commissioners as Judges. No Judge in this country had even been called upon to perform such duties as these Sub-Commissioners were required to discharge. He had read in a pamphlet written by no landlord, a very accurate description of the powers of these Sub-Commissioners. These powers were not judicial, but quasi- legislative That was to say, there was no definition of what constituted a fair rent; the Sub-Commissioners were bound by no rule or regulation; whatever suggested itself to them they could do, and that which they did had the effect and force of law. If that be, and he thought it was, a more or less correct description of the functions with which the Sub-Commissioners were invested, the Committee had a right to object to gentlemen being appointed whose main qualification was, not that they had knowledge of land, but that they were political partizans.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) had addressed himself very fairly to the question from his point of view; but he (Mr. Forster) must absolutely deny that any Sub-Commissioner had been appointed because he was a political partizan; he was perfectly sure he made no such appointment. It was almost impossible to find a large number of gentlemen who had taken no part in politics, and he did not know that it would have been any recommendation of the gentlemen who had been appointed Sub-Commissioners if they had not. The state of Ireland had been such that men who had any good stuff in them would feel strongly upon political questions, and would naturally take their part in them. He found, therefore, that he could not properly lay down a rule that he would appoint no man who had meddled in politics; but he certainly did endeavour to guard himself against appointing a man who acted unfairly in political matters, or against appointing a man because he had taken part in political matters. With regard to Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Meek, he believed neither of them had any connection with County Tyrone.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

Mr. Cunningham is a corn merchant there; he has dealings there.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he could not speak as definitely as the noble Lord. If he had continued in his late Office he should have stated publicly that if Mr. Meek had given evidence in land cases in a certain county, it would be well that he should not be sent to that county as a Sub-Commissioner. He understood the noble Lord to say Mr. Meek had given evidence in Tyrone.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

I believe he had given evidence in Dungannon and Cookstown, which are in Armagh, the neighbouring county.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, it would be a matter of detail which would require serious consideration whether a gentleman should not be appointed to one county, because he had given evidence or taken an active part in political matters in the adjoining county. He thought it would be undesirable that a gentleman should be sent as judge in these matters—[Mr. GIBSON: Hear !]—perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would allow him to finish the sentence. It was undesirable that a gentleman should be sent as judge in these matters who had been giving evidence in similar cases in the same district, and he had no doubt the Commissioners would take that into account. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) must remember that the Commissioners had great difficulties to contend with in making the allotments. For instance, there was a great feeling in the Province of Ulster against Commissioners being sent there who knew of the Ulster Custom, and as there were only a certain number of Sub-Commissioners who wore connected with Ulster, it was a difficult thing to send Ulster men to that Province. That was a difficulty which he thought the noble Lord would himself feel and make allowance for in considering the conduct of the Commissioners. If it was to be laid down as a positive rule that no man should have been appointed who had any connection with one side or the other, hon. Members from Ireland sitting below the Gangway opposite might have objected to every landlord and every landlord's agent who was appointed. It was utterly impossible to lay down such a rule. He endeavoured to choose the Sub-Commissioners as fairly as he could from the different classes—namely, landlords, agents, tenant farmers, and, in one or two cases, yeomen. While choosing them, however, from these classes, he endeavoured to satisfy himself—he might have been mistaken—that he was selecting men of ability, of integrity, and of courage. If he had added to these qualifications that the Sub-Commissioners must be men who had taken no part in politics, he had no hesitation in saying that he would have got incapable, know-nothing men, against whom charges would have been far more plentiful than those against the present Sub-Commissioners.

MR. BRODRICK

said, this discussion was assuming rather wide limits; but he was bound to say that if they owed that fact to anybody, they owed it to the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Porter), who had invited the Committee to diverge into criticisms of the particular decisions and charges against the Sub-Commissioners. He had felt inclined to go into the Library and refresh the mind of the Solicitor General for Ireland with some of the specific charges which had been made, in which case the Government would have had the satisfaction of seeing the debate continued till past midnight. But his (Mr. Brodrick's) remarks were carefully directed at general objects, and for the best of all reasons. The Committee would recollect they had had a very long discussion on the conduct of the Sub-Commissioners. But that discussion had arisen on the Motion with regard to the House of Lords; and, consequently, the Government, who had their own reasons for keeping silence, had declined to make a reply. No reply was made, and what the Solicitor General for Ireland had asked the Committee to do was to assume that all the charges which were made on the former occasion were entirely groundless. These charges remained uncontradicted to this day; and what the Solicitor General for Ireland denounced as unfair as it was un-English was the reiteration of them. He was not going to be tempted, even by the language of the Solicitor General for Ireland, to forego the course he had laid down for himself on this occasion—namely, of limiting his observations to subjects which were germane to the discussion before them. But, as he had been challenged to state a single objection which he had brought forward to the Sub-Commissioners, and which the Government had ignored, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of one fact. It had been stated time after time in that House that one Sub-Commissioner, Mr. M'Devitt, had, previous to his appointment, enunciated doctrines directly at variance with those laid down by the Government as to the manner in which a fair rent should be assessed. The conduct of this Sub-Commissioner had been called in question, and no Member of the Government had attempted to defend it. In the face of all the facts, he thought hon. Members were justified in assuming that the Sub-Commissioners did not constitute a competent tribunal to carry out the provisions of this Act; and he might add that the tone adopted by the Government in their defence and the poverty of their arguments were not likely to shorten the discussions relating to them which might arise on future stages of the Bill. He should certainly not be deterred by the indignation of the Solicitor General from dividing the Committee on the Amendment.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not remember any special charges being made in regard to Mr. M'Devitt in the debate in the House of Lords; but the hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick) was quite correct in saying that the statement was made that Mr. M'Devitt had enunciated views different to those of the Government. At the time he (Mr. Forster) appointed Mr. M'Devitt, he was not aware of the particular expressions on his part; but if he had been, he was not at all sure it would have prevented him appointing Mr. M'Devitt. If a man was to be debarred appointment for the expressions in his writings or speeches, in all probability he would never get appointment. Certainly, if he had known what Mr. M'Devitt's opinions were, he would have called his attention to them. Mr. M'Devitt was the Sub-Commissioner appointed for Tyrone. When the statement referred to by the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) was made, he (Mr. Forster) ascertained, and the Commissioners ascertained, that Mr. M'Devitt had taken a rather active part in the Tyrone Election. [Mr. HEALY: The Election in 1880?] Of course, in the Election of 1880. That was thought to be a reason why he should not go to Tyrone. He was sent to the South, and he appeared to have given great satisfaction there; he had performed his duty, assisted by his two colleagues, with great impartiality. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brodrick), and those who sat near him, should look more carefully into all the facts surrounding the appointment and conduct of the Sub-Commissioners before they made statements in that House. He believed it would have been very difficult indeed to have found any Commission who would have worked with more impartiality than the Commission of which Mr. M'Devitt was at the head.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), so far as it referred to the question generally, appeared to be this—it was a matter of extreme difficulty, almost impossible, to secure for these appointments persons who possessed the confidence of both sides, or who had not such antecedents, either political or otherwise, as to cause the suspicion that they might have formed an opinion on the question to be submitted to thorn. This very point was one which was urged last year when objection was taken to referring questions of fair rent to the Land Court, upon the ground of the extreme difficulty of securing a just and fair decision. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, was practically one against the Land Act of 1881. In reply to the observations of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), the right hon. Gentleman had said it was wrong to send Sub-Commissioners to do work in the part of the country with which they were connected.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, his remarks solely applied to sending Mr. Meek to try cases where he had given evidence.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, Mr. Meek gave evidence with regard to fair rent in the part of the country with which he was connected; but it seemed to him that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman applied also to the cases of Mr. Wylie and Mr. Cunningham. The Solicitor General for Ireland distinctly challenged the Opposi- tion to produce special instances in which the Sub-Commissioners had gone wrong. Special instances had been given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) and by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) as to a failure of justice in the Land Court. He would like to hoar what the Solicitor General for Ireland had to say in regard to those special instances, because when the Committee were asked by the Bill to impose fresh duties upon those very tribunals whose action had been stated with great force to be unsatisfactory, and when special instances had been given in which it was proved to have been so, it was at any rate due to the tribunals themselves, and to the proposals in the Bill, that the Government should vindicate the tribunals against the charges that had been made, and show that they were qualified to discharge the duties imposed upon them, and that there was some chance in future of persons not being called upon to decide cases in the part of the country with which they were connected, He had placed an Amendment on this subject on the Paper. He must not discuss it now, but he hoped it might receive the favourable consideration of the Government. The question was of great importance. No one could say it was right that a number of persons who were intimately connected with an Irish county, who must feel the friendship or the hostility towards persons living in the county which that connection might engender, should be sent under this Bill to decide questions, not merely between landlord and tenant, but as to whether the money of the State should be given, possibly, to friends and neighbours amongst whom they lived. That was a principle which he was sure the Prime Minister would not contravene.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought the Committee would feel it was impossible to make any progress in the matter before them by the consideration of these individual cases. The Motion was one to pass sentence for in capacity, for ignorance, and, perhaps, for partiality upon the Commissioners as a body. The hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick) asked the Committee to condemn the Commissioners on an action when, primâ facie, there was the strongest reason for their being included in the operation of the Bill, because the functions they would have to perform under the Bill would be much easier and less delicate than those they were now discharging. It was evident that the germane character of the matter pointed to them as the persons to administer this Act. They were already at work, and there were a number of them who, the Government hoped, would soon have got through the direct business of the Land Commission. It was attempted to show that in certain individual instances the Sub-Commissioners had gone wrong. The hon. Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) made a statement which was founded entirely upon his allegation as to the confession by a Commissioner of the grounds on which he had given judgment. But the hon. Member was immediately contradicted flatly by another hon. Member (Mr. Givan), who quoted the precise words of the Commissioner, Mr. Greer. Unless the quotation be an entirely false one, it must overbear the general statement of the hon. Baronet (Sir Hervey Bruce). Particular cases had been brought forward by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) in which it appeared that men who had given evidence before Land Commissioners in one county had been appointed to discharge the duties of Commissioners in another county. Surely that was not a very great offence. [Lord GEORGE HAMILTON: An adjoining county.] In an adjoining county. It would be absurd to say that no one who belonged to a particular county, and who had taken part in land decisions, should ever be appointed in that or any adjoining county to serve on the Commission. The charge made by the noble Lord was not contested; but, after all, it was an extremely small one—it was the result of inadvertence such as might easily arise, and might be very well avoided in the future. He quite agreed it was quite reasonable that the Land Commission should be on their guard against appointing any persons connected with, the county by professional practice, property, or residence. Upon the principle of the Amendment they were all agreed. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) brought forward two other cases; but he (Mr. Gladstone) would not go into them now. They were both dealt with by his hon. and. learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland at the commencement of the Session. ["No!"] The whole matter was gone into; he was right in that. In his opinion, the whole case was gone into by his hon. and learned Friend when he was made the object of a sharp personal attack when he first entered the House; and if ever a complete reply was made to a series of accusations, it was that made by his hon. and learned Friend. Then, again, Mr. M'Devitt had been accused of impartiality. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) came in on the other side, and contended that Mr. M'Devitt was a Commissioner whose conduct was greatly to be criticized and canvassed on account of his partiality towards the landlords. Were the Committee, upon such an amount of evidence with regard to the 40 Sub-Commissioners who were at work all over Ireland, and who were better acquainted with the subject than any other body in the country at the present time—were they to say that they were prepared to condemn these men and exclude them from the operation of this Bill, upon ex parte statements, into which there could be no adequate examination? He would not say more than that the hon. Baronet's (Sir Hervey Bruce's) statement was flatly contradicted by another hon. Gentleman (Mr. Givan), and he would appeal to the hon. Baronet to admit that it was not possible for the Committee on this occasion to get at the bottom of these things. This kind of discussion only exhausted the time of the Committee, and could have no satisfactory termination.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

said, although the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would take the contradiction of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), which he was justified in doing, against his (Sir Hervey Bruce's) statement, he would again point out that the Commissioners, according to their own judgment, relied upon the evidence of Mr. P. Robertson. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) said the Commissioners made charges against him (Sir Hervey Bruce). He regretted he was not present in Court at the time. He considered his attendance in Parliament more pressing than his attendance in the Court; but it was unfair that charges should be made against him behind his back and embodied in the judgment.

MR. T. A. DICKSON

said, it had been stated that the administration of this Arrears Act would fall upon the present Sub-Commissioners. He could only say that, if that were so, the Act would have to wait a long time before it was administered. From what he knew of the working of the Land Act in Ulster and a good part of Ireland, the Assistant Commissioners would not be able to devote any time to the administration of the Arrears Act for one or two years. He wished to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that their tactics upon the Act of 1881 were exactly similar to those pursued by them in respect to the Act of 1870. When the Act of 1870 was passed the Commissioners were denounced. The County Court Judges were then called briefless barristers; in fact, every imputation which was cast upon the Assistant Commissioners now was cast upon the County Court Judges after the passing of the Act of 1870. It was most unseemly that these demonstrations and continual attacks should be made in that House, and made by landlords who were suffering a reduction of their rents at the hands of the Sub-Commissioners. The tenant farmers of Ireland would see very plainly that the landlords of the present time were determined to destroy, if they could, the Act of 1881, as they did the Act of 1870. A great deal of complaint was heard about the Sub-Commissioners. But why did the landlords complain? They had the right of appeal, and they were appealing in nearly every case. What had been the result of the appeals? Substantially the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners remained unaltered.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question is not that of the Land Act; but it is whether the Sub-Commissioners ought to exercise the powers under this Bill.

MR. T. A. DICKSON

said, the debate had taken a very wide turn, and he was not going much further a field.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is perfectly in Order if he refers to the capacity or incapacity of the Sub-Commissioners to exercise the powers under this Bill.

MR. T. A. DICKSON

said, violent attacks had been made in that House that night upon the Sub-Commissioners, whom he was endeavouring to defend. Had he had Notice that the conduct of the Sub-Commissioners was about to be under review, he could have produced a pocket full of letters containing complaints of the partiality of the Sub-Com- missioners from the tenants' point of view. They in that House, who, in some degree, represented the tenant farmers, had made no attacks upon the Sub-Commissioners, when they had every opportunity of doing so. The landlords, however, had availed themselves of every opportunity of attacking an honourable body of gentlemen who were carrying out most difficult duties.

MR. HEALY

said, it was well the Committee and the country should observe that the members of that class who were at present arraigned before one of the Courts of Justice in Ireland were using their position in the House of Commons to defend their own private interests and affairs. He would like to know what would be thought if hon. Gentlemen interested in the sugar trade were continually attacking the Government for any course the Government might pursue in regard to their trade? If hon. Gentlemen were allowed to make their charges against the Sub-Commissioners unchecked, the impression would get abroad that there was universal dissatisfaction with regard to the appointments and decisions. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, who were landlords, were merely throwing dust in the eyes of the people, so that they might be blinded as regarded the landlords' dealings with their tenants. So far from the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners being satisfactory to the tenants as a body, he might say not a day passed without his receiving by post scores of letters of complaint as to decisions of the Land Court in particular cases. The Committee ought not to allow it to go forth to the country that the landlords were the only persons who had a grievance. Only one charge had been made from the tenants' side, and it happened that that was made against Mr. M'Devitt. He (Mr. Healy) picked Mr. M'Devitt out for complaint, because it appeared to him that, from the tenants' point of view, Mr. M'Devitt's Commission was the worst in Ireland. In Kerry, Mr. M'Devitt had left some of the rents as much as 50 per cent above Griffith's valuation, and the tenants thought they had some just cause of complaint. He did not think it did the Sub-Commissioners much harm to have these complaints made against thorn by the landlord party. The Sub-Commissioners were certainly as pure- minded as the landlords against whom they had given decisions.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 176; Noes 90: Majority 86.—(Div. List, No. 269.)

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

moved, in page 3, line 39, to leave out from "Sub-Commission," to "and," in page 4, line 1. His object was that one member of the Land Commission or of a Sub-Commission should not be able to give a decision. That would not be casting a slur on the Commissioners; but he thought it was a matter of considerable importance that this question, before being decided, should be examined with the greatest skill.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 39, to leave out from "Sub-Commission," to "and," in page 4, line 1.—(Sir Hervey Bruce.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, he thought the Amendment unnecessary.

