Commons Sitting of 29 July 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Report—Perpetual Pensions [No. 248]; Saving Life at Sea [No. 249]; Police and Sanitary Regulations [No. 250].
PRIVATE BILL, (by Order)—Considered as amended—Sheffield Corporation Water. *
PUBLIC BILLS—;Second Reading;—Turnpike Roads (South Wales) * [333].
Report of Select Committee—Stannaries Act (1869) Amendment; Mining Leases; Mining Leases (Devon and Cornwall) [No. 252].
Committee—Irish Land Law [308] [Fifth Night]—R.P. Committee—Report—Agricultural Labourers' Holidays (Scotland) * [311].
Withdrawn—Justices of Peace * [34].

QUESTIONS.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON WARLIKE STORES—THE REPORT.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been directed to the following paragraphs of the Report of the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores, namely:—
  "75. We should be very sorry to say a disrespectful word of the eminent persons who have filled, or do fill, the position of Secretary of State and Surveyor General of the Ordnance. Their position, however, appears to us to be a false one, to result in great weakness of administration, and to stand in the highest degree in need of alteration;"
  "192. The great defects of the existing system are three: First, it has no definite object. Secondly, it has no efficient head. Thirdly, it has no properly organized method of dealing with technical questions which arise as to the construction or purchase of warlike stores, In other words, it requires more system, more publicity, more vigour in administration, and more special knowledge in council;"
  and, what steps he proposes to take to remedy a state of affairs so prejudicial to the interests of the country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I do not suppose that my hon. Friend really thinks it possible that, within the limits of an answer to a Question, I can explain the steps I propose to take in consequence of the Reports of the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores and of Lord Morley's Committee. I hope, however, to be able to do so either during the discussions, on the Estimates, or, at any rate, before the end of the Session. I may add that the Royal Commission, from whose Report the paragraphs quoted are taken, took hardly any evidence on the particular subjects referred to in them.

  THE MAURITIUS—CONSTITUTION OF THE COUNCIL—SIR JOHN POPE HENNESSY.
  MR. SALTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the non-official Members of Council in Mauritius consist of 19 persons, of whom nine are nominated by the Governor and 10 are elected; whether of these 10, five at least, representing a great majority of the electors in Mauritius, have petitioned for the removal

  517
  of Sir John Pope Hennessy; whether three of the leading officials of the Colony, who gave evidence on oath before Sir Hercules Robinson—namely, Mr. Elliott, Receiver General, Air. Didier, Acting Puisne Judge, and Mr. Davidson, Superintendent of the Government Lunatic Asylum, have recently been in England; and, whether he has given to them, as well as to the Governor, opportunities to state their views before him?
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I would ask him this also—Is it not the fact that, in addition to the majority of the unofficial Members being favourable to the Governor, the large majority also of the official Members of the Council are in the Governor's favour? Is it not the fact that while two Memorials, one signed by over 4,000 and another by over 6,000 persons, have been received in the Governor's favour, the largest number that signed the Memorial against him was only five individuals; and whether that number has not now been reduced?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): With regard to the Question just asked me, I have given the information in a former answer. With regard to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that to the first paragraph my answer is in the affirmative. As to the second paragraph, five of the elected Members petitioned for an inquiry into the conduct of Sir John Pope Hennessy. Those five Members obtained, I am informed, 43½ per cent of the votes given at the General Election, and represent constituencies which include three-fourths of the whole number of electors, who, I may observe, are only about 1 per cent of the inhabitants of the Colony. As to the third paragraph, these three officers are in England. Two of them—Messrs. Elliott and Didier—gave evidence before Sir Hercules Robinson; but Dr. Davidson did not. As to the fourth paragraph, I may point out that these gentlemen were not in the position of the Governor, who was summoned here to give his explanation. I saw no necessity, and had no intention, of re-opening the inquiry beyond hearing the Governor.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the 90 per cent of the inhabitants of the Island who are not enfranchised regard Sir John Pope Hennessy as their friend and protector?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: To that kind of Question, also, I have already given an answer previously. I said that as regarded the Indians, who constituted most of the people, I did not think that they had taken any very great interest in the matter.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Are the Indians of no account?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: Certainly they are of account; but it does not follow that they took a great interest in the matter.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE—CIRCULAR OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for for Home Department, Whether, in view of the following sentence in a Circular just issued to the Metropolitan Police by Sir Charles Warren:—
  " The Commissioner desires to any on the subject, that he will institute the fullest inquiry into the allegations made by the public on the subject of blackmailing, and is quite aware that the Police Force court the most open and complete investigation. He has to observe that the accusations have been hitherto made under assumed names, or by persons speaking from such positions that they cannot readily be required to show whether they have any foundations for their allegations,"
  he will state whether any investigation has boon made into the serious and definite allegations of blackmailing against the police on duty in the neighbourhood of Clapham Common; and, if so, with what result; and, if no investigation has yet been made, when such is proposed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The allegations referred to in the Question are serious indeed, but they are not very definite; and it is precisely because they are not very definite that it is extremely difficult to test them. I have, however, directed that the best investigation possible shall be made; and I am sure the hon. Member will feel that it will be better that I should not describe the steps which will be taken, as publicity

  519
  would defeat any efforts to discover the truth. I will add that I will welcome information of any specific facts from any quarter that will give a basis to work upon.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)— HENDON SANITARY AUTHORITY.
  MR. BARTLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the drainage arrangements of the Hendon Local Sanitary Authority at Alperton, and to the offensive and dangerous effluvia which spreads from them for miles round, reaching as far as the northern part of Ealing; and, whether he will order an inquiry into the subject, with a view to stop this nuisance and danger to the health of a large portion of the North West of the Metropolis?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Local Government Board have not received any complaint as to the drainage at Hendon or Ealing. If any such complaint is made to the Board it will receive attention. I may add that the Board have to-day received a letter from the Sanitary Authority, in which they entirely deny that the works are not carried on in a satisfactory manner. I have asked an Inspector of the Board to report on the subject.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)—ATTACK ON CHARLES ROBERTSON, INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton) (for Mr. FRASER-MACKINTOSH) (Inverness-shire)asked the Lord Advocate, Whether he has received any Report regarding a serious attack made, on the 14th May last, upon Charles Robertson, in Kinveachie, of Aviemore, Inverness-shire, aged 78 years, by a neighbouring farmer, who felled him to the ground, and otherwise maltreated the old man; and, whether he will cause an impartial inquiry into the circumstances?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): This matter was reported to the Procurator Fiscal at the time by the constable of the district, who was present when the alleged attack
  520
  is said to have taken place. Inquiry was made, from which it appears that Robertson, who is a pauper, had taken forcible possession of a house belonging to a neighbouring farmer referred to, in which a pauper relative had died, and the furniture in which was claimed by the Inspector of Poor. As he would not go, Robertson was eventually carried out of the house. My information differs in material respects from what is stated in the Question put, as Robertson is to be tried on the 3rd of August for a breach of the peace on the occasion referred to. The facts would then be made public, and the case dealt with by the Sheriff. The matter being thus subjudice, I do not think I ought to make any further statement.

  POST OFFICE—CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE—VACANT CLERKSHIPS.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that in the Central Telegraph Office there are 43 appointments in the first class which have been vacant since 1881; whether, by the late extension of the first-class, the number of these vacancies has been since increased to 115; whether, considering that the clerks waiting for promotion to these vacancies have never received the slightest benefit from the "Fawcett" Scheme of 1881, but have actually lost thereby, he will take steps to fill up these vacancies without any further delay; and, whether he will take into consideration the justice of giving these clerks "back pay" from the time of their appointment, as was done recently in a similar case in Dublin?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): It is not the fact that the vacancies existed in 1881. In consequence of the introduction of the 6d. rate large additions have been made to the staff, and the new entrants have entered at the bottom of the scale. In 1886 the number of the higher classes was re-adjusted, and a margin left to moot future requirements. It is only since then that the present vacancies have existed. It was not intended to fill all of them up at once. If that had been the intention, a smaller number would have been asked for.

  MINES REGULATION ACT, 1872—POGGS COLLIERIES—DARCY LEVER.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can now state the result of the investigations into the circumstances mentioned in the following paragraph from The Times of 19th July:—
  "Before the Bolton County Magistrates yesterday, the manager at the Poggs Collieries, Darcy Lever, was summoned at the instance of Mr. Dickinson, Chief Inspector of Mines, for a breach of 'The Mines Regulation Act, 1872,' for not supplying sufficient ventilation;
  "On the 16th of May a fireman, named Hay-dock, reported gas to the manager in one of the working places. He continued to report it until the 24th, when he went into the place and was suffocated. The defendant was fined £10 and costs?"
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have had a full and careful inquiry and Reports from the Inspector. The manager was prosecuted and convicted for not having brought the ventilation of the mine into an adequate condition with sufficient promptitude; hut this neglect can hardly be regarded as the cause of Haydock's death. Haydock had daily visited and reported on a working place where an eruption of gas had taken place, and from which workmen were properly excluded while endeavours were made to drain off the gas. On the 24th Haydock, in visiting the place, very imprudently went to a point in the working place at which there was too much gas present for his lamp to burn, leaving his lamp on the ground behind him. His object appears to have been to pull down some brattice, and thereby to facilitate the escape of the gas. This was an error of judgment on his part, and his action brought upon him the gas which suffocated him. The manager is an old and thoroughly experienced practical collier, and I do not think the circumstances call for any further proceedings against him.

  WAR OFFICE—BRADFORD BARRACKS —THE 44TH ESSEX REGIMENT.
  MR. BYRON REEDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that, upon the arrival of the 1st Battalion of the 44th Essex Regiment at Bradford Barracks in the week before last, it was discovered
  522
  that there were no quarters available for the married non-commissioned officers and men, who had, therefore, to be provided with private lodgings; whether this state of things is of long standing, and has been frequently complained of by the local Military Authorities; whether the sanitary arrangements of these barracks are so defective and out of repair that a serious outbreak of infectious disease followed upon their occupation by the troops that preceded the 44th Essex Regiment; and, what steps the War Department propose to take to put the barracks into a condition of sufficient accommodation and proper repair?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(Exeter) (who replied) said: During June and the early part of July there were in Bradford Barracks cases of measles and scarlet fever; but the medical officers reported that those diseases were prevalent in the vicinity of the barracks, and that there was nothing to indicate that they had been generated from, or spread by, defective arrangements of the barracks themselves. When the 1st Battalion of the Essex Regiment recently arrived the families of the soldiers were, by way of precaution, placed in lodgings, not because there were not quarters for them, but because their proper quarters had been under recent suspicion of infection. It has been already stated that it is intended to renew some of the out buildings as funds become available.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE LOWER BANN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been drawn to the Resolutions of the Grand Juries of Antrim and Derry, declaring that the navigation schemes for the Lower Bann have entirely failed, and calling on the Board of Works to have the artificial obstructions to the flow of water removed as soon as possible; and, whether the hon. Gentleman will direct the improvements suggested to be carried out with as little delay as possible?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I have not seen the Resolutions referred to; but they will considerably facilitate matters in regard to the improvement of the Lower Bann. But the hon. Member is, perhaps, not aware that the Board of Works have no

  523
  authority over the river, and have had none for 25 years. Any works which may be desirable and practicable must, therefore, be carried out by, or by agreement with, the two Local Boards which now control the river, until a new-organization has been established by legislation. But the Government intend to take the matter up as soon as the Vote has been passed by this House, and to secure as much work being done as is possible during the present financial year and under existing conditions.
  In reply to Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.),
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he could not name the day on which the Vote would come forward; but it would come as a Supplementary Estimate.

  IRELAND—PROCLAMATION OF A PROTESTANT HOME RULE MEETING AT KILKERTON.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the suppression of the Protestant Home Rule meeting at Kilkerton on the 25th May last, Whether he is aware that the information on which it is alleged the meeting was proclaimed by Lord Kilmorey and his land agent, Mr. Henry, acting together as Justices, was sworn by John Linton, of Moneydanaghmore; whether Linton is one of the leading Orangemen who were entertained in Lord Kilmorey's demesne on the 12th July, and if he is the same Linton who moved a vote of thanks to Lord Kilmorey on that occasion; whether Linton was sent for and desired to attend at Lord Kilmorey's office on the morning of the meeting; whether he swore the information in the rout office in the presence of Lord Kilmorey and his agent; whether the information was dictated by Lord Kilmorey or his agent; whether the information was made up of what was expressedly "hearsay" Reports, without any reference to the source from which such Reports came; and, whether he will direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter?
  MR. JOHNSTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman also, whether the Meetings of so-called Protestant Home Rulers are largely composed of Roman Catholic priests and their congregations?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied)said, his hon. Friend must give Notice of the Question. He had no information at present as to the composition of the meetings. In answer to the Question put by the hon. Member on the Paper, he could reply that the information was sworn by John Linton. He was not aware whether it was sworn in the rent office. It was not exclusively made up of hearsay Reports. The matter was at once brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor,
  MR. M'CARTAN: Did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make any inquiry whatever as to where this information was sworn; and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has a copy of the information will he show it to the House? If he has not a copy I can oblige him with a copy, which was sworn in the rent office of Lord Kilmorey.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Yes, Sir; I have a copy; but I can find nothing in the copy to show where it was sworn, except that it was sworn at Kilkeel, County Down. The house where it was sworn is not mentioned, so far as I can see.
  MR. SEXTON: Have the Irish Government inquired from Lord Kilmorey whether he sent for the man Linton, in order to procure the man Linton to swear an information upon which Lord Kilmorey subsequently suppressed a public meeting?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No, Sir; the Irish Government have made no such inquiry. I must point out that it would be manifestly the duty of a magistrate to obtain the best and most accurate information possible in such matters.
  MR. SEXTON: But is it the duty, or the right, of a magistrate to send for a person to induce him to swear an information to carry out a preconceived purpose of the magistrate?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: It is the duty of a magistrate to take any and every step in his power to preserve order.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Chief Secretary stated that the meeting was not convened by placard, and that the information said that "Placards were extensively posted;" and is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware

  525
  that the information is signed by two magistrates—Lord Kilmorey and Lord Kilmorey's land agent?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was aware that the Chief Secretary had made the statement referred to in his first answer; but he was also aware that the Chief Secretary had subsequently stated that he had been misinformed. With regard to the fact that the information was signed by two magistrates, that had been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

  WATCH CLUBS—THE PLATE LICENCE —UNLICENSED AGENTS.
  MR. M'LARENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to an evasion of the law requiring sellers of watches to take out plate licences, by large London dealers sending unlicensed agents into country districts to form watch clubs among working men, and even among domestic servants; whether such agents should each take out a licence; and whether the secretary or managing member of each watch club should also take out a licence to sell; and, whether, if such be the case, he will take steps to have the law carried out?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Board of Inland Revenue are not aware of any evasion of the law, as stated by the hon. Member. A person who, as agent, sells plate, or takes orders for the same, otherwise than in the capacity of a bonâ fide traveller, is required to obtain a licence; but a person who merely acts as the secretary or managing member of a watch club, receiving instalments of purchase-money from the members in payment for watches sold to them by dealers in plate at their licensed premises, does not require a licence.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)—THE BLANTYRE RIOTS.
  MR. HOZIERasked the Lord Advocate, By whom the expenses for the board, lodging, &c. of the additional troops specially stationed at Hamilton during the Blantyre Riots are to be defrayed?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)in reply, said, the officer commanding this regiment had, he was informed, received directions to pay the regulation allowance to the innkeepers on whom the troops were billeted.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—THE WICK AND GOLSPIE LETTER-BOX.
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the case that a late letter-box is attached to the mail train leaving Wick at 12.10 a.m. for the South; whether that box is removed whenever the train leaves Wick Station, thus depriving the intermediate stations between Wick and Golspie, where the sorting van is attached, of the advantages of late posting; and, whether he will order the sorting van to run through to Wick, and vice versâ; or, whether he will cause the late letter-box to remain attached to all trains carrying letters between Golspie and Wick?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): It is the case that, in order to give the inhabitants of Wick the opportunity of posting letters for the South up to the last moment, a letter-box is hung at the side of the 12.10 a.m. train while standing in the Wick Station. When the train starts the box is taken into the guard's van, and remains in his custody until it is handed over to the Post Office sorters, who join the train at Golspie. Considering that the train passes the stations intermediate between Wick and Golspie in the dead of the night, the letters that would be posted at those stations if the box were put out at each place would be few, if any, and the arrangement would be a troublesome one to the train guard, the officer of the Railway Company, who has, of course, his other duties to attend to. Except as restricted, the arrangement is not one that can be properly worked by a train guard; and it would be a costly arrangement, for which I can see no present justification, to run the sorting van through to Wick, so that there might be Post Office officials in the train to receive late letters from the public. It might, perhaps, be possible to take letters at Wick by the 8 a.m. train to the South, as is done in the case of the 12.10 a.m. train. But on this point I will have some further inquiry made.

  POST OFFICE—THE HOSTER STAMPING MACHINE.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCEasked the Postmaster General, Whether the Tables issued by the Postal Machinery Company, and purporting to be the results of "Official" trials of the Hoster Stamping Machine are rightly so described; whether those trials took place in June, 1884, and March, 1886, in the presence and under the supervision of the Post Office officials, and as to those of March, 1886, under their special endorsement; whether the results there set out are disputed by the Department; and, if the trials were not so conducted, or the alleged results are disputed as aforesaid, whether the Department will permit a trial of the machine to be held in the presence of the officials of the Departments, assisted by other qualified authorities?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): There have been several trials at the General Post Office, including that in June, 1884, of the letter-stamping machines submitted by the Postal Machinery Company, at which officials of the Post Office and the manager of the Company have been present. The trial in March, 1886, appears to have been conducted at the branch office in Bedford Street, W.C., by the manager of the Company, in the absence and without the cognizance of the responsible officers of the Department. The statistics contained in the Tables issued by the Company cannot be accepted as entirely correct. I have, therefore, given instructions for the question to be re-investigated, with the assistance of an engineer to be nominated by the Chief Engineer to the Department, another to be nominated by the Company, and, as another machine has recently been under consideration, by a representative of its proprietors.

  WAR OFFICE (WORKS DEPARTMENT) —CASE OF J. F. CONNOLLY.
  SIR WILLIAM GROSSMANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the late J. P. Connolly, who has been employed for nearly 30 years as draftsman in the Works Department at the War Office, would have received, on the discontinuance of his
  528
  employment this year, a gratuity of one year's salary, £273 15s.; whether the Treasury sanction for this gratuity, though received at the War Office, was not notified to Mr. Connolly; whether Mr. Connolly, in great distress of mind at the prospect of being discharged without any compensation after so many years of good and faithful service, committed suicide; and, whether the Treasury have now refused to pay the gratuity which they had sanctioned to his widow; and, if so, whether that refusal can now be reconsidered, and application made, if necessary, to Parliament for a grant of money to pay the gratuity to Mr. Connolly's widow, who, with her two daughters, is left quite unprovided for?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Treasury did sanction a gratuity of the amount stated to Mr. Connolly on the abolition of his office. The fact that the gratuity had been granted to him was not immediately notified to Mr. Connolly; because in the interval between the application and the granting of the pension his term of service had been extended for three months. I am unable to say whether Mr. Connolly's death was due to distress of mind at the idea that he was to be discharged without a gratuity; but, as a matter of fact, he never inquired of the War Office Authorities whether any gratuity had been granted to him. It was not within the competence of the Treasury to sanction the payment to Mrs. Connolly of the gratuity granted to her husband. Most careful consideration was given to the question whether there was any Vote to which the sum could properly be charged. But the Treasury was reluctantly forced to the conclusion that it had no legal power to allow the payment. It is desirable that the House and the public should thoroughly understand that the Treasury has very little discretion as to the granting of gratuities. The legal restraints put upon it sometimes lead to hard cases; but, for my part, I think it would be very inexpedient that Public Departments should have funds at their disposal out of which they could at their discretion grant allowances or gratuities without being submitted to almost iron rules. Under the very peculiar circumstances of this hard

  529
  case, and especially in view of the fact that the grant of the gratuity was never notified to Mr. Connolly, the Government will ask Parliament to sanction the payment to Mrs. Connolly of an amount equal to the gratuity granted to her husband.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC —THE NEW HEBRIDES—NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When he expects to be able to give an account of the progress of the negotiations with France, relating to the evacuation of the New Hebrides; whether those negotiations are confined to pressing on the French Government the duty of fulfilling the engagements made regarding the New Hebrides, or embrace other questions relating to other Islands in the Pacific Ocean; and, if they do embrace such other questions, what those questions are, and what is the nature of the arrangements which have been proposed to, or are being considered by, Her Majesty's Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I hope to lay upon the Table Papers showing the course of these negotiations. The negotiations as to the New Hebrides have been associated with others which had been commenced in the time of previous Governments; but Her Majesty's Government have pressed for nothing else from the French Government except a fulfilment of the formal obligations of the French Government with respect to the Now Hebrides. Her Majesty's Government are well aware that these questions have been too long at issue; they have spared no efforts to bring them to a conclusion by friendly representations; and they cannot but deeply regret the unsettled position in which they still remain.
  MR. BRYCEasked, when the Papers would be laid on the Table; and, also, whether it was the intention of the Government that any agreement finally made should be confined to the settlement of the New Hebrides question; or whether the evacuation by France of the New Hebrides would involve the concession of something else on our part?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that Papers would be presented before the
  530
  end of the Session; he hoped in a few days. The settlement of the New Hebrides question, which he trusted would not be much longer delayed, would stand on its own merits; hut he did not mean to say that other Pacific questions would not be arranged; because when Earl Granville held the Seals of the Foreign Office there were negotiations on other Pacific questions; but Her Majesty's Government had held that the New Hebrides question should stand by itself.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND)—THE SCHULL AND SKIBBEREEN TRAMWAY.
  DR. KENNYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that at the Cork Assizes just held an application was made before Judge O'Brien (as reported in Cork Daily Herald of 26th instant), for a mandamus to compel the Arbitrators of the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway to grant their certificate to enable payment to be made of the Guaranteed Baronial Dividend on that undertaking; that, during hearing of said application, it was stated by one of the Arbitrators, Mr. Barrett, that General Hutchinson, of the Board of Trade, had in his original Report on the line certified it was in proper order; hut that immediately afterwards Mr. Jackson, the County Surveyor of West Riding of Cork, re-inspected the inspected line, and certified that it was in a very unfinished state and required a large outlay, and that General Hutchinson, in a subsequent Report, also condemned the state of the line; that Judge O'Brien then expressed the opinion that, inasmuch as the present state of the line was occasioning great loss to the ratepayers of the district, the ratepayers ought to be compensated for the loss they are now sustaining by reason of the mistake of General Hutchinson; and, whether, considering the great hardships entailed through General Hutchinson's error on the people of the district, he will recommend the Treasury to grant some assistance towards defraying the cost of putting the line into working order?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Tramway was authorized by an Order of the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and, in accordance with the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1871, had to be inspected and cer-

  531
  tified as fit for public traffic by the Board of Trade before being opened. The Order in Council also provided that the use of steam or mechanical power should be subject to Regulations made by the Board of Trade. As regards fences, railings, &c, the work had to be done to the satisfaction of the County Surveyor. Upon this officer is also thrown the duty of inspecting the line, engines, and rolling stock from time to time, and reporting to the Grand Jury. The line was inspected by General Hutchinson in September, 1886; and, as the result of his Report, Steam Regulations were issued, and the line certified to be fit for public traffic. Shortly after the line was opened the engines appear to have broken down, and traffic was suspended. The Board of Trade cannot be responsible for the failure of the engines. Subsequently, at the instance of the ratepayers, the Board of Trade appointed General Hutchinson to hold a further inquiry; and, as a result of this inquiry, the Board of Trade have certified that there has been default in working and maintaining the line, and have called upon the promoters to make good the default within four months. Nothing has been seen or heard by the Board of Judge O'Brien's expression of opinion. The line was open for six months; and a certificate that a line is tit for public traffic is not a guarantee that the line will be so maintained and the rolling stock kept in efficient order. The information before the Board of Trade tended to show that insufficient funds contributed largely to the closing of the line.
  DR. KENNYasked, whether it was not owing to the original defect in the construction of the permanent way, which was so badly ballasted that as soon as the engines were put on they began to subside; and whether the break-down of the engine was not due to the fact that it was not able to bear the strain put upon it by the roughness of the way?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The Board of Trade have no information confirming that view. The information I have is that the engines themselves were unfit for the work.
  DR. KENNY: Will the hon. Gentleman recommend that a portion of the £50,000 of the Imperial grant be devoted to defray the expenses of putting
  532
  this line into order, and so relieving the unfortunate ratepayers?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I have no power whatever in such a direction, nor could I recommend the Treasury to take any such step.

  THE MAGISTRACY (ENGLAND AND WALES)—B. G. D. COOKE, J.P. FOR THE COUNTY OF FLINT.
  MR. J. ROBERTS (Flint, &c.)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Bryan George Denis Cooke, of Colomendy Mold, is still a Justice of the Peace for the County of Flint; whether during the last 10 years he has not been twice a bankrupt; whether, at his last examination, he offered a composition of 2s. 6d. in the £1; whether that has not been paid to this day; whether, during the last 10 years, he has been repeatedly summoned for the non-payment of rates; and, whether, noth withstanding these circumstances, he still continues to act as a magistrate for the county?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that he has not received any information as to the pecuniary circumstances of the gentleman named in the Question, or as to whether or not he has been summoned for non-payment of rates; but he has communicated the Question to the Lord Lieutenant of the county, in order that such steps, if any, as may be necessary may be taken.

