PARLIAMENT—ORDER IN DEBATE— SUSPENSION OF MR. T. M. HEALY. (Hansard, 28 July 1887)

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I am under the necessity of sending for Mr. Speaker, and until he arrives the Sitting is suspended.

§ MR. SPEAKER
returned, and the Mace having been placed upon the Table,

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)
Mr. Speaker, I have to report that during the course of the Committee interruptions to the proceedings occurred on the part of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), which I called upon him to apologize for and withdraw. He did withdraw, but complained that he had been excited by the action of the hon. Member for the Lough borough Division of Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle). A Division followed, and while Members were leaving the House the hon. Member for the Lough borough Division of Leicestershire came to my side and expostulated, or, at all events, remonstrated with me somewhat, for not having been allowed to make an explanation. While he was doing so the hon. and learned Member for North Longford approached from the back and addressed the hon. Member for the Lough borough Division of Leicestershire in these words—"Come out, De Lisle," or "Come out here"—I am not sure of which word he used—" if you are a man. If you interrupt me again I will break your neck." As the incident happened while hon. Members were leaving the House, I did not conceive that I myself had any authority to do anything in the matter, and I have asked you to return to the Chair in order that you may deal with it.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Is the hon. and learned Member for North Longford in his place?

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
raised his hat.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Has the hon. and learned Member anything to say by way of explanation?

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Very little, Mr. Speaker. Sir, it is perfectly true with regard to what has been said by the distinguished Chairman of this House, and I am very glad, indeed, that an incident like this has attracted so full an audience, seeing that for hours we have been discussing the interests of the Irish tenants in an empty House. [Cries of"Order, order!" and interruption.] If I am to be interrupted I shall resume my seat.
The hon. MEMBER accordingly resumed his seat, amidst cries of "Go on, go on!" from the Irish Members.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! I have only one course to pursue, if the right hon. and learned Member will not make any explanation.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
(having consulted with the hon. Member for Cork, Mr. Parnell): I will make an explanation, Mr. Speaker, if I am permitted to do so. ["Oh, oh!"] I will not do so if this goes on. I desire, Sir, in the first instance, perfectly to recognize the fair ness and the courtesy with which we have been treated by the Chairman of Committees. I do not think, however, that this is an occasion for any such action as was taken by you, Sir, with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) the other night. I do not think that there is any parity between the two cases at all. This is one——

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! This is not the language of an hon. and learned Member who is called upon to explain language such as this—(holding up a slip of paper). I must ask the hon. and learned Member to explain it.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I am endeavouring, Mr. Speaker, to put in the best language I can the position in which I felt myself placed. I feel placed in this position—that while we are accused on this side of interruption—which is perfectly true and I freely admit it, so far as I am concerned—what we consider is that interruptions coming to us from the other side are interruptions directed against us personally, and have a distinctly aggressive and provocative effect, altogether independent and apart from debate in this House. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that, as far as I am concerned, the whole incident is hateful to me. I feel, however, no regret, as far as I am concerned, for the course I have taken. I am willing to abide the consequences.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! Then I name you, Timothy Healy, to the House, for having violated, the Orders of the House in regard to the decorum of the House.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)
It is with infinite pain, Sir, that I have to move that Mr. Timothy Healy be suspended from the service of the House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The question is, that Mr. Timothy Healy be suspended from the service of the House.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
I am very unwilling, Sir, to interfere—[Cries of"Order, order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! As many as are of that opinion say "Aye." [Cries of "Aye!"] The contrary "No." [Loud and repeated cries of "No!"]

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I beg that none of my hon. Friends will vote against the Motion. I am going out.
The hon. and learned MEMBER then loft his place and walked out of the House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The "Ayes" have it. [Laughter from the Ministerial side of the House.]

§ MR. CHANCE
I beg, Sir, to draw your attention to the fact that a number of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have marked this occasion as a Party triumph by jeers and laughter. [Cries of "No!" "Name!" "Order, order!" and "De Lisle!"]

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)
I feel bound, though we have boon most painfully compelled, I think, by our duty, to support the Motion that has been made, as it was impossible to justify the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford—I feel bound, I say, to implore you, Sir, for the honour of this House, to exorcise your authority to prevent—[Interruption from the Ministerial Benches, and cheers from the Irish Members]—the systematic—[Renewed interruptions from the Ministerial Benches.]

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order!

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I say—[Continued interruption]—Oh! You may move to suspend me, too, if you like—["Oh, oh!" and cheers from the Irish Members].

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order!

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I appeal to you. Sir, for the honour of the House—[An hon. MEMBER: Is there any question before the House? and Cries of "Order, order!"]—to use your influence to prevent the systematic insult and provocation proceeding from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite——

§ Lord HENRY BRUCE (Wilts, Chippenham)
here rose; but Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT not giving way—[Cries of "Order!" and "Sit down, Sir."]

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! Does the noble Lord rise to a point of Order?

§ LORD HENRY BRUCE
I do rise to a point of Order, Sir. I want to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in addressing the House now?

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I am making an appeal to you, Sir.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! I understood that the right hon. Gentleman 447 rose to a point of Order, and to make an appeal to me.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I rose to make an appeal, and I think the noble Lord is one of the persons—[Cheers from the Irish Members.]

§ LORD HENRY BRUCE (repeatedly)
I am not. I never said a word.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (continuing)
—who have taken part in that which we have witnessed to-night, and against which I am appealing to you, Sir—the systematic insult——

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is no question before the House. Of course I was willing to hear the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has now made, and I can only assure him and the House, that disorder, from whatever side of the House it proceeds, is always reprehensible, and I think it has always met with repression at my hands. I deeply regret the occurrence which has just taken place, and I hope, for the honour of the House, that there will be no recrimination, and that both sides will preserve that Order which is essential to our debates.

§ DR. J. E. KENNY (Cork, S.)
Before you leave the Chair, Sir, may I be allowed to offer a few observations by way of explanation?

§ MR. SPEAKER
left the Chair without reply.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
thereupon resumed the Chair, and called upon the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) to proceed with his Amendment.

§ MR. CHANCE
I trust, after the painful occurrence which we have just witnessed, that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite will——

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the Amendment?

§ MR. CHANCE
I will do so, Sir. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] This is shameful—[Cries of "Name, name!"]

§ THE CHAIRMAN
; Order, order! I do not know who gave vent to that provocative laughter. [Cries of "De Lisle," and cheers from the Irish Benches.] It was most disorderly and irregular. As the accusation has been made against the hon. Member for the Lough borough Division of Leicestershire, I must call 448 upon the hon. Member to say whether or not he was the author of that mocking laughter?

§ MR. DE LISLE
As you have appealed to me, Sir, I will, with your permission, most absolutely, and in the most unqualified manner, declare that on this particular occasion, as on many other previous occasions, when my name has been called out, I did not even smile.

§ MR. CHANCE
The Amendment I now move deals with altogether a technical point—only a very small one. I feel, however, I can claim the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England to the matter—[Interruption.]

