Commons Sitting of 19 July 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Contagious Diseases Acts Repeal [64], Previous Question put; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday [182], debate adjourned.
Select Committee —Report —Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) [No. 288].
Committee —Report —Arrears of Rent (Ireland) (re-comm.) [213–241] [Eighth Night].
Withdrawn —Capital Punishment * [55].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  EARL OF AYLESFORD'S ESTATES BILL [Lords.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he had had no idea that the opinion he had expressed in regard to the Bill of Lord Cairns would receive such an immediate confirmation in the House of Lords by the introduction of the present Bill. It was a direct repudiation of the Settled Lands Bill. It was a measure in favour of a Member of the House of Lords, which, from its very character, ought to have been dealt with by the Bill which was passed by the House on Friday last, and would become law in the course of a few days. He understood that, with reference to these Private Acts, Lord Cairns had stated that the Settled Lands Bill would deal with every case that could arise. This measure was a palpable contradiction to that assertion, and it showed how utterly inadequate the Settled Lands Bill was. The question now arose—what the House of Commons should do when Bills of this character came before it, knowing, as they did, how prejudicial it was to the interests of the country, and especially to the owners of land, that
    974
    Parliament should agree to the perpetuation of settlements. He had received many communications from various quarters asking him to oppose this Bill. There was not, however, in the Bill any proposal to extend, prolong, or in any degree to perpetuate any settlement of this important estate. He, therefore, did not intend in this case to oppose the measure; but he did say that whenever an Estate Bill came before the House to prolong the settlement of land he should feel it his duty to offer opposition to it. If the House refused to pass the Bill, the consequence would be that Lord Aylesford's interest in these important estates would pass into the care of Trustees, who would be supposed to have a fair regard for the proper care of the property, and there might be disadvantages in rejecting the measure. He would only say that if measures of this sort were brought before the House which did propose to extend the practice of settling estates, having a strong conviction that the practice was opposed to the best interests of agriculture as well as to the interests of the landlords, he should certainly oppose them.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had no wish to continue the discussion upon the Bill; but he could not allow the remarks of the hon. Member to pass unnoticed, without one word of remonstrance as to the attack which had been made on Lord Cairns' Bill. This was a Private Bill which was passing through the House of Lords before Lord Cairns' Bill was introduced into the House of Commons. It was a Bill which dealt with special circumstances and with a special settlement, and it was impossible that Lord Cairns' Bill would deal with every imaginable case that might arise. If the hon. Member wished to raise any objection to the Settled Lands Bill he should have done so while it was before the House, and not have waited to fire a parting shot at it when it had left the House. He was aware that the Bill had been passed without much notice by the public; but he believed that when its effect was understood it would be found to be one of the greatest reforms that had ever been made in relation to land affecting the social position of a considerable number of people for the benefit of the public. Under these circumstances, he had felt it impossible to

    975
    allow the remarks of the hon. Member to pass without a word of protest.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDremarked, that he had not attacked the Settled Lands Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT—PROTECTION OF EUROPEANS —THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government at once to land marines and bluejackets at Port Said, Ismailia, and Suez for the purpose of assisting Europeans now resident in those places, to protect their lives and property should either be threatened with attack; and, if he will be good enough to state how many vessels, British and others, are now in and about the Canal for convoy purposes; and, if it is true that an Italian man-of-war has passed through the Suez Canal as a convoy?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: With reference to the Question which my hon. Friend has added to that which is on the Paper, I believe that on one occasion an Italian man-of-war did act as a convoy through the Suez Canal. So far as we are informed, only on one occasion. I am sorry I am not prepared to give a detailed account of the steps which Her Majesty's Government have taken, or are ready to take, for the protection of the places mentioned in the Question; but I will ask my hon. Friend to be satisfied with the assurance that nothing is being neglected which is considered necessary for this purpose.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—and I will give Notice for to-morrow if he cannot answer the Question to-day—whether it is true that the Ministry of the Khedive hesitated to take the necessary steps to inform the people of Egypt that Arabi was a rebel and an outlaw?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I think the hon. Member had better give Notice of that Question.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: Has the Government received any reply from the
  976
  Porte in reference to the Identic Note as to the Conference?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No; we have received no information from Constantinople this morning.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) (recommitted) BILL.— [BILL 213.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Childers, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 18h July.]
  [EIGHTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. ERRINGTONsaid, the clause he had put upon the Paper was one which provided that—
  "When, on application by the tenant, the first preliminary condition under the first Clause of this Act is proved to the satisfaction of the Land Commission, or, on payment into court before the Land Commission by the tenant of one year's rent of his holding, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to issue and renew from time to time, for such period as they may consider reasonable for deciding the application before them, an injunction restraining or suspending all proceedings for recovering the arrears of rent accrued previously to the year expiring as aforesaid: Provided, That no such injunction shall be held to interfere with or limit the landlord's right to proceed for the recovery of rent or arrears which may have become due subsequently to the year expiring as aforesaid."
  The principle of this clause had been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and Notice had been given of a new clause last night for the purpose of carrying it out; therefore he did not propose to move his clause now; but he should like to point out to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland that he did not think the clause of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given Notice would quite carry out what he (Mr. Errington) was desirous of securing— namely, that there should be some guarantee on the payment into Court by the tenant of a year's rent of the holding. He thought it would be seen, on reference to the new clause of which Notice had been given, that it did not quite carry out this object. Of course, it would not be in Order on his part to enter into a discussion at that moment of the clause of which the right hon. and learned

  977
  Gentleman had given Notice; and he would, therefore, only ask his right hon. and learned Friend to consider the point, and perhaps to-morrow he would be able to make a statement with regard to it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he should be glad to look into the matter. A clause had been drawn which was intended to carry out thoroughly the undertaking that had been given to the Committee, and if it were found that it had failed to do this, he would see that it was made more clear. There had certainly been no intention to do otherwise than fulfil the promise that had been given.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he desired to move, on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), the insertion of the following clause after Clause 2:—
  (Power to Land Commission Court pending applications to fix fair rent to make orders regarding arrears of rent.)
  "(1.) Where, in pursuance of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' any application has been made to the court, in the said Act mentioned, to fix the fair rent of a holding, and such application is pending at the date of the passing of this Act, or where any such application shall be made after the passing of this Act, the court in fixing the judicial rent may, on the application of the tenant, make an order declaring that all arrears of rent due in respect of the holding which have accrued, or shall accrue, due between the date of the application to fix the fair rent and the date when the judicial rent first becomes payable, shall be computed at the rate of the judicial rent, and on such order being made, and on payment by the tenant in respect of such arrears of such amount as would have been payable in respect of same, if a rent equal to the judicial rent only, had been payable in respect of the holding, as from the period commencing at the rent-day next preceding the date of the application to the court, all such arrears of rent shall be released and extinguished.
  "(2.) Where any application to fix the fair rent of a holding is at the date of the passing of this Act, or hereafter shall be pending, and prior to the final order of the court thereon, proceedings (whether by ejectment for nonpayment of rent, or by action for rent, or otherwise) have been or shall be taken against the tenant of such holding, in respect, wholly or partly, of arrears of rent which have accrued or shall accrue due on any rent day or days, the rent accruing due whereon is liable to be affected by such order, the court before which the proceedings to enforce payment of such rent are pending shall, upon the application of such tenant, and upon such terms as to costs as may seem just, postpone or suspend such proceedings, so far as they relate to or are founded upon any arrears of rent accruing due on any such rent day or days as aforesaid, until the termination
  978
  of the proceedings on the application to fix the fair rent of the holding, on payment by the tenant in respect of such arrears, of such amount as the court shall deem just, not exceeding the amount which would have been payable by the tenant in respect thereof had the annual rent of the holding been equal to the annual value thereof, as valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland."
  He was sorry his hon. Friend was not present in his place, because as the clause was one which that hon. Gentleman had placed on the Paper he would have been able to argue it much more fully than he (Mr. Biggar) could be expected to do; but, at the same time, he begged, on behalf of his hon. Friend, to move the clause. The object of the clause, as far as he understood the matter, was to provide that, where an application was made for the fixing of a fair rent, the arrears between the date of the application and the fixing of the judicial rent should be computed at the same rate as the judicial rent. The reason why it had been necessary to propose this clause was that there was some ambiguity occasioned by the construction of different sections of the Land Act, because upon one section it was held that the date of the fair rent should be from the gale day before the application to fix the fair rent; while under another it was held that the fair rent should not commence until the gale day after the date at which the Sub-Commissioners gave their decision. The result of these contradictory constructions of the two sections was that the Sub-Commissioners had given very contradictory judgments with regard to this question, and these judgments had given rise to a number of appeals to the Land Commissioners, which would not otherwise have taken place. The tenants argued, on the one hand, that the rent payable for the period subsequent to the application, and up to the time of the judgment fixing the fair rent, should be based on the amount determined as the judicial rent; while the landlords, on the other hand, argued that where the tenant had proved to the satisfaction of the Sub-Commissioners that the rent ought to be reduced, he should not be entitled to the reduction for the period prior to the judgment; but that the rent down to that moment should be payable according to the rate of the former contract. It was very

  979
  desirable that the law on this point should be laid down in such a way as to render it perfectly clear as to this point, because the cost of an appeal was a matter of considerable moment, and, in many of these cases, might amount to more than the total amount in dispute between the tenant and the landlord. Let them take a case where, as very often happened, the reduction made in the rent did not exceed £1 or £2, or, at most, the sum of £5, the expense of an appeal would to each party be very much in excess of the difference between the former rent and the fair rent fixed by the Sub-Commissioners as the judicial rent. He therefore begged to move the clause which stood in the name of his hon. Friend.
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the point raised by the clause just moved was one that had been frequently discussed by the House, and always with the same result. He wished to point out to hon. Members that the Bill now under discussion was not a Bill for the Amendment of the Land Act of 1881, under which it was expressly provided that the rent fixed by the Sub-Commissioners as a fair rent should take effect and commence on the rent day next succeeding the decision given by the Court. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) proposed, by the clause he had brought forward, to alter this, and to provide that where an application was made to fix a fair rent, and a fair rent was subsequently fixed, the fair rent should not commence with the gale day next following the decision of the Court, as provided by the Land Act, but that it should have a retrospective effect, and should cover the period between the date of the application and the time at which the fair rent was judicially fixed. The question was one that had been frequently discussed; and as often as this proposition had been made the House had declined to give its assent to it, on the ground that this Bill was not intended to be an Amendment of the Land Act of 1881. The matter was discussed fully when the
  980
  Land Act itself was before the House, and reasons were then given for the way in which the point was decided; and, consequently, as it had been disposed of then, and since the Land Act was passed, and the law was fully understood to be that the fair rent should be payable from the gale day subsequent to its being fixed by the Court, he hoped the Committee would adhere to this decision, and that the determination come to by the House upon the subject would not be altered.
  MR. DALYsaid the delay which had occurred in obtaining a settlement of questions arising in reference to this matter had been entirely attributable to the action of Her Majesty's Government in having provided insufficient means for carrying out the object they had in view; and the result was that, owing to the fact that the Government had not made proper instruments for dealing with the case3 that required to be disposed of, large numbers of cases had failed to come in under the Act of 1881. If they considered the equity of the matter, it would be seen that, because the Government had not provided sufficient facilities for getting fair rents fixed, the tenants would be called upon to pay arrears under the old system of unfair rent. Supposing, for instance, a man had been in the habit of paying a rental of £35, and the Sub-Commissioners decided that, according to the principles of fairness, the rent should be reduced to £25, but owing to the want of proper facilities the judgment of the Court was delayed for a considerable period, the collector when he came round would say—"It is quite true that your rent will, in future, be £25, as it ought to have been at the first; but, at the same time, we must compel you to pay the extra £10 for arrears." If they had regard to the object of the Land Act, it would be conceded that it was intended to settle the relations of landlord and tenant on the principle of fairness and justice, and to bring peace and quietness to the land; but he would ask how could they expect to produce these results when the tenantry knew that they had to pay what the Government officers declared to be unjust. In his opinion, the position the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had assumed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government with re-

  981
  gard to this question, was perfectly indefensible.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, by the construction they had put upon the Land Act of last Session, the Commissioners had decided that where an application was made to fix a fair rent on the first occasion on which the Court sat, the judicial rent should date from the date of that application, and hence it followed that a large number of tenants who were able to apply to the Court to fix a fair rent at the time of the first sitting came within that construction, especially as that period had been extended, by special order of the Court, for a further period of about three weeks, and all the fair rents fixed upon applications made during that period were to date from the time of the application; but with regard to the whole of the other tenants who had applied since, and also with regard to those who might apply hereafter, the rent fixed as a fair rent would commence from the rent day following the application to the Court. The Amendment involved in this clause was a very serious one, and it was intended to remedy one of those defects in the Act of last Session which had tended more than anything else to prevent many landlords—he would not say all of them —offering a reasonable settlement to their tenants. The matter stood in this way—the landlord who was the owner of an estate, as to which it might be reasonably supposed that the rents would be reduced on application to the Court, would be in this position—that by refusing to come to a settlement with his tenants out of Court he would be entitled to charge the old rack-rental until the gale day subsequent to the decision of the Court; and, therefore, it would follow that many tenants—-vast numbers of tenants—who might reasonably expect the Court to reduce their rents, but who had not yet applied to the Court owing to the hopelessness of any expectation of the Court being able to reach their cases for a long time to come, would have to pay the rack rent they had hitherto been charged down to the period when they might be able to get a decision from the Court. He assumed that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had given some consideration to this matter, and if Her Majesty's Government could not see their way to the acceptance of this
  982
  clause, he hoped they would be able to announce that it was their intention next Session to remedy the crying defect he had pointed out in the Act of last year. He trusted the Committee would presently hear an announcement to this effect from a responsible Member of the Government, as such a statement would, for all practical purposes, amount to the same thing as the insertion of the clause moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), because those landlords who had not yet come to a settlement with their tenants, but who were still holding out and refusing a reasonable arrangement, would thus be made to see that they would have nothing to gain by holding out any longer, and might, therefore, be induced to adjust and reduce their rents in accordance with the standard of fair rent as settled by the Court for holdings on the neighbouring estates. Therefore, he trusted that even if Her Majesty's Government could not possibly see their way to the acceptance of the clause proposed by his hon. Friend at the present moment, they would, at least, be in a position to announce their intention next Session to legislate, by way of Amendment to the Land Act, in such a manner as to enable all the tenants to be placed on the same basis, whether they applied to the Court at its first sitting or not. He might add that no one ever anticipated that the Court of the Land Commission would have given such a decision as would have rendered it necessary to bring forward this clause, otherwise he thought it highly probable that a vast number more tenants would have made their applications on the occasion of the first sitting of the Court, so as to have made sure of the advantage to be thus obtained. That decision had been arrived at on a purely technical construction of two sections of the Land Act that were placed very far apart, and it had certainly never previously occurred to the legal mind that the Land Commissioners would hold that those tenants who applied to the Court in the first instance would have their rents fixed from the date of the application, while those who did not do so would be placed at a decided disadvantage. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would make some announcement to the Committee that would have the effect of facilitating