  IRELAND-PHŒNIX PARK, DUBLIN— THE MILITARY BAND.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will acquiesce in the resumption, during the present summer, of the military band performances which were given in the Phœnix Park, Dublin, on Sunday evenings during the summer and autumn of last year, and which attracted large and well-ordered crowds; and, whether be is aware that both the Catholic and Protestant Archbishops of Dublin have expressed opinions in favour of this means of enjoyment being afforded to the people?
  MR. JOHNSTON: May I ask whether, in the event of the resumption of the performances, the right hon. Gentleman will direct that the con-

  533
  cluding air shall be "God save the Queen," and that the continuance of the performances shall depend upon the reception accorded to that air?
  MR. MURPHYsaid, the hon. Member could hardly be aware that the concluding air in Phœnix Park was "God save the Queen."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. E. STANHOPE): I should be unwilling, in a case of this nature, to fetter the discretion of the Local Authorities. I should certainly offer no objection myself; but I should be going rather far if I attempted to fetter the discretion of the Local Authorities, especially in the matter of the tunes.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—INSULATORS.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Postmaster General, On whose recommendation the telegraph insulators generally used by the Post Office were adopted; how many of these insulators, approximately, are in use; whether, in the price paid to the makers, any sum is reserved for the patentee; and, if so, what amount; whether it is to the public advantage that the supplies should be obtained from one firm only; and, if he will take steps to ascertain the ordinary market value of the insulators, and to obtain future supplies by open tender in the usual way?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the telegraph insulators generally used by the Post Office were adopted on the recommendation of the late engineer-in-chief of the Department, and that there are probably more than l,250,000 of them in use. I have no knowledge of the relations as to payment or otherwise between the patentee and the manufacturers. As I stated in answer to the hon. Member's previous Question, these insulators can only be obtained from one firm, who are the sole makers. Supplies, therefore, cannot be obtained by open tenders. I may add that a new form of insulator is being tried, and that 10,000 of this form have been ordered for a more extended trial during the present year.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—LEGISLATION.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill relating to Friendly Societies this Session?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): Yes, Sir; we hope to introduce a Bill making sundry amendments of details which the actual working of the Friendly Societies Acts has shown to be desirable; but it is not intended in this Bill to make any radical changes.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—AMMUNITION TO VOLUNTEERS AND YEOMANRY.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Volunteers receive from the Government 90 rounds of ball cartridge per man, and are further allowed to purchase as much more as they like at cost price, while the Yeomanry are only given 30 rounds per man, and do not enjoy any facilities for purchasing extra ammunition; and, whether, in view of the importance of good shooting in every branch, of the Service, be will consider the expediency of putting the Yeomanry on the same footing as the Volunteers in respect of the issue and purchase of ammunition?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Volunteers are allowed 90 rounds of ball cartridge yearly, and the Yeomanry, under a recent Regulation, 40 rounds. Men of either arm can purchase, in addition, any ammunition they require for regimental use at cost price. As the chief weapon of a mounted force is the sword, and not the rifle, the Yeomanry are not required to go through as much musketry instruction as the Volunteers. It is not considered desirable to assimilate the two courses.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—VENTILATION OF THIS HOUSE.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the First Commissioner of Works, What steps have been taken to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Ventilation of the House, contained in the following paragraph of their Report, dated 31st May, 1886:—

  535
  "The Committee desire to draw attention to the fact that no single authority is responsible for the sanitation of the building ‥ … And the Committee desire to express their opinion that all the arrangements having a bearing on the sanitary state of the building should be placed in the hands of one Central Authority, who should be responsible to Parliament for every detail?"
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I have carefully considered the paragraph of the Report referred to by the hon. Member; but I cannot see my way to any considerable change in the present distribution of authority. The various officers who manage the heating, lighting, drainage, and all the more important matters connected with the ventilation of the Palace are responsible to the First Commissioner, who is directly responsible to Parliament.

  POST OFFICE—MEMORIAL OF POSTMEN.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has received a Memorial signed by over 400 postmen; whether nearly two months have elapsed since it was sent in; whether the receipt of it has not yet been acknowledged; and, when the Memorialists may expect an answer?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have received the Memorial referred to, which is undated, but which reached my Office on the 20th instant. There are no less than eight separate requests in the Petition; and I may say at once that I can hold out no prospect of a compliance with the greater part of them. I shall, however, continue my examination of the matter, and announce my decision to the Memorialists when I am in a position to do so. Meanwhile, the receipt of their Memorial shall be acknowledged.

  POLICE COURTS (METROPOLIS)— CLERKENWELL—CONSTABLE BUTLER.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Police Constable Butler is still acting as warrant officer at the Clerken well Police Court; and, whether he will now state what course he proposes to take with
  536
  reference to the conduct of Constable Butler?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have directed that Police Constable Butler, who is still warrant officer at Clorkenwell, shall be brought before his superior officers for his misconduct at the Clerkonwell Police Court, for which he will be dealt with in the usual course of discipline, and receive such punishment as they think proper under the circumstances
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked, whether Constable Butler would not be removed from the position of warrant officer at Clerkenwell Police Court?
  MR. MATTHEWSreplied, that a warrant officer was not usually withdrawn from the Police Court to which he was attached unless complaint was made by the magistrate, and in this case no such complaint had been made. The practical effect, however, of treating him as what was called a defaulter would be to suspend him from duty.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked, whether it was not a fact that complaint had been made to Mr. Barstow in open Court by Miss Parton of the conduct of the policeman, and that Mr. Barstow had very rudely declined to hear a word from her?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he was not aware of that fact; but he understood that an application had been made to Mr. Bridge, at Bow Street, for a summons against the constable for assault, and that it had been withdrawn, in order that the consequence which would inevitably follow—namely, the dismissal of the constable—might not ensue.

  THE MAURITIUS—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
  SIR EDWARD J. REEDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that Mr. Clifford Lloyd, after serving as Colonial Secretary in residence at the Mauritius for a period of eight months only, was subsequently absent from his post for a period of 10 months prior to his recent removal therefrom; whether the Colonial Office has called upon the Colony to provide half-pay for him throughout the whole of that period of absence; whether the Finance Committee of the Colony declined to vote this money, or all of it, on the ground that the full

  537
  salary of the office was paid to Mr. Fleming, the acting Secretary, from the date of his assuming the duties; whether the Council of Government then voted the money, the Vote being carried by Government officials against the wishes of nine out of 11 non-official Members of the Council, and by means of a second and casting vote given by the acting Governor, Major General Hawley; and, whether, under these circumstances, he proposes to relieve the Colony from a charge which a large majority of the representative Members of the Council of Government deem to be an unjust exaction?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The statement in the first paragraph of the Question is correct. Mr. Lloyd came home on sick leave, and could not be present at the inquiry in Mauritius. It was, therefore, thought desirable that he should remain and give his explanations here. In accordance with the Rules of the Service Mr. Lloyd has received half salary while on leave. The Council of Government wore asked to vote for Mr. Fleming, the acting Colonial Secretary, the full pay of his office, instead of the half salary which was available under the Rules. The majority of the Finance Committee voted against giving the additional half salary to Mr. Fleming; two of the Members on the ground stated in the third paragraph. Nine out of 11 non-officials opposed the Vote, which was carried by 12 to 11. The acting Governor did not give a casting vote. Since the instructions for passing the Vote were given Mr. Fleming has been appointed to administer the Government temporarily; and, as he will thus receive a substantial increase of salary, I propose to instruct him not to draw the additional half salary thus voted to him.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF IRISH COUNTIES—WEXFORD SUMMER ASSIZES—CHARGE OF MR. JUSTICE HARRISON.
  MR. J. BARRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the address of Mr. Justice Harrison to the Grand Jury, at Wexford Summer Assizes on Tuesday last, in
  538
  which he used the following language:—
  "It is now some years since I presided as Judge in this Court, and on my return I am very glad to say that, so far at all events as the number of cases to go before you for investigation is concerned of a criminal nature, they are fewer than in my experience I have known in any other county of the large extent of Wexford. There are only two cases to go before you, one a case of burglary and larceny, which is not at all of a serious nature, and another is a Post Office prosecution. They are the only bills to be laid before you, and I have no doubt you will easily dispose of them, and will return them for investigation by a Petty Jury;"
  whether similar declarations have been made by the other Judges at the Assizes for the past two years; and, whether, in view of these circumstances, and seeing that in the Return laid upon the Table of the House there is only one agrarian offence (a threatening letter) reported for the past six months, he can state the grounds on which County Wexford has been proclaimed?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Government could not consider the state of the County Wexford solely as exemplified by the information before the Judge of Assize. A general demoralization exists throughout this county. The proceedings connected with the Coolgreany evictions illustrate the necessity for extreme powers. In Enniscorthy, a short time ago, serious disturbances took place in carrying out the magistrates' orders when evicting some small house tenements. Serious disturbances have also occurred, from time to time, at New-Ross in connection with the appointment of Vice Guardians to the Union. The shopkeepers in New Ross dare not supply goods to the workhouse, which are got from Dublin and elsewhere, to the great loss of the local people. Two hundred and sixty-two persons are suffering more or less from the effects of Boycotting. Several persons are also under police protection to preserve their persons or property from violence. Within the last four months several National League Courts are known to have been held, at which intimidatory Resolutions have been adopted. The local journals, The People and The New Ross Herald, afford frequent illustrations of proceedings of this nature.
  MR. SEXTON: With reference to the statement that the

  539
  charge of Mr. Justice Harrison to the Wexford Grand Jury referred solely to the cases to be tried before him, I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the Judge did actually in his charge go beyond the question of the cases to be tried before him, and referred to the Report of the County Inspector; and whether the learned Judge used these words—
  "As far as the Official Returns—that is, of crimes committed—are concerned, I can say that the county is in a peaceable state?"
  Was that observation made by the learned Judge or not in reference to the assertion that there was only one agrarian offence reported for six months? I have also to ask, whether the common juries of the county have failed to return verdicts of conviction; and if they have not, upon what grounds have the Government taken powers to empannel special juries and remove trials of offences out of the county?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I specially stated that the remarks of the Judge were those quoted in the Question; and I especially stated that the Government could not consider the state of the County of Wexford solely as exemplified by the information before the Judge of Assize. I also stated that general demoralization existed throughout the county, and that there was general intimidation, so that a petty jury could hardly be expected to perform their duties, which, no doubt, they otherwise would perform if their lives and property were secure.
  MR. SEXTON: Sir, I must ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the offences of Boycotting and intimidation to which he refers are not dealt with under sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 2 of the Act, which empowers the Government to commit the trial of these offences to two Resident Magistrates, with a power of sentence of six months' hard labour; and how, in reference to the offences of Boycotting and intimidation dealt with in Section 2, the Government hold themselves justified in proclaiming the county under Sections 1, 3, and 4?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I think I have replied in my last answer, in which I pointed out that where intimidation extensively prevailed the juries might be specially expected to suffer from intimidation.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether Mr. Justice Harrison had not precisely the same sources of information and the same means of opinion as to the state of the County Wexford as Mr. Justice O'Brien had of the state of the County Cork and County Kerry?
  MR. W. REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the disturbances to which he refers as having taken place in the town of New Ross were not caused by the disgraceful conduct of some of Her Majesty's troops stationed in that town; and. also, whether it is not a fact that further disturbances were caused by certain of Her Majesty's troops stationed in the town of Wexford, many of whom had to be placed under arrest for assaulting the police; whether it is not also a fact that the most serious outrage recently reported from the County Wexford was an outrage committed by an Emergency man in burning the house of an evicted tenant without any authority whatever to do so; and, whether it is not a fact that the state of Wexford has been brought about by brutal and blood thirsty attacks made by Emergency men upon defenceless people and their homes?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I am afraid I cannot carry the hon. Member's Questions in my head.
  MR. W. REDMOND: You ought to be able to carry them in your head.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I suppose I ought; but I cannot. I must ask for Notice. With regard to the riots in connection with the New Ross Workhouse, the first of them, if I remember aright, was that the paupers, in a body, assaulted the new Guardians; and in pursuance of the plan of persecuting these new Guardians the people were not allowed to supply the workhouse with food or anything else. I cannot trace any connection between this and the conduct of the troops referred to by the hon. Member.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND:: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state the sources of his information, as of my own knowledge I know that some of it is inaccurate? Where did he get his authority for his statement about The New Ross Herald? There is no such paper in the County Wexford.
  MR. SEXTON: Might I ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will use his influence with the Chief Secretary, who is present in the House, to induce him to answer in person Questions relating to capital matters of State policy, which the Under Secretary is unable to elucidate?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Gentleman must he aware that at the present moment the pressure upon the Chief Secretary in connection with the measure which is passing through the House, and in connection with the Amendments on the Paper, is so enormous that he is obliged to avail himself of the services of my right hon. and gallant Friend in order to answer these Questions. When the pressure is relieved he will be exceedingly glad to do everything in his power to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF CO. DUBLIN.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what grounds has County Dublin been proclaimed?
  MR. CLANCY: Before the Question is answered, I beg to ask whether the Return of crime for County Dublin last quarter was a blank; whether for the previous quarter it was also a blank; whether for the quarter ending 31st December, 1886, it was also a blank; whether for the quarter ending 30th September, 1886, it contained one crime, a threatening letter; whether for the quarter before that it was also a blank; whether for the quarter before that it contained a record of but one crime, an incendiary fire, which never took place; and whether the quarter before that was also a record of only one crime; whether, as a matter of fact, there have been as many crimes committed in County Dublin in 10 years as there are in one month in a similar district of nearly the population in any part of England; and, whether the proclamation of County Dublin is due not at all to the presence of crime, but simply to the expulsion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet from the representation of the county?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is putting his Question in a very argumentative form, and is, therefore, out of Order.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Dublin has been proclaimed only under those parts of the 2nd section which deal with taking forcible possession and assaults on officers of the law. The Chief Secretary, in his previous answer, has explained that Sub-section 3 may, in the opinion of the Government, very properly be part of the ordinary law.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: How many cases of taking forcible possession have occurred in County Dublin?
  MR. CLANCY: Is it true that there has been a single case of the sort in County Dublin within the last 10 years?
  [No replies.]
  MR SEXTON: I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether or no offences of the kind specified in the Proclamation have taken place in County Dublin within the memory of man; what practical objects the Government propose to themselves by transferring the trial of offences which have not been committed in the county out of the ordinary jurisdiction?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I am afraid I have a good many things to answer for; but I could not answer for the memory of man. I think my answer was that the Government considered that, at the present juncture in Ireland, the sub-section might very properly be made part of the ordinary law.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked whether the only offence in County Dublin was the cutting off of the tail of a landlord's cow?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF KING'S CO.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland) If he will explain the reason for applying to King's County by Proclamation by Lord Lieutenant of the powers of the Coercion Act relating to private inquiries, summary jurisdiction, and special juries, seeing that only four agrarian offences, and no offences of intimidation, in the county are reported by the Inspector General of Con-

  543
  stabulary in the quarter ending June last; and, whether it is alleged on the part of the Government that evidence has been withhold in any criminal cases in the county, or that jurors have improperly acquitted accused persons in any cases tried in the county?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: With regard to King's County, general intimidation prevails. There are 86 persons more or less affected by Boycotting, and several persons under police protection, [Cries of "How many?"]
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the second paragraph of the Question?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have given reasons for the proclamation of the county on the ground that general intimidation prevails; and I have given my reasons in a previous reply for considering that juries should be protected from intimidation.
  MR. SEXTON: But, Sir, let me ask if the Government admit that the common juries in the county have not improperly acquitted any persons brought for trial, and have not improperly refused verdicts for conviction, what is the ground and object of taking powers to empannel special juries, and to remove trials out of the county?
  MR. CLANCY: Will the Government lay on the Table of the House such information as may enable Members to judge of the meaning of the phrase "more or less Boycotting" and of "general intimidation?"
  MR. R. T. REID&c.): I asked a Question of this land before. Having regard to the constant use of the term "general intimidation," of which we find no trace in the Constabulary Reports, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House what is the ground for that phrase, and so enable us to judge for ourselves?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Well, Sir, it would be impossible to go into all the cases of intimidation in the King's County; but I will quote one. On Lady Bury's property, a farm was taken by a man in spite of a threatening notice warning persons not to do so. Subsequently, the man was so intimidated as to be compelled to surrender the farm,
  544
  which was then offered for sale; but no one dared to take it. Attempts were made to sell the hay; but Boycotting notices were posted up, and no sale took place. Cows were then taken to graze; but the people were compelled to remove them by the action of the League.
  MR. SEXTON: I have to ask again, would not the offence described have been adequately dealt with by Section 2, and why, then, does the Proclamation extend to Sections 1, 3, and 4, which have no concern with the subject?
  MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how the man was intimidated?
  [No replies.]

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has under his consideration the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Reformatory and Industrial Schools which reported in 1883; and, whether he can give the House any assurance that a measure based on those recommendations is being prepared, and will be introduced early next Session?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir. I have considered these recommendations, and two measures dealing respectively with reformatory and industrial schools have already been prepared by the draftsman. I hope they may be introduced next Session.

  SCHOOL BOARD PENSIONS BILL— LEGISLATION.
  MR. KIMBERasked the hon. Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire, as Vice Chairman of the School Board for London, Whether he intends to proceed with the School Board Pensions Bill; and, whether it is the fact that, notwithstanding that the Bill is in terms not compulsory on existing employés of the Board without their assent, it is the intention of the School Board, if the Bill passes, to bring them all under the Bill by giving notice to terminate their existing engagements?
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: Yes, Sir; I do intend, on

  545
  behalf of the School Board for London, I to proceed with the Pension Bill in the hope of its being passed into law this Session, if possible. It is the fact that, although the wording of Clause 3 of the Bill implies voluntary acceptance of the pension scheme by the existing servants of the Board, still, in its essence and in its financial basis, the scheme is compulsory upon them all, without any exception. As an employer of intellectual labour, the Board has the power after notice for specified terms to terminate the engagements with its servants. There is not, indeed, any mention of such determination in the Board's Resolutions. But in these Resolutions, which are both public and published, bearing date 5th August, 1886, it is stated that in consideration of the pensionary allowances being granted a deduction of 2 per cent shall be made from the salaries of all the servants of the Board.
  MR. KIMBERasked, whether it was the intention of the Board, even if the Bill did not pass, to terminate those engagements of employés for the purpose of compelling them to come under the pension scheme of the Bill?
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: In the event of the Bill not being passed, the power which I have described of terminating engagements will remain with the Board. Whether the Board shall see fit to exercise that power is a question which, no man can answer, because the Board will never form decisions upon contingencies which have not yet arisen.

  CIVIL SERVICE—LOWER DIVISION CLERKSHIPS.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the contemplated promotion of certain Writers to Lower Division Clerkships is to be based upon their actual performance at the present time of clerical work similar to that upon which Lower Division Clerks are employed; whether, in the interests of public economy, he would consider the advisability of filling up future vacancies in such clerkships by the promotion of Writers of admitted merit, who, although not actually engaged at the time upon the particular duties connected with the vacant clerkships, have previously performed them to the entire satisfaction of the Heads of Departments; and,
  546
  whether the adoption of this method of filling vacancies, together with the substitution of boy-clerks in the places of the Writers so promoted, would result in the very large saving of over £10,000 per annum?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): With reference to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, I have already on several occasions informed the House that it is in contemplation to promote a certain number of copyists to the Lower Division in accordance with the Treasury Minute of December last, subject to a proper examination of their several cases. The proposal in paragraph 2 seems to me to be opposed to the spirit of the System of examination which has been with much difficulty and after careful consideration established in the Civil Service. As regards paragraph 3, the hon. Member must be aware that it is in contemplation, as far as possible, to employ boy-clerks in lieu of Writers; but I have no data as to the saving that will be caused by their employment.

  AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS—LOSS OF TOOLS.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners paid last year about £1,500 for the loss of tools, entailing a large loss upon the Society and constant interruption of work upon the members; and whether, in the London District alone, they paid for this purpose £156 19 s. 6d.; if in London an accurate inventory of the losses has been given at the police station nearest the place, according to Rules of the Society; whether his attention has been called to the paucity of convictions for robbery of tools; and, whether he will inquire into the possibility of affording more effective protection to their property, if it be loft under proper precautions, at the place of their work?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The facts stated in the Question are, I believe, correct. These robberies of tools left in empty houses are very difficult to prevent. The thieves secret themselves in the house and wait till the policeman on the beat has passed before commencing

  547
  operations. Empty houses are very numerous in the London District, and; it is scarcely possible to keep a continuous watch on all of them; but the attention of the police has been called to the matter, and ovary precaution will be taken to protect property left in snob, places by the workmen.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC— TONGA—REPORT OF SIR CHARLES MITCHELL.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can inform the House when the Report of Sir Charles Mitchell on affairs in Tonga will be presented to the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERIGUSSON)(who replied) said: I presented it some days ago, and I understand that it will probably be distributed on Tuesday.

  POST OFFICE—THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE—BANK HOLIDAYS.
  MR. LAFONEasked the Postmaster General, Whether, of the staff in the Central Telegraph Office, only 10 per cent are allowed off duty on Bank Holidays, and that, in consequence, only about half the staff have one holiday in the year, whilst the majority of Civil servants enjoy all the Bank Holidays; and, if he cannot see his way to arrange that each office shall have at least one holiday; or if this is not possible, then an equivalent in pay?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that the proportion of telegraphists released from duty on Bank Holidays is frequently even less than 10 per cent, and I regret that it does not appear to be possible to arrange otherwise. The question of giving an equivalent in pay to those officers who cannot be released has been more than once under consideration; but Her Majesty's Government has not up to the present time been able to authorize the payment. It must, I fear, be regarded as one of the conditions of the employment of a telegraphist that he is liable to be called upon to work on Bank Holidays.
  MR. LAFONEasked, whether it was not a fact that the duties of telegraphists
  548
  had largely increased since the introduction of the 6d. rate and no increase of pay granted?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, the duties of the staff had largely increased; but so had the numbers.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING-DANGERS OF THE RED SEA.
  MR. LAFONEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government is aware that in about latitude 14° 24' N., longitude 42° 42' E., right in the middle of the fair way in the Red Sea, on the track over which some 300 vessels pass per mouth, there lies a hidden rock on which two steamers have been wrecked within the last seven months; and, if they are taking stops, or know of steps being taken, to blow up this rock, or to define its position, cither by buoys or otherwise, in order to prevent further casualties?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Admiralty have already sent two surveying vessels to find the alleged danger; and although they had made diligent search in the places indicated by the masters of two vessels which are stated to have struck on it they can find only deep water and no indication of a rock. The Admiralty and the Board of Trade are now considering what further steps can be taken to find the rock, or to satisfy the Mercantile Marine that there is no rock at the spot indicated.

  THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMSSIONERS —THE EXCELSIOR CLUB, SHIRLAND ROAD, PADPINGTON.
  MR. LAWSONasked the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Essex, Whether the attention of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners has been drawn to an indignation meeting of the members of the Excelsior Club, Shirland Road, Paddington, and others, to protest against—
  "The action of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners who have given legal notice of their intention to immediately evict the members and close the club, under a pretext that the land on which the club premises are built was not let for the purposes of a club but for a private house;"
  whether 39 residents only in the locality are against the general opinion of their

  549
  neighbours; and, if he can state the grounds on which this action has been, taken?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: The Commissioners tad not, until this Notice in Parliament, any knowledge of the incident referred to, nor, indeed, of the existence of the Excelsior Club. The premises constitute part of the "Paddington Estate," which is hold on a perpetually renewable lease under a Private Act of Parliament passed in 1795, and the lessees have the general management of the property.

  IRISH HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES—THE LIBER ALBUS AND LIBER NIGER, & c.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government will take any steps to facilitate the publication of a series of documents, Liber Albus and Liber Niger, & c, illustrative of early Irish history, prepared by Mr. Gilbert, the eminent Irish historian, the publication of which, in the Rolls Series, has been recommended by the late Sir Edward Sullivan, when Master of the Rolls in Ireland, and the present Master of the Rolls?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I understand that the amount provided this year for the publication of historical documents is not more than sufficient to carry on works already undertaken, so that it would be impossible to take up the works referred to in the Question this year. I hope that the whole question of these publications will be considered before the Estimates for 1888–9 are prepared; and, in that case, I have no doubt the claims of the Irish documents referred to would be considered with others.

  POST OFFICE—NEW BUILDINGS—THE COLDBATH FIELDS PRISON SITE.
  CAPTAIN PENTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has yet selected the site for the now buildings, in connection with the Post Office, which it is proposed to erect on part of the present site of the disused Coldbath Fields Prison; and, how much of the ground will be required for the purpose?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Considering how desirable it is to obtain a large area for Post Office work towards the northern railway termini, I have been in communication with the Treasury, with a view of obtaining part of the site of Coldbath Fields Prison; and, although the matter is not yet settled, I hope that at least half will be appropriated for that purpose.

  WALES—THE TITHE AGITATION— THE ROYAL COMMISSION AT CONWAY.
  MR. STUART RENDEL(for Mr. T. E. ELLIS)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Chief Constable of Flintshire, when examined at the Tithe Commission at Conway, to give the name of a man against whom he brought some charge, because he understood from the Chief Constable of Denbighshire that legal proceedings would be taken against some persons engaged in the Mochdre affair; and, whether witnesses who volunteer to give evidence are to be exposed to the liability of being prosecuted after their evidence has been given at the invitation of the Government Tithe Commission?
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked, whether it had been decided that other tithe disturbances had been excluded as beyond the scope of the inquiry?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, he could not answer the last Question. As to the other question, voluntary evidence by no moans exempts a person from prosecution.