MR. J. LOWTHER

urged that this was a very important question. No assurance had been received from the Government whether the Sub-Commissioner who was to act singly was to be an expert, in any shape or form, on legal matters. It would not be unreasonable to ask that a single Commissioner who was to sit by himself was to be a person of legal training. He imagined that, at any rate, a certain portion of the Sub-Commissioners would be persons of legal training, and therefore there could be no difficulty in giving this assurance, and introducing words to carry out that purpose—namely, that any Sub-Commissioner who sat alone should be a person versed in legal matters.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he was strongly of opinion that if an effort was to be made to get these arrears settled soon—and it was most desirable for the sake of the landlords, the tenants, and for the peace of Ireland generally, that that should be the case—it would be found very difficult to work the matter with the present number of Sub-Commissioners. He thought it very desirable that the Government should have power to increase the number of Sub-Commissioners; but he entirely disagreed with the hon. Baronet in proposing this restriction as to Sub-Commissioners. In some cases a Sub-Commissioner might be a man eminently fitted to deal with the question; but if this Bill was to be of any use, it must be put in force as quickly as possible, and he hoped it would soon leave the Committee and become law, and that the Government would not be hampered in the measures necessary to carry out their object.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he hoped the Government would do something to carry out the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster). This Amendment seemed to him to be of some importance, but not from the point of view from which the Solicitor General for Ireland appeared to regard it. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it would be a comparatively rare thing for these inquiries to be delegated to one Commissioner. It seemed to him that if the Bill was to work at all within reasonable time, the inquiries would almost invariably have to be held before one Commissioner, and, therefore, it was of great importance, not merely to provide additional persons to carry out the work, but to take care that when these inquiries were intrusted to one person, he should be a person properly qualified. He himself had put down an Amendment later on suggesting a professional qualification. If it were possible to provide, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had suggested, that these inquiries should be delegated to one person, if he had special qualifications, that would be a great improvement to the Bill; and then the Government might appoint persons who should commence acting with as little delay as possible. Under the Act of last year the valuation of land had to be dealt with; but under this Act the matter to be decided was entirely different. What was to be ascertained now was not the value of land, but the solvency or insolvency of a tenant, and that question could be more thoroughly dealt with by persons professionally qualified.

MR. MOORE

said, he hoped the Bill would not be limited by such a restriction as this. There were too many bar- risters who could not get anything to do; and if the Government were restricted to barristers, there would be more of the wretched appointments of which there were too many in Ireland now. It was the curse of Ireland to be attached to a country like this, which demoralized the people, and found employment for men who were in no way qualified for the posts they held. Under this restriction a number of men who were unemployed would be found hanging about the Four Courts in Dublin seeking for appointments. He should not wish the Government to be further hampered by being compelled to send a Commission of three to decide every question. This Bill would be worth nothing if it was not put into operation quickly. He did not wish to speak with disrespect of the poor honest tenants; but, under this clause, a great many bad men would come forward who had withheld their rents, and if the landlords were to wait until these men got in their pleas still further confusion would be created. If the Sub-Commissioners were unable to cope with their work at present, the Government should increase their number in order to get the Bill worked as quickly as possible, and give satisfaction to the country. If the Bill was not put into such a form as to come into practical operation in six months, it had better not be passed.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he hoped a decision would be quickly come to upon this Amendment. Practically, the Amendment came to this—There were 500,000 tenants under £30 in Ireland, and it was extremely likely that one-third of these would come under the Bill; if the Amendment was carried it would leave, for the purpose of making the orders and for inquiry so far as those duties were not delegated under the next part of the clause, 23 County Court Judges and 16 Sub-Commissioners. The thing was plainly impossible, for the Bill was to appease people, and he hoped that before the Committee entered upon the question of professional qualification they would dispose of this Amendment.

MR. GIBSON

said, he did not think this section had been considered by the Government, and some ridiculous consequences must result from it. Power was given under this clause to the Land Commission to delegate to one member of a Sub-Commission all the powers under the Act except that of making the rules. It would be competent for the Land Commission to delegate to any member of the Sub-Commission—Mr. Meek, for instance, or anyone who had no special qualifications—and then they might delegate to another person, like Mr. Meek, the power of hearing appeals from Mr. Meek.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

pointed out that there was an Amendment on the Paper which would alter the phraseology of this clause in a way which would meet the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The phraseology of the clause was open to the objection raised. It provided that the Land Commission shall be deemed for the purpose of such delegation to include the Court, Sub-Commission, or member of the Land Commission, or of a Sub-Commission to whom such power or duty is so delegated.

MR. GIBSON

said, he would reserve any criticism till he saw that Amendment; but at present the structure of the clause enabled the Land Commission to give to any single member of a Sub-Commission any of the powers of this Act, except the power of making rules. That was a grave objection to the clause; and he thought it a very grave objection, bearing in mind that there was nothing in the Bill to indicate what was to be the qualification of a person who was to be a member of a Sub-Commission. There was no power in Clause 7 to prescribe the qualifications of any of the persons who were to administer the Act under Clause 5. There was the power given under the Land Act to the Land Commission to prescribe the qualifications of Assistant Commissioners. He was bound to say they exercised that power by laying down qualifications so elastic as to enable them to appoint anybody they pleased; but there was no such restriction in this Bill, and it was with a view to remedying the absence of any clear statement that his right hon. Friend had suggested to the Government to consider whether they would take power to delegate to a single member of the Land Commission other than a person legally qualified. If the element of qualification was left out, chaos would be the result; and he could not acquiesce in giving all the powers that might be exercised under this Act to unqualified persons. He went as far as anyone could go in assuming that if such a Bill as this was to go on the Statute Book, the sooner it was effected the better; but, on the other hand, there were certain inquiries which must be real, and the powers of the Bill ought not to be frittered away by persons of no responsibility or qualification. If the Bill became law, he had not a shadow of doubt that in a great number of cases the landlord and tenant would agree; in cases where they did not agree, there would be someone sent down armed with this power who might feel it his business as soon as possible to say that the conditions were satisfied, and that there was nothing to do but to see that the money was paid up. He felt the logical force of the arguments in favour of this Amendment; but he would suggest at the present moment that his hon. Friend should allow the Amendment to be negatived, and he might take the words which the Government proposed to meet some of the inconveniences which had been pointed out.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he thought it did not require any legal qualification to decide whether a man was solvent or not, and the necessity of having a learned member of the Commission seemed to him absolute folly. What he believed would happen was this—that if the landlord and tenant agreed, that would not be done without a good deal of fencing, and test cases would have to be decided before they did agree. He believed landlords would be disposed to agree, because they would be afraid of their cases coming before the Land Commission; but he thought tenants would not agree until they had seen what their neighbours were doing. Therefore, a great many cases would have to be first decided; and he thought it better that the three Commissioners should sit alone, and get through the work quickly.

Amendment negatived.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER) moved, in page 4, line 1, to leave out the words— And in the construction of this Act the expression 'Land Conmission' shall be deemed for the purpose of such delegation to include the Court, Sub-Commission, or member of the Land Commission or of a Sub-Commission to whom such power or duty is so delegated, for the purpose of inserting— And every Court of Sub-Commission or member of the Land Commission or Sub-Commission to whom such power is delegated shall in reference thereto have all the powers of the Land Commission.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. BOURKE

wished to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland what the words "members of the Land Commission" would include in the last portion of the section they were now discussing? It was provided, towards the end of the clause, that the Land Commission might, from time to time, with the assent of the Treasury, appoint fit persons to conduct investigations and make reports in reference to the preliminary conditions required to be proved for the purpose of orders under the Land Act, and the Land Commission or Civil Bill Court, or any Sub-Commission, &c, might adopt any such reports, and from time to time direct a fresh investigation to take place. He wanted to have an explanation of that part of the clause.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, it was not proposed to delegate to the members of the Sub-Commission the power of making an order; but it only proposed to empower them to make a report. Consequently, the words "Sub-Commission" in the early part of the clause would apply to any of the delegates under the subsequent portion of the section.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

asked if these words might not be held to authorize the Land Commission to delegate to the Sub-Commissioners the duty of appointing fit persons to conduct inquiries? Surely that could not be intended.

THE SOLICITOE GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

thought it fair to admit that that result would follow. At one time it was intended; but the Government now proposed in the next clause to avoid that consequence altogether. The duties under the next part of the section would be confined to the Land Commission itself, and he would see that the words were limited.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he thought it was most inconvenient that the Committee should be called upon to discuss the matter without having the words of the clause before them. Was he right in understanding from the reply of the Solicitor General for Ireland, that with the alteration just mentioned it would not be in the power of the Land Commission to delegate to anybody the appointment of these persons?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, the words as they stood at present with the alteration he proposed to make would require that the persons to conduct the investigations should be appointed by the Land Commission, with the consent of the Treasury.

MR. GIBSON

said, he would not make any criticism upon the words which had been now read. They were probably better than the words as they originally stood; but, in a certain sense, they were still restricted. In the clause as it stood it was proposed that the expression "Land Commission" should be deemed for the purposes of delegation to include the Court, Sub-Commission, or a member of the Land Commission or of a Sub-Commission to whom the power or duty was delegated, and that they should have power to appoint fit and proper persons to conduct investigations and prepare reports. If the Committee now struck out that part of the clause down to line 11, he doubted whether the effect would not be to leave the Sub-Commissioners at liberty to act upon the reports given by the fit persons appointed. He did not intend to make a full and complete criticism of the clause at the present moment; but he would say in advance that the matter was an important one, and required further consideration on the Report.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BOURKE moved to omit the words— The Land Commission may, from time to time, with the assent of the Treasury appoint tit persons to investigate and report as to the existence or non-existence in the case of holding's of the preliminary conditions required to be proved for the purpose of orders under this Act and as to the values of such holdings, and the Land Commission or Civil Bill Court, or any Sub-Commission or any member of the Land Commission, or of any Sub Commission dealing with an application under this Act as respects any holding, may adopt any such report, or any part thereof, as may seem expedient, and may from time to time direct a fresh investigation to take place, or may themselves or himself take evidence in respect of the subject matter of such investigation. The object of this paragraph was to give power to the Land Commission, with the assent of the Treasury, to appoint fit persons to investigate and report as to the existence and non-existence of the preliminary conditions required to be proved for the purpose decreed under the Act. Now, he thought this power was a very dangerous power, because it gave to the Sub-Commissioners the power of appointing persons who were wholly irresponsible.

MR. GIBSON

And for whom no salary was provided under the Bill.

MR. BOURKE

said, that was so. No salary was attached to the appointment, and the persons appointed might be men absolutely incapable of performing the duties which the clause proposed to impose upon them. The number also was unlimited, and they might have a small army of new officials appointed, who, when they were appointed, were to report upon matters which might be altogether unintelligible to them. It would, however, be seen that these persons were only to have the power of reporting, and not the power of judging and coming to a decision, and when the Sub-Commission came to investigate the reports presented to them, they would have no means of knowing whether the gentlemen who reported had made themselves acquainted with the facts they were asked to report upon at all. Therefore, the reports would be wholly without value. He was aware that the Solicitor General for Ireland had intimated his intention of moving that the latter part of this paragraph should be omitted; but he did not think there was the slightest necessity for giving the Land Commission power of appointing these gentlemen at all, in regard to whose qualifications there could be no guarantee whatever.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. The best security, after all, would be the intervention of the Treasury with respect to the qualification of the persons. It was provided in the clause that they were to be fit persons for conducting the inquiry, and the Treasury would have the greatest interest in seeing that the money advanced by the State was pro- perly expended. That power of intervention on the part of the Treasury would be a better security than could be provided by any words they could insert in the clause, and no power of appointing persons to take part in these inquiries would be made except by the Land Commission, and it was quite possible that in many cases the agency of the local magistrates might be rendered useful. They must get every kind of assistance they could from people who were qualified to render it without looking too strictly at the exact nature of their qualifications or preliminary training. That was the only object the Government had in view in asking for these large powers. Everything would be under the control of the Treasury, whose object would be to make the inquiry real, and to see that fit persons were appointed. It was upon that account that the terms of the clause were made general, so that they might have as large an operation as possible.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

said, he thought there was some force in the statement of the Prime Minister as to the interest the Treasury must necessarily take in these matters, and the value their check would be upon the operation of the Bill; but it was not at ail clear that they would be the governing parties in the appointment of these persons.

MR. GLADSTONE

remarked, that the Treasury would have the power of veto.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

would venture to suggest that they should have something more than a veto—namey, that they should have to some extent the initiative in the matter. As the right hon. Gentleman admitted, there must be a certain qualification on the part of those who accepted these appointments, and he thought that the Treasury should be directed by the Bill to prescribe the qualification. If that suggestion were accepted, it would remove most of his objections to this particular sub-section.

MR. BIGGAR

wished to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the proposed delegation of power under the Bill to the local magistrates. He believed that there were admirable local magistrates, and he did not propose to present any argument against them as a body; but he thought it most undesirable that local magistrates, or local men at all, should be intrusted with the power of deciding these cases. On the contrary, it was desirable that they should appoint men who had no local prejudices of any sort. If they appointed local magistrates to decide matters in their own particular localities, it would give rise to considerable jealousy and allegations of unfairness and partiality. He was clearly of opinion that in matters of this sort, land agents or persons who had been brought up to ordinary business habits were quite as well qualified to form an opinion as to the insolvency of a particular tenant as a lawyer or a local magistrate. He certainly thought that as far as possible the Government should avoid local appointments. Take the case of the county of Cavan. He had no charge to make against the local magistrates there as men of honour; but one of them was a land agent for the county, and had local connections with the landowners of the county, and for that reason, although no fault might be found with his decisions, his partiality might be questioned, and it might be said that he was certain to be influenced by his former connection with the county. Altogether, it was a position they should not ask any local magistrate to undertake.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that in the opinion of the Government the Bill was one for the benefit both of the landlord and the tenant, and he thought that, under all the circumstances, the local knowledge possessed by the local magistrates might be usefully taken advantage of; and he hoped the proposal would not be found objectionable.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had no wish to argue that the local magistrates would act unfairly or in a manner that would give rise to complaint; but he had no doubt that in some cases they would give adverse decisions, and those decisions were likely to be found fault with. He believed the Prime Minister was right in his opinion that the Bill was for the interest of the landlord as well as the tenant, and that in the great majority of cases it would work smoothly; but in some cases it would not work smoothly, and he did not think there ought to be room for adverse criticism.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, no difficulty was likely to arise. These gentlemen were only to report; and if any circumstances were brought to the notice of the Land Commission to induce them to think that injustice had been done, the reports would not be acted upon.

MR. GIBSON

said, he wanted to be quite clear in the matter. As he understood it, the Government proposed that the Land Commission, the Civil Court, or the Sub-Commission should be all empowered to appoint fit persons, and the Government could delegate the power of appointment even to one member of a Sub-Commission, or one member of the Land Commission.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, that was so under the clause as it stood; but the Government intended to introduce an Amendment which would give the power to the Land Commission only. The words in the previous part of the section would be struck out.

MR. GIBSON

said, he thought that in order to make the matter clear, something beyond the Amendment already suggested would be required. Of course the Government would, if necessary, make their meaning plain on Report; but he should like to know what was to be the tenure of office and the salary attached to it? It was a very curious thing to propose in Ireland the appointment of a crop of officials who were to wander over the four Provinces with an uncertain tenure of office and an uncertain scale of pay. He presumed that the Government only intended to appoint persons with a limited tenure of office. That was quite right; but had they considered the expense? The Prime Minister estimated that the whole thing would be done for £2,500,000; but he thought something must be added for the expense of working the Act, and he wanted to know what provision had been made for that purpose?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, that the question raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was one which the Treasury would have to decide, subject, of course, to the control of Parliament. The Land Commission would make the appointments with the assent of the Treasury, and the Treasury must be satisfied both as regarded the tenure and the salary. The tenure would be very short, and the expense would not be very large.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to state precisely what the words were he intended to insert.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, the Amendment the Government intended to propose would provide that the Land Commissioners should have the power of appointing the delegates and of adopting their reports.

MR. BULWER

said, the clause had been so much cut about during the discussion by the introduction of Amendments which were not on the Paper, that any Member of the Committee must be excused if he was not able exactly to follow the effect of it. He understood the main object of the Government was to got a satisfactory tribunal, and one that would act justly between the taxpayer and the tenant who sought to obtain the benefit of the Bill, and the landlord who was also to get something from it. He would suggest to the Government that there ought to be some more convenient mode of putting the Act into operation than was suggested by this clause. What was the process proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite? That process he understood to be this—the power was to be given to the Land Commission, who had authority generally to deal with the matter. They were to have the preliminary authority, and they were to have the power of delegating their authority to a Sub-Commission or a single member of a Sub-Commission. In addition to that, they might appoint persons, subject to the approbation of the Treasury, who were to go around the country and to make reports, and then the tribunal not being able to confirm the conclusions themselves wore to consider those reports. Now, he would ask any practical man what would be the value of such reports if the Sub-Commission or the Land Commission were to be at liberty to adopt or repudiate them at their pleasure? How could they tell whether the reports were worth the paper they written upon or not? He regarded this as one of the most clumsy provisions over introduced into a Bill. There were 500,000 tenants with holdings under £30, and they might depend upon it that every one of them would, by hook or by crook, get something under the Bill. If each of them were to get only £5, the whole of the available capital proposed to be appropriated under the Bill would be swept away. He thought the Government ought to propose some more workmanlike scheme for putting the measure into operation than the present proposal, which was a proposal bristling with complications.