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

§ MR. CHANCE
The first part of this clause we have already passed provides that where the plaintiff shall elect to proceed under the section, the notice may be served upon the person who at the time of the service of the notice shall be in possession of the land, and on such notice being served the tenancy in the holding shall be determined as if a writ of possession under the judgment had been duly executed. I have no objection to that, but the second paragraph commences—"Every person upon whom such notice"—really, Mr. Courtney, I cannot raise my voice sufficiently to make myself heard, such is the noise in. the House.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

§ MR. CHANCE
It says— Every person upon whom such notice is served shall thereupon be deemed to be a person put into possession as a caretaker. I take objection to that as in no way qualified by the condition precedent. Under the second paragraph, if the notice is served by post upon any person in possession of the land that person will, thereupon, become a caretaker. If the notice is served on the head tenant alone the other tenants may lose their tenancy. I, therefore, desire to amend the clause by making it clear that as a condition precedent to this change of status, every person who is entitled to be served with a writ shall be so served. I propose to amend the clause thus—to leave out the word "every," adding to the clause the words "such notice as aforesaid having been served upon every such person as aforesaid, each such,"

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)
I am not at all disposed to dissent from the words the hon. Gentleman suggests; but I do not think they are necessary. I will undertake to provide that the change of status shall not occur until the notices is served on each person.

§ MR. CHANCE
That quite satisfies me. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have regard to the condition precedent.

§ MR. GIBSON
I give a pledge that we will provide that every person entitled to be served with a notice, shall be so served.

§ MR. CHANCE
Then I will withdraw my Amendment.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member move Amendments 55b and 55c?

§ MR. CHANCE
No; Amendments b and c were consequential.

§ MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)
With respect to Amendment numbered 56, and also Amendments 57, 58, and 59, they refer practically to the same matter, and may be dealt with at the same time.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member in whose name Amendment No, 56 stands is not here. I am at a loss to understand how it makes sense.

§ MR. O'DOHERTY
I think, Sir, that the Amendments that follow will make sense. I will show how the clause will read if the Amendments are accepted. No. 57 will insert, after "possession," the words "for six months certain;" and the other Amendments will leave out all the words down to the end of line 25. The section, then, would read thus— Every person upon whom such notice is served shall thereupon be deemed to be a person put into possession for six months certain. This is really the time when the promised Amendments of the Government with reference to the period of redemption should come in; and this is also the 450 time to discuss, at once and for all, the origin of this system of appointing caretakers. It is the opinion of many Members of the Committee, and of some Members of the Government, that it was established under the Act of 1860; but it is nothing of the sort. That is not the case. The old law provided for an out-and-out eviction, and it also provided for the case of the Sheriff getting legal possession for the landlord without removing the under-tenant and occupier. The procedure in olden times was that a writ was sent to the Sheriff, and he was directed by the solicitor in the ease as to whether or not absolute possession was to be taken. If he was directed to take absolute possession he cleared the land; but if, however, he got directions to allow the parties to remain until they could make a settlement, the procedure was provided by the 94th section, which is to the effect that the Sheriff, or his officer or bailiff, may, with the consent of the plaintiff—namely, the landlord—execute any writ without removing from the possession of the land or premises any under-tenant or occupier who shall, at the time of execution, sign forms of acknowledgment. The Committee is aware that there are two forms of acknowledgment—one substantially leaves a man tenant-at-will, and the other provides that the sub-tenant's interest shall still continue. That is clearly a benefit to the tenant; and I submit that under the Act of 1860 it amounted to the vested interest of the sub-tenants. By your provision you deprive sub-tenants of this benefit, and really turn labourers on a farm into weekly tenants. Do the Committee mean to turn into caretakers the honest, hard-working men who were, in point of fact, entitled to remain in possession but for the failure of the immediate tenant to pay the rent? Further on, in the Act of 1860, provision was made for the tenant himself, or any other occupier signing the acknowledgment. The procedure in this respect was altered by the Civil Bill Acts, but only very slightly. What I want the Committee to understand is that in none of these cases where the men were put in under acknowledg-removed to Petty Sessions. I appeal to ment or attornment could a case be the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland as to whether that is not so? Under the old 451 law, under the old acknowledgement, and under the Land Act that you yourselves passed in 1860, provision was made for the restoration of the man to his holding; and provision was further made that if a tenant misconducted himself, and committed waste upon the holding, application could be made to the Petty Sessions. When we were discussing this matter yesterday, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) told the Committee that he never knew of a man being turned out unless he was committing waste. It is quite evident that the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have studied the Act of 1860. The procedure for turning out a man at Petty Sessions is the entire device and construction of the land agents of Ireland. I entirely acquit the landlords of any blame in the matter, because it is well known that the authors of that provision were the land agents who sat in Petty Sessions. They brought the Sheriff on the ground, and said to him—"Don't execute the writ in the way provided by Statute, because, if you do, we shall have to go before the Civil Bill Court; put the tenant in as caretaker, and then we will proceed against him at Petty Sessions." That is the history of the system of caretaking—a system which is, in my opinion, not only without statutory foundation, but which is directly contrary to Statute. The Government are well advised in this matter in having a special provision that a certain section of the Act of 1860 shall apply to this. The 86th section of the Act of 1860 provided for the case of the old cottier tenants in Ireland whose tenancy was determined by a notice to quit. The section provides for the case of any person who shall have been put into possession of any lands or premises by permission of the owner as servant, herdsman, or caretaker. I submit that that section of the Act of 1860 only-referred to hired servants. A few hours ago I tried to save the tenants of Ireland by a reference to the Rules of Court; but the answer of the Government was that I was changing the Act I of 1860. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) contended that the Government did not intend to change the Act of I860; but I maintain that they are changing the Act of 1860, inasmuch as they are intro- 452 ducing a fundamental change which was never intended by the authors of that Act. When we try to save the tenant of Ireland from the consequences which are involved in your change of the law we are accused of a change of tactics. I submit that the change in tactics is to be found upon the part of the Government. Now, I will only refer to one other section of the old Act—namely, the one which has reference to recovery in case a tenant misconducts himself. Supposing a person put into possession under a form of acknowledgment and becomes a tenant-at-will, the 84th section applies to him; and that section provides that if a tenant-at-will maliciously injures or destroys any part of the premises the landlord can come in. The practice of appointing a man as caretaker is really one of the screws invented by the land agents of Ireland, and it has no sanction whatever in the legislation of the country. Is it too much to ask that the Government will reconsider whether or not they will not refer back now, and take bodily the provisions of the Act of 1860, and apply them to the evictions under this Bill? We will accept these provisions; because under them a man will remain in possession for six months certain, unless he commits waste, in which ease I have no sympathy with him. I beg to move to insert, after the word ''possession," in line 15, the words "for six months certain."

§ MR. GIBSON
Under the Act of 1860 a landlord, when he got possession of the promises by execution, could do what he liked with the premises. In the first place, he might clear the promises altogether, and keep them on his hands for six months; or, in the next place, he might get the party to sign an attornment for the six months, and, at the end of that period, make an arrangement with the under-tenant. In the next place, it was possible for him to create the under-tenant a caretaker. Each and all of these processes were at the choice of the landlord; and the Act of Parliament never contemplated that the 453 person who was dispossessed should have any right whatever to force one of these methods upon the landlord against his will. The common process now adopted in most parts of Ireland is that during the six months the dispossessed tenant should be allowed to remain in the holding as a caretaker. The man does not pay any rent; practically, he lives rent free. Now, our proposal is this—that, whether the landlord likes it or not, the people who are dispossessed, or whose tenancies are determined, shall be turned into the position of caretakers. We have made a very substantial concession in this matter; but I am afraid that concession is only an invitation to hon. Gentlemen opposite to make further demands upon us. The concession we make is upon the very lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley).