  ALLOTMENTS BTLL.
  In reply to Mr. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby),
  THB FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said: It is impossible yet to make arrangements as to the Allotments Bill; but we shall endeavour to bring it forward at an hour when it can be adequately discussed. It is our intention to pass it into law this Session.

  THE ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVENTION —THE PAPERS.
  In reply to Mr. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.),
  The UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR, FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)said, he hoped the Papers would be in the hands of Members next week; but owing to Bank Holiday, which was a very sacred day, he feared it would be Wednesday.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT—THE HESSIAN FLY.
  In reply to Major RASCIT (Essex, S.E.),
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that the Government wore fully alive to the importance of the question, and would carefully consider the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the destruction of the straw and compensation to the farmers. The whole question of dealing with the Hessian fly by the most effectual means would be closely considered.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— ARREST OF MISS CASS.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESasked, When the Report of the Chief Commissioner with regard to the inquiry into the case of Miss Cass would be published, and when the action of the Lord Chancellor with reference to Mr. Newton would be known; also, whether there was any truth in a statement which had appeared in the Press, to the effect that the Government had provided the necessary funds for the defence of Miss Cass before the Commissioner?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have no personal objection to the publication of the Report of the Commissioner, if I find it can be published without doing legal injury to individuals. On that point I must consult the Law Officers. I have no knowledge as to what action the Lord Chancellor may have taken with regard to Mr. Newton, or as to his decision. There is no truth whatever in the rumour that the legal expenses of Miss Cass in the course of the inquiry were furnished by the Government.

  DISTRESSED UNIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as to the course he definitely intended to take with reference to the Distressed Unions (Ireland) Bill.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he was anxious, as he had always been, to press on this Bill; but the hon. Member had put down a Notice which made it impossible to bring on the Bill after half-past 12. Under those circumstances, he did not see how at present it was possible to go on with the measure.

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL& c.)said, he wished to ask a Question as to the Notice which had been issued that Members could have their Parliamentary Papers forwarded to them through the post free—whether the Government seriously intended to press the Irish Land Bill through the House as they did the Criminal Law-Amendment (Ireland) Bill; or whether they meant to drop it in the event of protracted discussion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. U. SMITH): The hon. Gentleman has been for some time in the House, and I am surprised that he should put this Question to me. He ought to be aware that the Government are in no way responsible for the Notice to which he refers. As to the Irish Land Law Bill, I can only say that it depends on hon. Gentlemen in this House whether it is passed or not.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am one of those who think it ought to be passed; and I beg to give Notice that as this 4th clause has been under discussion for four days, if somebody else does not shortly move that the whole clause be added to the Bill, I shall do so.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he had read the statement which appeared in that morning's Daily News from an eyewitness regarding the shooting of a British sailor by a Spanish Custom House officer at Bilbao on the 17th of July; whether he could say if the facts mentioned in that letter were correct;

  553
  and, if not, would he give all the information the Government had on this matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The passage quoted by the hon. Member is similar to the report which appeared last week in The Standard, and with reference to which I have answered several Questions. It is impossible to pronounce any positive opinion upon the case until the result of the formal inquiries by the Spanish Authorities is known. There is no doubt that the unfortunate man was in liquor at the time of the occurrence. The Custom House armed guards asserted that he had threatened the sentries, and that the shot was fired by one of them in self-defence. Other witnesses declared that the act was quite unnecessary. None of the witnesses before the Consul mention the incident of the cigarette. The House will, I hope, be content to await the result of the inquiry, which will be carefully watched by Her Majesty's Minister and Consul.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL [Lords].
  [BILL, 308.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

  COMMITTEE [Progress 28th July.] [FIFTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Amendments of General Application.
  Clause 4 (Substitution of a written notice for execution of an ejectment)
  MR. O'DOHERTY: In rising to move an Amendment which appears on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that this is a departure from the usual policy of the Government, who, when they cannot substitute anything more favourable to the landlord, demand that the existing law shall apply, but who, when the Act is supposed to be favourable to the tenant, change the rule. That was illustrated forcibly last night by the arguments of the Government in regard to the franchise; and precisely a similar state of affairs arises on this Amendment. The law, as it stood in regard to caretakers
  554
  in Ireland under the Act of 1860, and the law as it now stands, compels the landlord to go to the Petty Sessions before he can take the necessary steps. Before he can put a man out of the holding it is necessary for him to pay the expenses of removing the goods; and it puts a kind of penalty on eviction. But what do the Government propose to introduce into the existing law? By this clause it is provided that evictions shall be carried out at the expense of the ratepayers and the country, and the landlord can compel the Sheriff to go to the holding with a posse comitatûs and turn the tenants out, and, if the Sheriff is too busy, he may send the bailiff with a body of police And that is not all; because it is further provided that all the expenses shall be paid by the evicted tenant.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I wish to learn what Amendment the hon. Gentleman intends to propose.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I propose to move to leave out—
  "And in the ease of proceedings being taken under the 86th section of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860, for the removal from possession of such caretaker, the justices may, at the request of the landlord or owner of the premises, issue the warrant mentioned in such section to the sheriff of the county in which the premises are situated, instead of to the special bailiff mentioned in the section, and such warrant shall be a sufficient authority to the said sheriff, his under sheriff or bailiff, to enter upon the said premises with such assistants as he shall deem to be necessary, and give possession accordingly; and he shall be under the same obligation to execute such warrant, and shall be entitled to the same fees and allowances, as if the warrant were a civil bill decree in ejectment."
  The Amendment includes the whole of the latter portion of the sub-section.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, in his observations, was referring to the latter part?
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I was dealing with the general effect of the Bill; and I want to explain to the Committee what change in the existing law was proposed by the Government, who are said to be legislating on the side of the tenant. They propose to change the entire machinery for carrying out evictions. That machinery is put in motion at the expense of the landlord, and, at the present moment, if the landlord desires to make use of the public machinery provided for dealing with the

  555
  case of an ordinary tenant, the entire expense of the ejectment is east upon him. Under the present clause, however, the public machinery will not be brought into operation except at the cost of the tenant himself and of the public. I do not think it is necessary that I should go into details, because the whole question is dealt with by subsequent Amendments, and I only want to put the matter in a general way. I have explained the purport and effect of the Amendment which I ask the Committee to adopt. The Amendment leaves the landlord to his remedy, because the caretaker is provided for by the existing law; and I ask the Government to adhere to their policy, that whether they make a change, and propose to give a different status either to the landlord or to the tenant, it shall not be done in the interest of the landlord alone. All through the Bill it will be found that wherever a provision is introduced for changing the status of either party, if the existing law is favourable to the landlord it is left as it is, whereas if it is favourable to the tenant it is proposed to be changed. We are constantly told that this is not a Bill for changing the general law of Ireland. I am altogether sick of that argument, which we have heard so often; and, "without further preface, I beg to move, in line 29, to leave out all the words of the sub-section, after "rent," to the end of line 41.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 29, to leave out all the words after "rent," to the word "ejectment," inclusive, at end of line 41.—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  Question proposed,
  "That the words 'and in the case of proceedings being taken under the 86th section of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860, for the removal from possession of such caretaker, the justices may, at the request of the landlord or owner of the premises, issue the warrant mentioned in such section to the sheriff of the county in which such premises are situated, instead of to the special bailiff mentioned in the section, and such warrant shall be a sufficient authority to the said sheriff, his under sheriff or bailiff; to enter upon the said promises, with such assist ants as he shall deem to be necessary, and to give possession accordingly; and he shall he under the same obligation to execute such warrant, and shall be entitled to the same fees and allowances, as if the warrant were a civil bill decree in ejectment,' stand part of theQuestion."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The machinery provided for carrying out the warrant is precisely what has been stated by the hon. Member; but what is proposed by this section is that there should be an alternative process, I may tell the Committee at once that the provisions in regard to the carrying out of the warrant are all regulated by the Act of 1860, and they are provisions which put within narrow limits the time within which it is possible to carry out the decision of the Court. The warrant, when it is issued by the Justices, cannot be executed for seven days, and it must be executed within 14 days, so that, as the Committee will see, there are really only seven days for the execution of the warrant, and consequently the limit of time within which it is possible to execute one of those warrants is extremely small, and if warrants are to be resorted to on a largo scale, there will be considerable difficulty in enforcing them, especially if there happens to be any disturbance in the district, and there is any difficulty in getting special men to carry the warrants into execution, Accordingly, we propose that special bailiffs may be employed, but in substitution of these special bailiffs the magistrates may direct an order to be sent to the Sheriff. The Amendments on the Paper appear to show a desire on the part of hon. Members below the Gangway to confine the issue of the warrant to the Sheriff himself; but I need not tell the Committee what the effect of limiting the warrants to the Sheriff would be. It is well known that there is only one Sheriff for each county, although there is a Sub-Sheriff and assistants. These officials, however, cannot be in several places at once. Only seven days are allowed for the execution of these particular warrants. In the case of an ordinary judgment for ejectment it can be executed after a long lapse of time; and if there are 20 or 10 ejectments to be carried out, the Sheriff can make all the necessary arrangements for executing them, and even, when necessary, call in the assistance of the military. Every single warrant for putting out a caretaker is now proposed to be addressed to the Sheriff of the county, and the process must be executed within the second seven days of the issue of the warrant, or else the entire va-

  557
  lidity of the procedure is destroyed. It appears to me that the provisions inserted here are reasonably fair, and that they are necessary to be adopted. Further, they are in no way intended to prejudice the position of the caretaker. Unless this change is made, if there are a number of warrants, it would be impossible to execute them within the statutory time. Every warrant against every caretaker has at present to be executed by the Sheriff and his assistants, whether the county is in a disturbed state or not, and whether there is any difficulty in carrying out the process or not. If we continue to direct the Sheriff to execute the warrants, I think it will be impossible to work the section at all. Of course, I am dealing with the Amendments on the assumption that the principle of the 4th clause is adopted and that the Amendments are not directed to the rejection of the clause altogether.
  MR. DILLON: This Amendment of the law to which the clause relates is one which was introduced into the Bill in the House of Lords. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has not given the Committee the slightest intimation as to why the law has been altered at all. It is proposed that the warrants shall Lo issued to special bailiffs, and the whole of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was directed, not to the Amendment now before the Committee, but to an Amendment which appears in the name of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) lower down on the Paper. He said nothing about issuing the warrants to special bailiffs, nor did he explain why there should be any alteration of the law. The simple object of the present Amendment is to leave the law as it stands, and in answering our proposition, the right hon. and learned Attorney General has not advanced a single argument against the law as it stands, nor has he pointed out a single inconvenience which attends the operation of the law of the country. On the contrary, he has devoted the whole of his speech to an attempt to prove that if all the warrants are directed to the Sheriff it may be inconvenient to execute them. We are told that this Bill will have the effect—and I hope sincerely it may have—of putting an end, practically, to evictions in Ireland on a large scale. It is unfortunate, then, to
  558
  hear the right hon. and learned Attorney General talk of military arrangements, which would seem to imply that he contemplates an enormous number of evictions. That is the only ground on which an alteration of the law can be defended—namely, the supposition that after the Bill has been passed into law so enormous will be the evictions in Ireland that the Sheriff will find it impossible to carry them out within a reasonable limit of time.
  MR. GIBSON: I do not contemplate anything of the kind.
  MR. DILLON: We know that the Sheriffs of Ireland are never troubled except in respect of evictions. The only inference must be that after the passing of the Bill the country will be in such a disturbed state, and evictions will become so numerous that it will be necessary to make special provisions for carrying them out. There does not appear to be any other argument for this part of the clause. What I object to is that the Government are making an alteration of the law for which they have adduced no argument whatever, except that evictions will be so numerous that it will be difficult to carry them out within a reasonable time. If they are to he numerous, we are bound to be most jealous that no obstruction which is at present placed in the path of evictions shall be removed in the interest of the landlord. If there are to be numerous evictions, the greater the expense which attends the execution of thorn the better it will be for the Irish tenants, and it is the duty of the Irish Members to struggle to the best of their ability against the removal of every obstacle to the carrying out of evictions which the present law interposes. Up to the present time the law which this clause proposes to change has always been recognized as one of the safeguards for the tenants of Ireland. Where we have rack-rent evictions it is most desirable that the landlord shall have no facilities given to them for carrying them out, but there should rather be an inducement for him to come to a settlement with his tenants. By this clause the Government are making the process of evictions less expensive, loss scandalous, and loss troublesome, so that it may be resorted to in a lighter way and a more speedy conclusion come to. This is no imaginary matter, and one of the most serious objections

  559
  we entertain to this clause has reference to the manner in which it is proposed to remove the obstructions now placed in the path of the landlord. I trust the Government will give some reason for making this alteration in the law, or else that they will leave the law as it stands.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I have already pointed out that where the existing law is in favour of the landlord the Government leave it as it stands, but that where it is favourable to the tenant they propose to alter it. When we ask to have a change introduced in favour of the tenant, we are told that we must abide by the existing law. That is the form in which the Bill has been brought forward, and it appears to contain no other principle whatever. As, however, the Government offer opposition to the Amendment, and seeing that the matter will come up again later on, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHANCE: I have to move, in page 3, line 32, to leave out "may," and insert "shall." I may point out to the Government that the acceptance of this Amendment will prevent any debate on Amendments 73. 74, and 75, and I think it is desirable that the debate should be taken on this particular Amendment. At present, before a tenant can be evicted from his hold-the eviction must be carried out by the Sheriff. I need hardly point out, even to non-legal Members of the Committee, that the Sheriff is responsible for the whole peace of the county. He has a Sub-Sheriff and assistants under him, and he is bound in a heavy sum to carry out his duties properly. He relies on the assistance he receives from the Sub-Sheriff and assistant bailiffs, who know what their legal rights are when they are engaged in carrying out evictions. The result is that where an eviction is carried out by the Sheriff, and he employs the Sub-Sheriff and his assistants, as a rule the scenes of brutality which have recently been witnessed in Ireland have not been due to the action of the Sheriff and his assistants, but to special bailiffs, who have been more or less brought upon the field by the landlord and the landlord's agent. So far as the present rights of the tenant are concerned, he is by what the right hon. and
  560
  learned Attorney General for Ireland calls an ideal eviction, converted into a caretaker without being dispossessed. When he comes to be dispossessed he is got rid of by a summary procedure under the Act of 1860, That question is practically closed, as far as we are concerned, because it has already been decided by the Committee that if a landlord desires to dispossess a tenant physically when he has been degraded to the position of a caretaker, he should be entitled to use the Act of 1860 and go to the local magistrates for a warrant. I now come to another question—namely, by whom should these warrants be executed? I do not regret the course which the right hon. and learned Attorney General has taken, although it was quite irregular in the discussion of the preceding Amendment. He has pointed out certain difficulties which may arise in the execution of the warrant. He said, with undoubted truth, that the warrant issued by the Court must be issued within seven days; and he says that if that limitation is to continue, a longer period must be granted to the Sheriff or his bailiff within which the warrant may run. Having deprived the tenant of his status, the Government are now going to hand over the duty of carrying out a real and not an ideal eviction from the Sheriff, Sub-Sheriff, and his assistants, all of whom are charged with the duty of maintaining the general peace of the county, and are bound by their liability to heavy fines to do their duty properly and fairly—the Government are going to remove the execution of that duty from their hands, and transfer it to men who are termed in this clause "special bailiffs." I do not know what the words "special bailiffs" mean, but I think I know the source from which the special bailiffs are to be drawn. They are, in point of fact, the emergency men who swagger about the streets of a country town drunk, and armed with revolvers, like the man who committed murder only the other day, and then said that he had only shot the man in self-defence. It has been repeatedly stated that the Irish Members are interested in keeping up these evictions; but last night we proposed an Amendment which would have practically enabled a jury of landlords, sitting on a Petty Sessions Bench, to prevent them from being carried out where they were

  561
  likely to inflict a real hardship. We now propose an Amendment to enable Her Majesty's Government to prevent men of the Wood type, and especially emergency men and bailiffs, from acting in a brutal manner, by placing the duty in the hands of men who will perform it properly, and who will be inclined to act with propriety. Under this clause it is proposed that special bailiffs shall be employed—that is to say, that after the tenant has been degraded into the position of a caretaker, so far as evictions are concerned, the Government appear to doubt the prudence of their own proceeding, because they leave it absolutely to the option of the landlord how he is to apply for the warrant—whether it shall be issued to the Sheriff or enforced by special bailiffs. Now let me translate to the Committee the meaning of that. It is perfectly obvious that the Government said to themselves—"All the Irish landlords do not desire the scenes of brutality which occur at evictions, or to evict their tenants in a harsh and brutal manner by tearing down the roofs of the tenants' houses, and burning their homes. It is, therefore, desirable to enable any landlord who chooses to do so to apply that the warrant shall be issued to the Sheriff and not to special sheriffs, and in that way he will be able to escape from the clutches of the emergency men, and put the execution of his legal rights in the hands of the executive, in whom he has confidence." That is a confession of weakness—a confession from the Government that this degradation of the tenant into the position of a caretaker is a serious matter, and that they ought not to inflict upon him more than the present legal consequences of that position. What I ask now is that the Committee should shut out from the execution of these warrants all emergency men of that kind. It is obviously for the interest of the Government, and of the landlords who sit in this House, to make this concession. It can easily be done by compelling the judges to issue the warrant, in every case, to the Sheriff of the county, and it will be competent for the Committee to increase the period in which the warrant is to run. If the Government are really desirous of preventing the brutal scenes which now take place at evictions, I call upon them to accept this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 32, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), a short time ago, was that the old jurisdiction should be kept up, and that the warrants should be left to special bailiffs, and executed by them alone. The argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) now is that the law ought to take away the execution of the warrant from the special bailiffs, and give the enforcement of the Order of the Court to the Sheriff. Now, I have already pointed out that it is impossible, if this clause is to have any operation at all, to give the enforcement of the warrant to the Sheriff. The Sheriff, as the hon. Gentleman has said, is the principal officer employed in a county to preserve the public peace, and he has one Sub-Sheriff under him, together with a certain number of bailiffs. But the Sheriff has a considerable number of duties imposed upon him by the law, and he has to execute all the judgments of the Superior Courts, not only in regard to evictions for non-payment of rent, but judgments for debt. What I have pointed out already is that in the case of ordinary judgments and ordinary decrees the Sheriff has a long time in which to make his arrangements, and to marshal them according to the different localities in which it is necessary to enforce the writs. Therefore he is put to no inconvenience when it is entrusted to him alone to enforce the ordinary decrees; but in regard to the special warrants issued against caretakers, they have only a fortnight altogether to run, and in the first week of the fortnight they cannot be executed at all. They can only be executed in the second week, so that, as a matter of fact, there are only seven clays allowed for execution altogether. Consequently, if the Sheriff is directed to eject any particular person, and to carry out a special warrant, he would frequently find it impossible to do so, because he has only seven days allowed within which he can do it. [Mr. CHANCE dissented.] The hon.

  563
  Member for South Kilkenny shakes his head, but I can assure him that that is the view I take, and there appears to me to be no effective means of executing the warrants if the Amendment be accepted. As the matter is one of a very subordinate character, I hope the hon. Member "will not be disposed to press the Amendment. I hope his own good sense "will enable him to see that no advantage can be gained by insisting upon it.
  MR. CHANCE: I have no objection to increase the time within which a warrant may be legally executed. My only desire is to provide that the warrants shall be properly and fairly put in force, and that is a very simple object indeed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?
  MR. CHANCE: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MARUM: I have now to move, in page 3, line 40, after "allowances" to insert the words, "nevertheless payable solely by such landlord or owners of the premises." My Amendment is a very small one, and I hope the Government will not object to it. The clause provides that the Sheriff, his Under Sheriff or bailiff, shall be under obligation to execute the warrant, and shall be entitled to the same fees and allowances as if the warrant were a civil bill decree or ejectment, and the object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the landlord will have to pay the fees and allowances of the Under Sheriff or bailiff if he elects to avail himself of the executive instead of employing a special bailiff against the caretaker. The present proposal is one that is altogether of a novel character. There are now four modes provided by which the landlord can proceed. He has the ordinary writ of possession, then, at the request of the plaintiff, he can obtain a warrant upon which the baliff can act in the ordinary way; in the third place, he can appoint a special bailiff; and, lastly, there is the Common Law under which, he himself can take action. Having these four special modes of procedure, if he decides upon putting the Sheriff in force, I think it is not too much to ask that the cost should not be imposed upon the tenant, but that it should be borne by the landlord himself. If instead of risking a disturbance and riot the land-
  564
  lord chooses to resort to the Sheriff he ought to pay for it, and he should not have the option of throwing the cost upon the tenant.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 40, after the word "allowances," insert the words "nevertheless payable solely by such landlord or owner of the premises."—(Mr Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GIBSON: As I understand the law costs are not imposed upon the tenant now, and it is no part of the intention of this section to throw upon the tenant costs which were not imposed before. If the landlord wishes to resort to this mode of procedure the provisions of the existing law require that he should bear the costs of the proceedings. Therefore, the words proposed to be added by the hon. Gentleman appear to me to be unnecessary. I have no objection, however, to the addition of the words if hon. Members opposite prefer it.
  MR. MARUM: I certainly think it is somewhat doubtful whether under the section, as it stands, the landlord will not be entitled to his costs. At all events, the putting in of these words would act as a check upon him, and the right hon. and learned Attorney General admits, himself, that they can do no harm.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: At present the fees are paid by the tenant, and the allowances by the landlord.
  MR. GIBSON: The only reason for making any reference to fees at all is to secure the Sheriff's right to payment. It was considered necessary to put it in for the purpose of enabling the Sheriff to recover his costs.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I have now to move an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Down [Mr. M'Cartan).
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TOR IRELAND (Air. A. J. BALFOUR): The Government accept that Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON: It will be necessary to make a verbal change hereafter, but we accept the substance and the spirit of the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 41, after" ejectment," insert—"Provided always, that the enactments of the

  565
  eleventh and twelfth Victoria, chapter forty-seven, intituled "An Act for the Protection and Relief of the Destitute Poor evicted from their Dwellings in Ireland," shall apply to the delivering up or taking the land occupied by a caretaker under this section before the execution of any warrant for delivering up or taking possession of same."—(My. O' Doherty.)
  (Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to move the Amendment "which stands in my name—that is, at the end of the clause, to add—
  "Nothing in this section shall be taken or construed to restrain any landlord from proceeding on his judgment in ejectment otherwise than as herein provided, but it is hereby enacted that where, a landlord elects to proceed by notice under this section, and the tenancy in the holding is determined, the holding, or any part thereof, if relet within fifteen years from such determination, shall be subject from and after the time of its being so relet to all the provisions of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' which are applicable to present tenancies."
  Now, the first part of this Amendment, which was drafted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), and would have appeared on the Paper in his name to-day but for the unfortunate proceedings which occurred last night, provides that the landlord shall have the option of proceeding under the new method proposed by this clause, or under the old method. We think it highly desirable that this option should be given to the landlord, in order to enable him to proceed under the old law, and, if he does not proceed under the old law, he will escape from the second portion of the method which adopts the provision contained in the 51st section of the Act of 1881. With reference to holdings to be resumed by the landlord at the expiration of a lease, if the landlord, banâ fide, proposes to occupy the same as a residence for himself or as a home farm in connection with a residence, or for the purpose of providing a residence for someone else, it is provided that whore a holding is so resumed, if it is relet to a tenant, such holding shall be subject from and after the time it may be so relet, to all the provisions of the Act of 1881. I think this is an Amendment which the Government may accept, unless they wish to take advantage of the summary procedure under this section to deprive the tenant of his status under
  566
  the Land Act if the clause is used to any large extent against tenants in arrear, or to take advantage of a hanging gale against tenants who would not be ordinarily considered as being in arrear. The result will be that before the provisions of the Leaseholders' Clause—Clause 1—come into force, a large number of tenants may find themselves deprived of their title under the Act, and may be put out altogether from the legislation which this House has taken so much trouble to enact, and the effect will be that you will, in the course of next year or the year after, find it necessary to introduce another Bill for the purpose of reinstating tenants who have lost their title owing to the summary operation of this clause. The landlord, if this Amendment is adopted, will not have the same inducement he has under the clause as it now stands of pressing his tenant unfairly, or of using the clause in an unjust spirit because he will know that if he elects not to keep the holding in his own possession, after the eviction of the tenant, but to relet it, either to the evicted tenant, or to some other person, the holding, at any time within 15 years, will be subject to all the provisions of the Act of 1881. Therefore, the landlord would have every inducement to come to terms with the tenant, because he could not escape ultimately from the provisions of the Act of 1881. That is my sole object in moving this Amendment—namely, to make it less likely that the landlord will take advantage of this clause in a spirit contrary to that in which the Government have explained, on several occasions, to the Committee. If the landlord knows that, he will not be able to relet the land to anybody without incurring the liability imposed upon him by the Act of 1881 with regard to statutory tenancies. Then he will have no inducement to act unfairly, hostilely, or unjustly. The tenant, therefore, laden with arrears will get a chance of making fair terms, or of obtaining such time within which to pay the arrears as the landlord may fool disposed to give him, and so may be enabled to discharge them. Otherwise the objections to this clause will still remain in full force, notwithstanding the Amendments which have already been accepted by the Government. The Amendments which were accepted have not deprived