DR. LYONS

believed that the proposal to appoint persons to conduct preliminary inquiries would create great delay in the working of the measure. There must necessarily be very extensive inquiries, seeing that there were over 500,000 tenants at and under £30 value, and it might be found necessary to inquire into as many as 350,000 of them. It was proposed that, in the first instance, a certain number of persons should make an inquiry and report, and then they were to get the Land Commission to take up each individual case after the report was made. He thought that the Government should make a proper selection of the persons to conduct the investigations, and should give them the power, not only of making an inquiry, but of deciding at once upon the spot. If the decisions were suspended over a period of six, eight, or twelve months there would be a great deal of angry feeling among tenants. He thought it would be better for the Government to amend the clause in the direction indicated, upon Report. It was quite clear that they had not as yet made up their minds upon the subject; and he would suggest, therefore, that the Committee should pass the Amendment on the understanding that eventually a clause would be brought up providing for the appointment of a better class of officers, with power to decide once for all on each claim. He thought that was the most practicable mode of dealing with the question.

Amendment negatived.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he did not propose to move the next Amendment which stood in his name, and which was to the effect that the persons appointed should be barristers or solicitors.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W.M. JOHNSON) moved, in line 11, after the words "Land Commission," to omit the words— Or Civil Bill Court, or any Sub-Commission, or any member of the Land Commission or of any Sub-Commission.

Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M.JOHNSON) moved, in line 16, to omit the words "or himself."

Question, "That the words 'or himself' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had modified the Amendment he now proposed to move since it had been placed on the Paper. The Amendment he now proposed to move was, in line 17, after the word "investigation," to insert the words— Any person or persona administering any jurisdiction under this Act shall take the proscribed oath of office. He thought it would not be a matter agreeable to the Committee that any person should be appointed to a judicial office without being required to take some prescribed form of oath. The Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and every person who administered a judicial office in Ireland was required to take an oath. By some slip it had not been made obligatory on the Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act to take an oath; and he should endeavour as far as he could, every time the matter came under the cognizance of the House, to have that point remedied.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 17, after the word "investigation," to insert the words "any person or persons administering any jurisdiction under this Act shall take the prescribed oath of office.—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, he would not object to accept the Amendment if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would add to it the words "if any." He quite agreed that, as a general rule, every person who was called upon to exercise judicial jurisdiction should do so under the sanction of an oath; but it must be borne in mind that no provision had been made for the administration of the oath in the case of the Sub-Commissioners.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words "if any."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. PLUNKET

said, it was obvious that the Amendment suggested by the Attorney General for Ireland would make the proposal of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) worth nothing at all, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) himself admitted that every person ought to be bound, as a general rule, in such cases by an oath, and, above all, persons who were required to conduct judicial investigations of a most important character.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

remarked, that the tenure of office under this clause would only be for a short time.

MR. PLUNKET

said, the Attorney General for Ireland told them that the tenure of office would only be for a short time; but he thought the point was just the same, whether it was for a short time or for a long time. If the Attorney General for Ireland insisted upon opposing the Amendment, or rather upon pressing his alteration of it, he should divide the Committee against it.

MR. GIBSON

said, the fact that no oath was administered to those exorcising jurisdiction under the Act had attracted very great attention in Ireland, and he certainly should press his Amendment upon the Committee. He declared deliberately that it was a great scandal that under the Land Act of last year judicial jurisdiction should be administered without the sanction of an oath, and without the slightest open and official obligation being incurred by those who administered it. The Lord Chief Justice could not act without swearing an oath of office; and his right hon. and learned Friend well knew that the high Office he administered was administered under the high sense of having taken the oath; and it was astounding that the Government should propose that these unknown persons, possessing no prescribed qualifications, and who had done nothing to command public confidence in the slightest degree, should be able to de- cide these questions without taking the oath. He could understand his right hon. and learned Friend saying it was better to leave them unbound and unfettered; but to say that he recognized the force of this Amendment, and then say that at the end he would add words which would make it worthless, seemed most ridiculous. His Amendment was sound in principle, and unanswerable in reasonableness; but it was suggested that two qualifying words should be put in at the end which would make the provision worthless. Suppose the words "if any" were added to the Amendment, could the Attorney General for Ireland suggest a single possible application which the Amendment would then have? Would it not be far more honest to say that he was against the whole thing?

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, he was very much inclined to agree that "if any" were inserted they would render the clause absolutely useless; and he was not prepared to vote for the original Amendment, because, in his opinion, it would tend very little to increase the sanctity of the oath, or the obligation of duty. He thought the tendency of the present time was to diminish very much the requirement of an oath on matters of a subordinate character. If the Amendment proposed a solemn declaration in writing, he would be willing to agree to it; but the tendency was to abolish very much the frequency and mere formality with which oaths were taken formerly for subordinate offices, and to substitute solemn declarations, which were equally binding on honest men. Not long ago oaths were administered for all sorts of purposes; but an Act of Parliament was passed substituting a solemn declaration. He regarded this as a comparatively subordinate office. It was right, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that Judges of the land, having very important duties to discharge, should be compelled always to take the oath; but the administering of oaths for all sorts of subordinate offices destroyed the solemnity and sanctity of the oath, and, on that ground, he should be very much disposed to vote against the Amendment. At one time there were about 300,000 oaths taken a-year by officers in minor positions, and for verifying trivial transactions; but where was the sanctity of all that? In his opinion, a solemn declaration in writing would be better than an oath in these cases. If the Government put in these words "if any," they would practically destroy the effect of the Amendment; but he was opposed to it, and to the whole principle of administering oaths to officers of this description.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

suggested that the words "if any" should be withdrawn, and a decision taken on the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he thought this was a matter hardly worth troubling about. It must be assumed that the Government would appoint gentlemen of reputation and character, who would act impartially and honestly, whether sworn or not; and he did not think the two Front Benches should squabble over an Amendment of this kind, which, in all probability, would not have any effect whatever.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

argued that, as the persons appointed would be to a certain extent obscure, and would hold their offices for an uncertain period, although they had important duties to perform, there should be some security as suggested by this Amendment.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the view of the Government was that if by any chance the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was carried, they would, on the whole, prefer the addition which had been proposed. He firmly believed that the majority of the Committee agreed in that view, and he had seldom heard the case put better than by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Biggar), who had spoken with extreme good sense. If a Sub-Commissioner was not patriotic enough and public-spirited enough to do his duty, and justify the confidence the country had placed in him, he did not believe it would have the slightest effect upon him, whether he was sworn or not; and if there was no other objection, he should strongly oppose the Amendment, because the Sub-Commissioners would be the same, to a certain extent, as those who had been administering much more important offices; and it would, therefore, be to a certain extent illogical and somewhat insulting to the present Sub-Commissioners to say that at this particular period in their career, when they were to undertake duties less important than those they had already discharged, they should be required to take an oath, when they had not been required to do so in regard to the more important duties. On these grounds, he should support the suggestion to withdraw the words "if any," and then he should ask the Committee to do their best to defeat the Amendment.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he thought the Chief Secretary was under a wrong impression in thinking that his views were generally supported, because there had been very different opinions given on this subject. The Attorney General for Ireland said he could approve of the general principle of administering oaths, and the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer) thought oaths ought only to be administered to high officials. The Chief Secretary had the advantage of agreeing with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and with him alone, in saying that the oath was of no use in judicial offices. The right hon. Gentleman said the patriotic feelings of the Sub-Commissioners would be quite enough; but, surely, that would apply equally to the Lord Chief Justice. Then he said he would not pass any stigma on the Sub-Commissioners, who had been doing so well up to the present time. But it was a question whether the Sub-Commissioners had given satisfaction, and certainly it was not considered satisfactory that these gentlemen were not bound by oath.

MR. WARTON

said, the Committee had witnessed a very amusing spectacle. First they were favoured with the absence of the Attorney General for Ireland, and were getting on very well with the Amendment, when he returned and began to alter the colour of the arrangements altogether. The Attorney General for Ireland had used the most extraordinary argument that he had ever heard from him—namely, that there was no occasion for the Sub-Commissioners to take the oath because their appointments would last for so short a time. This was no slight matter, and he was certain that the country would be astonished at this matter being passed over in this light and airy manner. If they desired to invest this office with any sanctity at all, they should be sworn in the proper way, and he hoped the discussion would continue until the Home Secretary, or the Prime Minister, came and explained what the Government meant.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he thought the remarks of the Chief Secretary had been entirely misapprehended by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket). What the Chief Secretary said was that if the oath was to be administered to these Commissioners under this Bill, that would disparage their duties under the Land Act, 1881, when they were not required to take the oath. It might happen that a Commissioner would be sitting three-quarters of a day administering cases under the Land Act, and then suddenly he would have to administer cases under this Act; and, with all due respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he thought the Amendment ought not to be pressed.

Question put, and negatived.

Main Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 126: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 270.)

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he should not dwell on the principle which the Amendment he was about to propose embodied, because that principle had been fully accepted by the Prime Minister. He thought it was the general feeling of the Committee that no person should be employed on such inquiries as were contemplated by this Act, or in the decision of any cases under the Land Act of last year, in a neighbourhood with which he was connected either by profession, property, or residence. Now, he had endeavoured, looking to what had already occurred and been fully stated to the Committee, to formulate that principle in the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper. This principle was accepted by the Land Commission in spite of the appointments which had already been discussed. In a Paper recently circulated, signed by Mr. Litton, it was stated that the Commissioners, in the arrangement of Circuits, had endeavoured to provide that the Assistant Commissioners should not be employed in localities with which they were connected professionally. The impropriety of an opposite course was fully recognized, and the Memorandum went on to argue that it was important to provide that any person who might happen to be connected either by profession, property, or residence, with a particular Province or Circuit, should not be employed in that Province or on that Circuit. Looking especially to the tenant right of Ulster, he felt there would be a difficulty in acting upon that principle with regard to that Province; and, therefore, he had limited the proposal he wa8 about to move to the employment of no person in the county with which he was connected by profession, property, or residence. He understood it was the intention of the Government that some of the inquiries contemplated by the 2nd sub-section of the clause should be conducted by the local magistrates. Now, that appeared to him to be a very questionable proposal. The Committee had already hoard from the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that, in his opinion—and he fancied that opinion would be followed by almost every hon. Member sitting in that quarter of the House—there was a considerable objection to intrusting these inquiries to the local magistrates. He proposed, then, in the interests of fair dealing between the landlord and tenant, that no one should be the judge of the question between them who, by his connection with the locality, might be biassed towards either side. It seemed to him most essential that those with whom the decision would really rest, as to whether the tenant did or did not fall within the condition of inability to pay, should not be biassed in favour of the tenant fulfilling that condition. It might be argued that the actual decisions would rest with the Land Commissioners, and not with the persons appointed under the 2nd subsection of the clause. But to this he replied that the Land Commissioners delegated a portion of their functions to the persons in question, and their decisions must necessarily rest upon the evidence and report which they furnished to them; and, therefore, in practice, if not in theory, the decision would rest with the persons so appointed.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 19, after the word "oath," to insert the words "No such person or persons shall in any case he employed in pursuance of this section in any county with which he or they are or have been since the first of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, connected by professional practice, property, or residence."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, that it was intended, in some cases, to intrust the inquiries that would be made to Justices of the Peace; and he feared the adoption of the Amendment would make it impossible for the Commissioners to avail themselves of the services of these gentlemen, who were most likely to be acquainted with the circumstances of the localities in which the inquiries would be made.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he was somewhat surprised at the reply of the Solicitor General for Ireland, because the Prime Minister had distinctly admitted, in the earlier debates which had taken place on this subject, that it was objectionable that questions arising between landlord and tenant should be decided by persons interested in the locality. He could not believe that if the intention which the right hon. Gentleman had stated were carried out, it would be satisfactory in its result, either to the landlords and tenants or to the Treasury, which had to find the funds for the purpose of the Bill.

MR. GIVAN

said, he thought the right hon. Baronet might be satisfied that it was the intention of the Commissioners to carry out the spirit of the Amendment. Only two persons, as far as his knowledge went, had been appointed who were connected with the localities in which they were called upon to act, and they had since been removed by the Commissioners.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had used the strongest argument possible in favour of the Amendment. The hon. Member said two cases had occurred of persons being appointed who were connected with the localities, in the manner sought to be provided against by the right hon. Baronet's Amendment, and this was considered so objectionable by the Commissioners that the gentlemen in question were removed as soon as possible.

MR. HEALY

said, he did not think, from the point of view of Irish Members, that there was any good reason against the adoption of the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet. They did not desire that any undue influence should attach to the persons engaged in the investigation of these cases. He viewed with great apprehension the statement of the Solicitor General for Ireland that the Resident Magistrates were to be engaged in these inquiries; indeed, he had the same feeling with regard to any magistrates being so employed. On the whole, he thought the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet desirable, and he should vote in favour of it.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

remarked that the functions to be discharged by the persons employed under the clause were judicial, and the first necessity in that case was independence. He held that this could not be secured by the employment of persons who had property in the county or were resident there; and he should, therefore, support the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, they had been told that persons connected with the neighbourhood could not fairly judge between landlord and tenant; but it had also been truly stated that the Land Commission had laid down the principle that the Sub-Commissioners should be employed as little as possible in their own special districts. He thought the right hon. Baronet opposite would see that some anxiety had been shown during the last month to correct any deviation from that rule. But he wished to point out, in reply to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) that the functions to be discharged under this Bill were much more of an administrative than judicial nature, and the Government thought one very important element amongst the officers who were to conduct the operation of this Bill would be the Justices of the Peace. That was not the opinion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), nor of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who, if the Committee went to a division on the Amendment, could vote with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. These might or might not agree with the Government as to the Justices of the Peace in Ireland being proper persons to be employed with others on these Commissions; but he would point out that, if the Amendment were carried, those Justices of the Peace would, for all practical pur- poses, be unable to act in their own neighbourhood. It was a perfectly legitimate case for the Committee to decide. He had stated the opinion of the Government; but they would be perfectly willing to abide by the decision of the Committee.

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, he thought that, for the purposes of this Act, it was not essential to employ strangers to the district; on the contrary, those who, like the Justices of the Peace, fanners, and land agents, knew the circumstances of the people, were best qualified to investigate and report as to the existence of the conditions required by the Bill. Therefore, however pertinent the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet might be to the Land Act, it was not so with regard to this Bill. Local knowledge, in his opinion, was most essential. With regard to Mr. M'Carthy, he had been authorized by that gentleman to state that he had no clients whatever in that portion of the barony in which he had acted.

MR. PARNELL

said, he did not think it would be desirable for the Government to tie themselves up by accepting this Amendment. At the same time, he was bound to say he did not like the way in which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had referred to the Justices of the Peace. He did not think the Government could find a class of men more unfitted to perform these duties, because they were so intimately connected with one of the parties to the dispute. Of course, the functions of these tribunals would chiefly come into play where there was a dispute between the landlord and tenant. He must say that to single out the unpaid Justices of the Peace to have any part whatever in the performance of the duties under this section of the Act was a most unfortunate selection. One could have hit upon half-a-dozen different classes in the country who would perform the duties better. For his own part, he would even prefer the paid magistrates. Again, there were the Clerks of the Unions, who were better fitted, by their knowledge of the financial condition of the ratepayers, to administer this Act than the Justices of the Peace, who, in every county, formed a little coterie of their own, and who would find it almost impossible to resist the claims of private friendship and fellow-feeling, which, as hon. Members were aware, made us "wondrous kind." He thought it desirable that these functions should be committed to no person interested in the ownership or occupation of land. An arrangement of that kind, he thought, would be a very reasonable one, and one which might very well be agreed to. But the selection of persons directly associated with the interest of one class was, he feared, an arrangement which, if carried out, would have a very bad effect.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that persons locally well-informed and selected fairly wore most likely to get through the work contemplated by the clause more successfully than strangers. There must be a large amount of inquiry into the circumstances of persons on the spot; and those who had the necessary knowledge, and were chosen because they knew the locality, would most probably give greater satisfaction than those who did not possess that knowledge. With regard to the Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act, it was right that those, as a rule, should not be persons connected with the locality. That was well known and admitted. But he might point out that the introduction of the words of the Amendment would almost be an absurdity, because they were intended to refer not only to the last subsection, but to the whole clause. The Committee had, in the early part of the clause, said that the County Court Judges, who were certainly connected with the localities, might make the primary inquiries. But they were now asked to say that— No such person or persons shall in any case he employed in pursuance of this section in any county with which he or they are or have been since the first of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, connected by professional practice, property, or residence. He presumed that the great majority, at any rate, of the County Court Judges were connected with the localities by residence. The Amendment was at variance with the first part of the clause, and he therefore hoped it would not be adopted by the Committee.