  983
  a settlement between land lord and tenant on the basis suggested by this clause.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had dealt with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) as if it were outside the scope and object of the present Bill; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman examined it more closely, he would perceive that it only applied to arrears, and, therefore, was within the purview of the measure under discussion by the Committee. If they wanted to amend the Land Act they must amend it for all purposes—present and future; but the clause moved by his hon. Friend only applied to a year's rent as far as arrears went, and provided that the judicial rent should be made the basis on which the arrears due between the date of the application and the date of the judicial rent being fixed should be computed at the rate of the judicial rent, and not at the rate of the old rack-rental. Therefore, the Amendment clearly came within the scope of this Bill, and the objection taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was without foundation. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant ought, therefore, to apply himself to the question, could he accept the present clause and allow the arrears accruing during the period stated to be discharged on the basis of the judicial rent as fixed by the Court, and not on the rack-rental previously exacted from the tenant?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he hoped the discussion of this clause would not be carried much further, as the issue had already been put on the right basis by the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member who had just spoken. He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not deny that, technically speaking, the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) came within the scope of the present Bill; but it was one of such a character that it could not be accepted alone, because in accepting it Her Majesty's Government would have to admit a principle which would practically open up a most important Amendment of the Land Act of 1881. The Bill before the Committee had boon introduced for the purpose of dealing with a limited class of arrears in a very special manner; and as far as the Amendment actually touched
  984
  the matter, to the best of his belief it had already been discussed and disposed of by the Committee, and was now brought forward for the purpose, as had been expressed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, of extracting an announcement from the Government in reference to some future action with regard to the Land Act, and the Arrears Question at large. If it were right, as was the accepted rule, that an Amendment should always be cognate to the Bill on which it was proposed, he must say that, in his opinion, it would be admitting a very dangerous principle to hold that an announcement on a particular measure might be made that was not cognate to that measure, and even if he felt competent at that moment— as, in fact, he did not—to make an announcement seriously affecting the working of the Land Act, he certainly should not make it under the circumstances. The point involved in the Amendment was one of those matters that ought to be brought up in the House at the time the Prime Minister might propose to consider the principle of the Land Act. He would consult the Prime Minister on the subject; but he hoped the hon. Member for the City of Cork would take it from him (Mr. Trevelyan) that Her Majesty's Government were in no way committed by what had passed to-day, and that he could make no acknowledgment in reference to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, or the Amendment, than that the matter which had been put before the Committee should be considered.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had not, either directly or indirectly, given any undertaking in reference to this matter. If there was one thing that was more deadly than another to the prospect of anything like a settlement of Irish affairs, it was the constant use of vague, uncertain, and ambiguous words by Members of Her Majesty's Government, such as that they might consider, or possibly would consider, or might hereafter reconsider something or other. The House had had an immense amount of this during the last year. The Prime Minister had allowed hon. Members to extract from him, on different occasions, vague, ambiguous, and uncertain words, which had had more to do with keep-

  985
  ing Ireland in a state of perpetual hot water than anything else that could be possibly imagined or conceived. An attempt had been made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to extract from Her Majesty's Government a further pledge that they would reconsider an important provision in the Land Act of last year. If any vague words giving currency to such an idea were to be uttered by a responsible Minister of the Crown, he (Mr. Gibson) really trembled for the result. They all knew how the agitation had been kept up among the tenants, and the way in which the tenants were stimulated to go on and endeavour to obtain further concessions; and he (Mr. Gibson) had not a shadow of doubt that every rash and inconsiderate word uttered by any responsible Minister in his place in that House in reference to considering, or reconsidering, Amendments of the Land Act, would be made use of in the coming Recess as an incentive to further agitation and discontent with the view of procuring further concessions from Her Majesty's Government. He was glad, therefore, on the present occasion, to be able to take distinct notice of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had given no word of encouragement in reference to the important question raised by the Amendment. That Amendment was one—he did not here go into the question whether it was in Order or not, as that was not the point—of great importance, and was one that ought to be met on its own merits or demerits, and not to be used as a peg on which to hang the materials for further legislation.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he thought the language just used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was more likely to promote agitation in Ireland than any promise that might be made by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the question raised by this Amendment. He (Mr. Macfarlane) appealed to Her Majesty's Government to consider the substantial grievance that existed in regard to this matter, as it would be much more suitable to the feeling of the Irish people that they should have some assurance that the Government would consider this grievance than that they would adopt the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that further consideration should be given to the
  986
  subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was, no doubt, consistent in his view, as he had always contended that the Irish tenants had no grievance; but Her Majesty's Government had not adopted that view as embodying a true statement of the case. He (Mr. Macfarlane) would suggest that, for the purpose of allaying the reasonable agitation existing among the tenants, a few words containing a promise of a definite kind —he did not wish them to be indefinite— that they would in the future deal with this very serious grievance, would have a good effect in Ireland.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, Her Majesty's Government had been asked by the hon. Member for the City of Cork to enter into a pledge of a very extensive character, which might have the effect of giving rise to further agitation, that they would, in the course of a future Session, undertake to deal with the question raised by the Amendment. He hoped the Government would decline to make any such promise.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had certainly been very much surprised at the tone and character of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). So far from the announcement which he (Mr. Parnell) had thought might be made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant being likely to be attended with a renewal of agitation in Ireland, it would have a directly contrary effect. What he (Mr. Parnell) had thought as to this subject was, that a statement made by some responsible Member of Her Majesty's Government, that they would legislate next Session in such a way as to induce those landlords—those rack-renting landlords— who were now refusing any concession to their tenants, to concede that which, if the Court were to reach their cases, would be granted through the action of the Court; and he had pointed out that, owing to a provision in the Act of last Session, tenants who had not applied to the Court in the first instance were placed in the position that they would have to continue to pay rack rents until the Courts were able to adjudicate on their cases. He had also expressed his belief that this provision in the Act of last Session was keeping thousands upon. thousands of tenants from making ap-

  987
  plication to the Court, and inducing them to rely on other means and methods, such as the agitation in which they had hitherto been engaged, for obtaining such a reduction of rents as the spirit of the Act of last Session entitled them to expect, hut which they were unable to obtain owing to the defect which existed in its provisions, and which his (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment sought to remedy. He would put it to the Committee whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had a right to get up, and, in a speech such as he had made, mainly consisting of platitudes, accuse him (Mr. Parnell) of seeking to perpetuate and foment agitation by asking Her Majesty's Government to make an announcement as to the course they proposed to take in regard to the subject of this Amendment? He could not understand why, if Her Majesty's Government had made up their minds on this matter, they should not be in a position to make the announcement he had asked for; and he should be inclined to think, although he did not wish to press his opinion against that of the Government, that the present occasion was a very proper one for the making of such an announcement. The question he wished to ask was, did Her Majesty's Government think that the judicial rent ought to date from the date of the application; and, if so, wore they prepared to introduce legislation in the course of the ensuing Session that would give effect to this view? Moreover, did they think that such legislation should have a retrospective effect, supposing an Amendment of the Land Act to be introduced next Session, so that those tenants who applied to the Court previous to such legislation should have the advantage of the Act as well as those who came forward at the time of the first sitting of the Court? He could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) that, in his (Mr. Parnell's) judgment, and in the judgment of those who were best qualified to speak in regard to this matter, such an announcement as he had asked for, coming from Her Majesty's Government, would do more to restore tranquillity to Ireland, and to bring about voluntary arrangements out of Court between landlords and tenants, than any other course that could be taken. He regretted exceed-
  988
  ingly that this question had had to be brought on at a Wednesday's Sitting, when, in the nature of the case, it could not be expected that the Prime Minister would be in his place. They were in a difficulty at the present moment. They were ignorant of the intentions of the Government, and, under these circumstances, he (Mr. Parnell), and those with whom he acted, would be obliged to press the Amendment before the Committee to a division; hut if they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant what he had hoped to hear, they might have dispensed with the necessity for a division. Even now, if an announcement could be made that would be of a satisfactory character, they might he able to pass on to other matters. The question was one of very great importance, and ought not to he lightly dismissed by Her Majesty's Government; and he certainly thought the Committee was entitled to receive some definite announcement upon it from some responsible Minister.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, lie had expected that there would be, in reference to these matters, some regard for facts and truth. He agreed in the principle that the judicial rent in the cases of all tenants should be dated from the day of application to have the judicial rent fixed; but he wished to call attention to one important point in connection with this subject. They know very well that large numbers of tenants had not made application to the Court, who ought to have gone there; and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would ask, who was it that had prevented those tenants from doing so? The hon. Member who had spoken in so mild a way on this matter in Committee (Mr. Parnell), and the Party who acted with him, were those who had done their very best to prevent the tenants going into Court; and the result was that precious time had been wasted. It was those hon. Gentlemen who had excited the feelings of the tenantry until the country had been brought to its present condition. If those hon. Gentlemen had been actuated by the feeling they now professed to entertain, and had felt a true regard for the interests of the tenants and a real sentiment of patriotism, they would have done their utmost, at the moment the Land Act came into force, to make it

  989
  acceptable among the people of Ireland, and to insure that it should work in the best possible way. History would toll, and did tell, and the people of Ireland —the peasants of that country—were beginning to know and to acknowledge why it was that they had been brought into their present condition. At the same time, he thought the Government must face events as they were; and he did think that even now, if they were to give some assistance in the direction indicated as to rent—he was not speaking of arrears—it would be highly desirable. He should not vote on this proposal.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, there was not the slightest particle of foundation for the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that he (Mr. Parnell) had prevented, or sought to hinder, any tenant from going into the Land Court; and he called on the hon. Gentleman to produce his proofs for that assertion, either with regard to any words which he (Mr. Parnell) had uttered, or any action he had taken or sanctioned.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Committee was drifting into a discussion on the general operation of the Land Act, and must confine its attention to the Amendment under consideration. There was a technical difficulty about the matter when he permitted the clause to be brought before the Committee. They must not, however, get into a discussion as to the general operation of the Land Act.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had not originated the discussion, but he had felt great interest in the question as to the date of fixing of the judicial rent, and in connection with the present clause certain comments had been made which he had thought ought not to be allowed to go unnoticed. He therefore said that the advice given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends was that the tenants should not go into the Land Court.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that was not the subject before the Committee. The Question was whether the clause moved by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) should be read a second time.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had already said all he wished to say, and he had no desire to go any further.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, now the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was
  990
  in the House, perhaps he would be able to make an announcement on the question that would be satisfactory to the Irish Members. The Amendment was a most important one, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state his view with regard to it.
  MR. DALYwished to say a word or two as to arrears. He wished to know whether the arrears could be calculated on the basis of the judicial rents of the Commissioners, or on the basis of the rack rents imposed by the landlords? There was no more remarkable fact than the evidence of the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who, in order to satisfy his animus against the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), declared that the clause would do harm to his constituents. The reason for the clause was, first of all, the delay in fixing a judicial rent, which arose directly with the Government, because of insufficient machinery having been provided for acting on the originating notice. The demand of hon. Members from Ireland was this—that when the rent had been fixed judicially at a certain sum, the fact of its not having been fixed earlier arose from insufficient machinery provided by the Government. They said that when once the rent had been fixed the arrears should be calculated upon the basis of that rent, and not on the basis of the rack rent of the landlord. The object of the Government in proposing this legislation was to restore peace and contentment to Ireland. If this clause was denied to them by the Committee the effect would be a prolongation, of the unhappy strife at present prevailing in the country. On every principle of equity, on every principle of expediency, the Government would do well to consider; this clause, which contained only what was just and equitable, and which, if adopted, would go a great length in promoting the prosperity of Ireland.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that now the Prime Minister was in his place he would appeal to him whether he could not see his way to making some announcement with regard to the course he intended to pursue as to the subject of this clause. The clause proposed that when the Court was applied to to fix a fair rent, that rent should date from the day of the application to the Court. Under the Bill the rent would date from the day of the fixing of the fair rent by the Court.

  991
  It was a matter very considerable practical importance that such an arrangement as that proposed in this clause should be admitted with a view of facilitating settlements out of Court between landlords and tenants. As he (Mr. Parnell) had explained a short time ago, if an application was not heard, and the tenant did not succeed in having the rent fixed, the landlord might continue to charge a rack rent. He had also explained to the Committee, with regard to the announcement by the Government that they intended to deal with this matter next Session, that it would be well, when they did deal with it, that the action should have a retrospective effect, and should apply to those tenants who had gone to the Court to have a fair rent fixed previous to the passing of the Amendment Act, equally as to those who had applied after the passing of the measure. That would facilitate settlements, and do an enormous deal to restore law and order in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister the other day, in making a statement with regard to Public Business, intimated that the Government would next Session legislate on one or two points which required amending in the Land Act. And the right hon. Gentleman included amongst these points the question of the date of the fixing of the judicial rent; but he made no further statement as to the scope of this or any other Amendment. He (Mr. Parnell) would submit to the Government and the Committee that the present occasion, when this matter was under discussion, was the proper time for the Government to make up their minds as to what was demanded by the justice of the case, and to inform the Committee and the country what their intentions were with regard to it. It was of the utmost importance, if the Government intended to amend the Land Act in that direction, that the country should know it, and that both landlords and tenants in Ireland should have some idea of what was going to be done in order that settlements out of Court might be facilitated as much as possible. He hoped he was not asking too much in desiring the Prime Minister, now that he saw the right hon. Gentleman in his place, to throw some light upon this subject. If the right hon. Gentleman would give some indication of his views,
  992
  hon. Members, no doubt, would be prepared to proceed to the next Business on the Paper without prolonging the present discussion.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman near him spoke of the intention of the Government in regard to the particular point of amending the Land Act; therefore, he could not refer precisely to what had fallen from him; but he (Mr. Gladstone) believed that what the right hon. Gentleman had said was perfectly in accordance with the actual views of the Government. He (Mr. Gladstone) wished to point out that there seemed, to be some misapprehension as to what had fallen from him on a previous occasion. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) had spoken of the supposition that some matter or other —he (Mr. Gladstone) forgot what it was —would appear in the legislation of 1883 with regard to the Irish Land Act; and he (Mr. Gladstone) said, in reply, that he had never given any promise of legislation for 1883 on the Irish Land Act, and that all he had said had been that there were a variety of points under the Land Act which had, in varying degrees, or which might be held to have, claims on the attention of Parliament. When he declined to bind the Government to bring in legislation of any particular kind it was on broad and general grounds. First of all, he did not think it would be desirable to hold out an expectation of legislation on the Irish Land Act which, as had been pointed out by hon. Members, would disturb the public mind with expectations in a manner likely to retard the action that was now going on, and, generally, he believed going on to the great benefit of the country. He was bound to say that in the present state of Parliamentary Business and the crippled condition of that House in respect to the transaction of the accumulated Business before it touching the Empire at large, and England and Scotland in particular, neither he nor his Colleagues were prepared to enter into any pledge whatever in regard to any kind of legislation for next year until Parliament had dealt with the question of its own procedure, and that simply upon the ground that they were so entirely destitute of knowledge as to what it would be or what it would not be in the power of the House of