  567
  the clause of this danger. This is a provision which cannot possibly injure the landlord if he desires to relet the land; neither can it injure him if he desires to keep the land in his own hands. I consider that it would be good policy on the part of the Government to say with regard to the letting of evicted farms in Ireland, where, the tenants have been evicted under the provisions of this clause, that if these lettings do take place, the farms should recover their status, although the tenants may not do so. Otherwise you will be laying the foundation of another land question in future, and you will run the risk of having a largo area of the land of Ireland struck out from the provisions of the Act of 1881. You will inevitably lay the foundation of future trouble with regard to the question of rent between the landlord and tenant which will, undoubtedly, at some time or other, necessitate further legislation. In fact the clause, as it stands, will, in all probability, undo much of the work which was done by the Act of 1881, under which the greater portion of the land held by the tenants was put under statutory conditions. By the summary operation of this clause you will free much of the land from those provisions, with the result that you will have undone the work of Parliament, and, as far as such holdings are concerned, you will have repealed the provisions of the Act of 1881. The Amendment provides that if the landlord elects to retain the land in his own hands, he will not be interfered with in the exercise of his rights in the slightest degree, but if he elects within 15 years to relet the land to a tenant—whether the old tenant or some now tenant—such tenant will be protected by the provisions of the Act of 1881. I think this is a fair Amendment—a moderate Amendment—and I should be very much surprised if the Government do not accept it. It is one which has boon very carefully drawn and designed to act as a check on the wholesale portion of this clause without, in any respect, trenching upon the views which the Government have expressed. I therefore hone the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment which I now beg to move.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 11, at the end, insert—"Nothing in this section shall be taken or
  568
  construed to restrain any landlord from proceeding on his judgment in ejectment otherwise than as herein provided, but it is hereby enacted that where a landlord elects to proceed by notice under this section and the tenancy in the holding is determined, the holding or any part thereof if relet within fifteen years from such determination shall be subject, from and after the time of its being so relet, to all the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, which are applicable to present tenancies."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): There is one objection to the clause moved by the hon. Gentleman which, I think, will of itself be almost fatal to it in its present form, and as I do not think that it necessarily applies to the substance of the Amendment, I will mention it to the hon. Gentleman in the first place. If he will look at the wording of the clause, he will see that the effect of it is this. A landlord when he evicts a future tenant, or an accepted tenant, or a tenant on the domain lands—in other words, when the landlord evicts any tenant whatever, who is in no way at this moment under the provisions of the Act of 1881, such tenant will hereafter, under this clause, come within the scope of the Act of 1881. With respect to such tenant, I think that is a defect which the hon. Gentleman might alter, but it is fatal to the Amendment in its present shape. There are, however, objections of a more fundamental and vital character which, I think, no alteration of the Amendment would succeed in modifying. The hon. Gentleman has suggested to the House that the landlord will be given two alternative methods of procedure in eviction—namely, the method which is now in force and the method which will be in force after this clause becomes law. He proposes to drive the landlords into the first of those methods by penalizing the second. He makes no disguise that that is his object, and that being so, he is quite consistent as far as he can in trying to make it impossible to use the clause. At all events, he has frankly avowed that if we are to have this clause in operation at all it is to be merely used as an alternative, and an alternative which he wishes to make the landlord accept by penalizing the second method. Now that view, and I apprehend that it is not an unfair

  569
  view to take, is contrary to the policy we have stated to the House in regard to the Bill. We have always laid before the House and the Committee that, in our view, this clause will be a distinct improvement of the existing law, not in the interests of the landlord nor in the interests of the tenant alone, but in the interests of public policy. Therefore, if you leave two courses open to the landlords, one more consistent with public policy but penalized as suggested by the Amendment, it is quite clear that you traverse the whole line of argument by which the Government have attempted to commend their view to the House. The hon. Gentleman has laid before the House the analogy of Section 21 of the Act of 1881, and it is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that in that section of the Act of 1881 there was a provision which bears some similarity to the one which has been placed upon the Paper. But there are reasons which I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate when I state them, why that provision was appropriate in the Act of 1881, and why it is not appropriate now. Section 21 applies to the case of a landlord who resumes his holding for purposes of occupation at the end of a lease. It refers, therefore, to the case of a landlord who has deprived his lease holding tenant of that permanent occupation which the Land Act of 1881 gave him, and has so deprived him on the ground that the landlord wants the holding for himself for some permanent purpose. It is perfectly clear that Section. 21 was introduced into the Act of 1881 in order to test the bona fides of the landlord. If the landlord really wanted the farm for his own occupation, it is quite clear that he would have no motive for letting it again; that it was not within his contemplation to relet it, and if he did relet it, it would be because he had abandoned the intention which was his sole excuse for resuming possession. Therefore, the analogy which the hon. Member drew between Section 21 of the Act of 1881 and the present clause will not bear a close examination. The hon. Gentleman brought forward certain arguments which, if I caught his meaning rightly, were based upon the fact that there might be a largo increase of future tenants under the clause as it stands, and that it was important, on public grounds,
  570
  to keep side by side present tenants and future tenants.
  MR. PARNELL: I said it was important that the work done by the Act of 1881 should not be undone by the operation of this clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that if he carries this Amendment he will leave side by side two methods of eviction—one of those methods being aimed at the creation of new tenants, while the other mode is aimed at the creation of present tenants. If it be an evil that there should exist side by side these two classes of tenancies, that evil would be considerably aggravated by the circumstance that the two kinds of tenancies would come into operation by a similar process of eviction. What I mean is this—you may have side by side two landlords, one of whom would use Clause 4 of the present Bill as his method of eviction, while the other would use, as his method of eviction, the mode provided by the Act of 1881. In the one case the tenant would be a future tenant and in the other he would be a present tenant. The hon. Gentleman stated just now, in answer to a question from me, that the result of the clause, as modified by the Amendment, might be to introduce an alteration of the Land Act of 1881, and in doing so it would not benefit the tenants in whose interests that Act was passed, because they are not the persons who would become present tenants by the operation of this clause. I apprehend that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would have that effect rather than the clause. If I understand the Act of 1881 rightly, the principle of it was that if the tenancy under that Act was really broken and brought to an end by any means, the new tenancy to be created on such land after that period would be a future tenancy, and one of the objects the Government had in drawing a distinction between present and future tenancies was, as far as they could, to lay down as a principle of public policy that free contract in land was the proper and best system to be adopted wherever it was possible. There were great reasons of State and public policy, and of justice also, which induced the Government of that day to deal with the existing tenancies of Ireland in that spirit. Where they felt bound to interfere with the freedom of contract in

  571
  respect of such tenancies they laid down, at the same time, as a principle of policy, that wherever it was possible there should be a return to a more normal and natural system, and that such return should be encouraged by the Legislature. [Mr. PARNELL: No.] I believe I am not misstating the policy of the Government; but it is quite clear that if the Government adopt the principle of the hon. Gentleman they will strike another blow at it. And for what purpose will that blow be struck? What object will you gain by striking it? Will the hon. Gentleman benefit the tenants in whose interests he professes to move the Amendment? It will certainly not benefit them, because the tenants will not become present tenants by the operation of this clause. As the House is aware, it is an undoubted principle of law that a tenant who redeems during a period of six months after eviction becomes by that process a present tenant, and he resumes his ancient tenancy with all his rights undiminished. The man on whom the Government conferred all the advantage, by the Act of 1881, was not the tenant evicted, but some unknown individual—possibly some individual who may have come from America, with no previous connection with the locality and no connection with the holding. If this Amendment be carried a serious injury might be done to the tenantry of Ireland as a class, because it gives the greatest encouragement to the landlord whose tenants have been evicted not to relet his land, but to keep it in his own hands. He would keep it in his own hands in order to save it from the operation of the clause, and because if he let the land he would be penalized. There is, therefore, a clear motive to every landlord to refuse to let the land, and surely that is not a proceeding which the Committee will be able to recommend in the interests of the tenants of Ireland.
  MR. PARNELL: The two first objections which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has brought forward against the Amendment I shall be quite willing to remove, as he has already anticipated in reference to the first objection by the insertion of words under which the Amendment will only apply to tenancies which were present tenancies before the eviction took place. And in the second in-
  572
  stance, I am also willing to remove the objection as to giving an option to the landlord of two methods which will be contrary to the principle and policy of Clause 4. That objection would be removed by leaving out the first part of the Amendment, so as to leave only one method open under Clause 4, as is desired by the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the question of policy, I have to say that, however desirable it may be, under ordinary circumstance, in a country in a normal state to have freedom of contract in land, that that hope has long ago been given up in regard to Ireland. There may be some lingering hope still existing in the minds of the authors of the Land Act of 1881 that it may be possible to return to freedom of contract in Ireland at some future time; but in the ease of present tenancies which have ceased to be present tenancies and have become future tenancies the ordinary principle of supply and demand must be left to regulate the competition in regard to such holdings. But the whole course of events since, then, has shown that this is impossible; and in reference to Ireland, where the existence and well-being of the country and the living of the people depends upon agriculture alone, and where there are scarcely any manufacturing industries, as is the case in England and Scotland, to take off the pressure thrown upon the people, it is impossible to go back and leave the people of Ireland, who have made the land what it is, and who have given to it whatever fertility it is possible for the hand of man to give it, and throw the tenants upon the mercy of the landlord class in the future in respect of dealings in land. Therefore we protest, and have protested, against this clause, because we see in the operation of it that a very large part of the work of the Act of 1881 will be undone, and that the landlords will be free with respect to a large portion of their land from the statutory conditions which were provided by that Act. Why do not the Government agree to this Amendment if it is altered as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested it should be altered? They think that an election should be loft to the landlords with the object of removing their tenants from the provisions of the Act of 1881. I have endeavoured to consider the Dill of the Government with an equal mind, and I

  573
  shall be glad, when the Bill is passed, if it can be used in a fair spirit by both Parties with a desire to arrive at a mutual settlement if possible, and, of course, if that is impassible, to do the best that can be done to settle the difficulties between landlord and tenant without having recourse to the tribunals. But if the Government evict from their statutory tenancies under the provisions of this clause any large proportion of the tenants of Ireland they will entirely prevent any settlement being arrived at, and will fatally prejudice the consideration of their Land Purchase Bill when it comes on for consideration, because the essence of any settlement must depend upon the fewness of the evicted tenants. If you have a large number of evicted tenants scattered over the country with no hope of being restored to their holdings in their original status under the Act of 1881, you will have done your utmost to drive those men and their families into despair and to prevent that settlement which you profess to be so desirable. I will go further, and will say, that if it be an object to the landlords to hold out temptations to thorn to have large portions of the land subjected to future tenancies, released from the conditions of the Land Act of 1881, one of the strongest objections I have always taken to sweeping schemes of that kind is that such schemes have applied to the land in the landlord's own occupation, as well as land in the position of future tenancies, in addition to land in the occupation of tenants as present tenants. Now, I think it would be absolutely impossible, when the time for producing the Land Purchase Bill arrives, to include in that Bill, with any hope of fair dealing between the State and the purchasers and sellers, farmers who have been evicted under the operation of this clause, and who will have lost the conditions of statutory tenancy which would be otherwise attached to them under the operation of the Land Act of 1881. I protest against the way in which the Government are meeting the Irish Members with reference to this clause. The only two valid objections apart from abstruse questions of policy and political economy with which the right hon. Gentleman has favoured the Committee I have met. I have offered to meat the two criticisms the right hon. Gentleman
  574
  has made with reference to the Amendment, and I have agreed to insert Amendments to remove those objections, but I say that when we come to the question of policy there I part company with the right hon. Gentleman, and I will add that the Government are going the shortest wav to provide future difficulties for themselves in Ireland to prevent the safe and satisfactory working of this measure, and to shipwreck the Land Purchase scheme when it is brought forward.
  COLONEL WARING: I must say I heard from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) with surprise that there are peculiarities in the soil, situation, and climate of Ireland which rendered it impossible for freedom of contract to be revived in that country.
  MR. PARNELL: I did not say anything of the kind. I was speaking in reference to the land.
  COLONEL WARING: Well, in reference to the land. The hon. Gentleman says that freedom of contract in hind is not possible in future in Ireland. I attach no value whatever to that assertion. I can well understand that the agrarian system which has sprung up in Ireland may, in the view of some persons, interfere with the freedom of contract, and render it necessary to restrain it; but when that system is wiped away and the land is taken into the landlord's own possession, I fail to see why he should not be able to deal with his property as freely as a landlord can deal with property in any other part of the globe. It is an extraordinay circumstance that this clause should be regarded with such extreme suspicion by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to be thought to require such an extraordinary number of safeguards. One would suppose that this clause was the last new Tory pitfall for catching the unwary tenant, and luring him on to his destruction. It is nothing of the kind. The clause has existed as far back as the date of the Devon Commission, and it appears almost verbatim in the Bessborough Commission, while it was explicitly recommended in the Cowper Commission on page 73 in their Report. The Bessborough Commission in Section 415 of their Report, presented in 1880, says—
  "The present period of six months allowed for redemption should be reckoned before in-

  575
  stead of after the actual eviction, thus practically respiting the execution of the writ of possession, or of the decree for six months after the judgment in ejectment or decree to possession is pronounced."
  The Devon Commission was also clear and explicit, because it said that the practice which had necessarily prevailed under the existing state of the law of actively removing tenants out of their houses was often productive of much hardship to poor occupiers, and lad frequently to scenes of riot and disturbance. That Commission recommended that stops should be taken, at an early day, to revise the law of distress.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I cannot help regarding the dream of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Waring) in regard to the revival of free contract in Ireland as altogether utopian, and I am afraid that before it could be brought about it would be necessary to repeal the provisions of the Act of 1881. The only free contract which now exists is to get as much rent as the landlord can screw out of the tenant, and after that the tenant comes in on statutory conditions. There is no free contract in Ireland at all. When the contract is made the Court assumes that the tenant would not have entered into it without having made proper calculations; and, consequently, the moment the landlord attempts to play tricks he is mot by the provisions of the Act of 1881. When a landlord demands an increase of rent from the tenant of a present tenancy, or an increase of rent from a future tenant, the tenant has the option of selling, and if the landlord then desires to go back to the old system of raising the rent these statutory conditions at once apply. There is no such thing as free contract, and there cannot possibly be. I am glad, however, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the matter, because it is perfectly evident that there exists a dream of a future state in which free contract may prevail between landlord and tenant. That dream, however, I assure the hon. and gallant Member is altogether idle, so far as Ireland is concerned. It never can possibly occur; and, therefore, the Amendment does not affect the vital and radical change which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary attributes to it. Any man in Ireland, who
  576
  at this moment takes a farm, and prefers to take it as a future tenant at its present value, is placed in the condition of the old tenant under the provisions of the Act of 1881 and 1883, and will be better able to make a living out of the farm. It is therefore useless to say that we are seeking to make a vital change in the provisions of the Bill. We are asking practically for no change whatever. All we ask is, that a man should not be made a caretaker for another man without his consent. If the landlord makes a free contract to begin with, he cannot afterwards rack-rent the tenant, and our object is to save the tenants' improvements if this Bill is to pass. I do not see that any especial preference should be given to one creditor over another creditor. The landlord can secure his rights without having kept an account, and no other creditor can. While the six months are passing, in which the tenant has time to redeem his farm, and while he is actually occupying the holding, the property might be rendered unsaleable; the landlord then quietly walks in and takes possession of the property, and what we wish now is to revive he original statutory tenancy, so as to save the tenants improvement, which would be confiscated if we pass the clause as it stands.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: As far as I understand the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), it seeks to take away an inducement which the landlord has to serve notices of ejectment under this section. I apprehend that that is the main purpose the hon. Gentleman has in view. On the merits of that question, I should not hesitate to say that I go a long way with the hon. Member; but the way in which the matter presents itself is this. This Amendment indirectly raises the whole question of future tenants, and really I am not able, on the 29th of July, with the Bill in its present state, to undertake the settlement of that question, nor do I think the Committee is fairly called upon to do so.
  MR. PARNELL: It only involves the case of eviction.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I have stated that I should go a long way with the hon. Member if the matter were fairly raised at a time when it could be discussed and settled; but I apprehend

  577
  that a fundamental change in the Act of 1881 will hardly be possible upon the point we have now reached. It may be desirable that a change should be made; but I do not believe that it is possible to make that change now, and, therefore, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed, and that we may be able to get on to other and more serious work.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I think that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland really wished to curtail the limits of discussion, it was very unfortunate that he should have raised contentious matters of general policy, as he did in the latter part of his speech. We were getting on quickly and rapidly until the right hon. Gentleman raised that contentious matter. Now, it appears to me that under the Act of 1881 present tenants are the rule and future tenants the exception. I do not, however, wish to raise that question now. I myself concur with the view expressed by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did not confine himself to the first part of his speech, where he gave practical reasons for not accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork. It was altogether unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to raise the large question of future tenancies, which will, no doubt, be a question of trouble hereafter to Ireland. "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof," and I hope that the Amendment will not he pressed.
  MR. DILLON: I do not at all share the view of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The object of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork in moving the Amendment was not to raise the general question of future tenants, but to deal with the case of classes of people in Ireland who, we fear, and with good reason, may be shut out from the benefits of the Act. What has been the normal history of legislation upon Irish matters? It has been an unbroken history of a system of laws by which the landlord has boon dealt with leniently, and the tenant with unnecessary and harsh severity. In spite of the warnings which have come from these Benches, you have always left some persons out of your Acts. You have never passed an Act
  578
  in which you did not leave some portion of the tenants to whom you did not extend relief. We now ask that you shall remove from the landlords, who are now, as I honestly believe, holding in their hands at least 10,000 ejectment decrees, a terrible temptation, and in giving them after this Act is passed power to avail themselves of a new and easy and less expensive machinery for carrying out evictions, lest they may be led into breaking every present tenancy with a view of converting present tenants into future tenants. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says it is notorious that in every case where the redemption is complete the tenant recovers his rights; hut the right hon. Gentleman ought to know that in nine cases out of 10, where a settlement is come to, the settlement itself is made, not with a view of reinstating the tenant, but by an agreement between the landlord and the tenant, under which the tenant is never able to pay the full amount of the rent imposed upon him at all. Now, I venture to say that there is not one case in 20 whore the tenant redeems by paying the full amount that is due from him. He pays what he can scrape together, or beg, or borrow, but it is never the full amount required, and, consequently, he goes back on such terms as may seem good to the landlord. The effect of allowing the clause to pass as it stands will be that you will leave from 15,000 to 20,000 tenants in Ireland, if you include ail those who are hopelessly in arrear, who will be barred out of the benefits of the Act and will be entirely at the mercy of the landlords, because they will not be able to redeem, and they will be either not reinstated at all, or only be reinstated on the landlord's terms. Under those circumstances, the landlord will have a strong temptation not to settle with his tenant as an old tenant, or to reinstate him on the holding in his original condition, but to make him a future tenant. That is what we want to avoid. We want to avoid the fact that simultaneously with the passing of this Act there shall arise in Ireland a fresh grievance. Our desire is to make the Bill what it professas to be—that is to say, a temporary settlement of the Irish Land Question for the space of three years or thereabouts. But if you do not provide for these 10,000 or 15,000 tenants you will

  579
  not effect even a temporary settlement. We do not touch the principle of future tenancy; we sock to save an enormous number of tenant from having their status broken, and from being turned from present tenants into future tenants, by depriving the landlords of the temptation which is offered them by this clause.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I think if the hon. Member for East Mayo has correctly stated the views of the ton. Member for Cork (Mr. Pamela we ought to be in a fair way towards a settlement of this particular question. I understand him to say that the Amendment is moved in the interests of 15,000 tenants against whom decrees of ejectment have been obtained. What the hen. Member says is that the law is altered by this Bill, and that those who possess these decrees of ejectment will proceed to execute them against the tenants unless some obstacle is placed in their way, and that the Amendment is intended as an obstacle to prevent them from doing this. It seems to me that it would be better to deal with the case of these ejectments at a later stage of the Bill, and I want to see that the possessors of the ejectments shall be placed in exactly the same position as those who, after the Bill is passed, get decrees of ejectment. I understand that the Government have already, in answer to the representation I made to them, declared their willingness to deal with this matter, and that they have put an Amendment on the Paper with that intention. I do not know whether that fully carries out the intention of the Government; but surely if, when we come to Clause 22, we are told that the position of these persons will be the same as that of those against whom decrees of ejectment are obtained after the Bill is passed, the views of the hon. Member for Cork will have been met.
  MR. DILLON: I should like to know from the Government what their view of the matter is. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has slightly misunderstood me. I spoke first of those who are evicted, and next of those who are hopelessly in arrear. I am not aware of anything in the Bill which carries out the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bir-
  580
  mingham; but if the Government say they have an Amendment with that view to bring forward, that, of course, is another matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the answer to the hon. Member for East Mayo has been given to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He has alluded to an Amendment on the Paper which has not caught the eye of the hon. Member, and. which most clearly indicates the means which the Government suggest for dealing with this alleged difficulty. We have been given various figures, representing the number of tenants against whom decrees; of ejestment have been obtained. The hon. Member mentioned first 10,000, then 15,000, and I think one of his Colleagues suggested 20,000.
  MR. DILLON: I included those who were hopelessly in arrear.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should think the hon. Gentleman has rather magnified the danger with which he proposes to deal; but, be the number small or large, I believe the Government have shown themselves not unmindful of the magnitude of the question, and if the hon. Member considers that we have gone some way in removing the difficulty, there ought not to be any in withdrawing the Amendment.
  MR. PARNELL: What I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) means is that the tenants against whom decrees of ejectment have been granted, but not executed, shall be placed in the same position, with respect to this clause, as the tenants against whom ejectments have not been granted, but who may have them granted against them after the passing of the Bill. The difference between the status of those two classes appears to me to be this—that the first class of tenants can have this notice put in force against them immediately after the passing of the Act, because the month's interval will have expired before the passing of the Act, and they will be cut off from the benefit agreed to yesterday by the Government with respect to that interval. They will also be cut out of the interval which practically amounts to another month, also agreed to by the Government as an equivalent to the duration of the Quarter Sessions. Speaking practically, there would be in most

  581
  cases about a sis weeks' interval with regard to tenants against whom judgments have been obtained after the passing of the Act—that is to say, between the commencement of the Sessions and the service of the notice. Now, I suppose the Government would have no objection, following the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, to agree that there shall be some equivalent provided by an Amendment to be produced on Report for the tenants against whom ejectment has already been obtained.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We agreed to the month's interval to avoid what appears to us to be a possible hardship. There does not appear to be the same necessity in the case the hon. Gentleman suggests as exists in the other case. This discussion would, I think, arise more conveniently on a subsequent clause, and therefore I trust it will not be thought necessary to pursue it now.
  MR. DILLON: I have had just sufficient time to read the Amendment referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. I point out that unless it be read in connection with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Inverness I am afraid it would be practically useless. But the two Amendments, taken together, would go a long way towards disarming our objection to the clause.
  MR. MOLLOY: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says that the cases of the two classes of tenants are not similar; but I would point out that these ejectments are sometimes held over for a whole year, and in some cases for much longer.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that this discussion is straying altogether from the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. PARNELL: I must press the Government a little more with regard to my Amendment. I do not intend to divide the Committee; but I shall have to press the Government later on with reference to an Amendment which I shall construct to carry out the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham on this point. The month's interval was agreed to not to meet the case of ejectment sprung upon the tenant, but because the notice might be sprung upon him. And that would be so in the case of tenants against whom ejectment decrees were
  582
  obtained before the passing of this Act, just as much as it would in the case of those against whom they were obtained afterwards. I trust that the Government will reconsider this matter, and put these two classes of tenants in the same position. I join with my hon. Friend in his favourable reference to the Amendment to Clause 22, which the Government have agreed to introduce, and I think much good may result from it when it is put into suitable shape.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 12, after the word "application," to leave out to the "word" when, "in line 19, and insert the words—" Provided that the landlord may nevertheless, if he so think fit, after such period has elapsed, by agreement with such tenant, or by accepting the arrears of rent and costs, or any lesser sum, in satisfaction thereof, reinstate such tenant in the tenancy of his holding in as full and ample a manner as he had previously thereto enjoyed it."—(Mr. Marian.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I am ready to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, with the omission of the words—
  "By agreement with such tenant, or by accepting the arrears of rent and costs, or any lesser sum, in satisfaction thereof."
  The whole matter is purely one of contract and arrangement, and the retention of these words would give rise to some serious difficulties. I am willing to agree that there should be public intimation that the landlord may reinstate the tenant in his former position.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
  To leave out the words "by agreement with such tenant, or by accepting the arrears of rent and coats, or any lesser sum, in satisfaction thereof."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GIBSON: I would now suggest that it would be more convenient to insert the Amendment at the end of the 1st part of Sub-section 3.
  THE CHAIRMAN: For that purpose, it will be necessary to withdraw the Amendment.
  Proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MARUM: I propose, in line 15, to leave out the words—
  "In case such writ of restitution of possession shall be awarded, the landlord shall not be liable or accountable for any damage or injury occurring to the holding or the crops or produce thereof after the service of the note aforesaid."
  I consider it to be a most objectionable principle to say that the landlord may by notice constitute the tenant caretaker. The caretaker can always leave the landlord if he likes, and the landlord can put anyone in his place. Supposing that man is not careful, there is to be no compensation to the tenant for the damage or injury which he is the cause of. It will be said that it will be to the interest of the landlord to retain the tenant to look after the crops; but, in reality, the caretaker during this period of six months is nothing more than a man who holds his farm by tenure of villeinage. Under the circumstances, I think the non-liability of the landlord is most objectionable, and bog- to move the words in the clause which propose to enact it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 15, to leave out all the words from "in case" to the word "aforesaid," in line 18, inclusive.—(Mr. Marum.)
  MR. GIBSON: It would not be just that the landlord should be exonerated from liability if he has got possession of the holding. I propose to add, after the word "aforesaid," inline 18, the words "while the holding shall be occupied by such caretaker." That, I think, will give indemnity to the landlord, and I make this alteration to show that we are willing to meet any reasonable proposal that is made.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 14, line 18, after the word "aforesaid," to add the words "while the holding shall be occupied by such caretaker."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. MARUM, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 12, after "application," insert—
  "Provided that the landlord may nevertheless, if he so think fit, after such period has elapsed, reinstate such tenant in the tenancy of
  584
  his holding in as full and ample a manner as he had previously thereto enjoyed it."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, at end, add—"In January, April, July, and October of each year, a, return shall be made showing the number of notices served under this section during each of the three preceding months in each county in Ireland, and such returns shall be at once laid before Parliament, or, if Parliament be not sitting, then within fourteen days after the commencement of the Session next succeeding."—(Mr. J. E. Ellis.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I do not know whether the hon. Member is anxious about this matter; but I may mention that his proposal is open to objections. In the first place, it is not usual to insert provisions for Returns in Acts of Parliament, although it was done in the Crimes Act; it is customary to leave the ordering of Returns to the action of the House. The second objection is of a practical character. The hon. Gentleman knows that Returns of evictions are now given; but it would be difficult, without new machinery, to give a Return of the notices. The present information is given by means of the police machinery; but I shall have to look into the matter to find what machinery is necessary for supplying the information desired by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CHANCE: I think it is a perfectly easy matter to get these Returns, as the clause directs that a copy of each notice must be filed in Court. We have now Returns from the Superior Courts and the County Courts of the number of ejectment decrees taken out. I understand that the object of the hon. Gentleman is to have a record of the number of tenancies destroyed; and, as the machinery of the Courts will supply this very quickly, I hope the Government will agree to the proposal.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think this request of the hon. Member is very reasonable, and trust the Government will agree to it. The Government assert that the clause will reduce the number of evictions; so that it is only right that the people should have these Returns, so as to be able to judge of the propriety of the course taken by the Government. The notice is of the same