MR. GIBSON

said, he thought they could not entirely surrender their judgments to that of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, notwithstanding the conciliatory tone of the speech he had just made; nor could they completely exclude from their recollection the circumstances which had recently occurred. If he might be allowed to say so, he entirely dissented from the construction placed almost triumphantly by the right hon. Gentleman on the Amendment of his right hon. Friend. He pointed out that the only antecedent to which the words "no such persons" were referrible was the phrase "fit persons" in the second paragraph of the clause, and by no straining of language could they be made to apply to the County Court Judges, the Commissioners, or the Sub-Commissioners. He was disposed to think, from the manner in which the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the magistrates differed from the statements of the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that the Government had no very definite view with regard to this matter, and that they kept themselves entirely free to do what was most agreeable and popular at the moment. He should vote for the Amendment, because it was a sound principle that the persons who administered justice in this ease should be independent of the locality; and he was bound to say he had been made a little suspicious of the Government's intentions by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which appeared to him intended to disarm opposition in all parts of the House.

MR. SYNAN

said, he had been surprised to find that the occupants of the Opposition Benches founded all their Amendments to this Bill on the principle that there would be a conflict of interest between the landlord and tenant. He was able to say from his own knowledge that there would be the very reverse of a conflict of interest. The inquiry to take place under the Bill was as to the ability of the tenant to pay his rent, and it was an insult to common sense to say that strangers would be better able to form a judgment on that point than persons living in the locality. There was, undoubtedly, a conflict of interest between the landlord and tenant under the Land Act, and some improper persons had been appointed who were afterwards removed. But no such conflict of interest could arise under this Act; and, therefore, he said that the persons most competent to inquire as to the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions were persons living in the district. He thought that the Government could find in the district persons much more competent and better acquainted with the relations of the landlord and tenant than the local magistrates. But he did not wish to fetter the powers of the Land Commissioners. They were the best judges of the persons whom they should appoint, and he did not think it right to limit their jurisdiction in matters relating to the administration of the Bill.

MR. GIVAN

argued that if the Amendment wore adopted, all a County Court Judge would have to do in order to relieve himself of the duties imposed upon him by this Act was to take a residence in the county where those duties were to be performed.

MR. T. A. DICKSON

said, there were in every district magistrates independent of both landlords and tenants. Moreover, in the Potty Session Courts they had the machinery necessary for the working of the Bill ready to their hands; whereas, if the administration were to be left entirely to the Sub-Commissioners, it would be years before the Act could possibly be administered.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he should vote against the Amendment, because it would exclude every Poor Law Guardian, clerk of the Union, relieving officer, and local valuator in the district.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 157: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 271.)

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

said, he had an Amendment to propose with reference to oral evidence in matters relating to the Bill being given on oath. He submitted that the best place for the insertion of this Amendment was after the word "oath" in the last paragraph of the clause. He had understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to say that he would give effect to the principle of the Amendment by the insertion of some words in Clause 7; but he wished to point out that that clause was permissive only, and it was with the intention that the Government should make the provision directory that he pressed his Amendment on their attention at this part of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 19, after the word "oath," to insert the words "and no oral testimony shall he given in any investigation under this Act except upon oath."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, that in all cases evidence would be taken on oath, and therefore he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. PARNELL

said, with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), recommending that the Government should use the Petty Sessional machinery for the purpose of making inquiries under this clause, he could not but think this would be the worst possible kind of machinery that could be employed. It was true that the machinery in question existed all over the country, and in a certain sense—that was, mechanically—it would be adequate for the purpose. But he was bound to say he could not imagine a class of men more unfit for the employment than the clerks of the Petty Sessions. They might have knowledge, but they were not sufficiently independent to be intrusted with such a responsibility as would be cast upon them by the clause. The clerks of the Petty Sessions held their appointments from the magistrates subject to the nominal consent of the Lord Lieutenant; and therefore he did not think they were sufficiently independent, either by their normal position, or in virtue of the appointments which they held, to exercise satisfactorily the duties that would be required of them in cases of dispute under this Act. But another machinery existed ready to the hands of the Government. He considered that the clerks of the Union were admirably suited to administer this section with impartiality. He trusted the Government would not proceed any further in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Tyrone, or grant any judicial functions so, far as disputed points were concerned, to clerks of Petty Sessions in Ireland.

MR. HEALY

said, he had voted with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) on the last division as a protest against the idea that the local magistrates were fit persons to administer this Act. They knew that the local magistrates were, as a rule, local landlords, and it was most absurd that they should be allowed to decide in cases of dispute between landlords and tenants. He therefore trusted some assurance would be given by the Government that these gentlemen would not be employed. It was not enough for the Government to say that these magistrates should not adjudicate on their own cases. It was well known that the magistrates decided cases at the Sessions in accordance with the interests of their neighbours, because they knew a case might some day come forward in which their own interest would be involved. Thus, Mr. Brown would adjudicate in the interest of Mr. Smith. [Mr. MITCHELL HENRY: No, no!] The hon. Member for Galway was a swell. He was not; but he had had some experience of these magistrates. Probably the hon. Member for Galway was a magistrate himself, which would account for the impartial view he took of the matter. He was there to express the views of persons in a humble position, and he said that the magistrates, as a rule, were distrusted by the people at large, and that the Government could not have intrusted decisions under the Act to any class of persons more likely to be distrusted than they were. He, therefore, trusted some assurance would be given that the magistrates would not be employed to carry out this clause.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, the hon. Member for Wexford had applied to him the epithet "swell," and he thought that the Chair would have called the hon. Member to Order on that account. But there was another epithet beginning with the letter "s" which he might apply to the hon. Member; however, he would not go beyond that letter. Nothing could be more inconsistent than these attacks on the local magistrates by hon. Members opposite, because, when it was proposed to intrust the administration of the Coercion Bill to special magistrates, a strong plea was put in on their behalf. So that at one time the local magistrates were spoken of as desirable persons to administer those Acts, and at another they were described as persons not to be trusted. But it was probable the hon. Member for Wexford knew nothing about them, and was not likely to know, except, perhaps, that on some future occasion he might come before them. He believed, as a general rule, and especially with regard to his own neighbourhood, the people of Ire-land had confidence in the local magistrates; and he was certain that a more hideous and abominable calumny could not be uttered against this body of men than to say that they decided cases according to each other's interest, and not according to law.

MR. DALY

wished to say nothing against the position occupied by the county magistrates; but, without any prejudice against them as a class, he confessed they were eminently unfit for the position in which the Solicitor General for Ireland intended to put them. He said they would be more than human if, after the prolonged struggle they had been engaged in with the tenants, they were not prejudiced in favour of the landlords. He thought Irish Members had a right to demand that fit and proper persons should be employed in the administration of the clause. He regarded the local magistrates as prejudiced, and, therefore, unfit to be appointed to carry out the duties that it was proposed to place upon them; and to say that they were to act in conjunction with the Petty Sessions clerks was simply making the matter worse. Under the circumstances, he said they were entitled to have a denial given to what was implied by the statement of the Solicitor General for Ireland—namely, that these persons were to be employed.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, they could not go to a worse body than the Petty Sessions clerks for information of this kind. The proper body was the Union clerks, who could afford the information immediately. From the Petty Sessions clerks no more information could be obtained than from the police.

MR. PARNELL

said, he had merely expressed the hope that the Government had formed no intention of proceeding in the manner recommended by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson)—namely, to use the Petty Sessional machinery for the purposes of this section.

MR. CHILDERS

said, the machinery would be provided when the Government brought up the clause.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Incorporated provisions of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870) agreed to.

Clause 7 (Rules for carrying Act into force).

MR. GIBSON (for Mr. W. H. SMITH) moved to insert after "Act," in line 36, page 4— And the manner in which the tenant shall set out in the prescribed form any property or effects of which such tenant may be possessed or entitled to, and which would be applicable to the satisfaction of any arrears of rent. The Amendment of his right hon. Friend explained itself. Clause 7 enabled the Land Commission to frame rules for certain purposes, and the Amendment enabled a certain elasticity to be introduced into the clause.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHILDERS

said, while the Government could not agree to the exact phraseology of the Amendment, they were in entire accord with its spirit.

MR. GIBSON

said, he would make any modification the right hon. Gentleman thought proper. For instance, if the right hon. Gentleman desired it he would leave out "in the prescribed form."

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. VILLIERS-STUART moved, in page 4, line 43, after "defrayed," to insert— Provided always, That the benefits of this Act shall be free of cost to any duly qualified tenant making application, unless it should be proved that his application is knowingly fraudulent, and that no landlord shall be liable to any costs, unless it can be proved that he has vexatiously and unjustifiably opposed the claim of the tenant to take the benefit of the Act. The hon. Gentleman said, the purpose of the Amendment was to prevent the benefit of the Arrears Bill to a large number of tenants in Ireland who must need it from being entirely swallowed up by the costs of obtaining it. An enormous majority of holdings were under £4 a-year, and in a large proportion of cases very much under £4 a-year—many of them were not more than £1, or even 10s. a-year. It might be difficult for hon. Members to realize that a, sum of £1 or 10s. should be out of reach of any class of the community. But, as a matter of fact, such was the case with thousands in the West of Ireland. Now, if the costs of the investigation in Court into their solvency was to be thrown upon them, it would either deter them from applying for the benefit of the Act at all, or it would swallow up the value of the sum advanced by the State for their relief. In the County Donegal 21,000 out of 38,000 holdings were below £4 a-year. In Mayo the proportion was almost exactly the same. In Galway 29,000 out of 39,000 were under £4 a-year. In the case of Leitrim, Sligo, Roscommon, Kerry, and Clare the proportion of very small holdings was not much less. The population of the counties he had named was about 2,000,000. Even on his own property there were 226 tenants whose rent was under £1 10s. a-year, and wore in many cases as low as 10s. a-year; and it was exactly in those small holdings that the greatest need existed of an Arrears Bill. To offer them, therefore, the benefit of this Bill with one hand and to meet them with a bill of costs in the other was to treat them to the punishment of Tantalus. It would be equally unjust to throw the cost upon the landlords, as the effect would be to divert into the pockets of the County Court attorneys the lion's share of that one year's rent which the State offered as a composition for all arrears; because they, as this Bill was compulsory, would be brought into Court without themselves having any voice in the matter.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 43, after the word "defrayed," to insert the words "Provided always, That the benefits of this Act shall he free of cost to any duly qualified tenant making application, unless it should he proved that his application is knowingly fraudulent, and that no landlord shall he liable to any costs, unless it can be proved that he has vexatiously and unjustifiably opposed the claim of the tenant to take the benefit of the Act."—(Mr. Villiers-Stuart.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, he thought the Committee would consider that this Amendment was not necessary or proper. The Land Commis- sion would, under the Bill, as they did at present under the Land Act, make provision for the payment of the costs. The Committee were dealing with persons who had next to nothing; and he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it would be too much to expect them to pay the costs. He thought, however, that it would be well to leave the matter to the Court. The probability, he thought, was that there would be no costs in the generality of cases, and therefore it would be unwise to adopt a provision in reference to costs. He trusted his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he hoped the Committee would remember that the Attorney General for Ireland bad now stated that, as a general rule, there would be no costs.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Punishment of fraudulent claim).

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was not in the House; but the Amendment which stood in his name seemed to him (Mr. Arnold) to be of some importance. It was very desirable the Government should explain to the Committee why they proposed in the Act to give the Court the option either to send a person to prison or to fine him. He would particularly draw the attention of the Government to the fact that in the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act almost similar words occurred. The only difference was that in the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act the Government had adopted the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He would be glad if the Government would explain why a distinction was made in the two Acts. He would move the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 19, to leave out the word"either."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'either' stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, if it were not for the gravity with, which the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) proposed this Amendment, he should have thought he was jesting in introducing it. The presumption of the clause was that the debtor had wilfully withheld his rent, and the clause provided as a punishment for a fradulent claim that he, Upon conviction shall be liable, in the discretion of the Court, either to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds. The Amendment, and the one immediately following it, also in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), suggested that no alternative should exist at all, but that, if a person preferred a fraudulent claim, it should not be in the discretion of the Court to punish him by imprisonment or fine, but to subject him to imprisonment and a fine not exceeding £500. He should think his hon. Friend did not mean that that should be so.

Question put, and agreed to.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON moved, in page 5, line 23, to leave out "to whom it is paid," and insert, "on behalf of whom it has been paid." This clause proposed a punishment for a fraudulent claim, and it concluded by making any sum advanced a debt to the Crown. The sum would be paid to the landlord; but it was not intended that the debt should be due from him. The debtor would be the tenant, and to make this clear he proposed this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 23, to leave out the words "to whom it is paid," and insert the words "on behalf of whom it has been paid."—(Lord George Hamilton.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'to whom it is paid,' stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

accepted the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Charge of liabilities under Act on Irish Church Temporalities Fund and Consolidated Fund).

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, the two Amendments to this clause he had on the Paper would have the effect of ex-eluding altogether from this clause any mention of the Consolidated Fund. Although the Amendment he now had to propose—namely, to leave out "primarily" in page 5, line 27, was one of considerable importance, it was capable of being stated in a very few words. He would not have moved it all if the Committee had come to the conclusion that the advantage to be gained by the tenant by this Bill should have been by way of loan instead of gift. The Committee had decided that the advance to the tenant should be by way of gift, and the object of his Amendment was to raise the question whether the taxpayers of this country were to be free from any burden in respect of it, or whether they were to be burdened with a charge which would prove to be almost unlimited in amount. It was not necessary for the purposes of his Amendment to discuss the precise amount of the charge, independently of the clause which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister introduced to the Committee upon Thursday last. The effect of that clause would be that the Consolidated Fund would be required to find a very large additional sum of money for the purpose of loans to tenants. The estimate which the right hon. Gentleman had made of the probable requirements of the Bill for the purpose of gifts to the tenants was that it was not likely that the charge on the Consolidated Fund would exceed £500,000. There were many hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House who very much disputed the accuracy of that amount. They believed that the estimate of the sum to be required under the Act was too small, and that the amount estimated to be derived from the Church Surplus was very much too large. But suppose, for the purpose of argument, they were to adopt the estimate of the Prime Minister, surely it was perfectly clear that the smaller the amount which they were going to call upon the Consolidated Fund to advance, the more reckless it was to depart from the sound principle of policy which had hitherto governed Parliament. Let him examine the circumstances under which the taxpayers of this country were asked to contribute this money. Was trade flourishing, was agriculture prosperous, was there a prospect of even a moderate harvest, was there a large surplus, was there any surplus, was the Revenue of the country increasing by leaps and bounds, was the Expenditure of the country, under the exercise of a rigid economy, steadily decreasing? He was afraid they must admit that every one of those questions ought to be answered in the negative. As regarded the general Expenditure of the country, they know that in the course of the last two years it had, instead of steadily decreasing, greatly increased. They knew there was a proposal for fresh taxation in the financial arrangements of the year; they knew that the taxpayers of the country were already called upon to contribute £400,000 in the present year to the special circumstances of Ireland; and it also seemed extremely probable that, ere the first Budget of the year was disposed of, they would have a second Budget presented to them. That was the financial condition of the country; but, in spite of these disadvantages, he believed the taxpayers would not flinch from making exceptional grants, if those grants were based upon sound and well-recognized principles. He could have understood perfectly well the Government asking the taxpayers of the country to contribute, as they had often contributed before, in the case of exceptional distress. The taxpayers of the country had constantly made, where exceptional distress had been proved, loans for the purpose of enabling the people to tide over that distress; but the proposition now made was of an altogether different nature. The objection he entertained to the grant from the Imperial Exchequer was, first of all, that any such grant would be fatal to the efficient administration of the Act. If there was one thing more than another that was desired, it was that the inquiries necessary under the Act in order to ascertain the inability or the ability of a man to pay his rent should not be sham inquiries, but should be bonâ fide and serious inquiries. But under existing circumstances those who were going to conduct the inquiries knew they had the Consolidated Fund behind them. If they knew that the only chance they had of providing the necessary money would be to come to Parliament and say—"We have examined into these cases, and we have come to the conclusion that we have selected cases which will bear investigation, and may fairly be put before Parliament as cases in which advances ought to be made, and, therefore, we ask Parliament to supplement the Church Fund," the inquiries would be genuine, and every care would be taken to protect the Consolidated Fund. His next objection to the proposed grant was that not only was it demoralizing in itself, but that it must be dangerous in the very near future. The Government were asking the State to intervene under circumstances which were wholly unprecedented, and far beyond the limits of State intervention. What was it they were going to try to do? Certain debtors in Ireland were going to be enabled to compound with certain creditors. Those creditors were to be compelled to receive something less than their just debts. All the other creditors were to be left in possession of their legal rights, and the debtors wore to remain in the full possession of their property. It was with this object that these grants of public money were going to be made. Anybody looking at the matter from an impartial point of view would say—"But you are going to make a distinction between the honest and the dishonest tenant; of course, it will be a hard thing if you are going to treat the honest tenant like the dishonest tenant." The way the Government were going to treat these tenants differently was that the taxpayers were to be called upon to contribute towards the payment of the debts of many men who could pay them themselves, but who would not pay them; and not 1s. of the public money was to be given to the men who, with great difficulty, and at great personal sacrifice, had paid their just debts. The principle was bad enough in itself; but it became much worse when they proceeded to the further question—Where was it going to stop? If they once adopted the principle, it would carry them a great deal further than they could at present foresee. He would not, on this Amendment, discuss what was likely to be the effect of any such proposal as this upon the minds of the tenant farmers both in England and in Scotland, although they could not disguise from themselves that the discontent, the great discontent, which this proposal had excited, was entirely warranted by the facts. Let them limit themselves to Ireland, and he thought they could most usefully trace out in a few words the history of the present proposal. The germ of this proposal was found in the exceptional legislation that, two years ago, was intended to be applied to a certain part of Ireland where distress had recently been prevalent. In the next year a proposal was made and accepted by the House by which advances should be made out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of making loans to tenants valued under £30. In the course of the ensuing winter an agitation arose, and later the Representatives of the Land League in that House brought forward a proposal by which the loan was no longer to be a loan, but a gift. That proposal was accepted by the Government, and was embodied in the Bill now under consideration. But the Government did not stop there, for they now went on to say that in addition loans were to be granted to tenants whose valuation did not exceed £50, and the condition of inability to pay was to be altogether dispensed with. He did not doubt there would be another agitation during the year, and that when the Land Law Amendment Bill of 1883 came up further proposals would be made by the Land League which the Government would accept. The House of Commons would find that the limits within which this principle had been confined would be extended. The Committee would recollect, no doubt, that not only were these gifts to be made to people who had been suffering from distress arising from bad seasons, but they were also to be given to men who had been suffering from want of employment. He wondered what the labourers in Ireland were going to say to that? Could it be doubted that the next proposal they would have before Parliament from Ireland would be one from the labourers who had been suffering from want of employment, and he did not know what answer the Government could possibly give them. But he had not mentioned these facts for the purpose of blaming Her Majesty's Government. Their original error was in departing from sound principle. When once they left the ground of sound principle, it was very difficult indeed to find a firm standpoint from which to resist the demands of future agitators. The object of his Amendment was to stop this at the outset, and to ask the Committee to pause before it departed from sound principle, and imposed a charge on the taxpayer, small enough in itself at the present moment, but certain to be increased in the immediate future. In short, the present proposal might be described as the thin end of the wedge, and he asked the Committee to prevent the wedge being put in at all.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 27, to leave out the word "primarily."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'primarily' stand part of the Clause."