  993
  Commons to do. So long as the present state of arrangements continued he should be encouraging delusive expectations, and holding out hopes not likely to be fulfilled if, when one after the other, claims were made upon the Government—as they would be made with great promptitude if he gave the promise—he promised that kind of legislation for the next Session of Parliament. In the present condition of things the Government must reserve absolute freedom of action; and, in addition to that, he thought it would not be desirable to hold out any expectations that would interfere with the progress of the settlement in Ireland. He had said this much, not in strict conformity with the Rules of the Committee, perhaps, although he had not intended to go beyond them; but the matter of this clause having been brought, though by a narrow justification, within the view of the Committee, he could not altogether refuse to reply to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell).
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 37; Noes 116: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 278.)
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he wished to move a new clause to the effect that, after the tenant had obtained his release from arrears, such release should be a bar to any proceeding by any other creditor to recover, by sale of the tenure, any debt or debts owing by the tenant of the date of the last gale day of the tenancy in the year 1881. He had placed the Amendment on the Paper to give effect to a great many observations which had been made as to the position of the gombeen man, or whatever the Irish called the moneylender. It was partly suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gregory), and partly by his (Sir George Campbell's) own experience of the gombeen man in India. He knew very well that in India there was a person corresponding to the gombeen man who was a money-lender. There were two extreme views as to the manner in which the gombeen man should be treated; but what he wished to do was to take a middle course. He wished to give the gombeen man his rights, and no more than his rights; but as the Bill now stood they would really give him more
  994
  than his rights, and would be putting him in a better position than he had ever occupied before, for the reason that the land legislation had done two things for him; it had made the sale of the tenant right a security to him that he never had before, and had removed the claim of the landlord, who, under the existing law, had the first charge. They limited the first charge of the landlord, and put the second charge of the gombeen man in a better position than it had ever enjoyed before. They took away from the gombeen man all motive for the exercise of forbearance towards the tenant, and gave him a summary remedy by the sale of the tenant right— in fact, they were just bringing about that effect which they wished to avoid. He did not propose to go so far as the Amendment put upon the Paper by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), who proposed that the release under this Bill should operate as a release in bankruptey—relieving the tenant from all demands. He (Sir George Campbell) did not propose to wipe out claims altogether, but merely to apply the special remedy which this Bill would give. In America, India, and other countries, there was a homestead law under which the tenure was not to be saleable; and though he did not propose to go so far as that law, he thought it ought to be provided in the Bill that the gombeen man should not be able to sell up the tenant, especially as it was provided in the measure that the landlord should not be able to do so.
  New Clause—
  (Operation of a release from arrears.)
  "After the tenant has obtained release from arrears by the operation of this Act, such release shall be a bar to any proceeding by any other creditor of the tenant to recover, by sale of the tenure, any debt or debts owing by the tenant of the date of the last gale day of the tenancy in the year 1881."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. SYNANsaid, he quite concurred with his hon. Friend as to the absolute necessity of a clause of this character, in order to make this a complete Bill. What was the object of the Bill, and why was it that public money was given

  995
  for the purpose of relieving the Irish tenant of his arrears? Why, the object was two-fold—first, to keep a man in his holding; and, next, to enable him to take advantage of the Land Act of last year. They compulsorily made the landlord forgive the tenant his arrears, which might be six or seven years' arrears, on payment of one year's rent; and they did that for the purpose of enabling the tenant, on discharging that one year's rent, to go into the Land Court and keep his holding. What would be the use of this measure if the creditor of the tenant, for whose advantage the Bill was passed, was to be enabled to put up the holding for sale, and turn the tenant out? Would not the object be defeated? If the Bill were passed in its present form, would not the gombeen man come in more powerful than the landlord, and be able to sell the tenant out and out; and would not their legislation be altogether fruitless? It seemed to him that there was a very strong analogy between the case of India and Ireland in this matter; and, for the purpose of making their legislation complete, they ought to prevent the gombeen man from being able to take advantage of a law enabling him to sell the tenant out, and to obtain his debt with usurious interest. He did not think the gombeen man ought to be allowed to recover in that way. If this clause were adopted the legislation would leave the gombeen man as a creditor of the tenant, with the ordinary means for obtaining his debt; and the effect of the present legislation, in the interest of the tenant, would be to put the debtor in a better position to discharge his liabilities, so that the gombeen man would be benefited, although he would be prevented from selling out the tenant. The Amendment only went to this extent—that the gombeen man should not turn out the tenant any more than the landlord.
  MR. GIVANsaid, he trusted that the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) would not press this Amendment, which he (Mr. Givan) looked upon as utterly indefensible and impracticable. He thought the object of the Bill was to put the tenant farmer who received relief in the same position as his solvent neighbour —to put him in the world on an equal footing, to allow him to remain in his holding unfettered like the man who,
  996
  by his own effort, had been able to pay off all his arrears. If the clause were adopted, the tenant would be prevented from getting ordinary credit.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would point out that his Amendment only applied to past debts.
  MR. GIVANsaid, no doubt that was so; but the Committee would see in what respect it would fail to work. For instance, how would they be able to draw a distinction between the gombeen man and the ordinary shopkeeper? Who was the gombeen man? Why, anyone who lent money at 2 or 3 per cent was a gombeen man. There were some people who objected altogether to the lending of money, and who contended that it was against the moral law; and these people would hold that the person who lent money at a reasonable interest was a gombeen man. Any man who lent money to a tenant, in order to got him out of a difficulty, or to keep him in his holding, would be deprived of his rights under this clause. Suppose a man had a mortgage on a holding, a registered interest, a sort of indefeasible title, was he to be deprived of his mortgage by this Amendment, and the legal interest he had obtained in the holding as security for the repayment of a just debt at a reasonable rate of interest? Was a mortgage under these circumstances, or a debt contracted under these circumstances, to be considered as null and void, simply because the hon. Member chose to call the man who lent money a "gombeen man?" He hoped the Committee would see that this clause would be an injustice to the tenant, that it would brand him and his holding perpetually, and would prevent him from obtaining credit.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed the Committee spoke of reasonable interest, and perhaps the Committee would allow him (Sir John Hay) to refer to an extract from the Report of the Irish Fishery Commissioners with regard to 17,000 tenants in Connemara. The Commissioners stated that hitherto these people had always been obliged to resort to a humble sort of usurer, who asked usually 50 per cent for his money. It was these persons that the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) sought to prevent from selling up the tenant. The Report to which he referred was with

  997
  reference to County Galway, and was laid on the Table of the House in 1876. He wished merely to say these few words to point out to the Committee how very different were the terms under which these poor creatures borrowed money from the terms that might be imagined under the representation of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan).
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, his experience was not different from that which the right hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down brought forward. His (Mr. Ramsay's) difficulty was that it was not specified that the clause was to be confined to cases in which 50 per cent, or a lesser amount of interest, had been charged. The clause applied to all debts due to a certain date by the tenant. It might be within the Indian experience of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), but it was not within the experience of anyone in this country, that a person should be liable for the payment of a debt, and not be liable to give up his means for the purpose of meeting the liability. To his (Mr. Ramsay's) mind, it would be very much to be regretted if the Government should see their way to accepting any such Amendment to deprive the honest trader who had lent money for the purchase of carts, or other implements used in the cultivation of a farm, of the power of taking any means that the tenant might have in repayment. To lay down such a principle would be a very dangerous precedent.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), he (Mr. Blake) himself having been in conflict with the gombeen man who was charging 50 per cent for the money he lent, whilst he (Mr. Blake) had only been receiving 2½ per cent. The greatest curse over a large portion of Ireland was the gombeen man. The right hon. and gallant Member (Sir John Hay) had just quoted from his (Mr. Blake's) Report for 1876, as a Member of the Fisheries Commission in Ireland, in which he had stated that the usual rate of interest paid to the gombeen man was 50 per cent. Not only was the gombeen man an unmitigated evil over a large portion of Ireland, but so also was the small shopkeeper. He (Mr.
  998
  Blake) could state, from a very extensive knowledge of the peasantry of Ireland, that, in the matter of procuring seed, clothing, timber, and so on, the exactions of these small shopkeepers were of a most tremendous character. The great object of this Bill was to give the poorer class of tenants some heart to meet the world again; but if, whilst they were relieved from the claims of the landlord in respect of arrears, they were to be open to the exactions of this class of creditors, they would be deprived, in hundreds and thousands of cases, of all heart. This clause would not deprive the creditors of the poor tenant from getting their money paid back in other ways; but, for the sake of humanity, he would appeal to the Committee, whilst they relieved the tenant in the way they proposed, to go a step further and pass this most desirable and necessary clause moved by the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs for the protection of the tenant. He (Mr. Blake) knew that in a vast number of instances the poor tenantry were quite prepared to pay the debts to the gombeen man and to the shopkeepers directly they were able to do so; and he, therefore, did not think that these creditors should have the pull they would possess in the power of selling the tenant right of these people.
  MR. SHAWsaid, he did not really know what the hon. Gentleman meant by this Amendment. Did he mean that the mere effect of settling arrears of rent settled all other debts? [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: No.] Then what would be the effect of it? Suppose they passed the clause, everyone who had a debt out would at once take proceedings against the debtor, and the result would be a universal clearing of the West of Ireland. If they passed the clause, and if proceedings were at once taken, the next thing the Committee would hear of would be that, before people could make application for relief under this measure, whole districts would be cleared of their inhabitants. ["No, no!"] At any rate, that was his reading of the matter. To his mind, there was a great deal of nonsense talked on this question. The gombeen man was a person doing a very small business, and that business was scattered over very large districts. The loans were for small amounts, and it was as necessary for the gombeen man to

  999
  live as for anybody else. He (Mr. Shaw) did not believe they charged a farthing more for their trouble than the largest merchant in London did for his turnover. But for those so-called gombeen men the poor tenants of Ireland would not have lived at all during the past two or three years. He know the efforts the shopkeepers in his own county had made to keep the farmers in the district above board. Far from feeling any desire to destroy those poor people, the shopkeepers were anxious to maintain them, because in destroying them they would be destroying themselves. If he understood this clause at all, he thought it would be extremely injurious.
  MR. DALYsaid, he quite accepted the view put forward by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), and he thought, with regard to this clause, that it smacked a great deal of Indian experience, and was wholly inapplicable to the condition of Ireland. They had had the gombeen man introduced into this debate, and their attention had been directed to him in order to induce them to commit a great injustice. Men who, like himself, saw on his desk the judgments that were obtained against these Irish farmers would know very well that if the gombeen man was the kind of person it was sought to make it appear, his name would be found connected with those documents much more often than it was. As a matter of fact, the gombeen man was very much a character of past times. It was now very easy for an Irish farmer to obtain money; for any honest man of decent character, who got two other men of decent character to put their names on a bill, was able to obtain a fair sum of money on reasonable and equitable terms, so that the gombeen man was rapidly disappearing. If this clause became law, they would really destroy in a great part the asset of these industrial people of good character of whom he spoke. Let him take, for example, a man who had had his judicial rent fixed, who was a man of good repute, of whom his clergyman spoke in good terms; supposing he wanted to raise £60 or £80, what better security could there be for the repayment of the loan than the deposit of his lease? If that was not to be a security, his (Mr. Daly's) contention was that they would do great injustice to a great many people. He
  1000
  acquitted the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs of blame for putting this clause on the Paper, as the hon. Member had very little knowledge of Ireland. A great deal had been said about the interest charged by country shopkeepers; but, as a matter of fact, no one had so substantially sustained the farmers and labourers during the terrific struggle through which they had passed as these very shopkeepers. And for what reason was it that they had sustained those poor people? It was because they had implicit faith in the honesty of the persons they had assisted. The shopkeepers who had advanced goods were absolutely confident of being paid when the farmers were in a position to discharge their liabilities. He had conversed with hundreds of these shopkeepers, and their general reply, when questioned upon these subjects, was—"Please God, when the good times come, we shall get paid." With regard to the rate of interest at which money was lent, there was always a sufficient competition in even the remotest village in Ireland to regulate the price; and, independent of the immorality of a breach of trust against the people who had given their goods to the Irish farmers, there would be another danger in passing this clause, and that was the possible demoralization of the tenants themselves. He considered, as regarded this clause, if it had been submitted to any person with the experience of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), or any person who knew the country, and their opinion had been given, he did not believe the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs would have put this proposal on the Paper. As it was, he (Mr. Daly) believed if the clause passed into law it would not be regarded as a boon by any honest or respectable tenant; but, on the contrary, would be looked upon by a great part of the community as an error and injustice. And there was another thing he wished to point out. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs had referred to the fact that the clause only applied to past debts. The hon. Member in his clause would seem to display ignorance of human nature—did he not know that when a man was claiming and receiving usurious interest he took good care to protect himself by every tittle of the law that could avail him anything?

  1001
  They might rest assured that where money had been lent at usurious interest by a practised money-lender, where it was possible to hold the asset of the tenant it was held. Therefore, the clause was useless; it could not operate with regard to the past, and it could do a great deal of mischief, not alone in practice, but in principle, with regard to the morality and character of the tenant.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the Committee would decline to consider this clause in relation to the poor farmer. He was not going into the question as to how far that person was to be protected against the gombeen man or not. There had been hard cases, no doubt; but for every case where the gombeen man was affected, the clause would apply to five or six other cases where the tenant would not have been able to carry on his business at all if it had not been for advances he had received either in money or in kind. The shopkeepers would be placed in a most unfortunate position — they would be reduced almost to ruin if they were to lose the chance of getting back that which was owing to them by the farmers. But the reason he had risen was to call the attention of the Committee to what he thought would have to be done if this clause were accepted. What had they done in the case of the landlord creditor? They had said—"We will assure you out of State money—out of either the Irish Church Fund or the Imperial taxes—a very considerable part of your debt, if you, on your part, will forego a portion of it." The State would pay 50 per cent of the debt, very often more. If this clause were passed, it would be said they were taking away from the shopkeepers and those who had advanced money the only method of securing repayment that was left to them; and it would be said—"These people will now have very little chance of getting a penny." The Committee would, therefore, see that they would be unable to treat the shopkeeper, the banker, or even the gombeen man, different to the landlord; and they would have to be prepared to vote a very considerable sum of money to compensate them for their losses out of some public fund.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought great importance was to be attached to the observations of the right hon. Gen-
  1002
  tleman (Mr. W. E. Forster); but he (Mr. W. H. Smith) wished to ask the Government how they were going to protect the tenant when he was rehabilitated under this Bill? There could be no doubt that at the present moment it was not worth the while of the shopkeeper, or the gombeen man, or of any creditor to take proceedings against the tenant, as the landlord had the first claim upon him. The debts remained unsecured; but as soon as the tenant was rehabilitated under this Bill, all the claims upon the tenant, except the claim of the landlord, would become singularly valuable. That which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) would happen under this clause. As the hon. Member had pointed out, directly this passed it would be a notice to the creditor that his debt became more or less doubtful, and the creditor would instantly put the law into operation and obtain a judgment against the tenant. The tenant would be clear from all claim by the landlord under the Bill—he would be released, as far as the landlord was concerned, from any fear of eviction — and the other creditors, seeing that the tenant was possessed of a most valuable property which his landlord could not touch, would instantly endeavour to possess themselves of that property. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) thought it was clear that the creditor would at once avail himself of the facilities that he would undoubtedly possess under this Act for recovering a debt, which at the present moment was wholly and absolutely irrecoverable. Well, was it the intention of the Government that that should happen which the hon. Member for the County of Cork said would take place under the clause, and which would undoubtedly happen when the measure was in full operation? Was it the intention of the Government that creditors whose debts were now absolutely irrecoverable should have the opportunity of setting the law in motion, and clearing whole districts in Ireland under the powers which this Act would certainly place at their disposal? If it were so, the Act could not be called a measure for the benefit of persons who had got into arrear with their rent. The result of passing the clause would be that an immense number of actions would instantly be set on foot in the Civil Bill Courts.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, no doubt they were placed in a difficulty, and no one would be inclined to discredit the good intentions of the hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to grapple with it. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had contributed nothing whatever to the removal of the difficulty, and had only made the general and vague admission that he thought there was a good deal of force in the admirable, though short speech which had come from the right hon. Gentleman on the Ministerial Benches (Mr. Forster). If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) would vote in conformity with the admirable speech of the right hon. Gentleman referred to he would do well; and he (Mr. Gladstone) looked to the right hon. Gentleman for support, inasmuch as he had supplied nothing, great or small, in answer to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. But he (Mr. Gladstone) was not going to avoid answering the question of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman asked—"How are you going to protect the tenant against his ordinary creditor?" Well, they were going to protect the tenant certainly by no direct legislation; but they were going to protect him against the ordinary creditor in the only way that would be legitimate—unless they were prepared to follow the course pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, by improving his position, by relieving him of the most perilous of his debts, by giving him a fresh start in life, and by placing his credit on a sound commercial footing —by enabling him to go into the Court to get a judicial rent, and to put himself in the sound position, in which, instead of having to pay 20 per cent for any advance he might require, he might go to the bank and obtain it for 5 per cent. The Bill would give the tenant fair play and an open field, and enable him to attain a solvent position. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not pretend to say that the provisions of the Bill were such as to meet every case that might arise —he did not deny that some cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Baronet who moved the clause might sometimes occur. No doubt there might be cases where the creditors might, wisely or unwisely, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) had pointed out, make a rapid use of the powers of the
  1004
  Bill. No doubt cases might occur where in that way the creditors would be able to put the tenants in a position of difficulty, probably culminating in eviction. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not deny that, and he did not pretend that they could prevent it. The question before the Committee was, whether there was a remedy for the difficulty, and, if so, whether that remedy was offered in the clause of the hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Gladstone) ventured to say there was no answer at all to be given to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). The clause made no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate debts, and no doubt, if it were accepted, the creditors of the tenants would at once take steps for enforcing their claims. The gombeen man, like the Jews in Roumania and elsewhere, was the offspring of the necessities of the people, and the best way to get rid of him was not to destroy his remedy at law, but to render his assistance unnecessary. Supposing he granted—and he was not sure that he should be justified in granting it—that they would be justified in taking away the rights of the gombeen man if he stood alone. But he did not stand alone, the clause made no differ-once between the debts owing to the gombeen man and the most legitimate debts. The money-lender who had supplied the tenant with means, when he was in a state of the direst distress, possibly starving, would be dealt with in exactly the same way as the usurer. And he agreed with the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) that if the provision were accepted, the news of its acceptance would be telegraphed to Ireland, and all the tenant's creditors would immediately take steps to enforce the remedy which the law allowed. Though he was not prepared to endorse all the hon. Member, who, no doubt, was a great authority, had stated—namely, that whole districts would be cleared if this clause were enforced, he had no doubt that the creditors would be driven to the use of his remedy were they to adopt so unprecedented a measure. They would be driven in many instances to take the most speedy and violent action. Let them consider what was the clause before the Committee. The tenant in Ireland had two classes of creditors, the landlord on the one side and the shop-