  585
  effect as an eviction, because it destroys the tenant's right to his holding; and surely the public have a right to know the number of notices issued. The process is public, and there cannot be the slightest difficulty in furnishing the Returns asked for.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has, I think, misunderstood me. I said that the machinery for the Returns of evictions could not be applied to the Returns asked for, but that other machinery might be made to apply, and that I would look into the matter. The right hon. Gentleman said the public had a right to know what the effect of the Act would be; but I would, point out that the effect of the Act cannot be ascertained from Returns of the number of notices to tenants. What it is wanted to know is, how many people do actually suffer the penalty of eviction? [Mr. CHANCE: It is the notice that does that.] Undoubtedly, to estimate the effect of the Act it is necessary to know the number of evictions, although it is not the only means of doing so; but I will consider what means can be used for the purpose of getting Returns of the notices. The machinery available now is most unsatisfactory and incomplete.
  MR. R. T. REID: I do not wish to prolong this discussion; but I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that the notice under the Act is equivalent to the turning of a tenant out of his tenancy, and that after the Act is passed eviction will be no indication of the number of tenancies destroyed. The mere serving of the notice destroys the tenure.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am perfectly ready, as I have stated, to give the information asked for by the hon. Member; but I am not able, without further consideration, to state that the information will be given in an isolated form. It is not the only means which would enable us to judge of the effect of the Act; but I will consider the best way of obtaining the information which we all desire to have.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what form he thinks it will be necessary to adopt to carry out this object?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Surely we have a right to know the number of these notices.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said so.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I appreciate the way in which the Government have met this Amendment. I understand that they will consider the matter, and shall not, therefore, proceed further, but ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, at the end of the Clause, to add—"Provided always, that a notice under this section shall not, so far as a tenancy may confer a right to be on the register of Parliamentary or other voters, be deemed to determine such tenancy."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. DILLON: I congratulate the Committee on the fact that we have reached the end of this clause. I do not rise to prolong the discussion; but I repeat my conviction that this clause, which is aimed at the Irish tenants, is calculated to do them very considerable injury, notwithstanding the small concessions granted by the Government. I am perfectly prepared to admit that if the later clauses of the Bill are so altered as to give justice to the tenants, our objections to it will be diminished to a considerable extent; but we are not at all satisfied or secure with regard to that. Indeed, we are very far from satisfied on the point; we do not know yet how the Bill will finally emerge from the two Houses. What I wish to say in reference to this whole question is that we who have made ourselves familiar with the history of the struggles of the Irish tenant farmers against succeeding waves of persecution, torture, and robbery, have learnt the lesson not to part with the few miserable protections left to that body until we see some security against further oppression. We have, therefore, endeavoured to induce the Government to postpone this clause until we could satisfy our minds as to whether we should be compelled to resist its provisions. It has been said that we objected to the clause because it removed part of our stock-in-trade. We were told that the clause was intended to remove the difficulty, the expense, and the public scandal which

  587
  surrounds eviction at the present moment, and that the only reason for our objecting to it was that we lived by agitation, and saw our business and trade going. If any hon. Member opposite supposes that the trade or occupation of a public agitator in Ireland is an agreeable one he makes a great mistake; I should like to exchange places with him for a year, and after that exchange views with him. There is no agitator in this House so desirous as I am of seeing his trade go, for a more thankless, wearisome, and anxious walk in life I hope will never fall to my lot. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that this is one of the few means that have been left to us by a hostile Legislature of protecting ourselves from persecution. There never was a more ungenerous sneer than that of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) at what he called the theatricalities of hon. Members who plead the cause of the Irish tenant in this House. Where would he be if it were not for us? If we had not taken up the question, I say that his voice would not be listened to; it would have been barely tolerated on some Wednesday. Whore would be the cause of the Irish tenant were it not for our exertions, which have fixed the attention of the English public on the cruelties practised in Ireland, and enabled men to come into this House to get redress for Irish wrongs? Sneer at them as you may, these political theatricalities are the chief moans by which we are destroying the power of the landlords at the present time. Were it not for the power of fixing the attention of the people of the United Kingdom upon what is being done in Ireland to-day, we should be now in the same position as we occupied 10 or 12 years ago, and the prospects of the Irish tenants would be precisely the same as it was before tenant right was secured for them. People talk of what is to be done in this House. I am glad to say that a great deal has been done here. We have suffered a great loss by being deprived of the presence of one man of our Party who is best qualified to discuss this Bill; and that is one of the things which make me regret that the Government will not consent to postpone this clause. Let men who want to understand this matter, as the hon. and learned Member for North Longford
  588
  (Mr. T. M. Healy) does, go back to the history of another movement, which arose in darker days than our own, and with men of brilliant gifts, who came to this House to put before you, in words more eloquent than we can command, the sufferings and wrongs of the people of Ireland. But did you listen to them? No. Their Bills were scouted and contemptuously rejected, because at that time there was no political theatricality in Ireland. That is the screw which we found out and used to put pressure on the spot whore these things occur. In those days the people of England had not their consciences awakened, and the efforts of the men I speak of were crowned with failure, which resulted in the extinction and ruin of 10,000 homes in Ireland. And now I say that there are counties where 10,000 homes are standing which, but for our efforts, would have been swept away. I only make these observations in my endeavour to bring home to the minds of English Members, if possible, a true appreciation of our motives in offering a bitter opposition to this clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I wish I could think that there was any chance of the speech to which we have just listened reaching the ears and hearts of the Government and their supporters. That cannot, however, be expected, because the fundamental principle laid down by the Unionists—I mean such Unionists as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) and the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington)—is that you may deal with Ireland as you please on this condition—that you shall repudiate and disregard the opinions of Irish Members.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB: I rise to Older, Mr. Courtney, and ask what is the Question before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill." The right hon. Gentleman is now in his exordium.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have pointed out why such speeches as we have just heard are made in this House in vain. We are told when Irish Members speak on Irish affairs that it is a waste of time, and obstruction; and it is a waste of time because they are en-

  589
  countered by a majority whose fundamental principle it is to reject their opinions, as coming from a class of persons unworthy of being heard. I have heard language of that kind coming from men occupying a position on the Treasury Bench. The reason why I venture to say a few words on this clause is that I do not labour under the disqualification of being an Irish Member; I am much less acquainted with the subject than Irish Members are; but I am not under the ban placed upon them with reference to Irish questions. I wish, therefore, to state briefly why it is that I consider this clause to be a mistake. A great part of this Bill will, I hope, be valuable and useful to the tenants in Ireland. I think it might have been made a message of peace to the tenants of Ireland, which might have gone some way to mitigate that message of war which preceded it. It is a very great pity that you have not made this a real message of peace. You might have put in one clause for the leaseholders, another for the tenants evicted, and another to deal with arrears, and that would have made the Bill a message of peace. But you chose to put in this Clause 4, which is like the fly in the ointment. I should have thought the Government would like their Bill to be welcome to the Irish people. Why, then, do you put in a clause to which you know, at least, that the great majority of the Irish tenants object? I suppose it is because you are compelled in the interest of the landlords to put it in, as a sort of compensation for the rest of the Bill which they object to. This clause has been called "The Landlord's Handbook; or Ejectment made Easy." I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite say that it will diminish the scandal of evictions and be for the advantage of the tenant. You may think you know all about Ireland; but you may find that you know nothing at all about it. The people who know about it are those whom you have attacked and banned in and out of this House. You say that they are not fit to be associated with and not fit to be heard. Oh, yes; the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say they are the companions of assassins, and speak of "Parnellism and Crime," and what has happened on that subject; but depend upon it the opinion of these men is worth much more than yours,
  590
  and that the English people have discovered; they are discovering it more every day, and that is the reason why they take their opinion from Irish Members and not from you. What is the character of the evil which Irish Members say this clause will create? They tell us that there is a growing restraint, which I am happy to see, upon the process of eviction in consequence of the appeals made to the conscience of the English people. Now, that is becoming a great block in the way of Irish landlords, and they want to get rid of it. That is why the clause was put into the Bill. I will just give an illustration from the English law. I remember well the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), when he was a Radical, saying that the only right which 30,000,000 of the English people had in the land which they called their own was to walk along a dusty high road. That is quite true. If a man who is not the proprietor of the adjacent land goes off the high road he commits a trespass; if a child walks into a field and picks a primrose it is a violation of the law. But the only remedy of the landlord is that he must bring an action for trespass; there will be a jury, and a good deal of money to pay, and then he will get a farthing damages. Now, if the landlords could bring an action by a paper notice served on a man, if they could fine and imprison him in that way, what a change it would make in this country! Do you think that the people of this country would endure it for a moment? You might put up any number of Attorneys General in this House to say that there was no difference made in the law; but everyone would know that the law was changed to facilitate acts of oppression. Now, that, I think, is a fair illustration of what we believe will be the effect of this clause. We believe that in the sense of shame recently evinced, and in the awakened conscience of the English people, so long seared with reference to the crimes committed in Ireland, for generations, and under which hundreds and thousands of men have unjustly suffered, we have a practical remedy against the repetition of evictions and of such scenes as have recently occurred. Now, that is the objection which is felt to this clause, it is said that under its operation the tenants will only become

  591
  caretakers. There were 9,000 evictions in the last quarter; multiply that number by four and you get the number for a twelvemonth. You may deduct the caretakers; but what becomes of them after the six months allowed for redemption? What will you do with so many thousands of caretakers? Unless you can show us what will be their fate at the end of that time, you give no information as to the effect of the clause on evictions in Ireland, which is one of the cardinal points on which I have always felt we ought to be informed. The Government say that the clause is a good thing for the tenant. I do not think it is. I do not say that the Government do not sincerely believe what they say; but when I find them making this assertion, and find the Irish people and their Representatives taking an opposite view, I rather believe the latter, because they have the means of knowing. It is because we are attentive to the opinion of those who know that we think this is a dangerous clause. No doubt, we shall be told that this is a consideration which the landlords get—they get a facility for carrying out evictions without shocking anyone. But, in my opinion, this is too high a price to pay for the clause. If you facilitate evictions by removing the restrictions which at present check them, I think you are doing a very bad thing. If you facilitate evictions, you will not make a settlement—even a temporary settlement—of the Irish Land Question; nor will you, even with the help of your Coercion Bill, get peace in Ireland against the far more potent effect of this clause. For these reasons, believing that the clause is an unfortunate one for the Bill, I shall vote against it with as strong a conviction as I shall vote for the other clauses. I admit fully that the Government have made concessions with regard to the clause; but I find fault with it because of the belief entertained by those who have knowledge that it is likely to increase rather than diminish the evil of eviction. I think it would have been a far more statesmanlike course on the part of the Government to have made the Bill an unmixed boon to the tenant farmers, by omitting a clause that will render it odious to the feelings and convictions of the Irish people.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The right hon. Gentleman, whose exordium lasted a rather long time, has put a temptation in the way of those who follow him which it is extremely hard to resist. When the right hon. Gentleman says we are not sending a message of peace to Ireland, that we do not listen to Irish Members, and that we talk of the Irish Members as bands of assassins, he must know that he makes it hardly possible for us to resist the temptation of reminding him of some of his very recent speeches. But I resist this temptation. I do not wish to turn this debate into a mere question of Parliamentary repartee; I confess that I rather wish the right hon. Gentleman had followed the example of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and kept the discussion at the level of dignity, at which I am bound to say the hon. Member for East Mayo loft it. I do not admit that there is any parallel as between the offence of picking a primrose in a field and the case of a tenant holding and yet declining to pay rent for the land he occupies. The two things stand on such a different level of importance that any argument drawn from the one cannot apply to the other. Then the right hon. Gentleman attacked us for inserting this clause in defiance of the opinion of Irish Members. It is true that a large number of hon. Members from Ireland are opposed to the clause, and, no doubt, on conscientious grounds; but I remind him of a fact with which he must be acquainted, that no less than two Commissions have recommended, not this clause, but one far more drastic, far more opposed to the interests of the tenant, and far less calculated to mitigate the hardship of eviction. I turn with pleasure from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to that of the hon. Member for East Mayo. That hon. Member delivered his remarks I in a tone of earnestness which, no doubt, reflected the sincerity of his convictions. I do not think that anyone could doubt that the hon. Member gave the Committee his innermost mind; but I regret that he set the example of what I conceive to be a radical error in looking at this clause. For myself, I do not doubt the sincerity of hon. Members opposite; but I hope they will agree that we are also sincere in our desire—according to the measure of our lights—to see a satisfactory solution of the Irish Land

  593
  Question with justice to all parties concerned. I have always regretted deeply when I have seen anyone get up in this House and imply that this Irish Land Question is really a question of conflicting interests as between two Parties, and that the only way of benefiting the Irish tenant is by injuring the Irish landlord. I conscientiously believe that this is radically an erroneous method; I believe that if you could stop evictions absolutely at this moment and make it impossible for any Irish landlord to recover rent you would take but a small step, if you took any, towards producing that contentment and order which everyone desires to see established in connection with the possession of Irish land. The hon. Member for East Mayo, in common with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, seems to think seriously that a healthy and proper check to harsh evictions in Ireland is to have something in the nature of civil war wherever an attempt at eviction is made by the landlord.
  MR. DILLON: Certainly not. I stated, on the contrary, that if this Amendment of the Government proved effectual for the purpose it is intended to produce, it would remove a great deal of our objection to this clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is true. I forgot that sentence of the hon. Member; he gave us credit for motives which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby did not credit us with.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg pardon; I said expressly that I did not attack the motives of the Government I said I believed they were sincere, but that they did not understand the case as well as the Irish Members.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman, at all events, did not do what the hon. Member for East Mayo did—namely, call attention to the Amendment on the Paper by which harsh evictions can be stopped. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves is this—that while we think that everything which can in equity be done to prevent harsh evictions ought to be done, we do not think that the interests of public order, or of the tenants, or of the future agricultural and industrial prosperity of Ireland can be promoted, or a check be put upon harsh evictions, by the monstrous system which now prevails. It is because we believe this
  594
  that we have fought for the clause at a considerable sacrifice of valuable time, and it is in accordance with that policy that we shall propose the Amendment which, with regard to a subsequent clause, we have placed on the Paper.
  MR. WALLACE: I wish to enter my protest against the determination of the Government to reduce the process of evicting the Irish tenants to one of silence and secrecy. It seems to me a hateful thing for people to prefer darkness to light—we have high authority for believing with regard to those who do so that their deeds are evil. It has been said that this change is demanded by public policy. Well, I think it is entirely contrary to the policy of the law as we have hitherto seen it in connection with all great changes of personal status. I am appealing to notorious facts when I say that the policy of the law in this country has surrounded important changes in personal status with circumstances of publicity and solemnity, and that it has done so in no light spirit. There is no important change in personal status which is not so signalized. A man cannot be born without having the circumstance published with solemnity—without having the fact registered for the information of all. A man cannot be married without still greater publicity and solemnity, and he cannot even die without his change of being publicly notified. He cannot be divorced, made a bankrupt or a Doctor of Laws or a criminal, or signalized in any other way, having his personal status changed, without the fact being made a matter of publicity and solemnity; and the reason for that is simply that in these changes it is felt instinctively that it is important that the power of public opinion and of the public conscience should be brought to bear on the conduct of the parties to the change, so that the changes may not occur without a full sense of the responsibility being realized by those who undertake to make them, and, further, that the public should be advertised of the exact position of the person with whom they have in future to deal. I ask, Sir, is it right that when so grave a change is to be made in personal status as the reduction of one in the position of a tenant of land to one in the position of a helpless pauper, that we should not have brought to bear upon

  595
  it the power of public opinion and of public conscientious fooling which is felt to be necessary in all similar changes? And, further, is it not right that the public should be advertised fully of the change that is made in the status of one with whom they have to enter into important relations, commercial and otherwise? Why, Sir, in the course of a single night a person who was in such a position that he could be regarded by possible creditors as one with whom it would be safe to deal, because he was practically a person of substance, may be reduced to the position of one in whom they could have no proper commercial confidence, and yet they are not publicly made aware of the fact. They pass by his house in the evening, and they think of him as a person with whom it is secure to deal. They pass by his house next morning, and do not know that a silent missive has come to him entirely changing his commercial position and reliability—they do not know that this change has taken place. They see no visible change—they see the tenant in an apparent position by which they may be imposed upon, imposed upon not by the tenant intentionally, but by a now situation which has been thrust upon him by an iniquitous and unwise law. I am done, Sir, having offered my protest in this matter. I regard this as a very serious change indeed, and as a very serious change for evil.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 111: Majority 32.
  [8.20 P.M.]

  AYES

  Gardner, J. T.

  Bolitho, T. B.

  Aird, J.

  Bond, G. H.

  Ambrose, W.

  Bristowe, T. L.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Brookfield, A. M.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Burghley, Lord

  Ashmcad-Bartlett, E.

  Caine, W. S.

  Baden-Powell, G. S.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Carmarthen, Marq. of

  Banes, Major G. E.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Barry, A. H. Smith-

  Charrington, S.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Bentinck, Lord H. C.

  Colomb, Capt, J. C. R.

  Beresford, Lord C. W. de la Poer

  Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Compton, F.

  Blundell, Col. H.B. H.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  596

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Lewisham, right hon.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Viscount

  Crossley, Sir S. B.

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Long, W. H.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Low, M.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

  Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Ewing, Sir A. O.

  M'Arthur, W. A.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  M'Calmont, Captain J.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Madden, D. H.

  Marriott, right hon. W. T.

  Field, Admiral E.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Mills, hon. C. W.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Milvain, T.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  More, R. J.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Morrison, W.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Mowbray, R. G. C.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Mulholland, H. L.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Gibson, J. G.

  Pearce, W.

  Giles, A.

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Goldsworthy, Major-

  Plunkett, hon. J. W.

  General W. T.

  Pomfret, W. P.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Rasch, Major F. C.

  Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.

  Rood, H. B.

  Gray, C. W.

  Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

  Hamilton, right hon.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Lord G. F.

  Robertson. W. T.

  Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

  Russell, T. W.

  Hardcastle, E.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Sellar, A. C.

  Heath, A. R.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.

  Heaton, J. H.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Smith, A.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Hobhouse, H.

  Stewart, M. J.

  Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

  Sutherland, T.

  Tapling, T. K.

  Howard, J.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Howorth, H. H.

  Thorburn, W.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Trotter, H. J.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Jeffreys, A. F.

  Waring, Colonel T.

  Johnston, W.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Kelly, J. R.

  White, J. B.

  Kenrick, AV.

  Whitley, K.

  Kimber, H.

  Williams, J. Powell-

  King-Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Wroughton, P.

  Kynoch, G.

  Lafone, A.

  TELLERS.

  Lea, T.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Legh, T. W.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  NOES.

  Abraham. W. (Limerick, W.)

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Campbell, H.

  Anderson, C. H.

  Carew, J. L.

  Asquith, H. H.

  Chance, P. A.

  Barran, J.

  Channing, F. A.

  Barry, J.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Cobb, H. P.

  Blane, A.

  Colman, J. J.

  597

  Connolly, L.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Conway, M.

  O'Brien, P.

  Corbet, W. J.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Cox, J. R.

  O'Brien, W.

  Crawford, D.

  O'Connor, J. (Kerry)

  Crilly, D.

  O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

  Deasy, J.

  O'Doherty, J. E.

  Dillon, J.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Ellis, J. E.

  O'Hea, P.

  Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Esslemont, P.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Finucane, J.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Flynn, J. C.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Foley, P. J.

  Pugh, D.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Pyne, J. D.

  Fuller, G. P.

  Quinn, T.

  Gilhooly, J.

  Redmond, J. E.

  Gill, T. P.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Reid, R. T.

  Gray, E. D.

  Reynolds, W. J.

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

  Roberts, J. B.

  Rowntree, J.

  Harrington, E.

  Sexton, T.

  Harrington, T. C.

  Shaw, T.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Sheehy, D.

  Healy, M.

  Sheil, E.

  Holden, I.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  Hooper, J.

  Stansfeld, right hon. J.

  James, C. H.

  Stevenson, F. S.

  Jordan, J.

  Stewart, H.

  Kennedy, E. J.

  Sullivan, D.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Kenny, J. E.

  Summers, W.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Sutherland, A.

  Lalor, R.

  Tanner, C. K.

  Lane, W. J.

  Tuite, J.

  Leahy, T.

  Waddy, S. D.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  Wallace, R.

  Mac Neill, J. G. S.

  Wardle, H.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Wayman, T.

  M'Cartan, M.

  Whitbread, S.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Will, J. S.

  M'Donald, P.

  Williams, A. J.

  Mahony, P.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Marum, E. M.

  Yeo, F. A.

  Mayne, T.

  Molloy, B. C.

  TELLERS.

  Murphy, W. M.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Nolan, J.

  Morley, A.