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he was very much surprised that the hon. Member, in proposing this Amendment, had made no reference whatever to the general policy of the Bill. What he imagined the hon. Member meant was this—that the Church Surplus Fund should be devoted to meeting arrears of rent as far as it would go, and that if there was any more required, those tenants who had not been reached, and wished to make further application, should be left out in the cold. He (Mr. Arnold) had been much surprised at this, because there was legislation in this country with regard to land that bore a very strong analogy to the case under the notice of the Committee. An analogy to the proposal of the Bill might be found in the annual payment of £16,000 for the enfranchisement of copyhold.

MR. GLADSTONE

I quite admit that the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment, and other Members of this House, are entirely within their right as the Representatives of the people in refusing a demand made by the Government on the public purse. It is for them to judge of the proposal strictly and severely, and, whatever may be said of the course they take, they are in the natural position of the Representatives of the people, and are entitled to decline to allow such a charge as this to be put upon the taxpayers. I think the Committee will admit that we have never endeavoured to gild this proposal by making light of what it involves. We have always said that nothing but the most exceptional circumstances and great and urgent public considerations could justify it; and we have protested against anything like disguise, and any attempt to impose it upon the country under what may be called false pretences. We have recommended it on its merits, and on its merits the House has accepted it on repeated divisions, by large majorities. It has, however, been the fate of this Bill, more perhaps than of any other measure, to be contested by a series of Amendments in Committee, many of which were absolutely fatal, if carried, to the Bill, and this is one of these Amendments—perhaps it may be the last. The hon. Member (Mr. Stanhope) has alluded to a Land Bill for 1883, in respect of which, I may say, the Government have made no compact of any kind—they have made no promise whatever as to the legislation of 1883. There are certainly claims which arise, not upon the general structure of the Land Bill, but upon some points in connection with it—claims which have been pushed forward from the Bench on which the hon. Member sits with great activity. These are points there are strong reasons for dealing with when the condition of Public Business will permit it; but none of them are so formidable or so extensive as that to which the friends of the hon. Gentleman have given particular countenance. When the hon. Member speaks of this proposal as being a formidable one to the taxpayer, I would say that the one thing that, judging from the signs of the times, appears really formidable, far more so than any others, is the extraordinary scheme which has been promulgated by the Report of the House of Lords' Committee with regard to the land of Ireland. That, indeed, is a scheme formidable to the taxpayer. That is a scheme which does not make a certain call on the liberality of Parliament—which does not make a claim within certain fixed limits, but which calls for an unbounded liberality, which calls for an unbounded expenditure, and which calls for unbounded risk and unbounded difficulty—political difficulty as well as financial. That I do call a formidable scheme from every point of view. I would ask the hon. Member to recollect the vast annual expenditure entailed upon the country by the present state of Ireland. If the hon. Member would take the trouble to examine the charge made upon us in regard to the police of Ireland, and the charge made in connection with the Judiciary of Ireland, and all the other special charges which grow out of Irish disorder, I think he will see that it is not an immoderate statement to make to ask the House to pay £500,000 once for all on a measure that we consider will be attended by beneficial results for the peace and order of the country—an expenditure which we will take care, so far as we are concerned, at all events, shall not be drawn into a precedent. [A laugh.] It is very well to laugh; but I say we trust it will not be drawn into a precedent, and I say that, as far as we are concerned, it shall not be; and I maintain that this £500,000 does not represent more than a moderate excess over the reasonable charges which the present state of Ireland draws from us every year, even with the risk, or perhaps the promise, of its being a permanent and a growing excess. Therefore, if we ask for this outlay, we ask begging you to submit it to this test—whether it is well adapted to the process of restoring order and contentment in Ireland? I urge on you, if it be so—and it is for the House to say whether it be so—that it is an expenditure that may ultimately prove, and that, too, in a short time, to have been a strictly economical payment even from a financial point of view. The hon. Member seems to talk of sound principles, and to draw a distinction between sound and unsound principles in a way that I think will not bear examination. He thinks it would be a perfectly sound principle if we dealt with the Church Surplus alone, but that the moment we pass to the Consolidated Fund we pass into the region of unsound principles. [Mr. E. STANHOPE: I did not say that.] I beg the hon. Member's pardon; but that seemed to me to be the basis of his speech and the basis of his Amendment. The Amendment does not seek to save 6d. of the Church Surplus. It surrenders that Surplus to our mercy; but it takes away from us the Consolidated Fund. Well, I deny that sound principle would carry us to the extent of taking the Church Surplus and desert us when we come to take the Consolidated Fund. I say that we require as grave a case to justify us in taking the Church Surplus, which is the property of the people of Ireland, as to justify us in taking the Consolidated Fund, which is the property of the people of the Three Kingdoms. The hon. Member says he thinks there would be great recklessnes under the Bill as it now stands, and that he would get rid of that recklessness by striking out the resort to the Consolidated Fund, I do not understand that argument. The very same motives which lead the Treasury, so far as it can control the expenditure, to study economy and care in the administration of the Church Surplus Fund, even if there were no Consolidated Fund in prospect, would operate, and do operate now, to prevent our having resort to the Consolidated Fund. The hon. Member, it is plain, has not the courage of his opinions. If he had the courage of his opinions, and if the sound principles of which he speaks were worth anything, then he ought simply to strike out the Consolidated Fund and decline altogether to allow us to resort to it. He would say—"I decline to allow you any resort to that Fund; "but he does not say that. All he says is—"First, spend the Church Surplus Fund. When you have spent it come back to me and tell me, and I will allow you to go to the Consolidated Fund."[An hon. MEMBER: No, no !] I beg the hon. Member's pardon. That is distinctly what he says. The hon. Member himself has not contradicted me.

MR. E. STANHOPE

What I said was this—that there might be a case for resorting to the Consolidated Fund, if you were able to show that you had endeavoured to exercise the most rigid economy in carrying out this Bill in Ireland; but that, in spite of your efforts, there was some small deficit. But by this Bill you give them the Consolidated Fund beforehand.

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Member states that if there was some very small sum remaining that might be paid out of the Consolidated Fund; but the principle of such a payment as that would be precisely the same. We are told now, when we have spent the Church Surplus Fund, if we can show that economy has been used we may take any small amount that we require from the Consolidated Fund. What excuse can the hon. Member make for allowing us to avail ourselves of the Consolidated Fund in that way? You have laid down the principles on which the money is to be expended; and the meaning of your declaration is—"We will run the risk of crippling the operation of this measure; we will run the risk of causing all the operations under it to be arbitrarily suspended, and drive you back to Parliament—to the necessity, perhaps, of summoning Parliament at a minute's notice—in order that we may not run the serious political and social risk of having to say to a number of these tenants who are now in arrears—'You have proved your case; you have shown your destitution; Parliament has enacted that such destitution has certain claims to relief in respect of rent; but Parliament has not provided us with sufficient funds, and, therefore, you must go about your business.' "That is the way the hon. Gentleman asks us to go back to the administration and the observance of sound principles. The Committee is very well aware of the extreme gravity of this matter. If we are to act in such cases do not let us pass a measure with the serious risk of its being totally inefficient. The hon. Member says that, according to his estimate, the sum which would be required from the Consolidated Fund would not be a small, but a very large amount. Does he intend, after Parliament has passed an Act promising a certain proportion of arrears, to refuse payment of those arrears; or does he not think he proposes to refuse the payment of those arrears because the Church Surplus is exhausted, and the charge would come on the Consolidated Fund? I submit that we had very much better not pass this Bill at all, because it would be a measure that would mock the people of Ireland, and pledge the faith of Parliament to certain principles of relief to persons hopelessly in arrears, and then say—"That relief shall be arrested because the Church Surplus Fund is exhausted." Sir, the Committee is engaged in much too serious an operation to be arrested in its course by considerations of this kind. You have determined that the state of the Land Laws of Ireland has required the adoption of extraordinary measures; you have determined to establish a great judicial machinery for the purpose of giving to the tenantry of Ireland the power of checking excessive rents by resorting to a judicial tribunal. That machinery is largely at work. It has decided many cases; it has caused the decision of many more; it has operated as a test—as an effectual test—of multitudes of rents upon which there has been no direct action by the Land Commissioners, because sometimes tenants have had an opportunity of going into the Court, but, knowing that their rents were equitable, they have not sought to go further. But there is one large portion of the population of Ireland—and that the poorest portion—who have been involved in heavy arrears, partly, perhaps, through their own fault, but much more through the operation of a most vicious system and the most faulty law. The question is whether that part of the population is to be excluded from having that adjustment of their rent which you have offered to the population at large. Sir, it is almost the good faith of Parliament which requires that we should not hesitate as to the finishing of this operation. You cannot safely, and you cannot warrantably, make these offers without giving them a consistent and thorough application. They belong essentially to the great work you have undertaken. No other mode of pursuing that work has been found out and offered to our notice. We cannot stop at the point the hon. Member has arbitrarily, as I think, chosen for us. We have no right to spend the Church Surplus Fund unless there be a great public necessity for such an expenditure. If there be a great public necessity, we have no right to stop when the Church Surplus Fund is spent; and unless the Committee is content with a maimed and mutilated work I trust it will reject the Amendment moved by the hon. Member.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

The right hon. Gentleman, in arguing this Amendment, as in arguing many other Amendments which we have discussed in the course of the Committee on this Bill, has had this advantage over his opponents—that he has been able to say—"If you insist upon this Amendment or that Amendment, you will, in fact, destroy the Bill." Now, we do not maintain that we are in any way bound by any such argument as that; but, so far as we are concerned, we think the principle on which the Bill is founded is to a very great extent a false and bad principle; and, therefore, we are not to be stopped when we come to any point on which we think it right to take a stand, and to take the judgment of the Committee, by being told—"If you carry this Amendment, you interfere and oppose the principles on which we found the Bill." With regard to the particular proposal which my hon. Friend makes, or rather with regard to the particular objection which he takes, it is one which seems to me so perfectly clear and evident, and upon which he has so perfect a right to pronounce an opinion, that, if that opinion be contrary to the proposal of the Government, it will lie on the Government to consider in what way, if at all, it will be necessary to modify their scheme in order to meet the objection that has been taken. Well, the right hon. Gentleman says that he can see no distinction, and that the Committee ought to see no distinction, between the use of the surplus of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund and the application of the Consolidated Fund in this case. Well, that certainly is a new doctrine. Here you have a case in which it is proposed that money of a public character shall be applied to meet the circumstances of a certain number of persons who, according to the theory of the Government, are placed in a position of difficulty by reason of the failure of seasons and other causes which have put them into a disadvantageous position, and which prevent them from taking full advantage of the recent land legislation of the Government. Well, the proposal that is made is one of which, as I have said, we do not approve. But still it is one which is founded upon the necessity, or the alleged necessity, of making some special arrangements for the benefit of the people of a certain part of the United Kingdom; and it does not seem so altogether unreasonable that resort should be had to that Fund for the purpose as it is to come forward and say we are to apply the Consolidated Fund of the whole of the United Kingdom, contributed by the whole of the taxpayers of England and Scotland as well as Ireland, for the purpose of benefiting a particular class in Ireland. We say that the distressed agriculturists in England and Scotland have an equal right to come forward and say—"We are quite as much entitled to a share in this Fund as the distressed agriculturists of Ireland." This is a fund of a general character; and when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that "we are engaged in a great operation, and that we are not to be checked in carrying on that operation by such petty obstacles as this which the hon. Member seems to be putting in our way," the right hon. Gentleman uses language of a most alarming character to those who are contributors to those funds. What does this language amount to? It amounts to a tolerably distinct intimation that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to limit his demand to the £500,000 of which he has spoken, but that, if necessary, the call upon the Consolidated Fund may be much more considerable. We are dealing with two unknown quantities—namely, the amount that may be demanded to meet the arrears, and the amount which will be derived from the Church Temporalities Fund to pay those arrears; and the difficulty in dealing with these two unknown quantities is to be supplemented by the difficulty in regard to the further unknown quantity of the amount of the demand that will ultimately have to be made upon the Consolidated Fund. My hon. Friend (Mr. Stanhope) says this is a dangerous principle. Well, there can be no doubt about its being a dangerous principle. It is not a question of amount only. My hon. Friend says—"You have no more right to take the Church Temporalities Fund than you have to take the Consolidated Fund." I differ from him in that. But there is this, at all events, to be stated—that in taking the Church Temporalities Fund, you are taking from that which is limited in amount, and when you come to the Consolidated Fund you are taking that which, for all practical purposes, may be described as unlimited; and there is no saying how far you may not go. If you confine your operations to operations based on the Church Temporalities Fund, you cannot go beyond the amount of that Fund; and I presume the Government would take care to have their measure so framed that it would not be possible to exceed the amount of that Fund. If you are not to go beyond the Church Temporalities Fund, some change in the Bill may be necessitated, and the Government may not like to make that change. Nevertheless, whether they like it or not, it would be perfectly possible to make the change. For instance, if they make the principle of payment of arrears, under the Bill, by loan instead of by gift, they will make the Church Temporalities Fund go much further than they are likely to do under the principle which they seem inclined to adopt; or they may impose limita- tions and do other things which at present they decline to do, because they have the Church Temporalities Fund to fall back upon. I say that not only the Representatives of England and Scotland, but Irish Members also, have a right to object to this, because you are going to fall back upon the general taxes, to which Ireland as well as Great Britain contributes, and to throw upon them a burden with which, I say, you have no right to saddle them, and which, if you do saddle upon them, will form a precedent which may be followed in many other cases. I do not think there is any occasion to enter into a long debate upon this matter. It is a question of great importance; but it really lies in a nutshell. There is one argument, however, which I have to take notice of, and that is the argument of the Prime Minister, when he says—"After all, what are you going to do? You are only going to take£250,000 from the Consolidated Fund—you are going to take that from the taxpayers; but you will more than make up to them for it in the amount that you will save in the restoration of peace, and order, and quiet in Ireland—you will be relieving them of police, judicial, and other expenses." This is to be a final measure; but we have had so many final measures of late, and if this is the ground upon which we are to go to our constituents and offer them comfort, I am very much afraid that we shall only have our trouble for our pains. If we have to say to them—"We have involved you in great expense; but you must be consoled by thinking that this outlay is to make Ireland comfortable and happy for ever, and thus to relieve you of expense in the future," I am afraid our constituents will look upon us as very foolish and very untrustworthy Guardians of the National Purse. Whatever the decision of the Committee may be, I am sure that in moving this Amendment, and in supporting it to the best of our power, we are only doing that which is due from us to our constituents.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