  1005
  keeper and the money-lender on the other. He (Mr. Gladstone) might fairly make this classification. Well, what were they doing by this Bill? They were endeavouring to settle by a summary process the tenant's account with his landlord; and why did they do that? Not merely because the tenant was in arrear and distress—there were plenty of people in arrear and distress elsewhere than in Ireland, though not in such great masses—but chiefly because unless they did so he could not have access to the Land Court. It was not the relief of distress, it was not merely the prevention of eviction—though he admitted that was a great object—but it was, above all, to give the tenant access to the Land Court; and it was because access to the Land Court was a capital part of an Imperial policy which they had induced Parliament to adopt that this measure was brought forward. That object, however, would remain essentially crippled so long as a large portion of the small tenantry in Ireland were barred from entrance to the Land Court by the existence of this particular kind of debt. It would be an anomaly, having determined to give access to the Court, to continue to debar the tenants from all accessibility to it. Then, on what principle did they interfere? They did not take away all the remedies of the shopkeeper. That might be literally true, but he did not think it was true in substance. What remedy did they leave him? They left him a remedy which would be a most cruel one—namely, the right of selling up the tenant and reducing the man to a level of insufficiency in the holding, or they compelled him to leave the farm. The only remedy was that of selling up the stock. Was that a desirable course to drive the shopkeeper or gombeen man to? It would be much better in the interest of the shopkeeper himself to drive him to a remedy less effective. When they interfered with the landlord's debt for the purposes of public policy, it should be remembered that, acting on a principle which was strictly equitable and even liberal, they gave him money where in many cases he had no chance of getting a penny; and they could not well take away from the shopkeeper and the gombeen man the only remedy they had without giving them some sort of compensation. That would be altogether a
  1006
  one-sided operation. There might, no doubt, be evictions from the imprudent use by these creditors of their legal rights; but whatever might be the result, he ventured to say that the remedy by the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was a remedy one hundredfold worse than the disease.
  MR. GIBSONremarked, that the Prime Minister, in his interesting speech, told the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that he sought to apply an unprecedented remedy for an unprecedented state of facts. The right hon. Gentleman might have described his own Bill in similar words. He should like to know what would be the condition of the tenant, after the Bill was passed, if it were left exactly as it stood at present? He was protected from the landlord against the landlord's consent, and was given, it might be, a substantial part of the landlord's property; but would that protect the tenant against being destroyed? That he understood to be the object of the Bill; and what was the method adopted for preserving and protecting the tenant from other creditors? Under the Bill as it stood a gift was made from the State measured by the large sum, it might be, of £2,500,000, and the landlord's claim, which might amount to several years' rent, was to be partly obliterated nominally for the advantage of the tenant, but really for the advantage of his other creditors. Why was this? The answer to that question was sought to be given in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. He would not say that the method adopted by this Bill was desperate, but, at any rate, it was extraordinary; and it might hereafter be found that they had undertaken this exceptional legislation, not for the benefit of the men they sought to benefit, but simply for the advantage of their creditors. The way in which the Amendment had been discussed on the part of the Government was fairly clever. The difficulty of dealing with the matter was patent and obvious, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was open to criticism and might require revision, so far as the drafting of the Amendment went. Without claiming any special capacity for criticism, he could criticize this Amendment without the slightest difficulty, and no doubt it was open to many

  1007
  of the difficulties which had been suggested in regard to its drafting, and if it were read a second time it would require considerable alteration. There could he no doubt about that. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) used words in regard to it which were most interesting, and, to a certain extent, most touching. He asked "why the mortgagee, having realized his position by getting judgment, should be deprived of his mortgage and interest in the holding and have his legal rights suspended?" That was very sound criticism. The whole Bill proceeded on the assumption that it was necessary for the purposes of public policy to sweep away the landlord's right to his arrears and deprive him of his interest in the holding. Was there any reason, on any logical grounds, why the same principle should not be applied even to a person who held the position of mortgagee. The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) said he did not see that it was reasonable to devise a drastic measure of a desperate and unprecedented character to offend any person other than a landlord. It might be said that one victim was enough for one Bill, and that victim was the landlord. Why were banks entitled to be more privileged and protected than landlords? The whole Bill proceeded in a manner so exceptional that it was very difficult to argue upon sound logic. The truth was that the measure was one of so anomalous a character that in dealing with it they were bound to dismiss their logic to the same remote region as that to which last Session they consigned their political economy. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) had thrown his modest agis over the Prime Minister in reference to the Bill. The Prime Minister was obviously in a difficulty in dealing with it satisfactorily. He was severe in his manner, and evidently anxious to know, in terms of considerable severity, why it was that his Bill was assailed by methods so desperate and unreasonable. The right hon. Member for Bradford came to the rescue, and said there was no analogy between the position of the tenant and the landlord and the other creditors, because the landlord was to be paid one-half of the arrears; but in the first clauses of the Bill no volition was given to the landlord, and considerably more than one-
  1008
  half of his entire claim might be swept away for ever, whether he liked it or not. It was not to be suspended, but swept away for all time, and for all purposes, against every class of property the tenant might have. There was no analogy in that drastic treatment of the Bill and the treatment proposed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy in his Amendment, which only sought to suspend a particular remedy for a particular purpose. No one could say that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was not open to grave criticism; but he (Mr. Gibson) wanted to know if the Bill was not one which, in all its provisions, was itself open to criticism? They were told they were bound to accept the Bill with their eyes shut, or they would be opposing an Imperial policy. It was no answer to say that there were difficulties besetting the question. He admitted them. The whole argument for the Bill rested on the statement made by the Prime Minister more than once in the course of his speech, that it should be clearly recollected by hon. Members in the discussion that the great object to subserved by the Bill was that of procuring for the tenant access to the Land Court. "That," said the right hon. Gentleman, "was the Imperial policy which was to be carried out, developed, and concluded under the operation of the Bill;" and the right hon. Gentleman, finding himself in that position, proposed that this should be his excuse for never again dealing with another Arrears Bill. He would ask, was not such an Amendment as that suggested by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy the one means by which efficacy could be given to that piece of Imperial policy, because, taking the Bill as it stood, what was its position if not shielded or followed by such an Amendment? They had given the tenant a legal support against his landlord, and why should they enable not the landlord, but one of the other creditors, to step in and, standing in the shoes of the tenant, avail himself of every one of the remedies provided by the State gift? Thus it might happen that their Imperial policy might have been passed in thousands of cases not for the advantage of the tenants of Ireland, but for the benefit of creditors of the tenants other than the landlord, who had been deliberately left free to proceed against

  1009
  the tenant and compel him to sell his estate. He had himself taken up the Bill as it stood, and he had listened with attention to the speech of the Prime Minister; but he felt bound to say, if the Government elected to send the Bill, as it stood now, from the House, it might be used in many cases to defeat the objects which the Government said were those which had caused them to bring in such a measure. He declined to enter into the question of the gombeen man. That was not the question. It might be that the gombeen man was often a respectable man. The one argument the Government presented to the country in justification of their Bill was that it was a Bill solely for the benefit of the tenants of Ireland, to enable the tenants to go into the Land Court. The argument now presented was that, as the Bill stood, it would enable and encourage other creditors of the tenant to supplant the tenant, and enable themselves to get the benefits of the Act.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDonly desired to say one word in regard to this important Amendment. He would not render himself amenable to the reproach of the Prime Minister, because he did not intend to leave it in doubt as to how he meant to vote. He was reported to have been the only Member of the House who had voted uncompromisingly in support of the Bill. The Prime Minister had stated that the object of the Bill was to give every tenant in Ireland a facility for approaching the Land Court. That was the reason why he (Mr. Arnold) had supported the Bill. But he took it that it was impossible for the Prime Minister to say that the tenant might not be deprived of his access to the Land Court by creditors other than the landlord, and if that allegation was substantiated, a very important case would be established for the Amendment of his hon. Friend. It set aside altogether other creditors, without giving a right to discriminate whether they were gombeen men or not. That was perfectly outside the question. As a matter of fact, the only institutions that were prosperous in Ireland at this moment were the banks. No one could dispute the fact that eight of the banks in Ireland at the present moment had stock which was worth more than the £100 stock of the Bank of England.
  1010
  What was the connection of the State with the matter? The State, by this Bill, gave to the tenant farmer of Ireland security which he did not before possess; and, in doing so, the State ought to make such terms as were equitable for the tenant. But he was bound to say that this clause was neither equitable nor reasonable; and for this reason only, that it proposed to give no consideration whatever to these creditors who were attacked by it. They gave the landlord consideration, and if they were now dealing with the debts of other creditors, they were bound to give them some consideration also. But, at the same time, if the clause of his hon. Friend were so altered as to secure that every tenant should have access to the Land. Court, and that access might be so secured by deferring or postponing the operation of the Act—say for one or two years—that would be a perfectly legitimate interference by the State on the ground that they had given the tenant a security he did not possess before, and had placed the creditors in a better position. He could not vote for the Amendment as it stood, because it placed the creditors in a worse position than that in which they stood before; but if his hon. Friend would so amend the proposal that there would be no immediate action taken—such as his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) suggested—until the tenants should have had the power of approaching the Land Court, he would support it.
  MR. M'COANsaid, that whatever might be the fate of the Amendment, there was no doubt that it would have one salutary effect. He had voted for the Bill under the impression that its intention and its effect would be to secure the embarrassed tenants of Ireland in the possession of their holdings; but from the speech of the Prime Minister it seemed now clear enough that he had been voting for it under a delusion. In point of fact, he had been voting to oust the tenant from his interest in his holding, and to create an improved security, at his expense, for his other creditors. That had never been his intention. But the effect of this Bill was to oust the landlord by Parliamentary compulsion, and to compel him to surrender his just claims, or, at any rate, his legal claims, if they were not just—and, being legal, he was en-

  1011
  titled to assume, for the purpose of argument, that they were just—for the purpose of putting into a vastly improved position the shopkeeper and gombeen man, and the Munster Bank. Now, that had been no part of his meaning. He had meant to contribute by his vote to fix the embarrassed tenant in his holding, and to clear him from his embarrassments up to the end of last year, giving him a fresh start. The object of the Bill was declared to be to give the tenant a fresh start; but it now appeared that that was not so, for though the landlord was to be swept aside, the shopkeeper and gombeen man were to come forward and have their full pound of flesh. The only effect of the Bill would bo not to rehabilitate this large class of embarrassed tenants, and not to produce that amount of restored peace and contentment which they all hoped for from the provisions of the Bill, but to make provision for another class of creditors. The Bill was, therefore, a delusion, and he should, accordingly, vote for the Amendment. There was no doubt that the Amendment was open to criticism, but it embodied a sound principle, without which the Act would be a failure, and without which they would not have done their utmost to get rid of the embarrassment of the tenant.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)asked the Committee to bring back their minds to the Bill before them. After the long discussion the Bill had received, and the considerable amount of labour it had imposed upon hon. Members, many of whom had had to attend in their places from morning to night, this Amendment was now introduced from their own side of the House. The object of it was to create a totally different effect as regarded the release of the tenant from arrears from that contemplated by the Bill. No one, however acute he might be, would find the germ of the Amendment in the Bill itself, either good, bad, or indifferent. It had no real connection with the Bill, and it would be just as reasonable to propose an Amendment for the payment of Cetewayo's expenses in coming over to this country, as the Amendment now proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) to the Bill which they had been discussing day and night for a considerable period with hardly a break.
  1012
  They were now asked to introduce a clause respecting a matter which had no connection whatever with the object of the Bill. It was a Bill to make provision for certain arrears of rent, and when the 1st clause was under discussion the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) asked, as he was entitled to do, what they were going to do with the other creditors. That very question was discussed about a month ago. In the time which had since elapsed they had gone through all the clauses, and it was supposed that the Bill would be reported that day. It was now half-past 2 o'clock, and they had made no impression upon the Amendments on the Paper; and they were now, after an interval of a month, going to have all the second reading speeches over again as to whether all the creditors ought not to be brought under the venue of the Bill, and left in the same position as the landlord. He appealed to hon. Members if that was a reasonable way of conducting the Business of the House. He admitted that he had had no large experience of the way of conducting Public Business in that House; but he must say that up to the present time he had never heard of such constant repetitions of second reading speeches. The same arguments were repeated day after day upon the different provisions of the Bill, and when at length, to use a popular expression, they all thought they could see daylight, they found that daylight had gone back into night again. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) said the present discussion satisfied him that the Bill was a fallacy and a delusion. If so, it would be better to abandon it altogether. If the exigencies of the case did not require that assistance should be given to the tenant in the interests of peace and order, why go on with it? The landlord was the largest creditor, no doubt the first creditor; there were considerable arrears due to him, and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had said before, and he would repeat again, that he entirely denied the assertion that the forbearance of the landlord was a matter of consideration to the tenant, for he simply allowed the arrears to accumulate for which he could at any moment come down and crush him. Therefore, the man to whom large arrears were due was not to be re-