  Clause 5 (Power of surrender by middleman).
  THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment to this clause in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), which deals with the equitable re-adjustment of jointures, annuities, and charges, is out of Order and inadmissible.
  MR. MARUM: I bow to your ruling, Sir, with, regard to the first Amendment standing in my name; but I have another Amendment on the Paper to add at the end of the clause, line 18, page 6, after "thereunder" the following words:—
  598
  "And the exceptions contained in sub-sections three and four of section fifty-eight of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' shall not apply to or for the purposes of this section."
  I do not think, Sir, this Amendment is out of Order, as it deals with the admission of a new power of surrender.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I was about to say as much. The Amendment which is admissible is at the top of page 20.
  MR. MARUM: Then, I now beg to move my Amendment. I do not propose to bring my exception within the fair rent at all. My object is simply to bring the two exceptions with, regard to holdings which are to be used as pasture within the powers of the clause. If a tenant holds these lands under a lease he is outside the Act, and cannot come under a fair rent at all, because his lease cannot be broken, Under the 2nd clause, where only part of the holding is sub-let, the rent for the part so let can be revised by the sanction of the Court; but if added to the holding which cannot be sub-let there can be no revision. My provision is to enable the tenant, under those circumstances, to surrender. I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the economic view of the matter, and it is this—that at the time that all these exemptions with regard to pasture land were agreed to—exemptions which were regarded as preferential, and which were given by the Act of 1870, and were continued in the Act of 1881, and which it is now proposed to continue in this Act—when these exemptions were agreed to, they were quite natural, because cereals had had a great fall in price, and landlords did not want any production of cereals. These lands were, therefore, excluded. Since then, however, there has been an entire revolution in this matter. Since 1884, as we are all aware, there has been a serious depreciation in the price of cattle, owing to the introduction of meat from foreign sources, and grazing land has been brought down in value to the level of land on which cereals are grown. The result is that from the economic aspect of the question the exceptions originally made have not the force which they had in 1831. These arguments of mine might apply if I were arguing to bring this land under the Fair Rent Clauses; but I am not ask-

  599
  ing for so much as that—I am asking for a very small boon. If a fall has taken place in prices the middleman on these exempted lands will be enabled to avail himself of the Middleman Clause in order to get himself out of his liability. I think that, from an economic point of view, I am entitled to have this Amendment. There is a ruling on the subject which I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to bear in mind. There is in the last clause of the Bill something which will effect this. The 34th clause says—
  "The expression 'holding' does not include any holding which is not agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral in its character."
  Now, there is an exception in that to the Purchase Clauses, and, in fact, it will apply to the Purchase Clauses, and you must bear in mind that the definitions I contained in the Land Act of 1881 do not apply to the Purchase Clauses of the Act. There may be an error of drafting here, so that what I now propose is to add to the words of Sub-section 11, of Clause 5, the words I have road. The sub-section will then run—
  "In this section the expression 'holding' includes land held under a fee farm grant, and the expression 'rent' includes the rent payable thereunder; and the exceptions contained in sub-sections three and four of section fifty-eight of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' shall not apply to or for the purposes of this section."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 18, after "thereunder," add "and the exceptions contained in sub-sections three and four of section fifty-eight of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' should not apply to or for the purposes of this section."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The question which the hon. Member is dealing with is one of vast importance as affecting the general principle in the 8th section of the Act of 1881, which he rightly informed the Committee contains exceptions similar to those in the Act of 1870. We go to the very root of the Act of 1881, and it appears to me that it is impossible to tamper with these exceptions, either for a modified purpose or generally, as they involve a considerable amount of discussion. It appears to me that it would be
  600
  a very undesirable thing to do that. I am wholly unable to understand why there should be favourable conditions given to large graziers, as contradistinguished from all other persons cut out from the benefits of the Act of 1881. If I were asked who should be brought under the operation of the Act of 1841, I should certainly say not the class sought to be relieved by the hon. Gentleman, and that that is not the class whose interests most urgently appeal to the sympathies of this House. I think it would be most undesirable to give the class to which he refers this benefit. In fact, it is impossible for us to consider the incidence of the exceptions to the Act of 1881—it is impossible for us to make an exception in favour of the class of graziers in whom the hon. Member seems to have an interest. If I were asked to speculate why it was this particular class was taken out of the operation of the Act of 1881, I should say it was because that class did not require protection—a class which does not spend much money on the improvement of their holdings, because grazing farms, so far as I am aware, do not involve the expenditure of capital or the consideration of tenant's improvements. These large grass farms in Ireland have very often been subject to attack from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. One of the first speeches I ever heard from the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) was an interesting statement about the desirability of migrating the peasantry of certain districts in the West of Ireland to the fertile grass pastures of Meath, which he contemplated should be broken up for that purpose. But the class you would benefit by this clause, though I admit they deserve some sympathy for the fall of prices, the depreciation of stock, and the severe losses many of them have suffered, which has done much to destroy the prosperity of the country, is not a class which specially needs the protection proposed to be given by this Amendment. I would call the attention of the Committee to this fact—that in reality this Amendment is one which involves a breach of the obligations of the tenancy—of the obligations of the grass tenant. If a man holds a grass tenancy, he is outside the Act of 1881—he cannot have a fair rent fixed—and what is now suggested is that a man who has a grass tenancy,

  601
  and cannot fix a fair rent, is to give under-lettings of the tenancy in breach of the substantial obligations of his tenancy, and that his under-tenants are, by reason of his broach, to have power to fix fair rents against him, so that he is to fix against the landlord fair rents in perpetuity in respect of land with regard to which he could not establish fair rents himself, and claim compensation from his landlord. "When I have said that, I think I have said enough, to satisfy the hon. Gentleman that, however fair and just his motive may be, it would be impossible for us to accept the Amendment. There are questions on the Paper to be discussed of a very vital character, and I think it would be very desirable if the hon. Gentleman would allow us to proceed to the discussion of those questions at once.
  MR. MARUM: I will not take up any lengthened period of the time of the Committee by replying to the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but I will say this—that the latter part of his argument would apply to the Middleman Clause itself. He does the thing which the right hon. and learned Gentleman complains would be done by the grass tenant. The only exceptions they deal with are the first and fourth, all the other tenants affected being provided for under the Act of 1881. Another observation I should like to make is this—the reason I did not include any other exception was that the demesne lands may have an exceptional character, and would stand on the same footing as town holdings. Occupiers of holdings near residences which are within the Acts of 1870 and 1881 do not want to surrender their holdings. The fallacy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument consists in his assuming, or, rather, in not looking to the fact, that these are exceptions. When I stood up to propose the Amendment, I imagined that it was a legal custom upon which I should address myself to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and with which he would deal. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would deal with the economic question, and I did not expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman to touch upon it. On that point the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not spoken;
  602
  but under all the circumstances of the case, and particularly as there are more important propositions to be brought forward with reference to town parks, in which I am more interested than I am in the subject of this Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MAHONY: I should like to ask one question, and it is whether the Government will in any way take into consideration the case of the middleman whose rents would be reduced temporarily?
  MR. GIBSON. In the absence- of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland I cannot answer the question.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN): I have, Sir, the following Amendment on the Paper:—Clause 5, page 6, after line 18, to add—
  "Where a person, being a present tenant, pays rent for a holding which was, prior to the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' sub-divided or sub-let, and has since remained openly sub-divided or sub-let, and no effectual steps have meanwhile been taken by the landlord to put an end thereto, the Court shall, on the hearing of an application by such tenant to fix a fair rent, assume that the landlord consented to such sub-letting or sub-division, unless the said landlord proves that such subletting or sub-division was so continued without his knowledge, and that of his agent and bailiffs, or that it came to his knowledge too late to take effective steps to put an end to it."
  I understand, Sir, that you have ruled that this Amendment cannot be moved here, and that it will come in more properly at another part of the Bill. I would ask you, Sir, whether it will come in on consideration of the Government clause with reference to sub-letting?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I only ruled that the Amendment was not admissible here. I do not know that it is part of my duty to point out where it is admissible.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Town parks).
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony); but that in the name of the hon. Member for North Londonderry (Mr. Mulholland) will come before it.
  MR. MULHOLLAND: I put this Amendment before the Committee, not with the intention of asking the Committee to enter into a long discussion of the general question of town parks, but chiefly with the object of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, to make a short statement to the Committee as to the intentions of the Government in relation to the other Amendments which follow mine, and which seem to me to constitute an attack upon the principle of the clause itself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has already spoken of these Amendments as largo and vital ones, and I cannot but think if they were accepted by the Committee they would have the effect of confiscating large portions of the landlord's property, and would do incalculable injury to the poorer inhabitants of the towns. As I understand it, the clause of the Government is intended to define more carefully than the present law does exactly what those town parks are. But I must say that, in my opinion, further definition is unnecessary. Perhaps I may be allowed to read to the Committee the definition of town parks as it at present exists in the Land Act of 1831. Town parks are there defined as any holdings ordinarily termed town parks adjoining or near to any town, and which bear an increased value as accommodation land over and above the ordinary value of land let as a farm, and which are in the occupation of a person living in such city or town or the suburbs thereof. It seems to me that that definition is quite clear, and is quite sufficient to enable the Commissioners to bring in under the clause of the Act any real bonâ fide farm, though it may be situated close to a town. I can inform the Committee, from my own knowledge, that the Commissioners have already made full use of those powers, and that they have reduced the rent of holdings near to some of the smaller towns far below what the competition value would be. I do not propose to enter into an elaborate defence of the town park system, though I should be prepared to do so if necessary. I should prefer to leave it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the At-
  604
  torney General for Ireland to defend it when the attacks of hon. Gentlemen opposite are made. I would only urge on the Government and on the Committee either the abandonment of this clause by the acceptance of my Amendment, or, at any rate, if they are determined to persevere with it, the resistance of those Amendments which, as I said before, not only confiscate largo portions of the landlord's property, but—what, perhaps, hon. Members opposite would think more important—will deprive the poorer inhabitants of the towns in future of the opportunity of acquiring land at a moderate rent.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, to leave out from line 19 to line 20 inclusive.—(Mr. Mulholland.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'a holding' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. DILLON: the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asks the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to pronounce the opinion of the Government upon the series of Amendments which are not before the Committee, but are yet to be moved. It seems to me a most objectionable course for an hon. Member to stand up and ask the Government to commence the discussion of a clause by making a general statement as to what they propose to do with all the Amendments. How can the Government know what they intend to do until those Amendments are reached, and the hon. Members who proposed them have made their statements and placed their arguments before the Committee? I respectfully ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland not to do anything of the sort. I would ask him to listen to the statements we have to make in favour of the Amendments. This is a subject of very great importance to the people of Ireland, and when I hear an hon. Member who has an agricultural constituency in Ireland standing up and talking about this clause, which enables the landlord to rob the tenants of some of their property, in the spirit in which the hon. Member has spoken of it, it is almost enough to make one's hair stand on end. If there is anything upon which the money of the people of Ireland has been lavished in untold sums it has been these town parks. The traders in our

  605
  towns have spent enormous sums upon them. I know districts in Ireland where the traders in the towns, who are half-traders and half-farmers—traders be longing not to towns, but to what are practically country villages—I know cases, I say, where these men have hold town parks which have been hold by their fathers and their predecessors in title as permanent appurtenances to single houses for generations, and the facts concerning which are almost incredible. Hon. Members would not believe me if I were to tell them the sums of money which these tradesmen and their predecessors in title have spent in the improvement of these holdings. The land around some towns, or, I might say, villages, which were at first probably of little or no value, has been absolutely turned into land of considerable value in consequence of the money spent on it by these tradesmen. These people, to give the description applied to their operations by the farmers, have "nursed" the land—have lavished money on it in every conceivable way, putting any quantity of manure on it, and so on; and to say that they are not to be saved some small share of the improvements they have in this way effected is a thing I cannot understand. For us to be told that this clause is an attack on the property of the landlords is simply an abuse of language. It is a monstrous contortion of the meaning of words to say that this clause, which would seek to secure to the occupants of town parks the value of their improvements, is an attack upon the rights of landlords, rather than an attempt to secure their rights to the cultivators of the soil. There is not a shadow of ground for this Amendment. To say that because you secure in the possession of the men now occupying them these fields, that, therefore, you injure the poorer inhabitants of the towns, is simply absurd. You injure no one, but prevent injury being done to those now actually in occupation. It is only right these men should have the value of whatever improvements they have made. Anyone who desires to purchase will have an opportunity of doing so. Whether the value remains with the present holder or not, the incoming tenant would have to pay the value of those improvements under any circumstances, and the thing which the Committee should keep in mind is
  606
  this—that these fields are, for the most part, attached to the residences in the towns. They are almost necessaries to the houses to which they are attached. In very many instances the town parks are essential to the occupiers' houses, in order to supply the people in these houses and their families with the milk and agricultural produce they require. The fact that these fields are necessary to these people is taken advantage of by the landlords, who tell these people that they must pay higher rents because they are on accommodation land. These people pay infinitely more than the land is worth, rather than see their children go without the milk they require.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON);: It is not my intention to make any general statement as to the question the hon. Member for North Londonderry (Mr. Mulholland) has addressed to me; but I think the best course would be, as we are on a very business-like part of this discussion, that we should, as soon as possible, come to the consideration of the vital Amendments on the Paper. What I would ask hon. Gentlemen to do would be to approach the consideration of practical Amendments to the clause as soon as possible. The Committee will see that it has been the object of the Government to enlarge the scope of the Act of 1881 on this subject. The Committee are aware that, in order to constitute a town park, certain requisites are essential. The holding must be near or adjoining a town, the town named, and the holding must bear increased value as accommodation land, because of its adjoining the town; and, thirdly, the land must be in the occupation of a person actually resident in the town. With regard to the second consideration—namely, that the land must bear increased value as accommodation land—hon. Members must not understand that that value is merejy value by reason of proximity to the town, because all land is more valuable when near a town The reason that land is nearer to a town than land situated five miles away is not condition enough to justify this exception; but the exception is justified by the fact that the land is accommodation land, and is accessible to the town. The object of the Government proposal is this—we do not want to dogmatize, and I think it would be

  607
  very inconvenient if we did dogmatize, as to what is the exact limit of what is to be a town or what distance the land is to be from the town; but, broadly speaking, our idea has been this—that, even if the holding satisfies every condition of the Act of 1881, the Court shall be at liberty to hold that the land is not a town park, but is, in its essential character and real use, in the nature of a farm. I will tell hon. Gentlemen what I mean by that. I mean to use the general expression implying that the land is used for the purposes of agriculture. As a matter of law, whether a holding is to be a town park is to be ascertained with reference to the year 1881. If you regard a town park for the purposes of the Act of 1881 after the year 1881, hon. Members will see that that must be a future tenancy. Of course, the question does not arise in future tenancies. It was decided in a certain case with which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will be familiar, in the Irish Court of Appeal, whoso decisions constitute the law, that all the conditions which are in definition of town parks are to be ascertained at the passing of the Act of 1881. I will explain what I mean. In the case I refer to there was a town park—about the fact there was no question. After the passing of the Act of 1881 the tenant went away from the town. I do not know where he went to; but, no doubt, the vital condition of residence in the town next the holding had ceased to exist. The question was whether, by reason of that change, the tenant ceased to be the holder of a town park, or whether he could still take the benefit of the Act of 1881. If conditions existed which, by their co-existence, took the holding out of the operation of the Act, it does appear to be absurd that by the action of one of the parties, voluntarily or involuntarily, with regard to one of the conditions, the whole operation of the Act shall be frustrated. With these preliminary observations, I venture to ask the Committee at once to approach the consideration of the very important Amendments which are on the Paper. I need not say that I shall listen very respectfully to the arguments used. At the same time, we consider the Government clause a very good one, and we could adduce powerful reasons to justify it. It constitutes, beyond doubt, a great measure of concession to
  608
  the class of town park holders. I appeal to the Committee to approach at once the consideration of important Amendments.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I entirely share the anxiety of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to get to the merits of this clause, and I think it would have tended to that end if he had advised his hon. Friend who has made the proposal now before the Committee not to move his Amendment and not to make his speech. The fact is that we have been compelled to listen to an all-round defence of the whole town park iniquity as it stands from an Ulster Member. I desire to say that the Committee will not part with this clause very easily or hurriedly after the attack which has been made upon the views of those who object to this iniquity. This is a question upon which Ulster has been convulsed ever since the Land Act was passed. The hon. Member for North Londonderry (Mr. Mulholland) says that no new definition of a town park is necessary; that there is an excellent one in the Act of 1881; and that the Commissioners have had no difficulty in construing that definition. No, Sir; they have had no difficulty in construing it, because they have simply construed every hamlet to be a town, and everything to be a town park which could possibly be made into one. So far as I am concerned, the Government may make up their minds that there will be a struggle over this clause. We admit that the clause is an improvement on that in the Act of 1881; but we desire not only that the term "town park" shall be carefully defined, but that precautions shall be taken to prevent every hamlet and cluster of cabins being included in the term "town." After the attack which has been made by the hon. Member for North Londonderry, we come upon the consideration of this matter in a revolutionary spirit; and I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will see his way to do something to lighten this load.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to propose the following Amendment:—

  609
  In page 6, line 19, after "holding," insert "which is agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral." As the Government will see, this Amendment raises the whole question of town parks. As a matter of fact, it proposes to do away with what are known as town parks, and to substitute for the present provisions dealing with town parks the provisions of the Act of 1881 as applied to ordinary agricultural holdings. Therefore, in the few observations I wish to address to the Committee, I shall endeavour to point out that the ordinary provisions of the Act of 1881 are quite capable of reserving to the landlord all the rights he ought to enjoy over what are at present excluded from the operation of the Act under the definition of town parks. It is admitted on all hands that the definition of town parks has been stretched to a most undue length. Wretched little villages of only a few cabins congregated together in one spot have been held in some instances to constitute towns.
  MR. MULHOLLAND: Will the hon. Member mention one of them?
  MR. MAHONY: No, I cannot mention them from memory. I do not think these very small villages have come within my experience. But I remember a very small town, a very small seaside place in Donegal called Runcrana. I do not mean to say that this was a collection of small cabins, but it was a town of very few inhabitants indeed, and I think I am correct in saying that holdings near that town have been held to be town parks. What I maintain is that the people residing in these towns and holding these town parks are subject to all the evils which it was the object of the Act of 1881 to remove. That Act was rendered necessary, in the first place, by the severe competition which existed for the land in Ireland. This House, I presume, passed the Act of 1881 because it believed that the Irish tenants were unable to protect themselves from the landlords—that the thing which is constantly being referred to under the name of freedom of contract did not exist in Ireland. Now, I maintain that freedom of contract does not exist the least bit in the world as regards these town parks. In fact, as regards the majority of these town parks, the holders of them are actually in a worse position than the ordinary tenant
  610
  farmers. They are bound to one particular spot by the fact that they have, perhaps, a little shop or a little industry of some kind in the small village or town. That industry of itself is unable to support them, and they have in addition these pieces of land near the town as an extra means of gaining a livelihood. The competition for this land is much greater than it would be if the land were farther from the town. The evils of competition for land are greater in the case of town parks than they are in the case of ordinary holdings, and yet for that great evil of competition the Land Act of 1881 provides no remedy as regards town parks. Now, what would be the effect if you swept away altogether the provision as regards town parks? The holders of such of these plots of land as were proved to be agricultural in character would come into Court to have a fair rout fixed. What would the landlord lose by having that fair rent fixed? He would only lose the right to charge an unfair rent. He would get the full amount of the extra value which the land would bear owing to its proximity to the town. Now, I have very grave doubts whether he ought to get that, but there can be no question that under the Act of 1881 he would get that. He would get the full extra value -which the land bore, probably, not owing to any act of his own, but owing to the industry of the inhabitants of the village near which the land lay. He would get all that free. That would be secured to him, and, as I say, the only right he would lose would, he the right of charging an exorbitantly high and unfair rent. Then I might be told that the landlord may want to build upon this land, in order, in some way to increase the town or village. Well, that I take it is also provided for by the Act of 1881. During the continuance of the statutory term or tenancy, the Court may on the application of the landlord, on his representing that he is desirous of resuming the holding for a reasonable purpose having relation to the good of the holding or estate, including the use of the holding as building ground, grant a power of resumption. That is what the Act says. I want to point out that in adopting the recommendation I make, and sweeping away altogether the exclusion of

  611
  town parks and allowing the rent to be fixed by the Court, the Committee would be carrying out the recommendation of certain most important witnesses on the subject. On page 528 of the Report of the Cowper Commission in the evidence of Mr. Edward Roche, one of the Court valuers, you find this answer—
  "17130. I should be in favour of admitting town parks to the benefit of the Act, the Court in fixing the rent to have regard to the fact that it is accommodation land."
  We find on page 718, that even Mr. Litton, who cannot be supposed for a single moment to be favourably inclined towards the Irish tenants, in answer to question 22989, said—
  "I will deal with town parks especially. I do not bring them within all the provisions, but I would like the rents revised, and I would retain town parks in the owners hands for the benefit of the town, and not allow them to become the property of the town park holder who might immediately after leave the town. I would provide that so long as he held it, there should be no more revision for 15 years."
  I admit that Mr. Litton does not go as far as I propose to go, but he admits the principle of fixing rents for all town parks without exception. Then Mr. Greer, who has been an Assistant Commissioner in Ulster during the whole period—and, I think, is an Assistant Commissioner at the present time, and Chairman of one of the sub-Committees—said in answering—
  "I am also in favour of including occupiers of town parks, and that the fair rent of a town park should be brought in evidence as to the value, the letting value of such lands as town parks or accommodation lands."
  Now, my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has already alluded to the very large and substantial improvements which have been carried out on the town parks by the holders of these town parks. I am bound to say that my experience as an Assistant Commissioner enables me fully to bear out what my hon. Friend has said. I wish to impress upon the Government this one fact—there are a vast number of these town parks in Ireland—they are practically agricultural holdings, and at present are subject to all the evils which the Land Act of 1881 was intended to remedy. If you wish for a state of peace in Ireland you must give up once for all and for ever the idea that you can have anything like free contract as regards land in that country. Such a thing is
  612
  impossible at the present time. So long as agriculture remains the only industry to which the people of Ireland have to turn, the competition for land will be so great, that if you try to set up free contract the only result will be that you will get back to the deplorable state of things that the Land Act of 188l was intended to remedy. There is no reason that I can see, why you attempt to apply free contract to town parks and exclude from it ordinary holdings, because in fixing the rent under the provisions of; the Act of 1881 the landlord will get full allowance for every single thing that he is entitled to. He will get allowance for the smallest increase of value that the land bears owing to its proximity to a town—the only thing he will be prevented from doing will be to charge an exorbitantly high rent. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 19, after "holding." insert the words "which is agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral."—(Mr. Mahony.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): There are many points in the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Mahony) speech I cannot agree with, but there is one that I can agree with. I am quite prepared to acknowledge that the definition of town parks in the act of 1881 has led to difficulties. We must be extremely careful in dealing with this question, and I hope I shall be allowed in all honesty to say that this question does not affect me personally, as I have no town park holdings on my estate. I have, however, sufficient experience to say that if you were to hand town parks over to the present holders, you might do serious injury, not, of course, to the present owners of the town parks, but to the future occupiers of towns. Town parks are simply intended to afford accommodation for men living in towns, and I do not wish to speak of towns of 5,000 inhabitants, but of towns which may fairly be called towns. I think the injury to the inhabitants of towns will be very great if we do away with town parks altogether. Now, I do not

  613
  agree with the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Mahony) account of the way in which town parks are held. The hon. Gentleman considers that town parks afford people living in towns an extra means of gaining their livelihood. Now, a town park properly constituted is a piece of accommodation land which the shopkeepers or tradesmen of a town can use as accommodation land, and for no other purpose. A grocer, for instance, depends upon his business for a livelihood, and yet it is of great moment to him to have a piece of land in the town park on which he may be able to keep a few dairy cows and pigs. Of course, he pays hiring for the accommodation. Let us suppose that a tradesman, whether through his own fault or not, fails in his business, and gives up his promises in the town. If you give him fixity of tenure in the town holding, he becomes a small tenant outside the town with a few acres, and having no other means of subsistence, I do not say that is altogether bad, though I see there is great objection to it. Mark what the result is. The man who succeeds to the business will not succeed to the land in the town park held by the former tradesman, and he may not be able to obtain a piece of land. Let us take the case of a butcher. A good many of these town parks are held by butchers. They do their business in the town, and it is a great accommodation to them when they buy their cattle to have a field on which to turn the cattle so that they may draw them out as they require them. Now, if a butcher carrying on business in the town fails in his business, and is still able to hold his land on the town park, the man who succeeds him in his business will have no place where he can put his cattle, and therefore his business will be greatly interfered with, and, as a matter of common sense, the whole town will suffer from the inconvenience. I have no doubt that the feeling of the Committee is fairly unanimous in this matter. I know that the definition of town park in the Act of 1881 is very vague, and has been subjected to too many opinions and interpretations to be satisfactory; but, at the same time, I do maintain that the principle of town parks actually surrounding and adjoining towns is one which must be kept up for the benefit of the towns themselves. If you deprive the shopkeepers of the
  614
  accommodation which they are accustomed to have, if you give fixity of tenure to those men who are now shopkeepers, you will prevent a future tradesman possessing the valuable accommodation which a piece of this land affords, and you will thus do serious injury to the towns and the business of the towns. Allow me to go a little farther. Many landlords hold in their possession parcels of land about towns which they do not want to let, or which they only wish to let temporarily; they wish to retain a hold upon the land in order that they may be able to give facilities when needful for the increasing or the developing of the town. If you now give fixity of tenure to those who are in possession of town parks, the men who have only held the land from year to year, you will prevent increase or improvement of the towns in many cases.
  MR. MAHONY: That is provided for in a section of the Act to which I have referred. The section which gives the landlord power of resumption.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: We all know what the power of resumption is. I do not want to adhere to the old definition of town parks, I should be very glad to have some fair definition; but I do trust the Committee will not take the line the hon. Gentleman has taken, and sweep away town parks, and give to every man who happens to be in possession a valuable holding near a town, which he has taken subject to a yearly rent, because that would be doing a serious injury to the town itself, and I consider an injustice to the landlord.
  MR. PINKERTON: The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W, Russell) said he was astonished at the speech of the hon. Member for North Londonderry (Mr. Mulholland). I confess I was not astonished at this speech considering the quarter from which it came. The argument of the hon. Member for North Londonderry that this proposal of his is in the interests of the working men is simply monstrous. It is a well known fact that if you put an exceptional high value on land surrounding a town, the working men of that town must pay an exceptional high price for their milk and butter. He says that this Amendment and the following Amendment are attacks upon the principle of the clause, yet he actually proposes the entire exclusion of the clause.