§ MR. O'DOHERTY
It is perfect nonsense to talk about half-a-year's rent, when the whole of the tenant's interest is in mortgage. If the Government are well advised in this matter they will agree to the Amendment I suggest.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
I do not think the Amendment I now have to propose will lead to any long discussion, and I trust and believe that the fate of this Amendment will be completely different to the fate of other Amendments we have been disposing of. I have pointed out already that, although a decree for eviction may be hanging over the man's head, so long as he is in occupation he is entitled to exercise the franchise. We are told that great benefit is to be conferred by this Bill upon the tenants of Ireland. But I desire to point out to the Committee, and especially to the Dissentient Liberals, that the result of this section is that in the case of 10,000 or 15,000 men who are already under sentence of eviction, the service of this notice through the post converting them into caretakers will prevent them exercising the franchise. If this clause stands without this Amendment there is nothing now to prevent the landlords of Ireland, on the 19th July, by a more service of notices through the post, disfranchising between 20,000 and 25,000 tenants, I make the Govern- 454 ment a present of this position. I am convinced that this result never struck the draftsman of the Government; but such a result will undoubtedly follow. It may be said that where there is a house on the holding, and that house is in possession of one person who was formerly tenant, but who has become caretaker, that person would be entitled to exercise the franchise as an inhabited occupier. The answer to that is that this clause makes every sub-tenant a caretaker. If there are two or more persons living in the house, each of whom has been served with a notice, they are all degraded to the position of caretaker, and none of them will be entitled to the franchise. In the case of large farms there are often two or more persons working the farm. If these persons live in one house, two of them, at least, will be entitled to the franchise as rated occupiers; but, on being degraded to the position of caretakers, they lose the franchise; two of them living in one house, neither of them can be registered as an inhabited householder. I do not believe it is the intention of the Government to affect the status of the tenant in this way; but if the Government permit this clause to pass in its present shape, there will be the greatest inducement to commit fraud; there will be the strongest inducement to landlords in the districts of the North of Ireland, the representation of which depends upon a few hundred votes, to serve those notices and destroy the tenancies, and thus secure a double advantage. I appeal in this matter, with confidence, to the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). I ask them, will they allow this thing to be done? I do not believe they will; and I move this Amendment with the full conviction that it will be carried without a dissentient voice.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A..T. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)
I am sure we shall all be of opinion that we should not retain anything in this Bill to modify the franchise. I conceive that if the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were carried we really should alter the franchise. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I may be wrong in law, but I will explain what I conceive the law to be. Under the law, as it at present stands, I believe that when a tenant is evicted, he, no doubt, ceases to have his vote. A tenant will not lose his vote more effectually under the new process than he does under the old; therefore, you would really be altering the franchise and not altering the Land Law if you embody the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman in the Bill. That is the chief objection I have to the Amendment. There is another objection to the Amendment, and that is that if the proposal of the hon. Gentleman were carried into effect there would be a different franchise for the borough than there is for the county. A tenant who is evicted in a town would lose his vote, but a tenant who is evicted in the county would not lose his vote. I think that these two objections ought to induce the Committee to disagree with this Amendment.

§ MR. CHANCE
The right hon. Gentleman obviously speaks under a complete misapprehension as to the effect of this clause. I take him upon his statement that this is merely a Bill to alter the Irish Land Law, and not to modify the franchise. He does not desire to make any alteration in the condition of the tenant so far as the franchise is concerned. What is the law now? It is that until the tenant is physically divorced from his holding he shall retain his position as far as the franchise is concerned—until he is physically divorced, be he put out as caretaker or otherwise, he retains the franchise. I desire that the law shall remain entirely in the same position. I desire by this Amendment that until a tenant is physically put out of us holding no piece of paper served through the post shall destroy his franchise. I hold, therefore, that the result of this Amendment indubitably is to substantially retain the law in its present condition. It uses the same period and the same means to mark the destruction of the franchise. 456 That, I think, disposes of the second argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I am perfectly aware that Clause 4 applies only to agricultural holdings, and it is for this very reason that I confine the Amendment strictly to cases which would be affected by Clause 4. I am sure there are many hon. Gentlemen in this House who are perfectly familiar with the Franchise Law. There are many lawyers on the Front Government Bench, and there are many on the Front Opposition Bench, and there are many lawyers in other parts of the House; and I ask them to consider this question, and express independent views in the matter. I hold that if this Amendment is not carried it will be in the power of the landlords of Ireland to disfranchise whenever they please from 20,000 to 25,000 men. It will be within the power of the landlords of the North of Ireland in constituencies like those of North Tyrone and South Tyrone and North Fermanagh just before the 19th of July, by the mere service of these notices through the post, without the slightest intention of carrying out the evictions, to destroy the franchise of tenants for two years. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) as to whether he desires to retain his seat through a subterfuge by the means of this clause? I am sure he does not. I ask for his vote on this occasion, and I think I shall get it.

§ MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N)
I hope the Committee will accept this Amendment. There are many constituencies—and my own is amongst the number—in which these notices would probably be used for purposes of disfranchisement. It might be said that landlords would not incur the trouble and expense of serving the people with notices merely for such a purpose—that they would not issue the notices unless they intended to act upon them to the extent of eviction. But that is not the case at all. I do not exactly know the cost of serving the notices, but suppose it is £3 or £4. I know that in a closely contested constituency like my own, where the landlords are all on the side of the minority, they would consider it a cheap method of getting voters out of the way to serve notices at this rate upon tenants shortly before an election. There are very few tenants even in the North 457 of Ireland who are not in arrears; and each one of them, if an Amendment such as this is not accepted, will be liable to have his vote taken away by his landlord by the expenditure of a small sum of money. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government that the clause should be used in this direction or not; but I think it is probable the Government would be glad to see the clause used in the closely balanced constituencies in the North of Ireland. Anyway, it is an invitation to the landlord party to issue notices of eviction wholesale before the next election. I believe it is the opinion of most of us on this side that the result of this 4th clause making eviction easy will induce many landlords, who hitherto have been deterred from taking this course of proceeding, to evict their tenants; but the desire to evict will be intensified when they find that by serving these notices on the tenants they will not only satisfy their vindictive feelings, but deprive the National Party of a certain number of votes, and secure the probable return of an Orange candidate to Parliament. I am certain, in my own mind, from experience of two elections, that if this Amendment is not accepted, in my own constituency there are many landlords, who otherwise would not dream of serving notices on their hard-working tenants who are in arrears, who will do so immediately when they find that by this small expenditure they may turn the scale and secure a Party triumph. If the Government do not want the idea to get abroad among the people of Ireland that there is an intention to facilitate that course of procedure, and, at the same time, deprive tenants of the franchise, they had better accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I have little hope in making an appeal to the Government, for they appear to have made up their minds in regard to this 4th clause.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)
I really hope the Government will consider the strong reasons that have been urged in favour of the Amendment. I do not for a moment suppose that the Government intend that the clause should so operate; but there arc very strong reasons given for supposing that it may so operate. The hon. Member who answered the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has disposed entirely of 458 the objection that the Amendment would create a different franchise in boroughs and counties.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I said an objection was that, while it would leave the law as affecting boroughs as it is, it would make an alteration in counties.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
That is exactly what we dispute. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Surely I may be allowed to state an argument. It is said you leave boroughs as they are. That is admitted. the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond) pointed out that a man was not disfranchised unless he was physically evicted. But now you are going to have a constructive eviction. It is a doubtful and mischievous kind of tiling, and anything may be done under it. They will be more numerous than the actual evictions, for they are much more convenient. These constructive evictions may be used by people who do not intend to carry out an actual eviction at all, knowing very well that constructive eviction by paper notice will carry disfranchisement with it. That is what you ought to guard against. We know very well that in former times notices to quit were served in order to keep tenants under the control of the landlord, that the landlord might have his tenant under the screw. We have heard of such things in England, and especially in reference to elections. In former days tenants were put under notice in order to influence votes at elections. It is perfectly obvious the danger exists here. To what extent it exists I do not know; but those with experience of Irish elections are better judges of how it would be used; but, at all events, here is a possible danger you ought to guard against, the use by landlords of this constructive eviction, not with the intention of actually carrying it out, but merely to influence the result of an election. Surely there is reasonable objection to this.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
The hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) made a special appeal to me, and I desire to say that 1 do not think the Government have any sinister intention in this matter. So far as my own constituency is concerned, I do not think that landlords are at all likely to issue these notices on my behalf; and if they did, all I can say is that I should be ashamed to occupy a seat in this 459 House by any such means. If this danger exists—and I believe it does to a limited extent—I think the Government would act wisely in preventing all chance of such a state of affairs. I represent a constituency where the two Parties are very evenly balanced, and anyone who is pent to the House from there has to go through a severe struggle; but I have no desire to have the distinction of being Member for South Tyrone by proceedings such as have been indicated.

§ MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)
I cannot think myself there is much danger of the clause being used as suggested. In order that the disfranchising notice should be served, it is necessary, in the first place, that the tenant should be in arrears; secondly, that the Court exercising an equitable jurisdiction should allow the notice to issue. These two things are safeguards against the clause being used with such sinister intention as is ascribed to some of the landlords of the North of Ireland. There is a broad assertion in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He says there is no intention to alter the position of the tenant as regards the franchise; and if, under the present law, he is not subject to disfranchisement until he is physically divorced from the soil by actual eviction, then I understand the Government does not desire that he should be disfranchised by the mere service of notice. It is really then a question of law and fact, and my vote must be determined by what the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says. If he says that the Government proposal will not alter the present law, will not have any disfranchising effect on the tenant that the present law has not already, then I am prepared to vote for the retention of the clause as it stands. But if it mates any change in the law, then the Government are bound by the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to consent to an Amendment.

§ MR. CHANCE
The point of my objection—my allegation—is, that under the clause before there is any physical divorcement the tenant will be disfranchised.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)
As I understand the right hon. 460 Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, he asks me whether this section makes any change in the franchise law? To this I say that, as I understand it, it will not. Under the present law, in order to evict a tenant the tenant must be dispossessed. If he is allowed to go back as caretaker, then, though the occupation is continuous, his qualification changes, and he has a vote as householder.

§ MR. CHANCE
If he is the only occupant of the house.

§ MR. GIBSON
The question is as to the actual dispossession, the pushing out of the tenant, and the effect on his vote. If he continues in occupation the inhabitant franchise is not affected. Now, what we propose to do is to substitute for this proceeding a sort of ideal eviction by notice, and how this will affect the franchise I do not understand, except in the way referred to by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, that it will facilitate the process and increase the number of ejectments. This allegation introduced to strengthen their main contention was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he pointed out that the County Court Judge would interpose and prevent the landlord from cruelly and wantonly exercising his right if he were disposed to do so. All I can say is that if, according to the suggestion of hon. Members below the Gangway, landlords would exercise their power to affect the franchise, they would be great fools, for the Northern tenants would not stand it for a moment.

§ MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN
No doubt it is my ignorance, but I confess I am not able to follow the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The question I want to put is this. I assume, under the present law and under the new law, the same case of a tenant who is evicted and reinstated as caretaker. Under the present law he is first evicted, and then he is reinstated, and as I understand does not lose his vote until he is the second time evicted, and this time deforced from the soil. That is what I understand. But I understand again that under this Bill the tenant, from the moment of receiving the notice which, as the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says, is an ideal eviction, the equivalent of an actual eviction, he loses his vote. If 461 that is so, of course it does make a great difference.

§ MR. GIBSON
As I understand the question of the right hon. Gentleman it is in reference to what he describes as the first eviction, and that is the only thing we are discussing, for if the man is put out altogether by the second eviction he is no longer on the premises. The termination of the tenancy does affect the man's vote as a rate able occupier, and in a certain class of cases mentioned by hon. Members it may affect his qualification as inhabitant occupier. The second eviction, as I have said, gets rid of the man altogether. We substitute for that first eviction an ideal eviction, and I say, as a matter of.Franchise Law, that the ideal eviction will do less harm than, the physical eviction of the old law.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I understand that the answers have secured the vote of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham for the Amendment. The test question put was to ascertain the fact that nothing but physical eviction would affect the vote, whether the paper eviction would affect the vote, and the right hon. Gentleman admits that it will affect the vote. We are told that the method of eviction is beside the question; but it is not altogether beside the question, because there is a possibility of a greater number of evictions that makes it the more important to look after this security. That under the new principle evictions will be more numerous the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland does not dispute. I mean that the number of notices will be greater than the number of actual evictions.

§ MR. GIBSON
I dispute that altogether.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I understood that he admitted that. We are of opinion that the paper notices will be greater than the present evictions. If that is so there will be much more disfranchisement under the paper notices, which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland calls ideal evictions, a euphemistic term, and I am afraid his ideal eviction will have a very sad reality. Call them ideal evictions if you like, it is a convenient form of bringing about the same result. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has failed to answer the 462 question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and concludes by appealing to the impregnable farmers of the Northern landlords. But that is a doctrine that is not held by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. Your Bill is an admission that tenants could not rely on the Northern landlords. Ulster Members by the hon. Member for South Tyrone demanded a reduction of rents on behalf of the tenants of Ulster, and we have had examples of what the landlords do. Why, as I have said, oven in England in former times landlords have given notices to gentlemen for the purpose of affecting elections. If the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has no better argument than undoubted confidence that no Northern landlords will use this paper process of eviction for Party purposes I think we have insufficient security. If it is possible that this power may be used under the name of a Land Bill having a disfranchising effect on tenants, then I think we ought to make some provision against it.

§ MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)
This discussion is an example of how time is wasted by the action of the Treasury Bench. The demand made is a fair and simple one. It is that tenants now in possession of the franchise shall not lose it in any way different to that they would lose it under the existing law. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says there is no intention to do anything of the sort. I admit that. I do not suggest it is his intention. I do not believe for a moment the Government have any intention of going to that extent. Well, if that is so, why not accept, if not the exact form, the spirit of an Amendment to meet the views of both sides? Alter the Amendment to meet at once the demand on this side and the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I maintain it is simply waste of time for the Law Officers to rise in their places and give opinions as to how the matter will be. No Law Officer can tell us how the Revising Barrister will construe the clause in its reference to the register. There are not barristers in Ireland or England of whom we can say assuredly they will take the same view. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby may be ridiculously wrong or absolutely right, or the right hon. and learned 463 Attorney General for Ireland may be the one or the other. What I say is that we raised this question along time ago; we ask that the franchise shall be affected in no way different to the way in which it is affected now. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says the Government have no intention of making any change; then why in Heaven's name does not a Member of the Government get up and say they will accept or propose an Amendment to carry out that upon which we agree?

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The only difference between the old state of things and what I may call the new state of things will be this—that whereas under the old or present state of things a landlord can deprive a tenant of his vote by evicting him for arrears of a rent that may be too high, under the new state of things a tenant could only be deprived of his right to be on the register as a voter after eviction for a rent admittedly a fair one.

MR. CHANGE
I am sure the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland desires to state with frankness what he believes to be the law. I do not want to be egotistical; but I think that I have had more experience of the law that regulates franchise and registration than he has had, or I hope he ever will have. For the last three or four years I have annually spent some seven or eight weeks in the North on work relating to the subject, and desperate work it is. Now, the present position is this—that physical divorcement is necessary before a man is deprived of the franchise—that alone puts an end to his qualification as tenant. After physical divorcement he can come back as caretaker, and when sole occupier he still has his vote; but where, as is very frequently the case, the man shares occupation with a brother or brothers, where it is a case in which a man and a relative working together live in the house and pay the rent, and eke out a living, the result of the man becoming a caretaker is that both men lose their votes. That is the effect, but the landlord has to go through the process of physical divorcement before the man is disfranchised. But under this new law the franchise will disappear with the service of this paper notice. Two brothers, an uncle and nephew, or whoever it may be labouring to make the rent on a farm of £30 or £40 valuation, by the 464 service of this paper notice without any trouble or real intention of carrying out an actual divorcement, absolutely lose the franchise, and in most cases would lose it for two years. That is the plain statement, and now let me draw attention to the wording of the Amendment. It does not give this notice any effect whatever; all it says is that this notice, apart from divorcement from the holding, has no effect on the franchise. Therefore, it is impossible for a lawyer's Nisi Prius arguments to show that it has any effect in altering the law as regards the franchise. All it says is that the alteration of the procedure of the law under Clause 4 shall not extend to the question of franchise. That is the plain statement of fact. I would ask the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) if that is not so, and he has considerable knowledge of registration matters? You have from 10,000 to 15,000 judgment decrees held over by the landlords, and the latter; without going through the trouble and scandal of actual eviction, can, by the service of this paper with a penny stamp, bring disfranchisement upon every one of these tenants.

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)
I have no desire, speaking as an Irish landlord, that the Irish tenant should as regards the franchise be placed in a worse position than he is in at present; and as I do not believe it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that any portion of this Bill should place him in a worse position, I do not see why the Government should not see their way to make the clause plain, so that an Irish tenant may be perfectly certain he is not placed in a worse position under this Bill than under the law as it now exists. Let the Government make it perfectly plain that something more is required than the service of the notice. There is no desire, on the part of Irish landlords, to avail themselves of the clause in the sense suggested, and they would be perfectly satisfied with the Amendment I have indicated.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)
There is no ambiguity in the matter; but it is well the House should understand the point before voting upon it. At present a man becomes a caretaker upon the execution of the decree of eviction. He is evicted, and comes back 465 as a caretaker, and in that position he loses his vote. He has the right of redemption and other rights; but, as caretaker, he has no vote or qualification to be on the register, Now, it is suggested that the person who is going to be a caretaker shall be in the position of a rateable occupier, because, it is said, he is turned into a caretaker by a paper notice instead of by the process of physical ejectment. In the one case the landlord gets his decree, and the law carries it out, and in the other ease judgment can only issue pursuant to the control and safeguards provided under Clause 22 of this Bill. How is it possible for the Bill to make a caretaker more readily than now? How can it be effected under more harsh circumstances than now, safeguarded as the tenant will be by the provisions of this Bill? Why should a caretaker under the new Act have a right he does not have now of being considered as a rateable occupier? It would be a distinct alteration of the Franchise Law for the caretaker to be regarded as such.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I regret there should be this waste of time, when there is a disposition on both sides to accept a reasonable Amendment. Of the eviction decrees outstanding, thousands are not intended to be put in force; but, under this new clause, hundreds, and I believe thousands, of men could be disfranchised tomorrow morning by the penny post. Then you say this does not change the law, and that you have no intention to change the law, when you know that not one of these men, under the existing law, could be disfranchised without an actual eviction. You do not intend that there should be disfranchisement under the Bill; but you do place power of disfranchisement in the hands of persons who, under certain circumstances, might desire to use it. I do not desire to impute any such intention to a large number of landlords; but if there is risk of its being so used in only one instance you ought to provide a safeguard. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) has spoken out in a reasonable and manly way. Why the Government should go on pertinaciously wasting the time of the House in resisting that which their supporters, the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. 466 T. W. Russell), advise them to accept, on behalf of the landlords of the North, of Ireland, I cannot understand. It seems to show that the Government are, in their policy, more landlords than the landlords themselves.

§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
We begin to suspect, from the resistance offered to this Amendment, that there is more in the matter than appears on the surface. The Government profess to desire the same result as that we aim at; and, if so, I am at a loss to understand, after this expression of the mind of the Government, why they are unwilling to import words into the clause to give effect to their intention. Notwithstanding the ardent differences of opinion between the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) and ourselves, we have heard him support this proposal. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken a stand honourable to himself, and which, if we could accept him on this occasion as an exponent of the policy of the landlords, would be honourable to them. But, on this occasion, I think we must regard him as more than an average specimen of the Ulster landlord. How does the law stand at present? When the tenant is physically removed from his holding, whether he is allowed to return or not, his qualification for the franchise ceases. The argument of the Government is that when this clause passes the tenant will be in no worse position than under the law as it now exists, and they point out that Clause 22 of the Bill allows the Court to put a stay on the execution of the judgment. But the landlord, when once judgment is taken out, need not stay for execution—he can at once serve a notice under Clause 4, and thereby disfranchise the tenant. The moment that notice is served the tenant passes to the position of caretaker, and his legal qualification to be registered for the franchise ceases. There are thousands of judgment decrees in the hands of landlords, and there are seats in the North of Ireland won from the Nationalist Party at the last Election by very narrow majorities. I think the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) was returned by a majority of less than 100 votes, and there is a rumour that the action of the hon. Member in regard to this Bill has annoyed his landlord supporters, so that they are debating 467 whether the hon. Member shall be their Representative again. Well, it may be that this power of disfranchisement may be made to serve the purpose of change. I will do the lion, and gallant Member for North Armagh the justice to believe that he would never hold a scat by any-such device. He certainly never fails to express his opinion frankly. All who vote for him know what kind of man they are voting for and those who are against him have never any misapprehension of the position he maintains. He speaks with the energy of conviction, and I think on this occasion he is entitled to more respectful attention than he has received. It may be that a landlord may have no intention to evict; but where the winning of a seat for his Party depends upon a few votes there is many a landlord would do worse things than serve notices in order to disfranchise tenants. Can this be denied? We who say it know Ireland well. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh is unwilling that such things should happen; the hon. Member for South Tyrone is with us; Members of the Liberal Unionist Party and of the Tory Party unite with us in entreating the Government to insert in the Bill words that will give effect to what they say is their own intention.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Let us see where it is we agree and where we differ. We agree that the present state of the law on this point and the position under this Bill ought to be the same, and that if it changes it, it should be altered. The legal opinion on this side is the Bill makes no change; but we will consider the question carefully, and if we find that there will be any difference whatever between the old and the new state of things, then we will bring up Amendments to assimilate them.