  1013
  garded as a benevolent friend. The State now came forward and said—"We will pay one year's rent clear to the landlord up to the end of 1881, if the tenant can produce another year's rent, and the tenant may then go free, the landlord obtaining two years' rent." It was said that the Bill was opposed to all good finance and economic science. He had no doubt that it was contrary to good finance; but then it was always contrary to good finance for a man to be poor. No man was a good Chancellor of the Exchequer whose pockets were always empty; and that was the condition of a large portion of the tenantry of Ireland. But the question was, how were they to be relieved? He granted that the Bill presented to the House was presented on a "give and take" ground. The landlord received two years' arrears of rent, and not the tenant. With regard to the remaining arrears, up to last November and all subsequent arrears the Bill did not propose to interfere. This clause related to a condition of things in which a tenant with a few cows and a few agricultural implements might have to depend for assistance upon neighbours. He dared say there were parts of Connemara where there was no plough at all. [Mr. MITCHELL HENRY: No.] He was not speaking of tenants of the hon. Member for Galway; but he was assured that in some parts of Connemara there was not a plough possessed by a tenant, and that he had to depend upon what assistance he could get. Many of the tenants had in their houses as their only furniture, a dresser, a few plates, perhaps one table, and a couple of seat3. In that state of things Parliament came forward and gave the tenant a fresh start, rendering him free from his liabilities. But what did this Amendment propose? It proposed to drive the creditors of the tenant, other than the landlord, to a state of desperation. The effect of that would be that, knowing their security was to be taken away, and having nothing to rely upon but the small means of the impoverished tenant, the shopkeeper would be driven to make a swoop and turn the tenant out without any means of living. They were told that that was benevolence to the tenant. He did not see in what the benevolence consisted. The larger the security the man had the less likely was he to take himself off. If the creditor
  1014
  knew that the tenant would be placed in a better position it would be to his interest to allow him to remain in his holding. The Bill gave the tenant a fresh start and insured him the means of paying his debts. Who were the class which it was proposed to shut out? They were a class who were almost as much suffering in the distressed districts as the tenants themselves. It was the class of smaller shopkeepers, who had been sailing in the same boat, and who had been keeping the tenants going, by helping them to keep body and soul together; and now it was proposed to take a step which would prevent those unfortunate men from recouping themselves in the only way they possibly could, and thereby impoverishing the tenant still more. He hoped the Committee would not listen to the Amendment. The Bill was not intended to be, as they all knew, an Insolvency or Bankruptcy Bill for the tenants; it was not intended to convert an impoverished tenant into an insolvent tenant, and to require him to make an inventory of his goods. Whether it was a good or a bad Bill, it was, at any rate, an honest effort to give the small tenants in these impoverished circumstances the means of going on in the world as they were, but not so impoverished that in future they would be unable to make a fresh start. It proposed, in point of fact, to give the tenants the means of paying those very creditors who had shown benevolence in the past. He trusted the Committee would not accept the Amendment, for the sake of the tenants themselves.
  MR. GILLsaid, he wished to state in a few words his reasons for voting against the Amendment before the Committee. He was quite certain the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had placed it on the Paper with the best motives; but the hon. Member could not appreciate what its effect would be in Ireland as well as those who lived there could. It would be, in the first place, the setting of two classes against each other who had hitherto worked well together — the farmers and the shopkeepers. He was bound to say that the shopkeepers were a considerate body of persons, who had never harshly exercised their rights against the tenants, and he believed that in future, if they had the power of selling the tenant's interest in his holding,

  1015
  they would rarely or never use it. To do so would be altogether against their own interest; it was not likely that a shopkeeper would incur the unpopularity and the certain destruction of his trade in the district which would follow. This was a strong reason, at any rate, why the power to sell would probably be very seldom used. During the speech of the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had interposed with the remark that if the Amendment were not passed it would be likely that many tenant farmers would be made bankrupts; but he (Mr. Gill) believed that if it were adopted its effect would be that a large number of shopkeepers would be placed in that position; and he was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with his vast mercantile experience, seemed not to be aware of the fact. He repeated his disbelief that the power of sale would be exorcised by the shopkeepers; but he was quite sure that the adoption of the Amendment would load to an immediate curtailment of credit throughout Ireland. The wholesale merchants would undoubtedly instruct their representatives and travellers to deal for cash only, and a large number of shopkeepers would suffer unjustly and severely in consequence. On the other hand, he could not agree that any practical advantage would result to the farmers, because, for the reasons already stated, he believed there would be exceedingly few shopkeepers willing to sell the tenant right of their own customers.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 182; Noes 38: Majority 144.

  AYES.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Agnew, W.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Armitstead, G.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Arnold, A.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Asher, A.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  Brogden, A.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Balfour, J. B.

  Bryce, J.

  Barnes, A.

  Buchanan, T. R.

  Barran, J.

  Burt, T.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Caine, W. S.

  Blake, J. A.

  Callan, P.

  1016

  Cameron, C.

  Kinnear, J.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Lalor, R.

  Campbell, R. F. E.

  Lawrence, Sir J. C.

  Carbutt, E. H.

  Lawrence, W.

  Causton, R. K.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Lea, T.

  Chambers, Sir T.

  Leahy, J.

  Cheetham, J. F.

  Leake, R.

  Clarke, J. C.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Cohen, A.

  Lee, H.

  Collings, J.

  Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

  Colman, J. J.

  Colthurst, Col. D. La T.

  Lvons, R. D.

  Corbett, J.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Cotes, C. C.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Courtney, L. H.

  M'Clure, Sir T.

  Cowper, hon. H. E.

  M'Coan, J. C.

  Craig, W. Y.

  Mackie, R. B.

  Creyke, R.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Cropper, J.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Cunliffe, Sir R. A.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Daly, J.

  Marum, E. M.

  Davies, R.

  Maskclyne, M. H. Story-

  Davies, W.

  Mason, H.

  Dickson, J.

  Matheson, Sir A.

  Dickson, T. A.

  Maxwell-Heron, J.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Monk, C. J.

  Duff, R. W.

  Moore, A.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Egerton, Adm. hon. E.

  Morley, A.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Muntz, P. H.

  Errington, G.

  Nelson, I.

  Evans, T. W.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Fairbairn, Sir A.

  O' Beirne, Major F.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  O' Donoghue, The

  Ferguson, B.

  O 'Sullivan, W. H.

  Findlater, W.

  Palmer, G.

  Foljambe, E. J. S.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Parker, C. S.

  Fowler, W.

  Pease, A.

  Fry, L.

  Pease, Sir J. W.

  Gill, H. J.

  Pender, J.

  Givan, J.

  Pennington, F.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Porter, A. M.

  Grant, A.

  Potter, T. B.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Price, Sir R. G.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Pugh, L. P.

  Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

  Pulley, J.

  Rathbone, W.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Richard, H.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Richardson, J.N.

  Henderson, E.

  Richardson, T.

  Heneage, E.

  Roberts, J.

  Henry, M.

  Samuelson, B.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Sexton, T.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Shaw, W.

  Hill, T. R.

  Shield, H.

  Holden, I.

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  Holland, S.

  Slagg, J.

  Hollond, J. R.

  Smyth, P. J.

  Holms, T.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Howard, E. S.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Howard, G. J.

  Stanton, W. J.

  Illingworth, A.

  Stuart, H. V.

  James, C.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  James, Sir H.

  Summers, W.

  James, W. H.

  Synan, E. J.

  Jenkins, Sir J. J.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Johnson, W. M.

  Thomasson, J. P.

  Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

  Thompson, T. C.

  1017

  Tillelt, J. H.

  Willis, W.

  Trevelyan, rt.hn. G. O.

  Wilson, I.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  Waugh, E.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Webster, J.

  Woodall, W.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Wiggin, H.

  TELLERS.

  Williams, S. C. E.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Williamson, S.

  Kensington, Lord

  NOES.

  Alexander, Colonel C.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Barne, F. St. J. N.

  Patrick, R. W. Coch-ran-

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Bontinck, rt. hon. G. C.

  Ramsay, J.

  Beresford, G. De la P.

  Rankin, J.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Rolls, J. A.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Ross, A. H.

  Burrell, Sir W. W.

  Round, J.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Salt, T.

  Coddington, W.

  Scott, M. D.

  Compton, F.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Thomson, H.

  Ecroyd, W. F.

  Tollemache, hon. W. F.

  Feilden, Major-General R. J.

  Warton, C. N.

  Whitley, E.

  Fenwick-Bisset, M.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Floyer, J.

  Wortley, C. B.Stuart-

  Freshfield, C. K.

  Wyndham, hon. P.

  Harcourt, E. W.

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C D.

  TELLERS.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Schreiber, C.

  Macartney, J. W. E.

  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]

QUESTIONS.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL—THE EMIGRATION CLAUSE — RECOMMITTAL.
  MR. GIBSON: I rise to put a Question to the Prime Minister, because the final stages of this Bill have been taken with a rapidity which came upon everybody by surprise. There were some Amendments on the Paper with regard to emigration which excited a good deal of interest, and I understand the Government are desirous of giving an opportunity of having that matter reconsidered. I wish to ask the Government if that is so?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in his place at the time of the occurrence to which he had referred. [Mr. GIBSON: No.] In that case the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke from information imparted by others, and not from personal knowledge. He was himself in his place at the time, and he had
  1018
  seen the Chairman resume his seat at the Table; and he could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the proceedings were marked by no unusual haste. [Mr. WARTON: Oh, oh!] He thought the hon. and learned Member for Bridport was pushing Parliamentary licence very far when he interrupted him, on a matter of fact, with exclamations of that sort. He thought it was hardly decent that such interruptions should take place. He had been conversant with the proceedings of that House for half-a-century, and he ventured to say that everything done by the Chairman that afternoon had been done with the strictest order, and without the slightest appearance of haste. [Mr. WARTON: Oh!] The hon. and learned Member for Bridport, with his experience of the House, might have a different opinion; and, of course, he was entitled to set it up if he so pleased. He (Mr. Gladstone) had no title to interfere with it, and certainly would not interrupt the hon. and learned Member if he stated it in a sense different from his own. But he thought it was his duty, in the position he held, to refer to anything that concerned the constituted authorities of the House. [Mr. GIBSON: I only asked the question.] He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone a little further than that; but perhaps he had not meant what he said. At the same time, he did not think that anybody was the worse for it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in supposing that a full opportunity would be given to hon. Members to state their opinion on the subjects which, owing to the absence of some hon. Members, passed without notice a few minutes ago. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) would to-night, at a quarter to 6, propose the preliminary step for obtaining the necessary authority, and to-morrow would move to re-commit the Bill, either before or after Report—he was not sure which it would be—for the purpose of raising the matter, which would enable any hon. Gentleman desirous of making a Motion in Committee to state his opinions. He did not believe that, practically, anything had been lost owing to the circumstances—he admitted that they were peculiar—which had occurred in consequence of the fact that Gentlemen who were generally among the most energetic attendants in the House did not

  1019
  happen to be in their places at a critical moment.
  MR. GREGORYexplained that there were several points to which he desired to draw attention, the chief one being the question of emigration.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it would probably be for the convenience of the House that he should state that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) would today take the preliminary step towards carrying out the Government proposal that the Land Commission should be strengthened by the appointment of a fourth Commissioner, so that the proceedings of the Commission should not be hampered in cases where the presence of three Commissioners would be required. This would meet the point raised some time ago by the right hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the position of the Land Commission when appeals came before them.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked whether the re-committal of the Bill would be before or after Report?
  MR. GLADSTONE: After the Report.
  MR. SEXTONwished to corroborate what had fallen from the Prime Minister. When the hon. Member for West-meath (Mr. Gill) had concluded his speech the Chairman of Committees waited, and no one rose. He then put the Question, which, having been decided, he then called on the hon. Gentleman who had the next Amendment on the Paper. He, however, was not in his place, and had not reached it when the Chairman put the Question that the Bill be reported to the House. There was no irregularity at all about the action of the Chairman. He would now like to ask the Prime Minister when he would take the third reading?
  MR. GLADSTONE: On Friday morning.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS REPEAL BILL.— [BILL 64.]
  (Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. William Fowler, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Mr. F. A. Taylor)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFErose to a point of Order. On a previous oc-
  1020
  casion the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had ruled that the second reading of a measure of which he had charge could not be debated because the Bill was not printed. As the Bill now before the House had not been printed, he wished to know whether it was competent for the House to debate its second reading?
  MR.SPEAKER: I do not think that I have ever decided from the Chair, as stated by the hon. Member, that a Bill not having been printed could not be debated. I might have said that it was very unusual to proceed with a Bill that was not printed; but I could not interfere and say that it was not open to the House to proceed with that Bill, if it thought proper, although not printed.
  MR. CALLAN: I believe I will not be in Order in moving that a certain part of the House usually occupied by ladies should be cleared; but to give the reporters a well-earned holiday, I have to direct 3'our attention, Sir, to the fact that Strangers are present.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member desire to take notice of the presence of Strangers?
  MR. CALLAN: Yes; I rise for that purpose. If necessary, I will move that Strangers be ordered to withdraw.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I should like to ask, Sir, if the Galleries being cleared would also have the effect of clearing the Ladies' Gallery?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks me whether an order to exclude Strangers will exclude ladies from the Ladies' Gallery. I am bound to say it would not.
  MR. CALLAN: Then, for the purpose of calling attention to the matter, I spy Strangers present, and shall proceed to a division.
  MR. SPEAKER: Before I put the Question I think it right to say that if the House should resolve to exclude Strangers the effect would be that Strangers in the Gallery and Reporters for the Press would be excluded, but no one would be excluded from the Ladies' Gallery. At the same time, if the hon. Member insists on pressing the Motion I am bound to put it.
  MR. CALLAN: I hope, Sir, if the House decides to exclude Strangers, that those who occupy the Ladies' Gallery will take the hint.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that Strangers be ordered to withdraw. [Cries of "Aye, aye !"and "No, no !"] I think the Noes have it. [Cries of "The Ayes have it."] Will the hon. Member name another Teller?
  MR. CALLAN: Colonel Alexander.
  The House divided: — Ayes 36; Noes 173: Majority 137.—(Div. List, No. 280.)
  MR. SPEAKER: Some reference having been made to the presence of ladies, I think it right to state that in 1876, when a similar Order of the Day was before the House, my attention was called to the presence of ladies on that occasion, and I used these words—
  "I may state for the information of the House that there are two Galleries of this House appropriated to the use of ladies. One of these is under my direct control; and, having regard to the subject-matter of the first Order of the Day, I have directed that Gallery to be closed." With regard to the other Gallery, as the House is aware, it is available for the use of the friends of Members, under the orders of Members in the usual manner. I have not felt myself at liberty to close that Gallery; but I have desired the messenger in attendance to inform all ladies who may present themselves there of the nature of the subject about to be discussed. If after that caution they think proper to insist upon admittance, I do not feel at liberty, without the authority of the House, to exclude them."
  I may state that on this occasion I have given similar instructions to the Sergeant-at-Arms.
  COLONEL ALEXANDER: I beg to move that ladies should be excluded from the Gallery.
  MR. MOOREseconded the Motion, but the Question was not put from the Chair.
  MR. STANSFELD: I do not intend to trespass unduly upon the kindness or attention of the House on this occasion. I was not aware until this moment that the Bill had not been printed, and I apologize to the House for the omission. I may, perhaps, be permitted to explain that it arose in this way. When I brought in the Bill I was literally on the eve, myself, of a serious illness, and since then, as those who know me know, my mind has been pre-occupied by domestic anxieties of no ordinary kind. But the Bill itself, as hon. Members know perfectly well, is one simply for the absolute repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts. It raises a question of principle; and as far as I am concerned,
  1022
  and as far as those who advocate it are concerned, we have not felt that our functions went further than to propound the principle of the repeal of the existing legislation, leaving it to the responsible Government of the time to make what proposals they might think necessary to meet the exigencies of the case. I should be in yet another difficulty if I proposed to trespass too long on the attention of the House, or to go into any exhaustive discussion of this complicated subject with regard to which such different opinions obtain. If I were to endeavour to do so, speaking with the utmost conciseness consistent with lucidity, I could not conclude before the day's Sitting had terminated. I should think it unfair, and not a gentlemanly act on my part, so to exhaust the time and patience of the House, and therefore I shall not do it. Further than this, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has given Notice of moving, not a negative upon the second reading of this Bill, but "the Previous Question." And I do not think I misinterpret his intention and that of the Government when I say that they are not based on any unfavourable opinion on the subject of the repeal; but upon the consideration that a Committee is yet sitting upstairs to consider this question, and that it would not be convenient to the House to decide a question of this kind before that Committee had presented its Report. So far as I am concerned I entirely admit the difficulty of the position; but I say with regard to it that that Committee has been sitting for nearly four Sessions, and that until quite lately I had every reason to believe that it would have been able to report, and that it could have reported before this date. I know I should be transgressing the Rules of the House were I to discuss the causes of the long delay which has occurred in the proceedings of the Committee during the present Session of Parliament; and therefore I merely refer to the matter as a reason why, for my own part, I have not felt it incumbent on me, or right for me, to withdraw this Bill. But I do not deny the force of the argument which the right hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly put forward; and what I propose, therefore, with the leave of the House, is, not exhaustively to discuss this question, but to do two things, and two things only—first of all