said, the clause at which the Committee had arrived raised entirely new considerations. The Bill before the House was one which presented to them an embarrassed state of finance in Ireland. They had been occupied in devising means for alleviating the embarrassment which was felt by the tenants of that country; but the quarter from which the relief had been looked for was a perfectly natural one. It was looked for from Ireland itself. No doubt, the Church Fund was naturally the most proper and the most desirable source from which to provide the means of alleviating the difficulties under which Ireland was now suffering. But when they passed from the Irish Church Fund to the Consolidated Fund of England, then they, as English Members, had a new duty to discharge—namely, to consider how far they were entitled, in the name of their constituents, to touch the Consolidated Fund for the purpose contemplated by this measure. Now, he admitted at once that this country had never been backward in liberality and generosity in its treatment of Ireland under any calamitous visitation from which it had hitherto suffered. He need only remark upon the course taken in the case of the great Famine of 1847. At that time this country sent millions of money for the relief of the Irish necessities. But they had to consider—when they were called on now to make a sacrifice—whether the purposes to which the money was to be applied was a legitimate one, and whether the good to be effected was to be of a permanent character. If he understood the purpose properly, it was an illegitimate one. It was to enable the tenants to satisfy the claims of their landlords against them by discharging only a part of their indebtedness; and he had, never heard of the Consolidated Fund ever having been applied in England to a purpose of that kind—to the purpose of enabling tenants to pay rent to their landlords. In this country, both the tenants and the landlords had suffered severely, and had suffered patiently, and had never raised a cry for commiseration and assistance. But there was a further objection to be raised against this measure. Not only was it illegitimate, but he believed it to be absolutely hurtful, and for this reason—that the person to the relief of whom this money was to be applied was to be transformed, sooner or later, from the position of a tenant to that of a proprietor of the soil. According to the whole tenour of recent legislation for Ireland, the landlords were not entitled to exist or continue to be the owners of the soil; but it was the occupiers who alone ought to be in possession. The very purpose of this measure was hurtful, and at variance with sound principle. All the more, therefore, he said, they ought not to vote out of the Consolidated Fund money for the purpose of promoting such provisions as were now before them. There was one purpose to which he was sure this country and this House would most willingly contribute. He was thoroughly persuaded that there was but one real alleviation to be found for the sufferings of Ireland under the present dilemma, and that was the diminution of the population which was quartered in parts unable to support it. A well-organized scheme of emigration, such as that which was well set forth in the works of Mr. Tuke, would be more conducive to the relief of Ireland than any measure of the kind now before the Committee, and it was a plan to which England and English Members and everyone certainly would willingly contribute. For such a purpose they would not be sparing in their contributions; but to the purpose of this Bill, and the object to which the clause they wore now discussing devoted itself, he, for one, ventured to give his most unqualified disapproval.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government stated a fortnight ago, with respect to this measure, that it was entirely exceptional in its principle and character; at the same time honestly confessing that he did not know how otherwise to meet the present emergency. He (Mr. Newdegate) admitted that the object of the right hon. Gentleman was a right one. It was to relieve distress, while recognizing the rights of property; and that was why he (Mr. Newdegate) had not offered to the earlier stages of the Bill any active opposition. He had been much struck by an observation of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold). The hon. Member said that this House was in the habit of granting £16,000 a-year for the enfranchisement of copyhold. Well, £16,000 was not a very large sum, and it was expended in the purchase of property—copyhold property—with a view to its enfranchisement. But the principle of the Land Act, passed by Her Majesty's present Ministers, was very different, if not absolutely opposite; it was to make the whole property of Ireland—he meant all that was left of landed property in Ireland—copyhold. He hoped that the attention of Constitutional lawyers, and those who understood the laws of property, would be directed to this matter; for, in his opinion, it represented a revolution in the Land Laws into which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had led the House. He (Mr. Newdegate) could not vote with an easy conscience for the appropriation of the Church Surplus Funds to secular uses. The right hon. Gentleman had promised in a former House of Commons the restoration of peace in Ireland as the sure effect of that House adopting the Act for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Protestant Church in Ireland. He now asked, where was the peace the right hon. Gentleman had so confidently promised; where was the proof of the Disestablishment Act having produced that effect? Perhaps one reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had left the Government was because he could not answer that question, and did not see how the policy he represented could produce peace in Ireland. For his part, he had never thought that peace would follow from that measure. It was really a concession to those who were irreconcilable. This House would find that in Ireland there was an irreconcilable element, which was not pacified, but was simply fed by concessions. The disestablishment of the Prostestant Church was intended to satisfy this element; but, like other smaller but analogous concessions, it had only led to fresh demands and to renewed disturbances. He (Mr. Newdegate) admitted the difficulty with which the Government had to deal in the present circumstances of Ireland, and the necessity for some such measure as that before the House; but he disapproved of both sources from which the funds to meet the requirements were to be drawn, for he thoroughly deprecated the precedent of satisfying the demands of Ireland out of the taxation of the United Kingdom. In his opinion, relief ought to be provided to meet a temporary exigency on the principle of loan. Some years ago, when there was severe distress among one portion of the constituency which he (Mr. Newdegate) represented—that distress was occasioned by the abolition of the duties on the importation of silk manufactures, which the present Prime Minister carried in 1860—the right hon. Gentleman subscribed, and Her Majesty was induced to subscribe out of her private purse to a fund for the mitigation of that distress. If the right hon. Gentleman reviewed, his policy with regard to Ireland, he must surely wish that a subscription could be raised that would be adequate to save him from establishing the principle, that in order to maintain the qualified rights of property which he had left in Ireland, and to relieve the distress prevailing there, he must invite the House to draw upon the taxation of the United Kingdom, and so to attempt to meet the difficulties, which his former legislative measures had produced, by gifts of public money. In his (Mr. Newdegate's) opinion, the whole exigency ought to be met, not by gift, but by loan.

VISCOUNT EMLYN

said, he hoped the Committee would bear with him for a few moments whilst he said a word or two in support of the Amendment. No one in that House, he would venture to say, had a greater aversion to the principle of the Bill which was now before them than he had. He had voted, and he had every intention of voting, on every occasion against the principle of the measure, which he believed to be as mischievous as the principle of any Bill could possibly be. But the question before them appeared to him to be a very difficult one. It seemed to him that what they were asked to do was this—to admit the principle of allowing the Bill to go as far in the relief of those persons who came under the Bill as the Irish Church Fund would permit, and no further. Now, to his mind, the Bill was bad in itself; but if they were to give any relief at all, it was sheer madness to say that they should stop half-way. The Bill proposed that relief should be given to certain persons; that he took to be one of the principles of the Bill. Secondly, he took it to be a principle of the Bill that they should provide funds for giving that relief. If the principles of the measure were good, and if he believed that the measure would bring peace and tranquillity and quiet to Ireland, he should be ready to support it, whatever might be the cost; but he had, not believed it, and had not, therefore, given any support to the mea- sure, so far as its principle was concerned. But he was not willing, even now, to say that if the Bill was to come into operation they should go just half-way and then stop. That did not appear to him to be common sense. Though the measure was a bad one, if they were to adopt it at all they must carry it through. The responsibility rested, in the first place, with the Government; and, secondly, with those who put that Government into power. If a measure of this kind had been before the House, and there had been no charge to be imposed upon the taxpayer, he should have thought it an additional argument against the Bill; but it had never been doubted that under such a measure as this there would have to be a call on the taxpayer, and it seemed to him (Viscount Emlyn) they ought not to try to relieve the taxpayer from that for which he was practically himself responsible. The taxpayers and those who had returned the Government to power were, and ought to be, responsible for the acts of the Government. If the Government considered that this was a necessary measure, and the taxpayers were willing to maintain the Government in power and back up their action in this matter, let them pay the cost of it.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he had never heard any reasons given why there should be no charge put upon the Consolidated Fund to meet the expenditure under this Bill. He would venture to offer a few reasons why the charge should be put upon this Fund, and he would point out that assistance had been attempted to be given in this way. He proposed to state chronologically the cases with had led to this state of things. [Cries of "Oh.!" and "Divide!"] Well, his chronological table would be a very short one, and he trusted the Committee would bear with him while he made his statement. At any rate, hon. Members would not make his table shorter by exclamations of this kind. The reasons why he thought that the Consolidated Fund should be charged with the necessary expense for the settlement of this matter were these—Because the recommendations of the Devon Commission were not adopted, because the House of Lords rejected Lord Stanley's Bill in 1845, because the House of Lords rejected Lord Aberdeen's Bill in 1853 and the Tenants' Compensation Bill in 1854, because they frustrated two attempts in 1866 and 1867 to give relief to the Irish tenants, because they robbed the Bill of 1870 of most of its value, and because, finally, they rejected the Compensation for Disturbance Bill in 1880. The taxpayers of this country were spoken of in the House—certainly by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on that (the Conservative) side—with great commiseration; but he would tell those hon. Members that it was not solely their action, or that of their Friends in the House of Lords, which brought about this charge to the taxpayers of England. If the House of Lords had not rejected the Bills he had enumerated, if they had not thrown out all those necessary measures which had been proposed and proposed in vain for the evils of Ireland, neither this Bill nor the Bill of last year would have been necessary. This was the real question, and let the taxpayers of England, when they came to pay this money, charge it to the proper quarter. Let them not lay all this at the door of Her Majesty's Government, but let them attribute it to the late Government, to whom it was due. If it had not been for the action of hon. Members above the Gangway on the Conservative side of the House, and those who held similar opinions, Ireland would not have been in its present condition, and this question would not have been before the House. He declared that even if the Bill of 1870 had been allowed to go out in a proper shape this measure would not have been brought forward. Year after year they had refused redress to the Irish tenantry, and they had brought them to a state of poverty and a state of beggary, and now they had the assurance to tell the Liberal Government that it was they who were responsible. It was not the Liberal Government that were responsible—it was the illiberal Government, and it was only right that the taxpayers should know it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), when he went, as he stated just now he would have to do, to explain to his constituents why these taxes were raised, would confess frankly that it was in consequence not of the action of the present Government, but of Governments which had preceded it, and of the Tory Party and the House of Lords.

MR. STORER

said, he objected to this burden being placed on the shoulders of the British taxpayer. He could quite understand hon. Members opposite desiring that this measure should pass sub silentio, because the day, perhaps, was not very far distant when they would have to go before their constituents and answer the question, "Why have you imposed this Irish burden on the English taxpayer?" He was sure that the occupiers of small agricultural holdings, and that small shopkeepers in England who were now complaining in every direction of burdens which they could not bear, were those who would insist that their Representatives should give them an account of the way in which they voted upon this question. Speaking of the agricultural district with which he was well connected, he know there were numbers of English agriculturists who were themselves in arrear of rent, and who, when this question had been explained to them, would look up with the greatest astonishment, and would not believe it possible that they could be called upon to pay taxes for the relief of the Irish tenants—called upon to relieve many who, although they had the power to pay, had not the will, but who had been influenced by unprincipled agitators, who had told them not to pay their just debts. These English ratepayers would know that the Government of this country had neglected to suppress the Rebellion in Ireland in the way they ought to have done, and they would hardly look with favour upon what the Government had done, when they remembered their own difficulties, amounting in many cases to insolvency, and when they remembered that so many English farmers had been paying their rent out of their capital, or, in many cases, had been living rent free, because they were absolutely unable to pay and the landlord would not take the land away from them. It was futile to say that they would be able to distinguish under this Bill between the cases where tenants had been able to pay and had refused and where tenants had really been unable to pay their rents. He knew an instance, and there were hundreds of similar cases, of a small farmer near Neenan who had paid his rent, and when his house was burned down in his absence, and his family barely escaped with their lives, a sum of £80 was consumed with the rest of his property. He would ask the Committee how many English tenants were in the condition of this Irish farmer—the condition, namely, of having paid their rents, and yet of having £80 locked up in a box? He should say very few indeed. And yet this was not by any means an exceptional case in Ireland, for they all know that for the last two years the Irish farmers had had good seasons, while the English farmers had had terribly bad seasons. Why, they had absolutely been exporting potatoes from the West of Ireland—from that part of the country which was supposed to be in a state of beggary—to New York and the United States. He had it on the authority of a letter in The Morning Post that a commercial traveller who had recently visited the West of Ireland had there found the people to be in a state of great prosperity. He was travelling for some firm, and he said that— He had never known the tenants in a condition of such great prosperity before—he had never known so much money to be spent amongst them in luxuries. It was only to be expected, if this measure of the Prime Minister became law, that trade in Ireland would become even brisker, although he doubted whether the British taxpayer would relish the idea of Irish trade becoming brisker at his expense. This measure would be regarded as a premium upon dishonesty. It taught the Irish tenant not to pay his rent, for it would relieve the man who had not paid, while it would lead to the man who had discharged his liability to his landlord being looked upon as a fool. The man who had kept his money in his pocket, and had concealed all proof of the possession of money, would be looked upon as a lucky and a clever fellow, while the honest man would be considered as a fool. This was the danger of this Bill, and everyone knew it, and it was on this ground that he opposed the entire principle of the measure.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he quite appreciated the view that this was not a subject that required any lengthy discussion. It was a simple proposition that this House and the country understood, and he was only desirous of saying one word in consequence of the exceeding ingenious and able speech of the noble Viscount behind him (Viscount Emlyn). His noble Friend had pointed out that they could not stop half-way, and they could not allow a scheme of this description, brought forward on the responsibility of the Government, to break down because the Church Temporalities Fund was insufficient. But, supposing he (Mr. Stanhope) granted all that, the question he would like to ask his noble Friend was why the taxpayers of this country should make up the deficiency? There were plenty of other ways of making it up, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) on the second reading. He would not go into this subject now; but, besides these methods of dealing with the question, there were others, and the object of his Amendment really was this—to protest against opening the Consolidated Fund on the demands of the Irish agitators. If the Consolidated Fund wore once touched it would be impossible to stop, and the taxpayers of the country would rue the day when they once allowed the Government to touch it.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he wished to make one observation, in order that the Committee and the country might realty understand the vote he was going to give on this matter. He did not wonder that hon. Gentlemen opposite felt some qualms at giving an amount of money, probably £500,000, for the relief of Irish distress in the shape of rents which had not been paid, and could not be paid; but he begged to remind the Committee of this, that when the Irish Church was disestablished there was a charge of £70,000 a-year put upon the Consolidated Fund for the Regium Donum and the Maynooth Grant. The country was relieved, and the Consolidated Fund was relieved, of these charges, which wore put upon the Irish Church Fund. Therefore, if the country had not gained by the relief afforded to the Consolidated Fund by putting this charge on a specially Irish Fund, they would not at this moment have been asked for this £500,000, which was much less than the amount which had been charged on the Irish Church Fund for this £70,000 a-year. He believed the amount paid amounted to something like £1,300,000.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 243; Noes 173: Majority 70.

AYES.
Acland, C. T. D.	Duff, R. W.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Dundas, hon. J. C.
Agnew, W.	Ebrington, Viscount
Ainsworth, D.	Edwards, P.
Allen, H. G.	Egerton, Adm. hon. F.
Amory, Sir J. H.	Errington, G.
Armitage, B.	Evans, T. W.
Armitstead, G.	Fairbairn, Sir A.
Arnold, A.	Farquharson, Dr. R.
Asher, A.	Fawcett, rt. hon. H.
Ashley, hon. E. M.	Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.
Balfour, J. B.	Findlater, W.
Barnes, A.	Firth, J. F. B.
Beaumont, W. B.	Fitzwilliam, hon. H. W.
Bellingham, A. H.	Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J.
Biggar, J. G.	Flower, C.
Blake, J. A.	Foljambe, F. J. S.
Blennerhassett, R. P.	Forster, Sir C.
Bolton, J. C.	Fowler, W.
Borlase, W. C.	Fry, L.
Brassey, H. A.	Fry, T.
Brett, R. B.	Gill, H. J.
Briggs, W.E.	Givan, J.
Bright, rt. hon. J.	Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Bright, J. (Manchester)	Gladstone, H. J.
Brown, A. H.	Gladstone, W. H.
Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.	Gordon, Sir A.
Bruce, hon. R. P.	Gourley, E. T.
Bryce, J.	Gower, hon. E. F. L.
Buchanan, T. R.	Grafton, F. W.
Burt, T.	Grant, A.
Buxton, F. W.	Grant, Sir G. M.
Byrne, G. M.	Gray, E. D.
Caine, W. S.	Grenfell, W. H.
Callan, P.	Hamilton, J. G. C.
Campbell, Lord C.	Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.
Campbell, Sir G.
Campbell, R. F. F.	Hartington, Marq. of
Campbell- Bannerman, H.	Hayter, Sir A. D.
	Healy, T. M.
Causton, R. K.	Heneage, E.
Cavendish, Lord E.	Henry, M.
Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.	Hibbert, J. T.
Childers, rt. hn. H.C.E.	Holden, I.
Clarke, J. C.	Holland, S.
Clifford, C. C.	Holms, W.
Cohen, A.	Howard, E. S.
Collings, J.	Illingworth, A.
Collins, E.	Inderwick, F. A.
Colthurst, Col. D. La T.	James, Sir H.
Corbet, W. J.	James, C.
Corbett, J.	James, W. H.
Cotes, C. C.	Jardine, R.
Courtney, L. H.	Jenkins, D. J.
Craig, W. Y.	Jenkins, Sir J. J.
Cropper, J.	Jerningham, H. E. H.
Cross, J. K.	Johnson, rt. hon. W. M.
Crum, A.	Jones-Parry, L.
Cunliffe, Sir R. A.	Kinnear, J.
Currie, Sir D.	Labouchere, H.
Daly, J.	Lawrence, Sir J. C.
Davey, H.	Lawrence, W.
Davies, D.	Lawson, Sir W.
Davies, W.	Leahy, J.
De Ferrieres, Baron	Leake, R.
Dickson, J.	Leamy, E.
Dickson, T. A.	Lee, H.
Dilke, Sir C. W.	Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Leigh, hon. G. H. C.
Dodds, J.	Lloyd, M.
Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.	Lubbock, Sir J.