  615
  What would we think of any medical man who, instead of attempting to effect the euro of a diseased limb, recommended its amputation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) also delivered a characteristic speech. He spoke for a quarter of an hour, and what was the purport of his speech? He advocated brevity, and he then gave us a quarter of an hour of involved technicalities, leaving this matter in a greater muddle than it was before he spoke. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary' (Colonel King-Harman) occupied an unusual position to-night, and I can only explain it because, for the first time in his life, he attempted to be rigidly impartial. The reason he gave for occupying that position was a very honest and simple one indeed, he told us he had no interest in town parks. I can understand perfectly well that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been interested in town parks he could have delivered a more straightforward and effective speech. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the grocers and butchers of a town, and told us that if you deprive these men of the right of occupying the adjoining fields you thereby put them, in an unfortunate position.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: What I said about the butcher was that it is of advantage to him that he should have this accommodation land for the purpose of turning his cattle upon, and that if he left his business and still held to the land the business to his successor would not be as valuable as it was to him.
  MR. PINKERTON: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can convince mo that this Amendment will have any effect upon the business of a butcher or grocer, I shall be happy to go into the Lobby with him. It is simply ridiculous that every petty village of 200 or 300 inhabitants should be termed a town, and that the landlord should be allowed to put prohibitive rents upon the fields surrounding such villages. As I have an Amendment on the Paper respecting the question of population, I will simply utter a protest against this peculiar method of hastening Business which has been adopted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General
  616
  for Ireland and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Undersecretary to the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. LEA: This question of town parks has always been a vexed question. The Act of 1870 deprived the tenants of considerable advantages, and in 1881 we had a very interesting discussion on the question of town parks, and I remember the hon. and gallant Gentleman who sits for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) proposed that nothing should be a town park that was not close to some town of 10,000 inhabitants. I remember, also, suggesting that if we substituted 2,000 for 10,000, we might, perhaps, be able to get the Committee to approve of it, but the Government of the day, led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), disapproved of any Amendment of the kind. As a consequence a grievance has existed, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian afterwards acknowledged that there was an evil to be grappled with, and he promised a Select Committee to inquire into the question. A Select Committee was moved for in 1883 or 1884; but, unfortunately, the Motion was blocked, and before the end of the Session there was no opportunity of getting a Select Committee. Hon. Members in all quarters of the House agreed that the definition of town holdings was one which could not stand The only question seems to be what amendment we shall make in the present law to enable the grievance to be remedied, because it is evident that little villages of a few hundred inhabitants cannot by any reasonable or right use of the word be termed towns. I do not know what course the Government intend to take, but they must agree that some clear definition of town parks ought to exist in this Bill. I trust that they will agree to some amendment before this clause is passed.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no objection, as far as I am concerned, to the whole question of town parks, and the whole theory and principle which underlies the Act of 1881, being discussed on this Amendment, but I hope it will not be discussed twice. This Amendment is largely surplusage in itself. It is to insert a definition in the clause which is afterwards given in

  617
  the Definition Clause of the Act. I suggest that we should either take the whole discussion upon town parks on this Amendment, and consider the question as settled upon this Amendment, or that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment and allow the question to be discussed on a later Amendment on which it could be discussed more properly. I am indifferent, however, whether it is taken here or later.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not think it signifies much on which Amendment the discussion is taken. What we really want to know are what are the views of the Government on this point. It would save a great deal of time if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would tell us what his views are on the point. I think there is unanimity of feeling in the House that the present definition of town parks is unsatisfactory. If the right hon. Gentleman would give us his views hon. Members from Ireland who understand the matter would be able to see how far they are satisfactory, and how far they are not.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will make the matter as clear as I can. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony), who moved this Amendment, thinks there ought to be a definition of town, parks. The Government are distinctly of opinion that where land is used as accommodation land it should remain one of the exceptions to the Land Act of 1881, which it is by the provisions of that Act, not only in common justice to the landlord, but in the interest of the people of the towns themselves. But we recognize that the effect of the interpretation of the definition given in the Act of 1881 has been as much as possible in certain cases to exclude from the operation of that Act holdings which are really and truly farms. We do not wish to exclude what are really and truly farms from the operation of the Act of 1881; but we do desire to exclude what is accommodation land. We are further of opinion that no efforts this House may make in the way of drafting a minute definition are likely to conduce to that object. We have, therefore, aimed in this clause at freeing the hands of the Land Commissioners so as to allow them to take into consideration all the circumstances
  618
  of the case. Where the Commissioners think the land to be dealt with is really accommodation land, and not really farms in the sense in which the Act of 1881 contemplated farms, it should be left in the condition in which the Act of 1881 left it; but where it really is holdings, in the same sense of ordinary Irish holdings, then, no doubt, a fair rent might be fixed under the Act of 1881. These are principles which guided the Government in framing this clause. If the Committee think they can mend the clause so as to carry out these objects in a more perfect manner, we shall otter no opposition; but we think it would be unfair to the landlords, and to the towns themselves, and would confer benefit only and solely upon the present occupiers of town parks if we abolished town parks altogether.
  MR. PARNELL: The intentions of the Government, just described by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, are entirety unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman practically takes his stand upon the definition contained in the Act of 1881. He is only willing, where the Courts appear to take an interpretation of the definition contained in the Act of 1881 against the tenant, so far as to exclude holdings which are really farms, and consequently against the spirit of the town parks provisions in the Act of 1881, to insert words, or rather to consider words, to bring forward this clause to meet the difficulty of the case. I believe it will be found that the hon. Members from Ireland on this side of the House, without any exception—and, I believe, some hon. Members from Ireland who sit opposite—will insist upon the Government amending the clause in a much more able and perfect way than this. I go a very long way on this question of town parks; I consider that the definition of the expression, "accommodation land," in the Act of 1881, is useless and vague, and, depending as it must do upon interpretation, that it is a definition which will give rise, and has given rise, to great contention and different judgments upon the question. I wish that all land, whether it is in the neighbourhood of a town or not, whether it is held for what are called in the Act of 1881 accommodation purposes or not, but to which I am not able to attach any moment—whether it be so or not that such land is

  619
  used for agricultural or pastoral purposes, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral purposes, it should be included within the fair rent provisions of this Bill and of the Act of 1881. I do not think you will be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion unless you proceed to open the whole question, and to assert that there shall be no limitation in this respect; and then, if the Government consider that they have a claim for limitations afterwards, for saving clauses or provisoes, let them insert such provisoes and limitations. That is the way the Government can proceed most satisfactorily in reference to this question of town parks. I do not see why, because land is in the neighbourhood of a town, and because the occupant of that land has other business which is more profitable business than the holding of the land, and because he is able out of the profits of his other business to pay a higher rent than the land itself would pay—I do not see why such a person, if he bonâ fide occupies the land for agricultural or pastoral purposes, should be obliged by law to pay a higher rent than he otherwise would. For my part, I go farther, and would include every cottage garden within this provision. I do not see why, because land is highly cultivated, and because vast sums have been, expended upon it, that is any reason the landlord should take advantage of that and charge what he pleases. I would give the landlord the benefit which the fair rent provision of the Act of 1881 would give him. I would give him the benefit arising from the situation, from the fact that the land is near a town. That very fact that the market for the produce of the land is closer to the land than in the case of ordinary farms makes the land more valuable. I would give him the benefit of that to the fullest extent. Surely the Land Court will take into consideration all these circumstances. But to say that, because this land is called accommodation land—that is to say, because it is of vital importance to the dweller in the town, that his children may have a little pure milk or a few acres of land on which to take a run in the afternoon after school hours—he is to pay a higher rent than he otherwise would, is a principle we cannot agree with for a single moment. I regret to find that we are at such direct issue with the Government on this question. I hope
  620
  the subject will be reconsidered, and that the clause will be redrafted in some such manner as we have indicated. If the Government think limitations are desirable in the direction mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman), let them insert them at the end of the clause. We shall not object to limitations of such a character; but we do object to the landlord being put into a position to grind down these humble men who, having by their industry in other directions managed to gain a competency, are called upon to pay an excessive rent for the little agricultural land they may desire to hold.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: As my constituency is most vitally interested in this question I take the liberty of speaking again. I do not at all wish to deny the increased value of land in proximity to towns, and I think the landlord ought to get the benefit of that circumstance. The hon. Member for North Londonderry (Mr. Mulholland) asked some speaker on this side of the House to name one of the small towns concerned in this matter. My constituency is studded with them. The men in one town of my constituency were dragged up to the Appeal Court in Dublin and were beaten on the definition of the clause. The small farms in the vicinity of the town were held to be town parks, and extravagant prices were charged for them. Although land may be of increased value in the vicinity of market towns, where the produce can be easily sold, it is not of increased value in the vicinity of small villages. It is of no increased value, and to make this land surrounding——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now anticipating a discussion which would be much more conveniently taken on the third Amendment. The present Amendment seems to deal with town parks near towns big and small.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I understood, Sir, that we were taking the general discussion. I am entirely with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) on the general principle that the landlord has a right to any increase of the rent arising out of any increase of the value of the land, and that that rent should be fixed by the Court.
  MR. DILLON: I will not enter into the question which has been discussed at considerable length as to what consti-

  621
  tutes a town. That is a matter to be discussed hereafter; but I am entirely at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) in the opinion that no principle is really involved in the exemption of town parks from the operation of the Land Act of 1881. What argument is there in favour of this Amendment? The only argument which will hold water is the argument of the interest of the towns themselves. I notice that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman} and others who claim this exemption always fall back upon the argument. None of them speak in the interests of the landlords. There is not a shade of reason why the interest of the landlord should be protected as regards town holdings any more than as regards the rent of their estates. What ground do they go upon in regard to this question—the interest of the towns? Has there not been a Committee of this House to inquire into the matter? As to the way in which the interests of Irish tenants have been looked after by landlords who have town parks, I challenge anyone who has sat on the Committee to say whether Irish towns have not been starved by Irish landlords. The fact that there are landlords who are the possessors of land around towns is not a fact in favour of the development of towns. There are few towns as to which the landlords have done their duty; such towns are the exception to the rule. The rule is that Irish towns have suffered and have remained in poverty, dirt, ruin, and misery, through the uncharitable action of the Irish landlords. In face of these facts—undeniable facts—hon. Members opposite base their argument in favour of the exemption of the town parks from the fair-rent provisions of the Act of 1881 upon the injury to the interests of the towns. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said it was to the interest of the townsmen that these town parks should be in the hands of landlords. And why? In order that the local butcher might have his land at a low rate——
  COLONEL KING-HARMSSAN: I did not say that at all.
  MR. DILLON: Why should not the local butcher have it from the tenant as well as the landlord? If the landlords let their land round towns at a cheap
  622
  rate, instead of demanding rack-rents the argument of the right hon. and gallant Member night have some force. If it can be shown that town parks are let as they should be, at reasonable rents, there is something to be said for the present system. Accommodation land, indeed! The present method is neither more nor less than a method of sucking the life blood of the people who are compelled to live in towns. The landlords who own land near towns make the traders, or men whoso business compels them to live in towns, but who find the advantage of having a few acres of land, to pay three times the real value of the land. It was proved, during the passing of the Land Act of 1881, beyond all question that the improvements on the farms were made by the tenant, and not by the landlord. What is the case with town parks? There is no part of the country in which more money of the tenant is sunk. Did anyone ever hear of a landlord laying out £l on a town holding? [Colonel KING-HARMAN: Yes.] I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will point to an instance. Certainly, for every £ 1 the landlords have bud out on town parks, I can prove that the tenants have laid out £100. We know of cases in the West of Ireland where town parks have been brought from absolute sterility to a high state of fertility by the expenditure of vast sums of money by the occupiers. The occupiers of town parks have really nursed the land; they have wasted more money upon it than they will ever recoup, simply because it means the luxury of fresh milk for their families and good hay for the horses they have at work in the town. The capital expended out of the proceeds of the labour of the townsmen is to be at the mercy of the landlords. There is not a shadow of honest argument in favour of the preservation of this exemption. This exemption means, in the first place, the passing of machinery by which the landlord is to be able to extract tribute out of the towns; it means the awful machinery of terrorism. The townspeople regard this land as almost a necessity, and it is misery to them to be deprived of it. The men who own the land round towns in Ireland use their position as a means of terrorizing the people, and keeping them in a state of abject fear and misery lest they should be deprived of the little land they hold.

  623
  I challenge any hon. Member opposite to answer me on two or three points. In the first place, I challenges them to prove that the interests of Irish towns have been served by the landlords holding land round towns, and that, therefore, they have any ground for continuing to hold it. I challenge them to show that landlords have laid out one-hundredth part of the money the tenants have laid out; and, thirdly, I challenge them to go into the question of what real, bonâ fide distinction there is between what they call accommodation land and a farm on which people live. The land around small Irish towns is attached to particular houses. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has argued that if a butcher in a town, holding land in a town park, failed in his business, he might take refuge upon this land, and, therefore, the successor to him in his business would lose the benefit of the land. I know places in the West of Ireland where land has been attached to some houses as long as human memory runs. The house and the land are detached, probably, by the length of a street, but, practically speaking, they are as much part of one holding as if they were actually joined together; the things go together, and if a man sells his business without the field he will surfer in his pocket. This so-called accommodation land is part of a tradesman's business. These town park holders are a most important class of tenants. No men are more willing to spend money on the land or to give employment; and it is a monstrous thing that now, while security is to be given to every other class of Irish tenants, these men who do spend money and industry upon their holdings are to be denied the security which they are most reasonably asking.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have listened very attentively to this debate. I invited the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to state his views on this subject; but I cannot understand what the Government mean. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and others who have spoken. What is the difference between accommodation land and any other land? Why is not accommodation land to be let at a fair rent as well as other land? Accommodation land generally means
  624
  land that people cannot do without; it island in such a situation that you must have it, and, therefore, you are to pay a high price for it. That is what in England accommodation land generally means. It the situation of land is such that there is a great demand for the land, that the land is very profitable to the man who holds it, there will be a higher rent. It is not said that the rent of the land should be as low as a piece of agricultural land. No one will contend that for a moment. Land in proximity to a town, whether it be large or small, will, when a fair rent is fixed, be found to be of an enhanced value. Therefore, I cannot see any ground whatever for the fundamental distinction made by the Government. You may say the distinction was made in the Act of 1881. There are a great many mistakes made; and I recognize there were many mistakes made in the Act of 1881. In passing that Act, the Government of the day did not pay sufficient attention to the opinion of the people who understood the matters dealt with, and that is always a great mistake. What is the character of the Irish opinion on this subject? All the Nationalist Members, and many of the Members from Ulster, hold the same views upon this matter. How many are there who take a different view? There is one right hon. Gentleman who sits upon the Government Bench, and one Gentleman who sits below the Gangway. What is the use of the Government trying to settle this question against what may be termed the unanimous opinion of Ireland? It can only tend to further difficulty in the future. You will leave the sore unhealed, and you will have renewed complaints. Why should you refuse to do justice? How would injustice be done to the landlord if he got fair rent? We know something of this question in the large and small towns of England. I speak in the presence of many Gentlemen who know the truth of what I am saying. Of all the greatest evils that can happen to any town is that the laud in its proximity should belong to a great landlord. I know towns amongst the most populous and prosperous who complain of it as the greatest evil that can happen. I know towns in this country that have been entirely destroyed by it. I have frequently to bring in Bills to take land compulsorily for allotments and for

  625
  other purposes. To maintain, as an exceptional condition of things, land in the proximity of towns in the hands of considerable landowners is to go against the experience not only of Ireland but of England. Surely the occupier of these lands ought to have the remedy -which is given to everybody else in Ireland. I ask the Liberal Unionists if they do not consider this a proper question on which they can unite. What is there in Liberal Unionism which demands the maintenance of such a system? I cannot think the Union depends upon exorbitant rents for town parks. Surely this is an open question. It has been said that the man makes money elsewhere, and therefore you may clap upon him a higher rent for his town park than you otherwise would. That seems to be an ingrained and inveterate idea in the minds of the Irish landlords. It is not only in the case of town parks but also in the case of the miserable holdings in the West that the Irish landlords are always seeking to get a rent the land will not yield. The Irish landlords are bent on getting double or treble the rent they ought to get. They may get it from people in America, or they may get it from Irishmen who come over here for the harvest. It does not matter who pays the toll so long as the Irish landlords exact that which no landlord elsewhere on the face of the earth seeks to exact. In this they have been supported by the British Government for generations, and they have thought they were destined by Providence to take three times as much rent as anybody else. They must be disabused of that idea. They must be told that that is not one thing which is established in the eternal law of Providence. Why not deal with these town parks on the same footing of justice as all other land? These are the principles of common sense which may be applied to this question. We ask that no injustice shall be done. We say that the landlord shall have justice done him. He will have justice done him by the Court when they fix a fair rent. Why then establish this exceptional position for a particular class of holders which must breed discontent and continue that discontent which has existed so long? You cannot doubt that the town park holders are greatly discontented. If you are going to make this measure a healing measure, why not proceed upon prin-
  626
  ciples which can be defended. There is no ground whatever for the distinction the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has set up, and therefore I entreat the Government to deal with this matter on a broad and sensible principle, and give to this particular class of holders the same benefits which you have endeavoured to give to the other classes of holders of land in Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has fallen back as he usually does upon promiscuous abuse of the Irish landlords, promiscuous abuse in the sense at all events that whereas the point we are discussing has to do with town parks, the right hon. Gentleman has wandered to the wilds of Donegal in order to show the iniquities of the landlord class. There is one argument the right hon. Gentleman used which appears to mo to be most extraordinary. He said that no greater misfortune can happen to an English town than to have near it or on its borders a large owner of land. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] I am not disputing that proposition—I do not wish to express an opinion one way or the other—but let mo ask what is it the right bon. Gentleman proposes to do by the Amendment he supports? He proposes to substitute for large landlords small landlords. The Act of 1881 does not substitute small proprietors for big proprietors; it leaves the estates as big as they were, but puts double owners upon them. It is now proposed that the Irish towns, instead of being surrounded as they are now by large estates, shall be surrounded by large estates which are hampered by a set of tenants who cannot be turned out; in other words the right hon. Gentleman in the interest of the extension of the towns desires that to the existing landlords a new set of landlords should be added. If we are to remove the old landlord and substitute a set of peasant proprietors, I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's policy whether I agree with it or not. There can be no question that the interest of the towns will be injured and not promoted by the policy which, the right hon. Gentleman desires to carry out.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. What I meant to say was that those tenants will practically with dual owner-

  627
  ship be equivalent to so many small proprietors.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Now we understand what the right hon. Gentleman means. How are large towns in England, which is an analogy to the case we are considering—are large towns in England injured by the neighbourhood of large proprietors? I presume they can only be injured in one of two ways. Either the landlord refuses to let his land on lease or he refuses to let it as accommodation land. Let us take these two methods in order. Take the case of building land. Will building in towns in Ireland be promoted by the substitution of dual ownership for single ownership; will you not really add a new set of difficulties? As to the question of accommodation land, I understand that the plan the right hon. Gentleman proposes to substitute is that the accommodation land shall be obtained of the shopkeepers or others in towns, not from the landlord but from the tenant; in other words, you are still to have rack-rents for accommodation land, but the rack-rent is to be paid to the tenant and not to the landlord. It is, therefore, clear from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that what he is driving at is not the interest of the dwellers of towns, but the interest of that set of individuals who happen for the moment to be in possession of the accommodation land. I have heard of cases in which landlords near towns have let their lands at moderate rents, possibly they have let them to farmers under the Land Act of 1881 at judicial rents. The farmers have let the land as pasture or accommodation land, at what is really a rack-rent. You have the landlords getting £1 per acre, and the tenant getting £5. The right hon. Gentleman said Representatives from Ireland were practically unanimous in favour of this change, and asked us why we would not agree to it. I admit that the Irish Representatives should be consulted on all questions. Is it not clear that there may be cases when the interests of a small minority only are affected and the Representatives are of the majority, and when there may be a sufficient inducement to the representatives of that minority to support by their votes what is practically an advantage to the small and unpopular minority? Will anyone who has looked into this
  628
  question deny that we may be running into that very danger if we accept the Amendment supported by the right hon. Gentleman. We are discussing the clause in its general aspect. I certainly consider that the solution proposed by the Government is the best which is put forward. It does not destroy accommodation land, and gives every facility for the extension of a town, and I cannot see that any substantial injustice is done to anyone.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: A matter fundamental to the consideration of this clause is that Ireland is an agricultural country, that the inhabitants are mostly farmers, that the customs of the people are identical, and that the ancient practice was for the people to gather into the villages and cultivate their farms in common. That practice has continued in the North of Ireland, and there the Ulster custom has become applicable to every case of what is now called a town park; and what the Courts have decided to be the tenant rights of the town parks are as much attached to the holdings, sell with them, improve with them, and go down with them, as they do in any part of the country. I beg attention especially to the case of Ulster, for there is no case where the confiscation brought about by that unfortunate definition in 1870—a definition which never would have taken place if Ireland had been represented by the two Liberal Unionists who now represent her in this House. Had the House been fully alive to the importance of this matter in 1870, had it known the insidious nature of the Amendments introduced in the definition of what is is called a "town park"—had it known the ruin, degradation, and enslavement that would be brought about in many parts of Ulster, they never would have passed this definition. We have not moved in this matter by the most profound policy it is possible to conceive. I am not talking about England. In England the landlord performs properly and capably the duties appertaining to ownership of the land—he bears the duties incidental to the estate. In Ireland, however, there is no person to make improvements but the occupier. It is on the exertions and the capital of the occupier that you must depend for all profits, and this is now the question the Committee has to face, whether or

  629
  not the custom that merely consists in depending on what may be the accidental conditions for the value of a farm—it may be continued competition—is to continue, the farm, whether it be improved or not, being saleable to the highest bidder, or whether you will introduce for that system a system which gives a man an interest in the selling and in the improving of the land, and makes the farm progress with himself. Surely the Committee will say that this system, which it can be proved is a good one, should be adopted in preference to the system advocated by the right hon. Gentleman—which is merely a system of allowing the competition to go on; the value of the land at one time it may be high, at another time it may be low; there being contemplated in connection with the soil not a single duty of man; the only thing contemplated being a passing occupier, and nothing in the shape of fencing or draining being considered. There seems to be an idea against the disparagement of the building of our towns in Ireland. I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would extend his travels a little beyond the City of Dublin—I wish he would go through one of our villages and take any one street in it, and count the number of ruined houses he will see on his way. If he would do that, he would understand what has been going on all through the country—he would see a proof of it. He would see that the agricultural villages are more than half ruined. In many quarters he would see only a few ruined houses where once was a populous place. Talk about disparagement of buildings! What we want is something to prevent the dilapidation that is going on, and that can only be done by associating a man's interests with his affections in the practical development of the land. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think this would be a beneficial thing only for present occupiers. Sir, the policy Parliament introduced at our request in 1881 was a policy of free sale. Where a man was unable to live upon the land, the policy was to enable him to sell to a man to whose interest it would be to hold the farm and improve it. That policy was calculated to bring about two effects—to eliminate the bad and inferior tenants, and to bring in the energetic, money-making,
  630
  and improving men. That, I believe, has always been the result of free sale as applied to land. There is very little difference between the occupation of land as owner or as tenant, provided no other man above you can take advantage of the fact that you have made improvements. If attached to the system of free sale of which I speak you have also corollary with it a system by which a man can make a benefit out of any improvement, what is the difference between that condition, of things and a peasant proprietary, which, we say, as well as you, should be the ultimate goal? What I do now say is this. Speaking only from the point of view of the landlord, and addressing myself to those who live in the country and who live on the land, I want to know what right has the man who has the accident to hold land near a town to pay more money for it than the man who holds land three miles from the town? What right has a man to give more because he lives near a town than because be lives in the country? I quite admit that if the land is worth more a higher price should be paid for it; but what I never can get English Members to look at is the fact that the farm has been made by the tenant, and not by the landlord. It is in no way the landlord's to dispose of; and the system which has brought about the cultivation of the land has grown up under the very walls of the town, and is as strong there as it is within three miles of the town. How you can draw a distinction—how you can draw a line—between property near a town and property some distance away, and say, "Here injustice ceases, and justice begins," I cannot say. We base our case on the Act of 1881, and you yourselves, though you do not say so, imply that that is the proper basis. The basis is fixity of tenure. It has made a marvellous improvement in the condition of farms, though, generally, throughout Ireland so much benefit has not been derived from it as ought to have been the case. Still it has induced farmers to make increased efforts to improve their holdings. I have often travelled through districts in Ireland where nothing could be seen for miles but the stones upturned by the farmers where they were improving their land. I feel I have spoken at too great length. The Committee thinks that the system of leaseholders is im-

  631
  portant. I agree with that; and I also hold that there is no section of the population in Ireland whose rights ought to be more quickly and reasonably attended to than the holders of this land near towns. I feel with absolute certainty that there is no message you could send to Ireland which would produce more peace than a message announcing the destruction of the distinction which at present exists between land immediately outside the villages and towns and that further away from them.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I trust the Committee will now come to a decision on this matter. I venture to think that the arguments have been fairly stated on both sides, and that any further repetition will not add any further to the enlightenment of the Committee on this question. It is very important that we should make progress, having regard to the interests of the Bill. I trust we shall now be allowed to take the Division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 185: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 334.) [10.55 P.M.]
  MR. PINKERTON: I think the Amendment which stands in my name, and which I now move, will put to the test the sincerity of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary asked the Representatives of Belfast to express their desire that villages and small towns should be exempted from the scope of this Act. It is a well known fact that the occupiers of land in, or rather near, the smallest towns in the North of Ireland have to pay exorbitant rents to men who themselves have never done anything to improve the land. I perfectly agree that increased valuation—[Interruption, and cries of "Order!"] I am glad to see that hon. Members opposite are setting Irish Members so good an example. It is not so often that I intrude upon the House, and I think that when I do stand up to speak I should receive a fair and impartial hearing. The Amendment is to this effect—a proposal to keep outside the scope of the Bill all towns of under 10,000 persons. This does not attack the principle of the clause, but simply limits it. The Amendment will
  632
  have the effect of excluding all villages and small towns the inhabitants of which are at present injured by this prohibitory clause. It is a well known fact that every town in the County of I Londonderry—every one of those small towns held under the London Companies—seems to be mildewed, owing to the fact that the Companies put a prohibitive rent on the adjoining land. We ask that these small towns in Londonderry, Antrim, and, in fact, throughout the whole of Ireland, shall be exempt from the regulations as to town parks. I am disposed to recognize that this Bill is a great and good measure; and I am sorry that it should be disfigured by any blots of this description. With the exception of this clause and the 4th clause, I am disposed to think the Bill a great boon; and I trust the Government will not be so foolish as to refuse this Amendment of mine, for if they do they will only cause a fresh agitation throughout Ireland. The small occupiers in the neighbourhood of villages are the very men who form the nucleus of the agitation. If you accept this Amendment, however, you will make this an effective measure, and do a great deal towards preventing these people from being deprived of the benefits of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 21, after "1881," insert "unless the city or town which it adjoins has a population of at least ten thousand persons, as ascertained by the last Parliamentary Census Returns, nor shall it be so deemed."—(Mr. Pinkerton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: You stopped me, Sir, and very properly, when discussing this very point on the last Amendment. The Committee will notice that I have an Amendment lower down, fixing the population at 5,000. The reason. I selected that figure was not because I considered 5,000 the right number, but because Lord Cowper's Commission recommended that it should be adopted. That is the sole reason why I selected that figure. Now, what I would suggest to the Government is that we are at last on ground where compromise is reasonably possible. All who were in Parliament when the Act of 1881 passed will bear me out when I say that the Act never contemplated such an interpretation as has been put