  1023
  to make clear if I can the essential point of view taken by us who oppose this legislation; secondly, to remove some misconception, if it exists, as to the legislation which it would be possible for us to accept; and, lastly, I would venture to point out to my right hon. Friend, to the Government, and the House, some special obligations and responsibilities of this Government and of certain Members of this Government, and I will make an appeal to them when the proper time comes to take up this question. I have said that there have been very long delays. The Acts in question were passed in the years 1866 and 1869, and in 1870–1 a Royal Commission sat upon them and reported unfavourably to the continuance of the existing Acts. Again, a period of agitation came up, and the subject was discussed throughout the country. The Committee which is still sitting was appointed during the Government of the late Lord Beaconsfield, was re-appointed on the assembly of the present Parliament, and has sat up to this day; and during that period all those who are so deeply interested in and conversant with this subject, both in the House and out of it, have, to a certain extent, felt themselves bound and restrained in their action; and, therefore, I think it right to say that there will be very considerable disappointment and a strong feeling excited in their minds, when they find that there is to be no action upon the Report of the Committee in the present Session of Parliament. But I find no fault—I should not be entitled to do so—with this condition of things. All I ask the House is, to be allowed to make an explanation and a statement, the limits of which I have already defined. Now, the Acts provide hospitals for the treatment of venereal diseases in some districts which are called subjected or protected districts. It is often supposed that we who oppose these Acts are unfavourable to the provision of hospitals and medical appliances for the treatment or cure of these diseases on the ground that they are the consequence of sexual vice. Well, many other diseases are the consequence of vice of one kind or another; and what I wish to say is, that those who oppose this legislation do not object to the treatment and cure of disease and the prevention and mitigation of its sufferings. On the contrary,
  1024
  it is their conviction that when these Acts are repealed, and arrangements of the right kind are applied to the country at large, the amount of provision for the treatment of these diseases will be greatly increased, and it will be increased with the approval and assent of those who object to the existing legislation. Moreover, they have no fear whatsoever, as far I have been able to judge of their minds and opinions, that provisions for the treatment of disease, properly afforded and managed, need or would tend to the promotion of vice; on the contrary, they are under the conviction, derived particularly from the personal experience of those who have been connected with voluntary institutions for the purpose, that they may be so managed as to conduce to the diminution of vice and to the promotion of temperance and virtue amongst the population. But there is one principle in these Acts to which we who are opposed to them are irreconcilably opposed; and it is my duty to state to the House that we act from so strong a conviction of absolute duty that we cannot conceive any circumstances under which we should feel justified in relinquishing our opposition to this legislation. This statement I make in no spirit of threat. I think it right as a matter of honesty to say so much to the House. The House knows from the past history of other questions and movements that when you find in this country a large number of serious, earnest, moral, and high-minded men and women absolutely convinced of the moral iniquity of a given legislation, no Parliamentary or other defeats can succeed in extinguishing their convictions, their self-sacrifice, and their zeal in the direction of what they believe to be right. And, therefore, I think this House and the Government ought to take this into account that unless in some way or other the evil principle, to which I have referred, and to which these earnest people object, can be removed from this legislation, this legislation can have no peace until it is repealed. What is the objectionable principle? It is the principle of compulsion; applied in this way—the compulsory registration and the compulsory examination of women of a certain class, for the purpose of ascertaining if they are physically fit for the life which they lead, and with the view of compulsorily committing them to

  1025
  and detaining them in hospitals, if they are found to be diseased, until such time as they are cured. Well, I say in the simplest possible language to the Members of this House that this is a proposition of law which is abhorrent to our notions of justice and of morality, and, I will add, of religion itself; and it would be impossible for me, as long as I remain a Member of this House, or even if I were not a Member of this House—as long as I live and breathe— to refrain from fulfilling what I should feel to be the duty incumbent upon me of opposing a principle imported into our legislation, inconsistent with the very basis of morality, and with the religion which we profess. Now, that is the principle which must be got rid of, and which cannot be got rid of by any mere amendment of these laws. It is supposed that the ideal benefits which people imagine—as I believe without foundation—to flow from this legislation could not be obtained without the importation of this principle of compulsory legislation. I will not discuss that point now; that would be to go into the evidence which the Committee received this Session, and I am not entitled to take that course; but I will express my conviction that whatever ideal benefits may be supposed to have followed from the operation of these Acts, greater benefit to the country at large may easily be secured by a system not involving compulsion, and not open to the moral objections which I now represent to-day. Now, I want to make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government. They have a certain general responsibility in this matter, in that we have come to a deadlock from which nothing we can do can extricate us, but from which they can and ought to extricate us, and let me show what that deadlock is. When these Acts were originally passed, a good deal was said about promoting efficiency in the Army and Navy; but I beg leave to say that, after the examination of witnesses which has taken place before a Royal Commission and this Committee, we shall not hear very much of that. I do not think that in the future any Government or this House would be prepared to place such exceptional legislation as this upon so narrow a ground. Well, then, I pass that by, and come to the ground on which the most ardent advocates of this legislation
  1026
  have defended it—namely, the hope of stamping out a certain special venereal disease which is said to affect permanently the constitutions of men and of generations yet unborn. What I want to put to the Government and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is, that if that is the ground on which you defend this legislation, then you cannot restrict it within its present limits. Upon that principle you are bound logically, and in common honesty, to extend these supposed hygienic benefits to the rest of the community, and not to confine them to specific and limited districts, to Army and Navy districts. If your strong ground is not the ground of Army and and Navy efficiency—and I deny that it is a strong ground—but the extinction of a peculiar disease—then it is impossible for you to rest where you are, and you must be prepared to propose the extension of these Acts to the country at large. I think I may say, without trenching upon the Rules of the House and referring only to the evidence of previous Sessions, that I have not met with a single witness in favour of the existence of these Acts, who was not also in favour of their extension. Well, Sir, it is known, and hon. Members know, that these Acts could not be extended to the country at large, that the country would not stand it, and that this House would not pass the measure; and this House knows, or ought to know, that if these Acts were to be brought forward now for the first time they could not be passed. They were passed in former days almost in silence, with great rapidity; I may say they were "Lobbied" through the House; but now that public opinion is awakened upon this subject, I say fearlessly, without the slightest fear of rational contradiction, that it would be impossible now for this or any Government to pass these Acts. That is the position in which we are placed. If the Acts are maintained they must be extended; but they cannot be extended, and therefore they must be repealed. But the House is perfectly familiar with the difficulties, almost amounting to impossibilities, of a private Member seeking to enact or get any legislation repealed; and the argument, therefore, to Her Majesty's Government is—and I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War when he speaks will agree with me—that when

  1027
  this Committee has reported, the Government will have to acknowledge some special responsibility upon them to got us out of this deadlock. I do not think that when that time comes my right hon. Friend, if he has to deal with the question, will be in any insuperable difficulty. As far as I am concerned, my conviction is that these Acts are the greatest hygienic imposture we have ever known. I believe they have done no hygienic good, and at the proper time I shall hope to demonstrate that to the minds of hon. Members who, if I may say so, seem to require enlightenment upon this subject. But however that may be, whatever modicum of benefit, hygienic or in respect of order, may be believed to have resulted from these Acts, what I do point out to the House and the Government is this—that precisely the same results are to be found in parts of the country, towns, and cities, where these Acts do not apply; and I cite the well-known case of the city of Glasgow, where all the benefits supposed to have been attributable (I think wrongly) to the Acts themselves have been obtained without any compulsory system at all. I have only one or two words more to say to the Government and to my right hon. Friend. I have spoken of the general responsibility of the Government in this matter; but there are also personal responsibilities to which, perhaps, I may without offence refer. I will not read the list of right hon, and hon. Gentlemen who have, year after year, voted for the repeal of the Acts; but will merely remark that I do not think they can have turned their back on the opinions which they entertained formerly on this subject. I interpret the votes given by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War as nothing else than an admission that "we cannot stand where we are," and that interpretation I think I am entitled to put upon them. Well, then, I hope these obligations will be recognized, and I address a further argument to the Prime Minister. During all this period of delay, while many good people have become sick, but not faint at heart, from disappointment and from hope deferred, the hope so long deferred has largely centred upon him. Those I refer to have felt—and I think they have rightly felt—that with my right hon. Friend the question of morals is
  1028
  ever present; they know his view and that of another right hon. Friend of mine, unhappily no longer a Member of this Administration, that the moral law ought to be applied to the acts of nations as well as to the actions of individuals;" and I must say to him that they, at least, can never admit any doubt or question as to the "application of that law." Sir, I will go no further upon this occasion; but I ask of the Government, in moving the "Previous Question," to give what assurance they may feel justified in giving that they accept these responsibilities, and will deal with this question with the least possible delay.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  MR. CHILDERS: The whole House has listened with great respect and great attention to the speech of my right hon. Friend, and I think I shall have the judgment of every one present with me when I say that nobody could have addressed himself to the task which he has undertaken with greater knowledge and with greater weight. He has put his case before the House in the best and most appropriate light. My right hon. Friend's proposal is simply this—he recommends to the House, on the present occasion, to repeal absolutely the several Acts in the Statute Book dealing with the prevalence of venereal disease amongst our soldiers and sailors, and tending to diminish that disease. My right hon. Friend has said nothing about what he thought would follow, except that he assumes that the initiative would rest with the Government to propose something, because it was impossible for private Members to do it; but all that he indicated was that there might follow some increased expense in the nature of provision for hospitals appropriated for dealing with this particular disease in other parts of the country than those Lock Hospitals at present used where the Acts are at present in force. Now, Sir, to meet the Motion of my right hon. Friend, I have put down a Motion to move the "Previous Question," and my hon. Friend admits that I could not have done otherwise. The facts as to these Acts have been sketched, and correctly sketched, by my right hon. Friend. He brought us down to the present time

  1029
  and I shall not refer to anything except the last four years. In 1879, on the Motion of a late Member of the House, who shared my right hon. Friend's strong feelings upon this question, a Committee was appointed with the entire concurrence of the late Government. That Committee met in 1879; met again in 1880; and met again in 1881; and I think I shall not transgress the Rule of the House as to references to proceedings of a Committee when I say that in the present Session that Committee has closed its evidence; that its Chairman has in course of preparation a Report, and that, in all probability, that Report will be discussed and settled in the next few weeks. Those, I believe, are the facts about which there can be no dispute. What I recommend is that the House should wait for the Report of the Committee. They have taken a large amount of evidence; I am told that about 30,000 Questions have been asked by the Committee during the years that it has sat; and I recommend hon. Members to read that Report and as much of the evidence as they are prepared to go through before arriving at any opinion on the question. I venture to say that it would be, not an intentional, but a practical affront to a Committee, if after they have spent a great deal of time in discussing the particular question — no less than four years—and have with great diligence collected a vast amount of material to enable a judgment to be arrived at, this House should anticipate their Report and determine to adopt some legislation, whatever it might be, either in the direction of continuing or repealing the Acts, or in the direction of extension. I must say, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, what is the course we must take in the matter. I will not refer at all, although my right hon. Friend has referred, to the opinions which different Members of the Government as well as myself have expressed in past years. I prefer to take the line of expressing no opinion upon this subject upon this occasion. I should be wrong if I did so; because whatever opinion I may have formed of the evidence which came before me, whether in Office or out of Office, in former years, it would be my duty now to approach the subject without any bias whatever, and to devote myself when the Report of the Committee
  1030
  appears to carefully studying, not only the words of that Report, but the evidence on which that Report is founded; and therefore I shall not, on the present occasion, express ever so remotely any opinion upon the proposals of my right hon. Friend. I will keep myself absolutely free, and keep my Colleagues absolutely free, to decide as we may think fit, after considering that Report and the evidence, what course we should recommend to Parliament; and I will only say now what the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has said as to the impossibility of stating to Parliament what proposals they may make in any future Session until we know what facilities we are given for discussing them. On the other hand, it will be our business to go thoroughly into this question, and, if we consider that the law ought to be altered, to make a proposal to Parliament for that alteration. On these grounds, and on these grounds only, without in the least going into the matter of the Bill itself, I feel it my duty simply to move the "Previous Question."
  Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put."—(Mr. Childers.)
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not know whether it is necessary to say anything in support of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. It does appear, without reference to the Main Question, that, under the circumstances, the position of the Report of the Committee, and this Bill not having been even circulated, and the general circumstances of the case, the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is the right one, and that which ought to be taken by the House.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I should like to say one or two words. I have every wish to bear testimony to the extremely moderate and careful speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He said one or two words with regard to the postponement of the Report, with reference to which I wish to make a remark. One is not at liberty to go into what takes place upstairs during a Sitting of the Committee; but I do not think that any Member, whatever opinions he may hold on the Main Question, who was present at our last meeting, will be disposed to blame anyone for the non-appearance of the Report at this time. In