§ MR. CHANCE
What we seek to determine is the point at which a tenant loses the franchise. Will the Government undertake that under the new clause, oven when a notice is issued, the point at which a man is disfranchised will be when physical divorcement takes place, if it ever does take place?

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Yes; I apprehend the point. If that is the existing law, then it shall be so under the new law.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
But it is not to be on the technical interpre- 468 tation of the law, but the law applied to facts, that the tenant shall be left in the same condition as now. I desire we should be understood to mean that the tenant shall stand ipso facto in the same position—that he shall not lose his vote until he is physically expelled from the premises. That is the clear point. If we have a pledge that, as now, a man not physically expelled does not lose his vote, then we may leave it to the Government to carry out their intention as they think fit.

§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)
Under the present law a man is held to be in substantial occupation until the forcible ejectment is complete. Now, the Government wish to substitute the paper divorcement from the holding; but I say this proper divorcement will never come home to the minds of the poorer tenants, and they will, without knowing it, lose both social and political status at once. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should do more than say if the law is so at present so it shall be in the future; he should arrange that the absolute divorcement is the point of disfranchisement.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
We have not had an assurance from the Law Officers of the Government that a tenant shall not lose his vote until he is physically expelled from his holding. Until we have had that assurance we have had nothing.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER
I can only repeat what I have said, that, so far as I understand the law, it is not the physical divorcement in any shape—[Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT interposed with a remark which was inaudible.]—the right hon. Gentleman is exceedingly impatient at the slightest sound when he is speaking. As I understand the law, it is not the physical divorcement that loses the vote, but the change in the qualification of tenant when he ceases to be rateable occupier and becomes caretaker. I wish to debate this fairly; and let me point out that the Amendment goes far beyond the intention expressed. The Amendment proposes that any person in the occupation of any holding, or part of a holding, shall be entitled to be considered a tenant, notwithstanding anything in this section. That is to say, any person, under any circumstances, from the 469 simple fact of being in occupation, is to have the qualification of a rateable tenant, though he may be but a caretaker. Now, with great deference to the legal opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I say it is not a question of losing the vote by divorcement from the land; it is a question of losing the vote from ceasing to have the qualification for being on the register.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I am glad we have got this explanation, for it is quite clear we are going to get nothing from the promise. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would have been glad to have made this concession; but the hon. and learned Attorney General for England introduces his Nisi Prius arguments, contrary to common sense and common justice. He says the qualification determines the right to be on the register. But you are altering the whole character of the process of eviction; it is that that makes the alteration of position. I hope we shall stick to this—that while the tenant is physically in his tenancy he shall have his vote. If you alter that position, you alter—if not the law technically—the facts to which that law has hitherto been applied. It is a mixed question of law and fact, and the hon. and learned Attorney General for England adroitly, subtly wraps up the differences that arise in fact and rides off on a technical point of law. That is what we have been at all the evening; we have only just got to the real circumstance and point of the question, and, having now spent an hour and a-half upon it, I suppose we must spend another hour and a-half in trying to convert the hon. and learned Attorney General. We have not got very far. I thought we had made some progress when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary spoke. I was satisfied with his assurance; I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman meant to deal fairly with the question, if he clearly understood what has to be dealt with; and I hope the hon. and learned Attorney General will not go on spinning his cobwebs round the subject, but will allow us to take a common-sense view of the matter. It ought not to be a matter of special pleading; it is a matter of simple justice to the Irish tenant. 470 It has been very sensibly said, whether it is likely to happen or not, do not raise suspicion in the minds of tenants, and go to them with the fine-spun arguments the hon. and learned Attorney General has addressed to us. Lot us stick to this. A man shall not lose his vote unless he is physically expelled from his farm. That is a plain commonsense proposition that all the Attorneys General in the world ought not to confuse. If the Government accept our meaning, and will give us an assurance that they will carry out that meaning, then the Amendment will be withdrawn; if not, then I hope the discussion will be continued until we have sufficiently convinced the Committee.

§ MR. CHANCE
The hon. and learned Attorney General for England stated that the Amendment would create a new franchise. Now, I confess I heard that with pain and surprise. What is the Amendment? It is a provision that the status of the tenant, so far as his vote is concerned, shall not be affected by anything in the Bill—that notwithstanding anything in this clause his present status shall continue. It leaves the law precisely as it finds it. It does not make a new tenant; but it says that nothing in the clause shall affect the franchise where the franchise existed before. The hon. and learned Attorney General says a man, when evicted, comes back as a caretaker. Very often he does; but the point is this—that until the Sheriff comes down with his posse comitatus, with his crow-bar men, and puts the man and his property off the holding, until that happens the tenancy is not determined, and the tenant may come back even as caretaker if you like; but he must be put outside the holding, and then only does he lose his vote. What we want to secure is, that this paper notice shall not be equivalent to the physical putting out of the tenant, so far as the franchise is concerned. I am sorry we arc met with a series of ingenious technicalities, that the Government do not deal with the substantial point, but ride off on a promise that means absolutely nothing.

§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
I think we are entitled to some further answer, for we are now left in a very peculiar position. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland made a very fair offer, 471 that this matter should be considered by the Government on the lines he himself maintained from the first. He had no desire, he said, to make any alteration in the law. But no sooner had he done speaking than the hon. and learned Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) put a totally different construction on the clause, closing the door to all reconsideration. He tells us that the tenant will be disfranchised. We are in this further difficulty—that the hon. and learned Attorney General for England does not agree with the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson); and, therefore, it is not surprising that doubt arises in our minds——

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER
How do we differ?

§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER
I will tell the hon. and learned Attorney General where he differs from his Colleague. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) interposed, he asked a plain straightforward question, whether the loss of the vote depended on the physical divorcement from the soil, and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland said it did. The hon. and learned Attorney General for England said it did not depend on that, but upon the man becoming a caretaker.

§ MR. GIBSON
I was asked whether the new process would make any difference in the franchise from the old method, and I said it would not—that the service of the ideal eviction would not produce a greater or less effect than the old method.