Lymington, Viscount	Reid, R. T.
Lyons, R. D.	Richard, H.
M'Arthur, W.	Richardson, J. N.
M'Carthy, J.	Richardson, T.
M'Clure, Sir T.	Roberts, J.
M'Coan, J. C.	Rogers, J. E. T.
Macfarlane, D. H.	Roundell, C. S.
Mackie, R. B.	Russell, Lord A.
Mackintosh, C. F.	Russell, G. W. E.
M'Lagan, P.	Rylands, P.
Magniac, C.	Samuelson, H.
Marjoribanks, E.	Seely, C. (Nottingham)
Martin, R. B.	Sexton, T.
Maskelyne, M. H. Story-	Shaw, W.
Milbank, Sir F. A.	Sheil, E.
Molloy, B. C.	Sheridan, H. B.
Monk, C. J.	Shield, H.
Moore, A.	Simon, Serjeant J.
Moreton, Lord	Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.
Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.	Smith, E.
Morley, A.	Spencer, hon. C. R.
Morley, S.	Stanley, hon. E. L.
Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.	Stanton, W. J.
Nelson, I.	Stuart, H. V.
Noel, E.	Sullivan, T. D.
Nolan, Colonel J. P.	Summers, W.
O'Beirne, Major F.	Synan, E. J.
O'Brien, Sir P.	Talbot, C. R. M.
O'Connor, A.	Tavistock, Marquess of
O'Connor, T. P.	Tennant, C.
O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The	Thomasson, J. P.
	Thompson, T. C.
O'Kelly, J.	Tillett, J. H.
O'Shea, W. H.	Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.
O'Sullivan, W. H.	Vivian, Sir H. H.
Otway, Sir A.	Walter, J.
Paget, T. T.	Waugh, E.
Palmer, G.	Webster, J.
Palmer, J. H.	Wedderburn, Sir D.
Parker, C. S.	Whitbread, S.
Parnell, C. S.	Whitworth, B.
Pease, A.	Wiggin, H.
Pease, Sir J. W.	Williams, S. C. E.
Peddie, J. D.	Williamson, S.
Pender, J.	Willis, W.
Pennington, F.	Wills, W. H.
Porter, A. M.	Wilson, C. H.
Power, J. O'C.	Wilson, I.
Price, Sir R. G.	Wilson, Sir M.
Pugh, L. P.	Wodehouse, E. R.
Pulley, J.
Ralli, P.	TELLERS.
Ramsden, Sir J.	Grosvenor, Lord R.
Rathbone, W.	Kensington, Lord

NOES.
Alexander, Colonel C.	Blackburne, Col. J. I.
Allsopp, C.	Bourke, rt. hon. R.
Anderson, G.	Brise, Colonel R.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Broadley, W. H. H.
Aylmer, J. E. F.	Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.
Bailey, Sir J. R.
Balfour, A. J.	Bruce, Sir H. H.
Baring, T. C.	Bruce, hon. T.
Barttelot, Sir W. B.	Brymer, W. E.
Bateson, Sir T.	Bulwer, J. R.
Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.	Burghley, Lord
Beach, W. W. B.	Burnaby, General E. S.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.	Buxton, Sir R. J.
Beresford, G. De la P.	Cameron, D.
Biddell, W.	Campbell, J. A.
Birkbeck, E.	Castlereagh, Viscount

Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.	Leighton, S.
Chaine, J.	Lennox, Lord H. G.
Chaplin, H.	Levett, T. J.
Clarke, E.	Lewisham, Viscount
Clive, Col. hon. G. W.	Lindsay, Sir R. L.
Coddington, W.	Loder, R.
Cole, Viscount	Long, W. H.
Collins, T.	Lopes, Sir M.
Compton, F.	Lowther, rt. hon. J.
Coope, O. E.	Lowther, hon. W.
Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.	M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.
Dalrymple, C.	Mac Iver, D.
Davenport, H. T.	Macnaghten, E.
Davenport, W. B.	Makins, Colonel W. T.
Dawnay, Col. hon. L.P.	Miles, Sir P. J. W.
Dawnay, hon. G. C.	Mills, Sir C. H.
De Worms, Baron H.	Monckton, F.
Digby, Col. hon. E. T.	Morgan, hon. F.
Dixon-Hartland, F. D.	Moss, R.
Douglas, A. Akers-	Murray, C. J.
Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.	Newdegate, C. N.
Ecroyd, W. F.	Newport, Viscount
Egerton, hon. W.	Nicholson, W. N.
Elliot, Sir G.	Noel, rt. hon. G. J.
Estcourt, G. S.	Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.
Ewing, A. O.
Feilden, Maj.-Gen. R.J.	Northcote, H. S.
Fellowes, W. H.	Onslow, D.
Fenwick-Bisset, M.	Paget, R. H.
Filmer, Sir E.	Patrick, R. W. Cochran-
Finch, G. H.
Fitzpatrick, hn. B.E.B.	Peek, Sir H.
Fletcher, Sir H.	Pell, A.
Floyer, J.	Pemberton, E. L.
Folkestone, Viscount	Percy, Lord A.
Forester, C. T. W.	Phipps, C. N. P.
Fort, R.	Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.
Foster, W. H.	Price, Captain G. E.
Fowler, R. N.	Puleston, J. H.
Fremantle, hon. T. F.	Rankin, J.
Galway, Viscount	Rendlesham, Lord
Garnier, J. C.	Ridley, Sir M. W.
Gibson, rt. hon. E.	Ritchie, C. T.
Gore-Langton, W. S.	Rolls, J. A.
Gorst, J. E.	Ross, A. H.
Grantham, W.	Ross, C. C.
Halsey, T. F.	Round, J.
Hamilton, Lord C. J.	St. Aubyn, W. M.
Hamilton, I. T.	Schreiber, C.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.	Sclater-Booth, rt. hon. G.
Harcourt, E. W.	Scott, Lord H.
Harvey, Sir R. B.	Scott, M. D.
Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.	Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H.J.
Herbert, hon. S.	Severne, J. E.
Hicks, E.	Smith, A.
Hildyard, T. B. T.	Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Hill, Lord A. W.	Stanhope, hon. E.
Hill, A. S.	Stanley, E. J.
Hinchingbrook, Visc.	Storer, G.
Holland, Sir H. T.	Taylor, rt. hon. Col. T. E.
Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.
Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.	Thomson, H.
Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G.	Thornhill, T.
Jackson, W. L.	Tollemache, H. J.
Johnstone, Sir F.	Tollemache, hn. W. F.
Kennard, Col. E. H.	Tottenham, A. L.
Knightley, Sir R.	Warburton, P. E.
Lawrence, Sir T.	Warton, C. N.
Legh, W. J.	Welby - Gregory, Sir W. E.
Leigh, R.
Leighton, Sir B.	Whitley, E.

Wolff, Sir H. D.	TELLERS.
Wortley, C. B. Stuart-	Crichton, Viscount
Wroughton, P.	Winn, R.
Yorke, J. R.

DR. LYONS

said, he should endeavour to be as brief as possible in laying before the Committee his views with regard to the disposal of the Irish Church Fund. In the first place, according to the proposals of the Government, it was intended to utilize the Fund, as far as it went, for the purposes of this Bill, on the principle of gift. There was, no doubt, much readiness and facility in dealing with money "at call" in that way; but it was a matter of great importance to all interested in the prosperity of Ireland to remember that this special Fund had a great number of claims upon it of one kind and another, and, therefore, he thought it worthy of the consideration of the Committee whether any possible means could be proposed for temporarily using the Fund, and in the end restoring it to the country. It would be admitted that in the Irish Church Temporalities Fund Ireland possessed resources for the establishment and maintenance of industrial, educational, and other institutions, which were very much needed, and it had been, up to the present time, used in a manner which he believed few would question, and had tended to the advancement of the interest of the country in the present and in the future. He thought it was desirable that the Fund should be retained for the purpose of maintaining the education and the industries of Ireland; and, in connection with this, he would mention the great subjects of fuel supply, the subject of fisheries, and the important subject of technical education as bearing on the promotion and establishment of manufactures throughout the country. He believed that nothing would be of such material consequence to the well-being of Ireland as the withdrawing of a certain portion of the population from their too exclusive devotion to the cultivation of the land. Then there was the subject of the labourers of Ireland, which, undoubtedly, deserved attention on the part of the Government, and which, at that moment, had become one of great anxiety, and, he would even say, if neglected, of peril to the State. The labourers in Ireland, although there was undoubtedly an increasing tendency to agitation amongst their ranks, had taken up and maintained an attitude of singularly temperate forbearance. Their position was one which, in the very trying period through which they were passing, ought to engage the serious attention of the State, particularly in view of the possibility of the harvest being below an average, the hopes concerning which had been seriously dashed by the excessive rains that had fallen during the last two or three weeks. There were indications, if these should prove well-founded, that a very serious condition of things might be expected in Ireland during the coming winter; and, undoubtedly, it might yet be found of material importance that such a fund as the Irish Church Fund should be available for works of a productive character as a means of giving employment to the large masses of the labouring population in periods of distress. Then, as bearing on this question, there was the very important subject of the re-afforesting of Ireland to be considered, one which would, undoubtedly, be taken up before long by statesmen having the interest of Ireland at heart, and, with a full knowledge of her wants.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

rose to Order. He wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in going into all these subjects on the Amendment before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he understood that the hon. Gentleman was about to make a proposal with reference to the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, and that he referred to these subjects in support of his argument that the Fund in question should not ultimately be destroyed.

DR. LYONS

said, he alluded to these matters on purpose to show what vital operations remained to be accomplished in Ireland for which no tangible funds existed, and to which the Irish Church Fund could most properly be applied, and he desired to show the great and pressing importance of using any possible means that could be pointed out in order to avoid finally parting with it. The main operations in question might be briefly summarized thus—(a) Harbours, piers, and fisheries; (b) mineral industries, fuel, coals, and turbaries; (c) re-afforesting of Ireland, reproductive in 10 to 15 years; (d) drainage and general reclamation of waste lands, and peasant proprietorship thereon; (e) loans for creation of labourers' cottages—£1,000,000 sterling; (f) technical education to promote industries other than in land; (g) education generally. In doing this, he did not challenge the right of Her Majesty's Government temporarily to utilize the Fund in question; but he did think that the question as to how the Fund could be utilized and, at the same time, ultimately saved for the purposes which he had pointed out was worthy of every consideration that could be given to it. About the great subject of emigration, which would, doubtless, be forcibly brought before the attention of the Committee by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was not necessary for him to say anything by way of anticipation. He would only observe that it was one of those problems which he thought might best be dealt with by the Irish Church Fund. The financial operation he proposed was to determine the means by which the Irish Church Fund might be temporarily utilized, but ultimately saved for the purposes he had mentioned. It was designed specially with regard both to payments from the Church Fund itself and those from the Consolidated Fund. He proposed that Irish Stock Notes should be issued for the amount expended, at a moderate rate of interest, on the same basis as the recent Indian Loans, the French Rentes, and the American system of refunding certificates. Now, if it could be shown that there was a good prospect that such a proposal would work in Ireland, he maintained that this project was worthy of the consideration of the Committee before the Irish Church Fund was finally parted with, and before a grant was made from the Consolidated Fund, against which latter proposal objection had been raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by others on that side of the House. With the permission of the Committee, he would call attention to the fact that a similar operation to that which he proposed was now being carried out in India, and upon the example furnished by what was being done there his own proposal was based. Attention was first drawn to the scheme by Mr. Hope in the year 1879 in regard to moneys required for Productive Public Works. In 1880 the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India addressed a letter of great historical importance to the Governor General of India, in which he said, after referring to the possibility of an effort being made with the view of raising a fund for Productive Works amongst the Native investors— The experience of other countries, especially France, shows, however, that a very large amount of money may he obtained in small sums from the Natives of the country if facilities are afforded for their investment, and I request you will carefully consider whether any such scheme can be applied to the circumstances of India without being open to the objections pointed out by your Government. In India the proposal was to raise money by Stock Notes issued for amounts ranging so low as Rupees 12½; but in Ireland he proposed that the notes should be issued for sums of not less than £5. Now, with regard to the probability of such an operation being carried out in Ireland, he begged to remind the Committee that two years ago he had had the honour to present a Petition to that House coming from the United Irish Banks, in which it was stated that they had on deposit a sum of money amounting to £30,000,000, the important fact being also stated that 60 per cent of this sum, or £18,000,000, was contributed in amounts of from £5 to £300, which lay at interest of not much more than 1 per cent on the average. Therefore, he thought, by the employment of judicious means and arrangements—following the example wisely set in India—it would be possible for the Government to raise in Ireland itself, a sufficient sum of money at a moderate rate of interest for the purpose now required, without drawing either permanently on the Irish Church Fund or to any considerable extent on the Consolidated Fund. On the whole, he felt confident that such an operation as he proposed could be carried out in Ireland with the greatest possible facility; and on that ground, and for the reasons he had stated, he ventured to lay it before the Committee. He trusted it was not too late to consider this Amendment, and he believed he had the authority of a large number of Members for saying that if there was any possible means of saving the Irish Church Fund for such purposes as he had called attention to, some such financial operation was worthy of being carried out. This was one of the occasions upon which it would be wise for the Government and the House to listen to the Irish Representatives.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 28, after the word "Fund," to insert the words "by way of loan."—(Dr. Lyons.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

If I am to understand the Motion of my hon. Friend according to its spirit rather than to its letter, I shall have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member, because I shall understand him to mean that the question is well worthy of consideration, whether, viewing the large amounts of deposits possessed by the people of Ireland and now lying in the banks at a minimum rate of interest, it would not be desirable that the Government should approach them as a borrower at a rate profitable to them and advantageous to the Government? In that way they would become what we have really boon in a pecuniary but not in a moral sense—the debtors of the people of Ireland. So far I can travel with the hon. Member, but I am afraid no further, because, as I understand the Motion, if it were literally acted upon the effect of it would be the reverse of what the hon. Member maintains and supposes. The hon. Member seems to think it would be a very economical operation to pay a largo interest upon these sums. It would not be worth while to borrow from the public at 4 per cent when the Commissioners of the Church Fund are ready to lend at 3½ per cent. In the same way for the Consolidated Fund we are not bound to go to Ireland and borrow at 4 per cent when we can borrow at 3¼ per cent here. It is manifest that we can operate on better terms than those sketched out by the hon. Member. It is rather the recommendation of a policy than the proposal of an Amendment in Committee, which is now before the Committee, and as far as that policy is concerned, I am united in purpose with my hon. Friend; but I think my hon. Friend will admit that this Amendment is hardly one which can be adopted.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, the object of the Amendment he proposed was to limit the amount to come from the British taxpayers to pay the debts of Irish tenants; and he was surprised that he had not been forestalled by some Liberal Member below the Gangway. In all the discussions the sum of £500,000 had been invariably mentioned, and to-night the Prime Minister had spoken of the sum of £500,000 as the sum likely to fall on the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, in fixing this sum, he was only fixing that mentioned by the Government. He did not see any justice in English taxpayers being called upon to pay the debts of Irish tenants at a time when they had paid their own debts, and agriculture was in such a condition as to be dangerous to landlords, tenants, and shopkeepers alike—and that at a time when the Irish people had been blessed with two good harvests, and the banks were full, the English taxpayers were called upon to depart from the principles of political economy. He thought the Committee ought to fix the sum which would be required, so that the people should not discover some morning that, instead of £500,000, the amount was to be £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. The present proposal was the more unjust, because, while the English people were paying the arrears of rent in Ireland, the saleable tenant right was left to the Irish tenants. He did not think the Prime Minister was entirely satisfied with this part of the Bill, because, in introducing the second reading, he said that for the Legislature to interfere at all with the arrears of rent in Ireland was an extraordinary measure, of which the logical difficulties could not be denied, and which it was impossible to justify on general principles, either Constitutional or political. The chief argument of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be that because the House of Commons had interfered in regard to arrears of rent at all, they were bound not to stop there, but to continue such interference until it was effectual. But it seemed to him to be a gambler's plea. Were they not to stop short until they had satisfied the desires of the people, and, if so, when was our interference to be deemed effectual? He could not look on this Bill, as it now stood, but as an encouragement to outrage and intimidation, and a mere plea for their continuance. The cupidity of the Irish people had been aroused and fired by the Disestablishment of the Irish Church; it was kept up by the Land Act of 1870; the appetite for plunder had been fed by the Act of last year, and he looked with considerable apprehension on the Irish people being allowed to dip their hands into the pockets of the English taxpayers. It was on behalf of those taxpayers that he moved his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 29, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words "the charge on the Consolidated Fund, however, shall not exceed the sum of five hundred thousand pounds."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

I think the Motion of the hon. Member has arisen out of a technical misunderstanding. He supposes that under the present Bill it is in our power to make issues from the Consolidated Fund. But that is not so; and it is our complicated system of finance—which is, however, perfectly understood by those who are practised in its complications—which has misled the hon. Member. If this were a Bill under which issues from the Consolidated Fund were authorized, I should be glad to assent to some such Motion as this. But not 1s. can be issued from that Fund under this Bill. Nothing can be issued until a Bill has been passed by the House of Commons to enable the Government to raise money for the purposes of the Bill; and when we come to that measure, which will probably be in two or three weeks, then will be the time for the hon. Member to propose a limit, based on the estimate which has been given to the House of £500,000 as the possible draft. When I have mentioned that sum I have spoken of it as a probable grant from the Consolidated Fund. I do not expect the amount required to be £500,000, and I have stated more than once that we asked for that sum upon that principle of extreme caution which, I think, ought always to be observed in these matters. The sound principle of finance is to estimate your means moderately and your charge abundantly. I believe we have acted upon that principle in our estimate of the Church Surplus; but when we come to the other side of the account, and estimate the probable draft, then we take it as the sum which we consider has been estimated very largely. That is a sound principle of dealing with the Representatives of the people, so far as it can be done, in order to let them know the worst; but you must take care, as far as human prudence can take care, not to present an account in too favourable a form. Therefore, after what I have said about the fact that no issues can be made, I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn, because the time for it will be when another measure comes on.