  1031
  fact, the understanding was that a day considerably later than to-day would be the earliest date at which it could be reasonably expected that the Report could be ready, and that possibly even some additional time would be necessary. There are many points in the right hon. Gentleman's speech to which some Members of the Committee may be disposed to take exception; but it would be particularly unbecoming in me to discuss them, inasmuch as in future Sittings of the Committee, it may be my duty to hold the scales between contending parties on these very points. Previous Question, "That that Question be now put, "put, and negatived.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.— [BILL 182.]
  (Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Birley, Mr. W. M'Arthur, Mr. Charles Wilson, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Charles Ross.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. STEVENSON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: I am glad that previous legislation has cleared away many old objections founded on the incompetency of Parliament to deal with this subject. Scotland has had Sunday Closing for 28 years; and the Irish Act was passed only after a rigid inquiry as to the success of the Scotch measure. This temporary Act in Ireland has succeeded in doing a very large amount of good, and completely justified the arguments of its promoters. I sincerely hope this Session will not close without the Irish Sunday Closing Bill being made the permanent law of that part of the United Kingdom. With regard to the present measure, there can be no doubt that it is viewed by the bulk of the people of England with great and increasing favour; and I think it is only fair that in a matter in which the health and prosperity of the people are so largely concerned the will of the people should prevail. Sunday is the day when the workman has his week's wages in his pocket, and, therefore, it is exceedingly wrong and unfair to other traders, whose shops were closed, that on that day he should be exposed to temptation, and that facilities should be provided for him to spend his week's earnings in the public-house, much to the injury of his wife
  1032
  and children. I call upon Parliament to put an end to the present state of things and read this Bill a second time. It cannot be urged against the measure that those whom it most directly affects have not had the opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. On the contrary, every class of the community, and every variety of locality, has been canvassed for its opinion, with the result that wherever it has been tested, an overwhelming majority of the householders in England are found to be in favour of the proposed change. The most remarkable part of the experience of the promoters of the Bill is this—that the lower down you go in the scale of society the more earnest and eager is the desire for the passage of this measure. There can be no doubt that poor and humble people, feeling the evils of intemperance brought to their own door, are the most anxious that Parliament should interpose and entirely alter the present system. The supporters of Sunday closing in the country are gaining in numbers every day. The Corporation of Liverpool, in successive years, have shown an increasing majority in favour of the measure, and last year their Petition was unanimously adopted, and Boards of Guardians and other public bodies in the country are petitioning for the Bill. I had the honour of presenting to the Prime Minister only the other day a statement signed by 3,574 borough and county magistrates in England expressing their opinion that, in the interests of morality and good order, this measure ought to be passed. I need not remind the House of Commons of the masses of Petitions which have been presented, showing the desire of large classes of the constituencies for this measure. I think it would be found, on examination, that the large communities are even more anxious to see the Bill passed than the smaller places. Not only in the interest of the public, but in the interest of the thousands of people who are employed in public-houses, this change is desirable. The employés of public-houses ought to have a day of rest above all others, considering the nature of the trade in which they were engaged, and that the hours of opening are twice as many in the week as are permitted by the Factory Acts. I hope it is not necessary to refer to the stale beer argument;

  1033
  the argument, in fact, is about as stale as the beer on which it hangs. I believe that the mere convenience, if there is any, of having fresh drawn, compared with having it bought in a bottle on Saturday night, ought not to weigh for one instant against the adoption of a measure which sought, amongst other things, to give a day of rest to thousands of people who were employed throughout the week. It may be asked —"Why don't you deal with the bonâ fide traveller?" I have quite enough to do without meddling with this difficult subject. The Bill leaves the bonâ fide traveller untouched; it will not interfere in the slightest degree with the legitimate refreshment of those who come under the category of bonâ fide travellers. A Petition was presented to the House the other day against the Bill from the Licensed Victuallers, in which allusion was made to the improving morality of the people under the existing system. I am glad it is so. That is part of my case. I believe if the morality of the people were not improving I should have had less chance of passing the Bill. I will not unnecessarily occupy the time of the House; but I beg you not to lag behind public opinion in this matter, but to give the people of England what they seek as a boon, and which they cannot see should be denied them after it has been granted to the people of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Stevenson.)
  MR. WARTON,in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said: I feel it my duty to oppose this proposal at every stage. I do not come here prepared with statistics and long notes to debate this question, for I am prepared to deal with it naked as it stands, for to my mind it is a mass of the worst tyranny. I can well understand people going a great length in a matter of this kind, for, unfortunately, there are too many fools and fanatics in the world; but what I do object to is that they should attempt to bend everyone else to their own iron will, which is tyranny of the worst character. It is said that the Bill is founded upon high principles of morality; but I cannot understand where
  1034
  this high principle of morality is when the bonâ fide traveller is exempted from its application. The question is, no doubt, a difficult one, for I fail to see, if people take a drive into the country on Sundays, how they can enjoy themselves if they have not the means of getting refreshment. I have no wish whatever to enter into a disputation as to what may be high grounds of morality after the lessons upon that point which we have lately had from two eminent statesmen, whose views, although they profess to agree in principle, are exceedingly divergent; but, as I have always understood, one of the great principles of morality is to do to others what you would wish them to do by you. If you do not do that, your conduct becomes immoral and tyrannical. I look upon this proposal as a piece of Radical tyranny. There is this difference between the Tories and the Radicals. The Tories endeavour to secure their object by argument and reasoning, whereas the Radicals seek to obtain theirs by force. Why should not people be left free to enjoy their Sundays as they please? For my own part, I do not see why there should be any restrictions at all. Well, that, perhaps, is an extreme view, and I only give expression to it to meet the extreme view entertained on the other side. Whenever there is an extreme view on one side, and an extreme view on the other, the result is a compromise fair and right to both, and that compromise we have now existing, is in having the public-houses open for only a few hours on Sunday, so that some respect is paid to that holy day. The poor man has very few pleasures indeed; he has to slave from Monday morning to Saturday night at his work, and a few Radicals, wrapped up ii their high feelings of virtue, wish to deprive him of his right to refresh himself, if he chooses, in a public-house on the only day he has in the week. Irishmen may drink whisky, but the English national drink is beer; and I hope Englishmen will ever have their beer. We have the high authority of the Prime Minister on our side. In his Budget speech last year the right hon. Gentleman said that beer was a liquor which might compare with the nectar of the gods; and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman sometimes quaffed the excellent beverage which our brewers

  1035
  make. It is only those who know nothing about the habits of Englishmen who bring forward Bills of this description. What are these poor people to do on the Sunday? Are they to go to a number of conventicles which are turned into political engines for the dissemination of Radical principles? In Wales you had a Sunday Closing Bill passed by the most studied misrepresentation. Statements were made on that Bill which had extremely little foundation. The fact is, this is the three tailors of Tooley Street over again; it is the little Radical faction who think they are going to rule the country completely. The fault is the fault of the Prime Minister, who gives way to them when they attack him with sufficient energy: but we must not let them think that there are none left in this country with the sturdy old English feeling that the natural healthy drink of the Englishman is beer. Go all round the country, and you will find that that is the real pleasure appreciated by the labouring classes. ["No, no!"] It is a very proper and reasonable pleasure, and as to the hon. Gentleman over the way who says "No, no!" to that proposition, I do not know the nature of the interruption; but I may remind him that we have been told by a very high authority that it is wrong to say "No;" but I will not quote that authority against the hon. Gentleman. I understand him to say "No" to the statement that the Englishman likes his beer. I suppose in his young days he has, like most of us, rowed on the river, and when we have been rowing on the river or playing on the cricket field, a good draught of beer is not unwelcome. I have spoken of moralists. I might go higher. The wisest man that ever lived —I am not going to quote Burns now— has said—"Let the poor man drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more." It is really a solemn question whether some people are to impose their will on others. We all love freedom, I think, and I am standing here in favour of freedom. Why should the public-houses be shut up on Sundays? Why should not people drink, then, if they like? Really this sort of opposition to well-established habits and undoubted preferences is a most unfair thing. I should like to bring in a Bill next Session for insisting that all advocates of Sunday closing should drink so
  1036
  much beer or so much whisky on Sundays. It would be just as evil for us to compel them to drink as for them to compel us not to drink. What is the real history of our social feeling in this country on this question? It is not 70 years ago that the expression was common in this country that a man was "as drunk as a lord," and the explanation of the expression was that drinking was supposed to be the peculiar privilege of the aristocracy. Now, in good, nay, in decent society the man who gets drunk habitually is looked upon as a disgrace. That idea is reaching the lower classes now, and legislation will not do anything. Do you suppose that our fellow-creatures among the lower classes are so indifferent that the voice of public opinion has had no influence on them? Do we not find now that among the humblest members of the working classes drunkenness is not so common as it was, and that when it does take place there is usually some substantial excuse for it? I am an advocate of temperance in the strict sense of the word—I am an advocate of moderation—and I do hope that the time is rapidly coming when, without Bills of this sort, the feelings of the country will be in favour of moderate indulgence as against excessive indulgence. I hope the time will come soon when the people of the very lowest classes will think it a disgrace to get drunk. But why should we try to enforce people to keep sober against their will? Why not leave the matter to the influence of public opinion? The question we have more immediately before us is with regard to the Sabbath, and for my part I am not what is called a strict Sabbatarian. I do not think Sunday was meant to be a day of general gloom, but that it was meant to be a day of health, liberty, and rest. It is not liberty to say that a man shall not drink what he thinks will refresh him on the Sunday. At the back of all these fanatics we have got a number of scientists; but there are two sides to this question, for there are people of equal eminence in science who think that we owe something of our brain power to the habits of our ancestors, drinking and otherwise. You cannot alter people's natures by Act of Parliament. You cannot insist upon high-dried laws making men perfectly chaste and perfectly sober—it is not practicable. I advise

  1037
  all those who are in favour of legislation in this matter to study carefully Shakespeare's great play of Measure for Measure; in that great work he paints plainly enough the stupidity and folly of those who try to make human nature better than it possibly can be. It is perfectly cruel—I do not scruple to use the word —for Radicals in independent social positions to come here and deprive the poor man of the only thing he has got; it shows an utter absence of Christianity and human feeling. Those who bring forward Bills like this gain nothing at all except from one another. They may lend one another a helping hand, and the whole sot of fanatical opinions may get a little support by this propping up of each other's absurdities, but they get no golden opinions from anyone else. Why, what are you to think when you hear from the hon. Member who brings this forward that he cannot grapple with one great question—when a man comes forward and says meekly and humbly that he cannot deal with a question which goes to the root of the matter? The hon. Member dare not grapple with it. He cannot prevent a man who has walked six or eight miles from being thirsty; that man, being a bonâ fide traveller, goes in to have his refreshment; and if it is such a wicked thing to have public-houses open on Sundays at all, how is that you let the bonâ fide traveller pass? If this Bill goes through, everyone will be a bonâ fide traveller—that is the tendency of England now—people will not be controlled. Hon. Members who sit opposite may be actuated by some strange notions of "moral law"— on our side of the House we like morality as much as anyone; but we do not think it much good to try and reach by Act of Parliament an imposing standard. In the present day we have between the old Whigs and Tories a lot of men with little crotchets, and it is these men who come forward against drink, against Sunday opening, against vaccination. They try in the most dishonest manner to turn the scale between the two political Parties by going to the Cabinet and putting pressure upon it in an unworthy manner. I can respect the conscientious Whig; I respect still more the honest Tory; but I say it is a piece of impertinence for people to come in with these little fanatical notions and try to throw their petty weight into the
  1038
  scale against one side or the other. I will ask my hon. Friends opposite one question—do they belong to any clubs? I do not like to mention the Reform Club, because there are strange dissensions in that place on a topic which is very notorious—["Question"] — I am speaking of the Reform and other Liberal clubs as places to meet in during hours when the public-houses are shut, and I must say I find here no clause to shut up, for instance, the Reform Club on a Sunday. Does not this show hypocrisy on the part of Members opposite? Suppose men of all classes had only the public-houses to go to? My position is this, that narrow-minded men cannot sympathize with the wants of their fellow-creatures, and that the situation of the poor man who may not have a club to go to is not realized by hon. Members who have plenty of facilities to drink if they like. We have not many working men Representatives in this House. I do not see one on this occasion, and I am inclined to think that they know the working man's wishes, and therefore cannot vote for this Bill, but that not wishing to annoy the Radical Party, they go away without voting. And I must say, so far as the Government is concerned, that though the Government is most respectably represented, the Front Bench is not particularly well occupied—and I do not think the Government have charged the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) with the expression of their views upon this question. I could wish that they would exhibit more firmness on occasions like the present; it is not sufficient for them merely to slink away. But, after all, I can but repeat that in my view proposals like the present are simply the outcome of a narrow mind. Members of the Radical Party too often desire to have all their own way, and, borrowing their own method, I would recommend the advocates of the measure to withdraw it, and introduce another providing for the punishment of all bonâ fide travellers who procure refreshment. It has been stated that numbers of people have signed Petitions in favour of the Bill. It must be a matter of common knowledge that Petitions are of little value, and can very easily be got up. We also have Petitions on our side—Petitions signed by adult males, who protest against its introduction. For my part,

  1039
  I also protest against it, on the broad ground of the necessity of maintaining our ancient freedom, our liberty to drink at whatever time we choose to drink, and on that ground I oppose, and hope the House will oppose, such a narrow and hypocritical Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I believe, Sir, that I had the honour of bringing this question of Sunday closing into a more practical line for the consideration of this House than has been the lot of many hon. Members who have dealt with the subject. Some time ago, when the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) proceeded to deal with the matter by way of Resolution, I was successful in carrying, without dissent, certain modifications of the Resolution which my hon. Friend then moved. I believe that the time has now come when the House is prepared to deal with the question of Sunday closing in a manner that will bring about its practical settlement. I may say that I believe, with the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House (Mr. Stevenson), that the bulk of the working class in this Kingdom are with us in favour of the Bill now before us. The difficulty we have to encounter is not so much in regard to the passing of a Bill for Sunday closing; it arises more out of the matter with which we shall have to deal when we come to the exceptions it may be necessary to provide in that measure. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stevenson) has alluded to the question of the bonâ fide traveller, as to whom I may say that in my belief he is the most bonâ fide humbug that ever existed. By the present and proposed law, any person who happened to be three miles or more away from his home on the Sunday is enabled to procure any quantity of drink be may choose to take, while the man who remains quietly at his own house, under this Sunday Closing Bill, will not be able to send to the public-house at stated times of the day for his dinner and supper beer. The House, acting on the conclusions at which it has previously arrived, will
  1040
  probably modify the provisions of any Sunday Closing Bill with regard to the Metropolis and other large places. I am free to admit that the Metropolis will have to be made the subject of special legislation. I very much regret the absence from this House of my hon. Friend who formerly sat for Cornwall— Mr. John Tremayne—who showed that on an investigation which had been made as to the requirements of the Metropolis, it had been found that there was an enormous number of people in London on the Sunday who had nowhere to go except to refreshment rooms, which would still have to be licensed; and also that it would only be reasonable to allow the same exception in some of the larger towns in the country where the inhabitants should be allowed to send during certain hours of the day for such beer as they may require for dinner or supper, to be consumed in their own houses; but these are necessarily matters of detail, which can only be dealt with in Committee. The great point at which we have now arrived in regard to this legislation is that instead of providing for the opening of public-houses on Sundays we are providing for the closing of such places, and, in so doing, making such exceptions as the exigencies of the time and of the people are considered to demand. If we were to carry this measure for Sunday closing too far, we should be doing, as has been done once or twice in our legislation on previous occasions, harm. I believe that the rank and file of the country are entirely with us. We have already had a Bill brought in for Cornwall, and an Act was passed for Wales in which there was an unfortunate misprint, and we have had another Bill brought in for Yorkshire, and we know that there are other Acts which have passed this House, and are at present in force for Ireland and Scotland. I may here say that I am desirous of making my remarks as short as possible, as I am anxious that in the time which remains to us we should be able to get to a division; but when we get into Committee on the Bill, if we should succeed in so doing, we can deal with the subject of providing those relaxations which the proper working of the measure may require. I have presented Petitions from every Board of Guardians in the division of the county I have the honour to