§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER
That is exactly the point in dispute. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland said that there would be no physical divorcement from the soil with the new notice, but that the new notice, which he euphemistically calls the ideal eviction, will have the same effect on the vote as the actual eviction. That is exactly the point in dispute. We do not want the ideal eviction to have the same effect. We say that it will be put in force in a vast number of cases where the notices will not ripen into absolute eviction. I will go further, and say that Clause 22 will have to give relief to all tenants against whom judgments are 472 now obtained; and when we reach that clause we shall endeavour to give it a retrospective operation. But the point now is, as it was an hour and a-half ago, will you disfranchise tenants by the mere service of those notices, and you say the service of the notice will have the effect of a real eviction? You cannot disguise the effect of this change by any amount of hair-splitting. We do not ask for a decision now, but give a fair reconsideration to the merits and facts of the case, and not to the technicalities of the Attorney General, on which reconsideration would be useless. If you are going to take your stand upon this, that the ideal eviction shall have all the effects of a real eviction, then we are bound to carry our opposition to a Division.

§ MR. FINLAY (Inverness, & c.)
It is a pity to see so much time consumed when, as I hope, there is no substantial difference of opinion. It is agreed on all hands that the section should not have a disfranchising effect. It has been pointed out that the terms of the Amendment are, perhaps, rather too wide. The law, as I understand it, is perfectly clear that a man, by becoming a caretaker, loses his qualification to vote. At present it is a difficult and troublesome process to convert him into a caretaker. It is now proposed to adopt this simpler process, and though you may say that it makes no change in the law as regards the franchise, yet, in point of fact, a great many tenants might be disfranchised by the service of the notice, and this, I am certain, is not what the Government intend. May I offer, then, a form of words, such as the following, to present a way out of the difficulty-— Provided that a tenant shall not, by virtue of a notice under this section, lose his qualification to he on the register as a voter. I think these words will be found free from the objection to the present Amendment pointed out by the hon. and learned Attorney General.

§ THE FIRST LOED OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)
We will undertake to consider those or other words, in order to carry out what is distinctly the intention of the Government, that no disfranchising effect should be produced by the operation of this clause.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
We should be quite satisfied if the Govern- 473 ment accepted the words the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) has just suggested, that these notices shall have no disfranchising effect at all; that the operation of these ideal evictions shall not carry disfranchisement with it under any circumstances. Will the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland tell us that is what he is prepared to carry out?

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
We cannot go beyond the undertaking I have given, that we will consider words to insure that the law shall not have a further disfranchising effect than at present. We desire to attain the object the right hon. Gentleman himself desires to attain; but we cannot accept the words without full examination and consideration. Beyond that I cannot go.

§ MR. CHANCE
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that these paper notices will, so far as the franchise is concerned, not have the effect of the physical divorcement at present?

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
I have already-said the object sought to be attained by the words will be, if possible, attained.

§ MR. CHANCE
Then, under the circumstances, I am sorry to say I feel compelled to divide.

§ MR. PARNELL
I hope my hon. Friend will not consider it necessary to persist in this Motion, but will rely on that good sense and fairness in which, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will not disappoint us. In that belief we may accept his statement.

§ MR. CHANCE
I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, though, I confess, I do so with considerable reluctance.

§ MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.)
The Amendment I have to propose is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Waterford (Mr. P. J. Power). According to the present law, when the landlord desires to take possession he obtains a warrant signed by two Justices, and a caretaker is turned out in seven days. I believe, by an Amendment inserted in the present Bill, this will not take place under the new Rules; but the proposition in the Amendment is that the magistrates should be left with a discretion to stay the execution of the warrant they isssue for three months. To this the first part of the Amendment 474 is directed, and I do not think the Government should hesitate to accept it. As to the second part of the Amendment, it deals with that provision of the law that requires notice shall be given to the relieving officer of the district before the actual eviction takes place. The object of this is that provision may be made for the relief of the destitute poor whom the landlord proposes to eject from the holding. It is the duty of the relieving officer to make provision for the reception of the poor tenant in the workhouse, and if there is not room in the workhouse lie has to make some provision for the tenant and his family until there is room for them in the workhouse. Now, what we want is that this rule be made applicable to the case of the caretakers under this Bill, and I do not think the Government can have any objection to accept that part of the Amendment. There is another provision which imposes a penalty on the landlord who carries out an eviction of this kind without first serving notice on the relieving officer. It also makes a misdemeanour where either a landlord or any person under him takes down the roof of a dwelling, or demolishes any part of a dwelling, unless that course is absolutely necessary for the purpose of obtaining entrance and possession. We have had cases in Ireland not long ago of roofs having been torn down and buildings demolished where there was no necessity for such measures; and although good landlords do not resort to such action, still bad landlords have done it in the past, and there is little doubt that bad landlords will resort to it again. We want to provide against the power to do that in the case of caretakers as well as in the ease of ordinary tenants. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)
This is an Amendment which consists of two paragraphs. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to accept the first paragraph, as the Government have already made a concession practically in that direction. But with regard to the second paragraph of the Amendment, we have no difficulty in accepting it, because I think that what the hon. Member desires to secure by it is clearly right, only I am afraid that the actual wording of it may require to be altered.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?

§ MR. PARNELL (Cork)
How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to amend the Amendment?

§ R. M'CARTAN
I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman again with regard to the first part of the Amendment. That Amendment gives a discretion to the magistrates, sitting together, to give three months' or two months' longer stay of execution in certain exceptional cases—in such cases as the right hon. Gentleman himself would think it was fair and reasonable to do so. I think if he looks at the end of the first paragraph again he will have no hesitation whatever in accepting it, and I would appeal to him not to reject this Amendment.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Of course, I feel very reluctant to resist the appeal which the hon. Member (Mr. M'Cartan) makes in that way; but we have already given to the caretaker one month's stay of execution, whether the landlord likes it or not. We have further provided equitable provisions which will prevent any injustice; but I think it is rather a strong order to press us to introduce a wholly new equitable jurisdiction, to a new magistrate in another Court, to go beyond that. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not urge us to go beyond the second paragraph of his Amendment.

§ MR. M'CARTAN
All I ask is that the occupier may have the right, in certain cases, to have recourse to the Justices. He would have to issue his summons, and then to appear and show reason why the premises should not be given up to the landlord. The discretion now given to the magistrates after the month is to be not less than seven days, and not more than 14; and we only wish to extend that discretion to a period of three months from the date of the warrant.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has quite caught the intention of the clause. The position is this. The landlord must go to the magistrates at Petty Sessions. He cannot put out caretakers by his own course, but he goes and gets a warrant, and then comes and turns him out. Now, the magistrates are mostly landlords or landlords' agents themselves; and all that we propose is that these magistrates, themselves landlords, should have a certain jurisdiction to delay this procedure. And why? Because this process of putting out the caretaker is the real physical eviction, and we desire that the magistrates should be given this small jurisdiction, so that it may be in their power to prevent the scenes we have so often heard of in connection with these evictions. We have heard a great deal about these scenes. We have heard of dying men being turned out into the snow. We have heard of pregnant women being put out to deliver their children in the ditch. Now, we desire that the magistrates should be able to say, when a harsh landlord, or when a harsh bailiff or land agent, with instructions from any landlord, comes down and says—"I will throw out a whole country-side at Christmas Eve," we want these magistrates, when the case comes before them, to have it in their power to say—"No, we will not allow you to do that; we are landlords ourselves. The law has given us the power to prevent these disgraceful scenes and these atrocities, and we will not let you do it." The effect would be this, that when a man came and proved the fact that he had a sick wife or a dying mother in the house, the magistrates can say—" We do not want to prevent evictions, but we do want to prevent these atrocities, and we will put 477 them down," and then they would suspend the eviction for five or six weeks, and communicate with the landlord whom they know, and tell him that his agent was doing this atrocity and trying to put out the poor, stalling, or dying people. If the matter was thus brought before the proper magistrates, themselves mostly landlords in the county, they would have an interest in protecting the reputation of their class, and in preventing land agents from exercising their brutality unchecked. The Government say that they have brought in this Bill to prevent unnecessary harshness at evictions. When, therefore, we propose an Amendment which will enable landlords to sit as a jury on their own class, are they not bound in common consistency and honesty, independently of humanity and justice, to accept this Amendment?

§ MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)
I would just like to point out to the Government that the ground on which the power of the landlord to regain possession has been defended was this—that where it could be shown that the holder had committed waste or was doing harm, then the landlord should have the right to come in. Now, I have only to point out that this Amendment will not affect that ground, because the magistrates would not exorcise the discretion sought to be given them by this Amendment, if it were shown that it was a case of waste.

§ MR. PARNELL, (Cork)
I hope, Mr. Courtney, the Government will reconsider this whole matter. It surely must occur to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that there may be cases—probably that there will be cases—where magistrates are applied to for an order of ejectment against a caretaker, in which it might be desirable to give the magistrates the discretion sought for by the first portion of this Amendment. Surely it is rather a strong thing to say that you will not allow the magistrates, sitting in their own Petty Sessional division, and very probably with a knowledge of all the circumstances of the ease, and of any particular hardship that might arise in any particular case, to postpone the eviction of the caretaker in question for the period named by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan) if they think it is right to do so. Does not the 478 right hon. Gentleman think it would be very hard not to give these magistrates the discretion to postpone the eviction of the caretaker under certain circumstances? It appears to me that if the magistrates are to be left any power at all, this is a power which might fairly be left with them. It may be true that they have not this power at the present moment in the case of the ordinary tenant; but you must recollect that you are adding very largely to the class of tenant. You are making this jurisdiction of these orders of the magistrates, practically speaking, substitutes for the order of the County Court; and I submit, although it may seem to be only a small matter, that the Government would be well advised if they gave way so far as to agree to the first section of this Amendment.

§ MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr.)
I understood the right hon. Gentleman suggested an Amendment to the second paragraph of this Amendment; but the whole of this Amendment has been moved in one. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is of the same mind—I think he was going to move an Amendment.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)
With regard to what the hon. and learned Member for Birr (Mr. Molloy) has said, the Government will accept the second paragraph in an amended form; but it will be necessary not only to amend it, but also to insert it in another place later. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan) to withdraw the first part of his Amendment, and defer moving the second part until we come to the end of the section.

§ MR. M'CARTAN
You mean to withdraw the whole Amendment?

§ MR. GIBSON
Yes; to withdraw the whole Amendment, and to move the second part of it later.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
May I ask whether the magistrates have no discretion at present to stay the execution of the warrant?

§ MR. GIBSON
Well, yes; so I understood. The way the present law runs is—"It shall be lawful" for the Justices to issue the warrant. "It shall be lawful" for them to do so.

§ MR. M'CARTAN
What discretion have they under that?

§ MR. GIBSON
I say I think they have a certain amount of discretion from the quotation I have just read.

§ COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)
As I understand, the practice is to give not less than 14 days.

§ CAPTAIN COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, & c.)
As a magistrate, I think that a good deal of what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite is correct, and that, to meet the particular circumstances of sickness or of weather, it would be well worth the while for the Government, before the Report stage, to consider whether they could not deal with the matter. My impression is that we magistrates have no discretion, and that we really have only to be satisfied with the proofs as they stand, and then to give a decree to be executed in not less than seven or more than 14 days.

§ MR. CHANCE
I would like to point out, for the information of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), this. No doubt, the words are "it shall he lawful," but to do what"? "It shall be lawful" for the Court of Justice "to issue the writ." They have a duty to perform, and it is not a question of discretion. It is a question of a duty given to them as a ministerial duty to perform, and one which they must perform when the very first man comes in and asks them to perform it. Now, what is our position? The landlords of Ireland say, many of them perfectly truly—especially the hon. and gallant Member for North Down—" We do not desire that these scenes should go on; we admit that there are some bad landlords, and we complain that good landlords are injured by bad landlords." Now, we desire that at the Petty Sessions the good landlords should be able to prevent these scenes, and, sitting as a jury on the bad landlords, be able to gay—"No; we insist that you shall not do this; and that, in the interests of humanity, you shall not injure our cause." That is a very reasonable thing to ask. We desire that the landlords should prevent these atrocities, and yet, Sir, the Government will not take the smallest steps to give, even to the landowning class themselves, the power to stay such proceedings.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I just wish to remind the Committee, in the first place, that if this proposal were agreed to, it would be extremely hard upon the 480 landlords, because it would enable the tenant, after his six months had expired, to stay on for three months more. And that is not a small matter, as it seems to me, because it might lead to this—that every landlord might, in self-defence, apply to the magistrate three months before the expiry of the six months' period of redemption, in order that the magistrates, whatever their discretion might be, should be unable to extend it beyond the six months. And the result of that would be that a largo number of caretakers, who otherwise would be kept in possession during the whole of the sis months, would be turned out shortly after the expiry of three months, because landlords would apply to the magistrates at the end of that period, and in the majority of cases the writs would be executed in the 14 days.

§ MR. CHANCE
The complete answer to the right hon. Gentleman is this—that it is the landlords themselves who would do this. Good landlords and the magistrates are bound together in the one interest, and, although the writ might be given in three months, the good landlord would not execute it. But the main point now is this—the Government, in refusing this Amendment, decline to permit oven the landlords of Ireland to stop these atrocities.

§ MR. O'DOHERTY
The law, as laid down in the existing Statute, does not say it shall be lawful to stay execution; but it distinctly says— It shall be lawful to issue a warrant requiring and authorizing him within a period to be named therein, and not less than seven or more than fourteen days from that date. There is the position. The writ is not to be executed in more than 14 or less than seven days, so that the law already provides for the execution not taking place at once. It is, therefore, in the discretionary power of the landlord; and I do not think any harm whatever can arise from giving this discretionary power to the landlords sitting together as magistrates, and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.

§ MR. M'CARTAN
I am certainly disappointed at the position taken up by the Government; but for the present I will withdraw the entire Amendment, and bring up the second part at a more suitable moment. Perhaps the Government will further consider the matter, 481 and on the Report stage allow us to get a new clause dealing with, the question we have now been discussing.

§ MR. PARNELL
I hope we will be allowed now to report Progress. We may have broken the back of the clause, from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, but not from our own point of view. I move to report Progress.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
We shall certainly not refuse the Motion to report Progress. I think considerable progress has been made, although I had hoped it would be possible to finish this clause to-night. I trust, however, that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) will recognize the absolute importance of making speedier progress with the remaining clauses of the Bill. It is very desirable that this Bill should pass into law, when I hope we will secure from it a settlement of those differences which unhappily exist between landlord and tenant in Ireland.