MR. W. H. SMITH

joined in the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. There was no doubt this Bill did not give the power to draw a single farthing from the Consolidated Fund, nor any public authority to advance a single farthing on the security of the Church Fund. The Public Works Loan Bill, which would follow this Bill, would set out the way in which the Government proposed to raise the money, and there would be an opportunity of proposing to limit the charge.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND

said, that, after this explanation, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 (Definition of landlord) agreed to.

Clause 11 (Limit of time).

MR. BRODRICK

said, he had an Amendment which he hoped the Government would accept. He thought all parties were agreed on this one point with regard to the Bill—that it should be put into operation as soon as it could. There was no tenant in Ireland who could not make up his mind in a few days after this Bill passed whether he desired to take advantage of it, and there was no landlord who could not, after his first interview with his agent, make up his mind whether he intended to take advantage of the Bill. What was there in the clause now put before the Committee? A proposal that the tenant should be given the whole time from now, the 17th of July, to the end of February—that was seven and a-half months—to make up their minds whether they would take advantage of this very simple power. During that time another gale of rent would be actually due, and there would, therefore, be a whole year's rent due since the time provided for in the Bill, and the Land Commissioners could give power to extend that time in certain cases. He did not wish, to suggest that the intention of this provision was to bring the charge into the new financial year, in which there, perhaps, might be a new Chancellor of the Exchequer and a new Ministry. If that should be so, this was one of those aggravated measures of finance which would lay on the Successors of the present Government a charge which should be legitimately borne by them; and, whatever the case was, he ventured to suggest that the time for taking stock of the incidence of this Bill, as it affected the taxation, was the present financial year. If it were indicated that every tenant should make application before the last day of October, he should see no difficulty. He was quite open to argument on the subject, and was ready to withdraw his Amendment, if he could be assured that the tenant would not be placed at a disadvantage by being called upon to state before October whether he intended to take advantage of the bonus to be placed in his hands. As to the extension of time, the way in which this power had been used by the Land Commission in certain cases was such as to give no desire to see a repetition of the power. It would be more advantageous that Parliament should fix a definite time for application, and he saw no reason why that should not be in two or three months from the present time; and he begged the Government, merely on the ground that they had hardly accepted a single Amendment from that side of the House, and had apparently taken very little stock of the arguments advanced, to endeavour to admit this simple point, which was of inestimable importance to the country—namely, to get the question out of hand as soon as possible by means of his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 37, to leave out from the word "after," to end of Clause, and insert the words "the thirty-first day of October one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. SOLATER-BOOTH

said, he hoped the Government would consent to this Amendment. It seemed to him on every ground most desirable that operations under the Bill should be wound up in the present year, and that could be easily done by taking the end of October and the end of December, instead of the dates proposed in the Bill, for which no reasons had been given. He had some curiosity to see what could be said in defence of this proposal to extend the Bill until next year.

MR. PARNELL

said, that the limit for application under the Arrears Section of the Bill of last year was February, and, as a matter of fact, in working that section it was found that a very small proportion indeed of the tenants knew anything in the world about the section being in existence before the period limited for applications had expired. If that arrangement was repeated by adopting this Amendment, the clause would be defeated. In large parts of Ireland it would require some time for tenants to become acquainted with this provision, and if the Committee wanted to have the people in remote parts of Ireland benefited by the Act, the time in the Bill was very fair, and there was no reason why it should be restricted.

MR. HEALY

said, it appeared to him that the Tory Party were like the Old Guard—they never knew when they were beaten; and, to use a very familiar illustration, they were like the Irish Members fighting the Coercion Bill. But what would be considered Obstruction by Irish Members was a pardonable offence when committed by right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. Those Gentlemen were fighting every point of this Bill, regardless of the consideration whether there was any probability of their being successful. They seemed as determined now to cut down every chance for the tenants as they were in the height of their power. They had learnt nothing, and they had forgotten nothing. As they appeared upon every occasion to cut down every chance open to the tenant of rehabilitating himself, they must expect very little mercy in regard to legislative proposals emanating from them. They had put for-ward this Amendment simply to limit the chance of the tenant benefiting by this Bill.

MR. BRODRICK

asked whether the hon. Member was in Order in imputing motives to other Members?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member would be out of Order in imputing motives to individual Members; but I understood be was speaking of general policy.

MR. HEALY

said, he was charmed with the delicacy of the hon. Member, and thought if there was a little more of that fair play when questions of this kind were being dealt with, he should be inclined to think that the Tory Party was, of all others, a Party of Gentlemen. What he said was absolutely true—those hon. Gentlemen were fighting for their own ends; and when the Government proposed to give those unfortunate, downtrodden tenants a few months more in which to lift up their heads, those hon. Gentlemen grudged the miserable tenants the smallest chance of rehabilitating themselves.

MR. TREVELYAN

The Government have thought very carefully beforehand about the dates named in this Bill, and some of the considerations they have entertained have not occurred to the hon. Gentleman who proposes this Amendment. The hon. Member gives a very short term indeed, and I think he forgets that the term includes such period of vacation as lawyers will take all the world over, even in Ireland, at a time when legal business has to be pressed very diligently forward. The County Court Judges will just then be having their vacation, and all the officers and clerks attached to the Courts, and everybody connected with the Legal Profession in Ireland will be away, and would feel wronged if their interval was cut down. Then, I think, the hon. Gentleman underrates the difficulties connected with these vacations. There will be a great deal of negotiation to be gone through before the tenant will make an application under the necessary terms, because that involves payment of the rent for a year, or the satisfaction of the landlord, and the landlord may be satisfied either by payment, or by total or partial remission, or by a promise of payment at a future time. All this involves negotiation, which cannot but require time, and the two or two and a-half months will be further broken into by the vacation. On the other hand, the Government think the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) have insisted a little too strongly on the arguments against the proposal of the hon. Member oppo- site, because there is a very great difference between this Bill and the probable operation of this Bill and the Arrears Clause of the Land Act. In the first place, as the hon. Member for the City of Cork has said, that clause was not known of by the tenants in Ireland. It was buried in an enormous Bill of very great length, and very many provisions infinitely more important to the tenants than that clause. On the other hand, this Bill has not only been fully discussed in this House, but we are told that it has excited very great expectations among the tenants in Ireland. We may be sure the operation of the Bill will not be a matter that can be accomplished in a fortnight; and there is another consideration, that in the case of the Land Act the machinery had to be set up, and when it was set up it worked as new machinery is apt to work. But, in the case of this Bill, the machinery for the purposes of the application of the tenant will be working already. The Government could not accede to the Amendment, but at the same time they were willing to allow that, with Ireland prepared for the Bill as it was, the necessary operations for taking advantage of it might be got through within the period of two months, and they were, therefore, prepared to name the last day of December as the first day of the Bill. The later date mentioned beyond which applications should not be made had been referred to, and it had been suggested that the date should be altered to December, but to that Her Majesty's Government could not accede. They could not agree to it, because, in their opinion, the object of this second date was to list a few odd cases which were always left out under circumstances of hardship. Where such a course as this was not taken, the result, on the passing of measures like the present, was always the same. An appeal was made to Parliament on the score of justice—Parliament was asked to grant a continuation of the measure in the form of an amending Bill to bring within the operations of the Act cases which ought to come within them, and which it had been intended should come within them. Under this provision of the Bill it would be left to the discretion of the Commissioners to deal with these cases. The period of six months did not appear to the Government too long to clear off these cases in such a manner that there would be no ground for an appeal to Parliament for a continuance of the Act.

MR. GIBSON

said, the contention of the Government had been, that promptitude was essential—that this was a Bill which, if it were passed at all, should be passed at once; that nothing should stand in the way of speedy investigation, and that ever thing possible should be done to hurry up the cases. In spite of this, the Government had most elaborate means in Clause 11 for keeping the country in hot water for nearly a year. He ventured to think that the last day of December for the final settlement of everything would be amply sufficient. Having given the date of December, the Government did not moan it to end there, but there was to be a further period of four months given. As a matter of fact, every tenant who was careless in the matter, to whom it was inconvenient to apply at once, and who did not take the trouble to apply before the end of December, would, under this section, be allowed to come in before the second date. There was no suggestion that anything exceptional was to be required, or that anything was to be proved to show that the tenant had been prevented from applying before December. There was to be no special leave given; on the contrary, permission might possibly be obtained on the merest application. This provision would have the effect of preventing Ireland from settling down for a considerable time. Practically, on the second date, the last day of April, or rather on the following morning, the 1st of May, a year and a-half's rent would be accrued clue "from the last gale day of the year expiring as aforesaid;" therefore, the Government were practically, he would not say foredooming, the Act to failure, but securing that Ireland should not settle down for a long time.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, that on the principle that "half a loaf was better than no bread," he was disposed to accept what was offered—what was, practically, the first little concession made to the Opposition side of the House above the Gangway during the present stage of this Bill. But it was not solely for the purpose of saying this that he had risen. He wished to draw attention to a word that had fallen— whether inadvertently or not he did not know—from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that it was necessary not to curtail the time as proposed by this Amendment, because it was necessary for the tenants and the landlords to have a certain amount of time for preliminary arrangements before the Bill could be put into operation. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out what those arrangements wore—he had said that arrangements would have to be made for the payment of two years' rent or the payment of a part of it, and then he had said what he (Viscount Folkestone) considered fully justified them in their opposition to this Bill—namely,"Perhaps the arrangement might be a promise to pay at some future time." This foreshadowed in the future a further question of arrears; and, no doubt, right hon. Gentlemen would deal with it as they had dealt with the present question—by making payment out of the Consolidated Fund.

MR. PARNELL

said, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to the manner in which all the Government concessions had been met by the Opposition. Every concession had been made by them the subject of a division; and it appeared to him that their policy was to reject every concession that was made—in so far as dividing against a concession was a rejection of it—in order to leave room for the insertion of similar, though much more important, Amendments in "an-other place." It was extremely dangerous for the Government to attempt to limit the time, as they were doing. If the time originally fixed on was right, why should they alter it? The only object of offering concessions was that they should be accepted; but hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench had not accepted them, and, therefore, it would be far better for the right hon. Gentleman now and in the future to adhere to the Bill as originally drafted. If they limited the time for making the application to the last day in December, they would find that to a large extent the Bill would be rendered useless by the neglect of most of the tenants to apply in time. He failed to see how the Bill could be put in operation in sufficient time to en- able the poorest tenants to have their claims considered. The poorest tenants would have nothing which would tempt the solicitors to offer them their services. The operation of substantiating claims might be one that would not entail very large expenditure in costs; but unless the poor tenants had their claims taken up for them by associations of some sort, who would pay the costs, he did not see how they would be able to get their claims filed in time. He would, therefore, urge on Her Majesty's Government the desirability of adhering to the original terms of the Bill, and of not accepting the compromise offered. If the Government gave up these two months, depend upon it they would have to give up the other two months when the Bill came back again.

MR. BRODRICK

said, at present they were not dealing with the condition of the Bill when it came back from "another place." Not being in such intimate relations with noble Lords in "another place" as the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) seemed to be, he (Mr. Brodrick) did not pretend to know what would be the condition of the Bill when it came back to them from the other House of Parliament. After what had fallen from the Government he did not propose to press his Amendment to a division. He would leave the Government to put in the measure what dates they thought right, merely pointing out that those he proposed seemed to him to be the ones that would cover the necessities of the ease, bearing in mind, as he did, that the whole argument of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was founded on the fact that very few tenants know anything about this section last year, and were unlikely to take advantage of it. The hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends had done the best they could to prevent the tenants from taking advantage of the Bill by speaking against it everywhere they could.

MR. GORST

said, that, according to the Attorney General for Ireland, the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, of which notice had been taken, had been let fall unintentionally.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

Quite inadvertently, I said.

MR. GIVAN

said, as to the observations of the noble Viscount (Viscount Folkestone) with regard to the Amendment the Government proposed to accept in relation to the time fixed by the Bill, it was contended "half a loaf was better than no bread;" but the noble Viscount seemed to forget that, under this measure, the landlords were getting three-quarters of the loaf.

MR. GORST

said, that, no doubt, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had said, the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was inadvertent, and, perhaps, it would have been better, from the point of view of the Government, if no such observation had been let fall; but, perhaps, it was better when such, an observation was let fall that some notice should be taken of it. The Government said that under this Bill the tenant should be enabled to start fairly—start free from liability and incumbrance, and remain on his holding. But it was quite clear, from what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) had said, no such a result would be attained, and that the tenant would be left with all his arrears on his bead. The arrears of the previous period might, it was true, have been paid out of the Consolidated Fund; but the tenant would still be incumbered with the whole of the rent of 1881, besides the rent which had subsequently accrued due. If the meaning of the word "satisfied" was as stated by the Government, and it was only necessary for a tenant to promise to pay his rent for 1881 to entitle him to the benefits of this Bill, what became of all the undertaking's of the Government at an earlier period of these debates? The observation of the right hon. Gentleman might have been accidental; but he (Mr. Gorst) thought that they were sometimes bits of truth that were inadvertently let drop, and these bits of truth should be taken notice of.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he was not a lawyer, and could not enter into an argument as to the technical meaning of a certain word; but did the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst) really think what he said—namely, that the word "satisfied" could be taken in the sense he had indicated?

MR. GORST

said, it was most important that the Committee should understand the legal aspect of this question. There were a great many of the legal luminaries of the Government opposite, and would any of them venture to get up and tell the Committee that if a tenant gave a promissory note for rent, which was accepted by the landlord in satisfaction and discharge of the rent, that was not a legal satisfaction for the rent?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

No; not until it is paid.

MR. HEALY

said, they had heard the secret of the desire of the landlords to limit the period in the Bill from a right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway, who said that the landlords would apply for the benefit of the Bill. He desired that the landlords, so far as they were desirous of applying for the benefits of the Bill, should do so; but the tenants were many of them very uneducated men, and would not know all the ins-and-outs of the matter so well as the landlords. The Committee must know, by the way the landlords had cheated the tenants out of the benefits of the Act of 1870, and how they had attempted to cheat them out of the benefits of the Act of last year, that every advantage it was possible to take of the tenants would be taken by the landlords. Whenever a Coercion Bill was advertised, all its pains and penalties were advertised on every church door and on every police barrack. Would the Government undertake to advertise all the benefits of this Bill on every church door and on the door of every police barrack in Ireland? If the measure was to be cut down, as proposed, would the Government, on the other hand, take care that posters signed "John Poyntz, Earl Spencer," would be put outside the police barracks and churches? He (Mr. Healy) challenged the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to say whether he would do this. Posters were to be put up when tenants were likely to get six months' hard labour, to tell them that they could not attend public meetings, and could not ask for a reduction of rent, but not to tell them of the benefits of an ameliorating measure.

THE CHAIRMAN

Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. MEMBERS

No.

MR. BRODRICK

said, that if hon. Members would not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, he would ask the Government whether they did not intend to move to amend his Amendment?

Amendment negatived.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he would move to omit the word "February," and substitute the word "December."

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 37, to leave out the word "February," in order to insert the word "December."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)

Question put, "That the word 'February' remain part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 152: Majority 110.—(Div. List, No. 273.)

MR. TREVELYAN

proposed, in page 5, line 38, to leave out "three," in order to insert "two."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. TREVELYAN

proposed, in line 39, to leave out "June," and insert "April."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.