  1041
  represent (Durham) in favour of this measure as it stands on the Paper. In the different country districts the people are thoroughly prepared for the complete closing of the public-houses on Sundays, and in many of them they would be glad to do away with the provision which is made to meet the case of bonâ fide travellers. They think that to keep the respectable public-houses open on Sunday for travellers only produces work for those engaged in the business for very little profit, doing very little good to the traveller and less to the landlord. The Resolution which I proposed on a former occasion was to the effect that in any Sunday closing measure provision should be made for the Metropolis and other large towns, permitting the sale of dinner and supper beer for consumption off the premises, and if this Bill should get into Committee I shall be glad again to move in that direction. I have now only further to say that I heartily support the second reading; and I hope that during the short time we have to debate the measure the House will come to the conclusion that it is entitled to a second reading.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that a number of hon. Members, and himself among them, had for very long been of opinion that public-houses might be closed on Sunday for all but sale off the premises, and he would be quite prepared, for his own part, to consider a Bill which contained such a provision. He could not, however, assent to the second reading of this Bill, for he was asked here to affirm that the houses were to be closed on Sunday, subject only to the bonâ fide traveller clause. There were many difficulties attaching to a proposal of that kind, and he did not think it would be wise to assent to the second reading, waiting for the chances of Committee to introduce into the Bill the Amendments which he felt to be absolutely necessary. Nobody would dispute the enormous difficulties which surrounded the question of the bonâ fide traveller. Living as he himself did in a neighbourhood bordering upon the Metropolis, he was bound to say that something must be provided in order to meet the requirements of men who, for example, took advantage of the legislation which had enabled them to leave London and spend their Sunday in Epping
  1042
  Forest. Many amongst the working population of London availed themselves now of the privileges within their reach, and went into the country for their Sunday, and it was exceedingly difficult to say they should be prevented from obtaining refreshments on that day. This was a question which the country was very much interested in, and he was surprised that the Government had not thought it worth while to take a more prominent part on this occasion. The Government were distinctly prominent by their absence on this occasion; and he thought they had a right to the assistance and counsel of right hon. Gentlemen when a subject came up which possessed deep interest for the country, and which affected seriously the whole licensing trade.
  MR. C. P. PHIPPS: I will not say that the hon. Member for South Shields has sprung a mine upon the House, because, of course, everyone was well aware that there was a chance of the Bill coming on; but I do say that hardly any Member in the House thought there was any chance of such an important question as this being discussed to-day. I think there is good evidence of this, when one looks round the House and sees the apparently little interest taken in this question. The support of this Bill mainly comes from the other side, and we see there mainly empty Benches. It is not my intention to go into the bonâ fide traveller question; but there are one or two points which should make any man pause before he commits himself to the principle of closing all public - houses on Sunday. To pass this stage on the understanding that Amendments will be brought forward in Committee would, I think, be a very dangerous course for us to pursue. This Bill is the result of an agitation that has been got up and thoroughly well worked. If the same attention had been bestowed upon other matters, probably it would have been better for the well-being of the nation at large. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Joseph Pease) said that if such a Bill were agreed to it should contain special exceptions in favour of the Metropolis; but I fail entirely to see why the same exceptions should not apply to other large towns, and you would certainly have many of them urging their strong and just claims.

  1043
  It is impossible, however, to make men sober by legislation. It is all very well to talk of the gigantic evils caused by intemperance, and I do not for a moment desire to say they are not gigantic; but I do venture to say this, that the intemperate among the people of England are in a very great minority. If a publican is against Sunday trading he has the remedy entirely in his own hands. There is nothing to prevent him taking out a six days' licence. Only the other day I was talking to a publican in the place I represent, and he told me he had taken out a six days' licence, and that his business had not suffered very much. I was told by a gentleman of the result of his experience on his own estate, where he had only allowed the publicans to take out six days' licences. He said the consequence was that they had more drunkenness on Sunday than they had on any other day of the week. I ought, perhaps, to say, in explanation of this, that about a mile beyond the village on his estate there are some largo ironworks and a considerable number of workmen. His experience was so unfortunate that he made up his mind to go back to the old system, and allow the publicans to take out what licences they liked. But, unfortunately, he died, and the idea was not carried out. There is another question that ought to be considered. The promoters of this legislation look at one side of the question, and entirely decline to look at any other. But supposing you have the drink bought and taken home on Saturday night. Does it not occur to hon. Gentlemen that in a great many instances the result of bringing spirits into a house will be to lead to drinking on the part of the women of the family, and demoralize the children by the spectacle of this spirit-drinking going on at home? I think that is a very serious question indeed. The arguments in favour of this Bill appear to mo to be entirely sentimental. I hardly believe there will be less drinking in the country until the tone of the people has been raised. If this Bill is passed it will inflict incalculable harm upon the people at large.
  MR. EWART: No Member on this side of the House has spoken in favour of this Bill; but, notwithstanding the eloquent and denunciatory speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), in which
  1044
  he has charged those who hold the opinions I entertain with rant, cant, and hypocrisy, I am not deterred from raising my voice in favour of this measure. The evil of drunkenness is one that everyone must admit does more in the way of producing crime, disease, and poverty, than, perhaps, all other causes put together, and is far worse in its effects than war, pestilence, and famine. The money expended in drink exceeds annually the amount of the national taxation, and it would pay off the National Debt in four years. It is well known that Sunday is among the lower classes the worst day in the week, for many of them choose that day for going to the public-house and spending their time and money away from their families. The hon. Member who last addressed the House (Mr. Phipps) referred to the evils that might be introduced into families by taking the drink home. I am not at all afraid of any such result; nor am I such an enthusiast on the subject of total abstinence that I should wish to see the poor man deprived of his beer on Sundays; but I certainly should prefer that he should provide it on the Saturday night. If he would only do this, there is no question as to the brewers being quite competent to meet his requirements on this matter. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) spoke very much as if this were a question as between one side of the House and the other—as though hon. Members on the other side of the House were in favour of the Bill, and those who sit on this side were opposed to it. Now, I differ very much from my hon. and learned Friend on this point. I believe that the Conservative feeling of the country is largely in favour of this measure, and that if a poll were to be taken upon it, the majority of the Conservatives would be found to be on the side of those who support the Bill. I have had some experience of Sunday closing in Ireland, and am glad to be able to bear my testimony to the eminent success that has attended the operation of the measure now in force in Ireland. There is nothing in the world like experience derived from actual experiment; and I have no doubt that the same good results that have manifested themselves in Ireland would be found to follow if a similar measure were to be extended to

  1045
  England. With regard to what has been said as to the state of popular opinion on this subject, I may instance the attitude that has been assumed by the Archbishops and Bishops of the English Church, and the active part of the clergy of the Church of England, as well as of the clergy of all denominations outside the Church, on this matter. I sincerely trust the House will agree to the second reading of this Bill.
  MR. GIBSON: I regret that this debate, which has been going on now for an hour and a-half, has not elicited from any Member of the Government a statement of the views they hold in reference to this Bill. It is perfectly true that it came upon us somewhat as a surprise. No one can blame the hon. Gentleman who has charge of the measure for availing himself of the unexpected opportunity at this period of the Session of submitting it to the judgment of the House and the consideration of the country. The Front Opposition Bench has been adequately and fully represented for the last hour, giving every attention to the progress of the discussion. But the only Representative of the Government on the Treasury Bench was a highly-respected subordinate official (Mr. Hibbert), who, at the mere mention of the absence of the Government, has taken wings and flown. I assume that the Bill has been brought before us more with the object of ventilating the subject than any thing else. I hope, when it again comes before Parliament, it will have some drafting qualifications which have been pointed out by this debate to be needed. From morning to night, if this Bill passes, every public-house in England, Scotland, and Ireland would be closed on Sunday. I desire to ask some Member of Her Majesty's Government to give some information with reference to Ireland, which is in a somewhat different position in this important question from the rest of the United Kingdom. We are all aware that there is at present in Ireland a Sunday Closing Bill in operation—I believe beneficial operation. It has worked, on the whole, well, and in a way to insure respectful consideration for any Bill submitted for its prolongation. I think Ireland is entitled to some clear expression of opinion as to what the Government intend to do in reference to that Act, which will expire this Session
  1046
  if it is not renewed. I regret that no Member of the Cabinet is present, as this is a question which merits the attention of the Government. It is hardly possible to conceive a more important measure dealing with a more important subject, and the House has a right to hear the opinion of the Government upon it.
  MR. HIBBERT: I am sorry that there is no Cabinet Minister present to take part in this discussion; but, at the same time, I must draw the attention of the House to the uncertainty which prevails with regard to the Business which comes before it on a Wednesday. I may say that when I entered the House at about 2 o'clock it was expected that the Committee on the Arrears Bill would occupy the whole of the day, and that it would not even come to a conclusion at a quarter to 6. There is no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who, perhaps, should have been in his place while this Bill was being discussed, was misled by this anticipation in the same way as I. But I may be able to reply to the question which has been put by my right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Gibson). My right hon. and learned Friend says it includes Ireland. Well, my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Stevenson) says that it is not intended to include either Ireland or Scotland, and that if it does, as a matter of fact, include those two countries, he is quite willing to agree to the insertion of a clause to exclude them if it be considered desirable. As to what the Government propose to do with respect to Sunday closing in Ireland, I believe it is the intention of the Government to place the Irish Act in the Continuance Bill. I am not aware that it is intended to bring in a separate Bill on the subject; I think the Act is to be included in the Continuance Bill at the end of the Session. While I am on my legs I hope I may be allowed to state my own individual opinion of the Bill which is now before the House, and, in doing so, I must not be understood to give the opinion of the Government. I must say that my own individual opinion is in favour of Sunday closing, although I do not know that I entirely endorse the Bill as it is drawn. To my mind, Sunday closing is a matter very much of local feeling, and, I may state that, even in the present Session, we have had

  1047
  a Bill brought in from Cornwall to apply Sunday closing to that county. That measure is almost unanimously supported by the people of Cornwall, and I do not see why a Bill should not be allowed to pass, giving Sunday closing to that county. I do not see the least objection to this question being dealt with in a piecemeal manner, for, after all, it is a question of local feeling. The feeling in favour of Sunday closing is very strong in the North, and I have no doubt that, if an Act of this character were passed, difficulties in putting it into force would occur in the Metropolis and in other towns in the South of England which would not occur in the North. Under these circumstances, I do not know whether it would not be wise to deal with the question in a different manner to that suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Stevenson). At the same time, the working-classes, by a very large majority—certainly in the North of England—are in favour of Sunday closing. I believe if they were polled to-morrow, it would be found that an immense majority in the North of England were in favour of it; and, therefore, I do not think that I can agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) that the question is one of taking away the freedom of the working-men. It might interfere with a certain portion of the working-classes; but I believe that the great majority of them are in favour of a measure of this kind. Before I sit down, I wish to add also my own opinion, that it would be much better if, instead of having to make alterations in the Bill when it has passed the second reading, the measure could be introduced with Amendments which are desired inserted in it. It would be advisable, if the Bill does not pass this year, for my hon. Friend to take the opportunity which will be offered him before the commencement of next Session of making what alterations he proposes in it.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I think the most satisfactory way of dealing with this matter is to bring in a Bill in the shape in which it is intended to pass it. At present, a Bill is brought in, and a great number of hon. Members, in supporting it, say—"I am not going to support this Bill as it stands, but with considerable modifications, some of which may go to
  1048
  the very root of the matter." This is a Bill for the total closing of public-houses on Sunday; but if you are not going to close them altogether this Bill does not deserve its title. It is introducing a Bill with the very best intentions, but under false pretences. I am sorry that anything of a Party nature should be introduced into this matter, as if supporters of this Bill were on one side of the House and opponents on the other; but I think we should know what is the opinion of the Government on the matter, and I think that someone might have walked the few yards over from Downing Street to take part, in this debate. [An hon. MEMBER: They are in the House] At working men's clubs liquor is served at legal and at illegal hours; and if you draw the line too tight in your endeavour to close public-houses, you will have more drink sold at such places instead of less. I am sure that this is not the wish of hon. Members on either side of the House. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  COLONEL MAKINS: I beg to second the Motion. I think the course of this debate shows how very difficult it is for any private Member to bring in a Bill dealing with so large a subject as this. A measure so largo as this, affecting, as it does, or as it pretends to do, the whole of the community, must always be brought in by the Government, who have the best opportunity of finding out what the feelings of the whole community on the subject are. I do not agree with my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. J. G. Talbot) in imputing insincere motives to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stevenson). I believe he recognizes, as we do, the presence of a very great evil; and it is only with regard to the particular method by which he proposes to deal with that evil that we disagree with him. In the Bill which is now before us I think the hon. Gentleman overshoots the mark, the result of which will be rather to increase the evils which they desire to obviate than to assist in removing them. I think this is not a question to be dealt with in a private Member's Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
  MR. CALLAN: I am sorry that the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr.

  1049
  Gibson) was not in the House during the whole of this debate, especially as he has referred to the absence from the Treasury Bench of the prominent Members of the Government. Had he been here at an earlier hour, and had he occupied a seat further back, so that he could have obtained a better view of the House, he would have found a Cabinet Minister lurking behind the Speaker's Chair. It is quite evident that the right hon. Gentleman who should have been here, and to whose Department this really belongs, is the Home Secretary, who was behind the Speaker's Chair during the progress of a portion of this debate; and it is equally evident that a Coercion Bill has much more fascination for him, when that Coercion Bill applies to Ireland, than when it applies to England. We have heard a great deal about the public opinion of the country. We have heard it said that the odds were 10 to I that the labouring classes would support this Bill if it was put to the vote. I have taken some trouble to go over the Petitions that have been presented. I do not know how many Boards of Guardians there are in England; but. I find that there are only Petitions from 20. One Petition is the most extraordinary Petition ever presented to this House. It is a Petition from "the inhabitants of London," and is signed by 43 persons. Then I find a large number of Petitions have been got up by would-be Pharisees, and supported by the votes of the United Kingdom Alliance—a body that extends its beneficent functions to the payment of election expenses. I find that they are principally from Independents, Wesleyans, Methodists, Congregationalists, and Baptists. I do not find a single Petition here from any Church of England body—oh! yes; I do, here's one from the Convocation of Bible Christians.
  It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked when the Government proposed to take the Army and Navy Estimates, and which were to be taken first; also, when the
  1050
  Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would be taken, and the Indian Budget submitted?
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked whether there would be a Sitting on Saturday for taking the Scotch Bills?
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked whether the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill would be taken to-morrow?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that in the absence of the Prime Minister he could not undertake to state all the arrangements as to Public Business; but it was proposed to take the Report on the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill tomorrow night, and the third reading at the Morning Sitting on Friday; and the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill to-morrow night, after the Report on the Arrears Bill, if time permitted. The Government would state to-morrow whether there would be a Sitting on Saturday for the Scotch Bills; it was probable, however, that there would be a Sitting.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he should oppose a Saturday Sitting.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he would repeat his Question to-morrow, in the hope of obtaining some definite information from the Prime Minister.

ORDER OF TEE DAY.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) [SALARIES AND EMIGRATION].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. BIGGARasked if it was competent to leave out a portion of the Bill?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, no Notice had been given of the Motion.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he objected to that portion referring to emigration.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member might raise the question on Report.
  MR. BIGGAR: Then I object to the whole thing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: But the Question is put.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he must insist upon his right to object.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the effect of the hon. Member's opposition would be

  1051
  to postpone the consideration of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. BIGGAR: For that reason I will not oppose it, then.
  In reply to Mr. CALLAN,
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the Government did not intend that the Land Commissioner under the Arrears of Rent Bill should be a Judicial Commissioner.
  MR. HEALY: May I take it as a fact that the Government have decided to support the emigration scheme of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), or a modification of it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I think the hon. Member is sufficiently clever to draw his own inference.
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to he provided by Parliament, of the Salaries of any Officers who may he appointed under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for making provision respecting certain Arrears of Kent in Ireland; and also the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of any moneys which may he required, for the purpose of assisting Emigration from Ireland, and which sums, though primarily charged on the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, that Fund is insufficient to defray.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  House adjourned at one minute before Six o'clock.