  633
  on it. It was never contemplated, that all these little villages and hamlets should be defined as towns by the Court. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) has talked about butchers. Why, they have no butchers in these villages. The idea of talking about butchers in these wretched hamlets! The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that in these places——
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): I distinctly stated that I objected to these small villages being taken as towns, and I said I hoped the definition would be confined to towns.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am glad to hear that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to support us. I rose for the purpose of saying that we have at last reached ground where compromise is possible, and that I hope the Government will meet us in this matter.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I confess I am unwilling to depart from the general policy hitherto maintained—that of leaving it to the Land Committee itself to decide what is or what is not accommodation land or town parks within the meaning of the Act of 1881; but if it would conduce to the harmony of the proceedings on the Bill, I should be prepared to mention a figure of population that would exclude anything in the nature of a hamlet. I should be quite ready to accept the figure of 2,000 as the limit.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland's notion of a hamlet is rather extraordinary. I suppose it is taken from the wilds of Scotland. This is a question upon which we ought to be guided very largely by the opinion of hon. Gentlemen who are acquainted with the circumstances of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has said—"We have come to a point where compromise should be adopted." I agree with him; but he will have a great deal more influence in getting a compromise from the Government if he can persuade any one of his Liberal Unionist Friends to vote for it. What do we see in all these discussions? Why, we see the hon. Mem-
  634
  ber for South Tyrone rise in his place and argue—I have no doubt most sincerely—in the interest of his constituents, while his Friends, the Gentlemen with whom he generally acts, vote the other way, in order to secure the Government in a majority. If the hon. Gentleman wants to obtain a compromise on this or any other point in the Bill, he should use his influence with the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), or anyone who sits near him, to give him a little support in these matters. [Cries of "Question!"] If there is any Gentleman who thinks I am out of Order it is well he should rise to invite the opinion of the Chairman. I do not think it is convenient to have six or eight Chairmen of Committees all sitting upon that side of the House. If I am, to be allowed to continue my remarks, I will earnestly recommend the hon. Member for South Tyrone, if he desires to get a compromise out of the Government upon this Land Bill, to pursue the course I have indicated to him.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I am delighted the principle of compromise has been accepted; the only point is what the figure shall be. I think the concession of the Government is a considerable one, and that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House will accept it, if they cannot get anything better—5,000 inhabitants are really what represent a small town, while 2,000 or 3,000 inhabitants may be taken to constitute a village.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I find a long list of towns in Ireland with a smaller population than 2,000. The concession of the Government, I am sure, is by no means an inconsiderable one.
  MR. LEA: I do not wish to prolong the discussion. I only wish to say that I would rather have taken the figure of the Cowper Commission—namely, 5,000. That Commission made their recommendation after a very fair inquiry. If we cannot possibly get an increased figure, I think we had better accept the figure of 2,000.
  MR. PARNELL: There is one way by which we can get an increased number, and that is by the Liberals on this side of the House voting solid against the Government. That is logic the Government will admit. The limitation of 2,000 which has been drawn

  635
  by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will, I have no doubt, admit half-a-dozen towns in the whole of Ireland. Just let me remind the Conservative Members from the North of Ireland what are some towns which are not large towns, but which will be shut out by their refusal to agree to the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Pinkerton). Portadown with a population of 7,050, Newtownards with, a population of 8,674, Coleraine with a population of 6,694, and other places in Ulster, will be excluded unless the Amendment of my hon. Friend is accepted. I fancy there will be rather a ferment in some of these places when they see which side their Orange Representatives have gone upon this matter, and how they have been shut out of the benefits of this clause by the votes of hon. Gentlemen whose one object seems to be the preservation of the Union. Upon what principle have the Government taken their stand in this matter—in selecting the figure of 2,000? Have they taken their stand upon the Report of their own Commission? They have not done that, because the Cowper Commission, which we must assume had every opportunity of coming to a correct decision, as to the limit, recommended in Clause 49 of their own Report that all town park holdings exceeding five statute acres in size and adjoining towns of less than 5,000 inhabitants, should be admitted to the fair rent provision of the Land Act of 1881, subject to the landlord having power of resumption for building or improvement purposes upon paying compensation. We take our stand upon the Report of the Cowper Commission on this matter. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should reduce his figure from 10,000 to 5,000, and that then we should ask the Government whether they will not reconsider this question, and allow us to pass to the next clause of the Bill.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg leave to amend my Amendment in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "ten thousand," in order to insert the words "five thousand."—(Mr, pinkerton.)
  Question, "That the words 'ten thousand' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'five thousand' be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. DILLON: I think it is most deplorable that when an opportunity for procuring a satisfactory arrangement in this matter seems to offer itself, the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea) should intervene and practically give away the interests of all town populations. Surely this is a question which is not mixed up with the Union. If it is not, we might reasonably be encouraged to hope that if the Liberal Unionist Party from Ireland had exercised their influence with their own supporters in this House, we might have been able to carry this measure for the benefit of the people of Ireland. This is simply a question of detail, a question to what limit the operation of the clause shall be extended. I hold very strongly that the limit should be 10,000 and upwards, and one of the chief reasons I have in intervening in this debate is to ask the Committee to observe that not one single Member from Ireland has spoken against this Amendment except the hon. Member for North Londonderry (Mr. Mulholland), and I invite him to go back to his constituents and hear what they say of his action in this matter. Where is the Leader of the Conservative Party from Ulster? Where is the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson)? I should like to hear his opinion on the subject; he has voted, but he has not spoken. Other hon. Members from Ulster should speak out on this matter, because we are entitled to say that up to this the whole weight of opinion, except that of the hon. Member for North Londonderry, has gone one way. I respectfully urge on the hon. Member for South Londonderry to say if he cannot put a little firmer pressure on the Government in order to secure that the limit shall extend to 5,000. I do not see why it should not be fixed at 10,000. I cannot understand why Portadown, and such places as that, should not be included.
  Question put
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 195: Majority 40,—(Div. List, No. 335.) [11.30 P.M.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move the insertion of the words "two thousand."
  MR. PARNELL: May I ask whether it would be competent to insert "four thousand;" and whether such an Amendment would not have priority over the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Government have priority for the Amendments to their own measure. If the proposal to insert "two thousand" is negatived, then the proposal can be made to insert "four thousand."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to insert the words "two thousand."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'two thousand' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. PARNELL: I trust the Government will agree to the wishes of their own supporters from Ireland in reference to this question, and modify their Amendment so as to make it include towns of 4,000 inhabitants, instead of 2,000. The limitation to 2,000 will destroy the utility of this measure. I cannot understand on what principle the Government are proceeding in this matter. They are certainly not proceeding on the Report of the Royal Commission, but are really flying in face of it. I should have thought they would have told us why they choose this figure; that they would have given us some statistics to show how many towns are excluded, and how many are included. This is a matter of considerable practical importance to the people of Ireland, and it is worthy of a little elucidation or of a little discussion as to how many towns are going to be left out, and as to how many towns are going to be left in by this Amendment. We know that a town of 2,000 inhabitants is a very small one indeed. What objection can there be to raise the limit to 4,000?
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) asked me to express my opinion as to the question now before the Committee. He thought that if I expressed an opinion adverse to the acceptance of the proposal to limit the operation of the clause to towns of 10,000 it would bring me into loggerheads with my constituents. It appears to me that
  638
  hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite forget one class in Ireland, and that is the labouring class. A great deal has been said about the tenants, and it is proposed to do a great deal for Irish tenants. In former years, I myself supported a Laud Act, which really did confer benefits upon the Irish tenants; indeed, I can point to my political career as a proof that I am not absolutely opposed to the interests of the Irish tenant farmers. But let me recall to the Committee the fact that there is another class in Ireland, the class which I believe returns most of the Members who sit for Irish constituencies, and that is the labouring class. When the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) speaks of the benefits which would be conferred upon the Irish people by sending the benefit of this proposal to them, I think he entirely forgets the labouring class. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, hon. Members say "No, no!" but I should like to hear from some of them what benefit it would confer upon the labouring class, and upon the working classes in the towns of Ireland, especially in the towns of Ulster, for I speak of them from personal experience, to confer this benefit upon them. If the proposal is accepted, and towns of a large number of inhabitants are included, the labouring classes will be absolutely precluded from obtaining allotments in the neighbourhood of towns. Instead of dealing with the landlords, they will have to deal with middlemen, and my experience tends to show that the terms granted by middlemen are a thousand times harder than the terms ever proposed by the landlords, who are so much vilified by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I have the honour to represent a constituency which is largely composed of the labouring classes—in fact, the majority of my constituents belong to those classes—and I can say most conscientiously that the working classes of my constituency would be deeply injured by establishing round the small towns of Ulster a network of tenant farmers, with whom labourers or working men would have to deal when they wanted allotments, which I believe to be necessary to the well-being of our labouring population; and, therefore, if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway think they will get the Ulster

  639
  Members into a hole in this matter they are greatly mistaken. I do not speak of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), for I do not know exactly the circumstances in which he stands. I speak for myself, and I know I speak for the majority of my Colleagues, when I say that in opposing this proposal we are carrying out the wish of the majority of the electors who return us to sit in Parliament.
  MR. PARNELL: I really do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Saunderson) has ever done in the interests of the Irish labourers, except it be to attempt to raise disputes between the fanners and the labourers in order that the landlord may steal in and carry off the booty. As the designer of the first Labourers Act which ever was passed by this House, the Irish labourers know very well what I have done for them. They are able to measure and estimate the difference between the exertions of the hon. and gallant Member and myself. But, Sir, this attempt to drag the red-herring concerning the labourers across the trail will not be of any use to the hon. and gallant Member. If he is prepared to move any Amendment of the Bill in the interest of the labourers—if he can propose any means by which the labourers can be benefited in this matter—he will find no better or more earnest supporters than we. The hon. and gallant Member would do well, I think, not to raise these disputes between two meritorious and hard-working classes in Ireland; but to try and forward, or serve the interests of both. That has been the principle upon which we have always acted. There is no possible way in which the interests of the labourers can be injured by this Amendment, because if there are labourers in Ireland, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman maintains, who possess allotments round small towns, they will come under the benefit of this provision; they would be equally benefited with the farmers by this provision. It is competent for the hon. and gallant Member, if he docs not think the labourers are sufficiently protected, to procure protection for them; but he has not attempted to do so. He simply leaves the labourers like the tenant farmers, unprotected, and at the mercy of the landlords. That is a course in
  640
  which we shall not follow him. If allotments under the Labourers Act are required for labourers bordering on towns in Ireland, it is possible that these allotments can be obtained compulsorily. There is nothing to prevent labourers allotments being put down on town parks. There is nothing to prevent labourers being amply provided for in respect to allotments, and I remind the lion, and gallant Gentleman who boasts so much about his desire and the desire of his constituents to do justice to the labourers, that Ulster is the only Province of Ireland in which the Labourers Act has not been used. So much for the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in regard to the labourers. We desire to benefit both classes by doing all we can for each class, and we believe that those who set one class against the other are the worst enemies of both classes.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I should like to mention one fact to the Government. There are not many towns in Ireland with a population of between 2,000 and 3,000; but there are a good many between 3,000 and 5,000. Would it not be possible to insert 3,000, and thus include such towns as Boyle. There are some of between 2,000 and 3,000 population; there are a good many of between 3,000 and 5,000, and I think it a reasonable matter of compromise to make the figure 3,000.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I should support the hon. Member in his proposal to make it 3,000.
  MR. DILLON: I think that in this instance we ought to press for the limit of 4,000. I think I can confidently count on the support of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) for that figure. The question of principle has been abandoned to a great extent. I could give a good case—one brought under my notice by the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien)—showing the necessity of adopting a reasonable limit in this clause. There is a man living in the town of Ballybay, who writes to us begging us to insist on this Amendment. This man—I believe he is an Orangeman; at any rate, I do not think he is a member of our Party, although on this question he communicates with us—informs us that he holds

  641
  a so-called town park, for which he pays 50 s. an acre. He says he holds the land under a yearly tenancy, that he is liable to be expelled at any time by notice to quit, and that he cannot get compensation for his improvements. He says he has a neighbour whose farm adjoins his own; that this neighbour—his land not being within the area defined as town park land—went into the Court against his landlord, who was also the landlord in the case of the town park, and got his rent reduced to 25 s. per acre. This man thinks it very hard that he should have to pay 50 s., whilst his neighbour, for precisely the same class of land, has only to pay 25 s. He is denied justice, because he is said to live near a town. I will now give a little information to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). He tells us that there are very few towns in Ireland of between 2,000 and 3,000 population. Well, if I chose to weary the Committee with such details, I could mention dozens. Here are a few. There is Clones with a population of 2,216—a Protestant Orange centre; then there is Carrickmacross and Dromore, with populations of under 3,000; Cumber with 2,165, Ballyshannon with 2,140, and Letterkenny with 2,188. These are only a few scattered towns from the Province of Ulster, and there are an immense number in the South. There are, again, a large number with a population of between 3,000 and 4,000. There is Cookstown, Bally-money, Bangor, Downpatrick, and so on. There does not seem to be a shadow of a shade of principle in the method in which the present law is carried out; and I think the Government will regret that they did not take their stand on a number that could be defended. They should at least have taken the number mentioned by the Cowper Commission. Why should they stop at 2,000, when there is not the least shade of local opinion in favour of it? There is not a shade of principle in it. When you once begin to move in the matter, I do not see why you should even stop at 5,000. I can congratulate the Committee upon having got the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) to speak on this matter; but what was his contention? Why, Sir, that to adopt our proposal would interfere with, the wel-
  642
  fare of the labourers. Will he be kind enough to point out to us how this will be? Will he show us where the labourers have got allotments? In the district of which he speaks the landlords have held the land for centuries. I know the land very well; but I do not know a place in Ireland where the labourers have got allotments. I do not deny that there may be some few cases; but all I can say is that if they do exist, they are oases in the desert, so far as the generality of the country is concerned. Such a thing is unknown in the whole of my experience, and I believe it must be excessively rare. To bring that forward as an argument against a measure of justice being extended to men holding land in the neighbourhood of small hamlets who at present are suffering grievous wrong is futile. The hon. and gallant Member considers he has completely floored us by this argument. He asks us—"What do you propose to do for the labourers?"I tell him, in reply, that we are dealing with the case of men who have town parks, and not with that of labourers. With regard to these labourers, I would inform the hon. and gallant Member that those who are their best employers are the holders of these town parks. In many parts of Ireland these persons pay much better wages than the landlords do. I can give the Committee any number of cases from the South and West of Ireland in proof of this statement. I say, therefore, that I have answered the hon. and gallant Member when he asks—"How can we benefit the labourers of the towns? "We can benefit them by giving the inducement which we are now asking for to the town park holders—an inducement to spend their money on their holdings—by which they will get security of tenure, which means security for the capital they invest. The question is, are these men to continue being robbed, or are they to get security for the money they invest? If they get security they will continue to spend their money on their holdings in the future as they have done in the past—nay, I believe they will spend more money than they have done in the past.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not like to prolong this discussion; but I should just like to make this one remark—that, in the first place, when hon. Gentlemen allege a hardship against the tenant

  643
  involved in the principles of the present law in reference to accommodation land—the allegation being that the tenant, after improving his land, can be turned out summarily—I would remind them that no tenant, not even a tenant of this description, can be turned out summarily without receiving compensation for his improvements. In the second place, I would remind hon. Gentlemen, though we propose to lower the limit to 2,000, we do not propose to exclude from the benefit of the clause towns above that figure. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) asks upon what principle we adopt the 2,000 limit. There is no principle in the matter to be defended as such; 4,000 can be defended no more than 2,000, and the limit of 10,000 is not capable of more defence than 4,000.
  MR. DILLON: My contention is that if you abandon all principle you ought to adopt the limit proposed by the Cowper Commission.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member suggests that when we abandon questions of principle we ought to allow ourselves to be guided by the recommendations of the Cowper Commission, I would ask him why he and his Friends did not adopt the suggestion of the Cowper Commission in regard to Clause 4 when they objected to that part of the Bill. However, I do not wish to enter into that controversial matter. I would remind hon. Gentlemen of the procedure adopted in regard to this Bill. The plan of the Government was that the Land Commission should be allowed to deal freely with the question of these town parks—that they should remain unhampered—that was the principle which they desired to see adopted. But because we have given way on that point, and have adopted an Amendment in deference to the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that very fact is used against us, and we are asked why, having gone so far, we do not go still further. I respectfully submit to the Committee that that is neither a fair nor a true principle of compromise.
  DR. J. E. KENNY: It is the larger towns in which the evils of overcrowding most abound—which most require that this question of town parks should be dealt with, and the
  644
  limitation removed whereby the larger towns would be excluded from the operation of the clause, which would be made applicable to the agricultural districts pure and simple. It is well known that one of the greatest obstacles to the application of the Labourers Act has been caused by the enormous sums demanded by the landlords whenever it has been sought to bring that Act into operation. Therefore, in reply to the statement that we are doing nothing for the labourers, I say that it is the obstacles thrown in our way by the landlords that have created the main difficulty. I would, therefore, strongly urge the Government to accept at least those terms which their own Friends, the Liberal Unionists, are disposed to accept.
  MR. O'DOHERTY; I cannot but express the surprise with which I have heard an Ulster Member saying from his place in this House that it is in the interest of the labourers themselves he desires to see the town parks destroyed.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I know of no question that affects the interest of the people of Ulster more than this question of town parks. Some time ago, in a speech made by an hon. Gentleman opposite, we were told that it was nearly time the Government did something for the landlords. I think one may fairly say that, on this question of town parks, the Government are doing something for the landlords. I must ask the Government to reconsider this matter, and to allow the limit to be raised to a higher point than that at which they now propose to fix it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 191, Noes 138: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 336.) [l2. 10. A.M.]
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to move, as an Amendment, the omission of the words, page 6, line 22, "let and," the effect of which will be to exclude from the definition of town parks all holdings not used as ordinary agricultural farms.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 22, to leave out the words "let and,"—(Mr. John Morley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I regret to say that the Government are unable to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, because it would not be fair to make the mere user of the land, which "is entirely within the control of the tenant, the point on which is to be decided the question whether or no the land comes within the definition of a town park.
  MR. MAHONY: It appears to me that this Amendment, although comparatively a small one, raises what, in reality, is a very important issue. I think it is quite possible that, as the clause stands, many hundreds of town parks might be excluded from the benefit of the measure, owing to some old letting, which may have taken place heaven knows when; and I would, therefore, suggest to Her Majesty's Government that the matter is one in regard to which they might very fairly be asked to make a compromise. By agreeing to an Amendment to the effect that the holding must have been used as an agricultural holding for some years past they would entirely meet any objection such as has been urged.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to state explicitly to the Committee what is the intention of the Government on this point, Is it intended that the onus shall lie on the tenant?
  MR. CHANCE: I only desire to interfere in this debate for a moment. The Attorney General for Ireland said it was quite necessary that the two conditions should exist, and his argument came to this—that because a certain farm was let as a town park, therefore, it was to remain a town park for all eternity. It seems to me that, coming from the Government, that is a dangerous argument.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I must now appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite as to whether the time has not arrived when a decision might properly be come to on this question. It is a matter of the very gravest importance that the Committee on this
  646
  measure should be got through at the earliest possible moment; and the Bill is being placed in a position of great danger, unless we can make much greater progress than we have been making this evening.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I must press the Government for an answer to my question. I want to know what is the intention of the Government. Is it intended that the onus shall be thrown on the tenant, or upon the landlord?
  MR. GIBSON: I could not assent to the Amendment. It would not be fair to make the mere user of land, which was within the entire control of the tenant, decisive as to whether it was or was not a town park.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) have considerably complicated the matter, which is one of great importance. He seems to hold that the test of letting land is not to be the express terms of the letting, but that the intention of the parties may be proved by something foreign to the contract. The decision which I think he has in his mind was one in reference to the letting of land in the County of Clare. There, although, neither of the parties had made any express contract as to the mode in which the land was to be used, yet it was held by the Court of Appeal in Ireland—and their decision was affirmed by the House of Lords—that if the land was of such a character that it could only be used for pasture, the letting was for pasture. I think we are entitled to ask that if the tenant is to be excluded because the land is to be held otherwise than as an agricultural farm, that this should be collected from the terms of the contract, and that it should not be competent for the landlord to say that although there was no contract at the time of letting, still it should be held that the land was a town park. That is a matter of great importance, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman had better reconsider it. Whatever position the Government take on the subject, we are entitled to ask that if the landlord wants to include land as town parks, he should be compelled to allege a contract at the time of letting, and should not be allowed to set up some entirely extrinsic consideration against the tenant when he goes into court.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I think that what we want is that the onus of proving that the original letting was for agricultural purposes should not rest on the tenant, but that if he has been using the land as an ordinary agricultural farm, that he should not, for want of proof that it was let for that purpose, be debarred from entering the Court and getting a fair rent fixed. I think that object might be attained by inserting in the clause the words "or with the presumed consent of the landlord used." That Amendment would read in with the other words of the clause, and I think the Government have no good reason for refusing it. It only asks that if the landlord sees the tenant using the land as a farm, and makes no objection or protest, then the land should be treated as a farm.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsuggested that after the word "used" the words "without breach of contract" should be inserted.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I now propose in page 6, line 22, to leave out "farm" and insert "land." The reason I do so is that as the clause now stands, if a man has a farm consisting of four or five parcels of land, it is only one farm, and a man may therefore lose his entire tenant right for the whole, though, he would be entitled to it in respect of some of the parcels if they were taken separately. The Committee will see the importance of that in cases were the farm may be held from different landlords. A man may have plots from A, B, or C, inherited or bought. Why each of these parcels should not be a separate farm I do not see. If you honestly mean this do not use a word which will be held to exclude three-fourths of the town parks of Ulster.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 22, to leave out the word "farm," and insert the word "land" instead thereof.—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'land' stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)s: If we adopt this Amendment we shall destroy all town parks all through Ireland. Every town park may be of agricultural land—that is, it may
  648
  include land which may be used for agricultural purposes. The essence of the distinction between accommodation land and that which is not accommodation land is that in the latter case the land is a farm.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Will you take the words "or part of a farm?" I want to save the tenant right of more than three-fourths of the tenants in Ulster of these town parks.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider the words "or part of a farm."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 22, to insert after the word "farm," the words "or part of a farm."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)was understood to oppose the Amendment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wants us to adopt the advice given us from time to time by the First Lord of the Treasury, he had better adopt a very different tone. I think there is a very good reason for this Amendment, and I think the point dealt with is one of great importance. I think there was a great deal of force in what the Chief Secretary said as to the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. O'Doherty) a short time ago; but whatever objection there was to that Amendment there is none to this. The danger in which a tenant stands is this—that the Land Court may hold that land in the hands of a shopkeeper or a farmer is not a farm. That is what I am greatly afraid that landlords may succeed in getting Irish Courts to hold. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is saving this and other points in order to raise them by-and-bye. I am not at all clear that the original form of this clause as it was introduced into the House of Lords was not the best for the Irish tenants. It then proposed to meet the difficulty which has arisen—namely, that, whereas the original intention of the Acts of 1870 and 1881 was, that land should not be a town park if it was not accommodation land, the Irish Courts construed these words, that if laud could be used

  649
  as accommodation land, they would hold it to be a town park, not with standing what the actual use was. There have been several decisions of the Courts in Ireland which can only be met by such a proposal as my hon. Friend has made. The right hon. Gentleman asks what advantage is to be gained by inserting this words "or part of a farm?" Is he not aware that the Land Commission Court has held that a holding is not in the occupation of a tenant unless the whole is in the occupation of a tenant? May it not be hold that land is not a farm if it constitutes only part of a farm? [Mr. GIBSON dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman thinks that preposterous. Well, I think it preposterous that it should be suggested that a man is not in the occupation of a farm because he lets one acre out of a 100 acres. Yet the Irish Courts have held that, and their decision has been upheld by the Irish Court of Appeal. I will tell him of another decision. As he knows demesne land is excluded from the Act, and an Irish Court has held that if one acre of a farm was demesne land, that excluded the whole 100 acres, if the farm consisted of 100 acres. If, therefore, this land which is alleged to be a town park does not constitute a farm but only part of a farm, it may be held not to come within the exception. This Amendment is not moved in any factious spirit, but in order to meet what are tangible difficulties in the minds of those who have experience of the way in which Irish Courts deal with difficulties of this kind. It is, I can assure the Chief Secretary, not moved with any sinister motive.
  MR. CHANGE: I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), with great deference to his superior knowledge of Parliamentary ways, that it would be now for the convenience of the Committee if he would explain his views on this matter to them, and not to Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. ["Order, order!"] I am perfectly in Order. I say it would be better that the right hon. Gentleman should state his opinion on this matter to the Committee, instead of discussing it on the Treasury Bench, where we have no opportunity of pointing out any mistake that he may unwittingly make.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 26, to insert—"Provided always that such parcel of land shall be deemed to have been so let and used as aforesaid, where substantial consideration was given therefore to or with the knowledge of the landlord, or in accordance with the Ulster custom, or any usage similar thereto, or when such parcel of and is proved to be subject to the Ulster tenant right custom, or to any usage similar hereto, or where substantial improvements have icon made on such parcel of land by the tenant thereof, in accordance with the practice of he estate."—(Mr. Gilhooly.)
  Question proposed, "That those words >e there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I think that this Amendment appears to be inconsistent with what we have already done. It would, as far as I understand the matters referred to, prevent those which are town parks from being considered town parks at all.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: If a man has paid for the tenant right of his farm at a certain rent, it is clear that he has not paid the whole value for the farm, and therefore it cannot be accommodation land. While it is possible to have the value of the improvements effected on a farm recovered on the eviction of the tenant, the Ulster tenant right for which a man has paid he cannot recover for. Why should a man get a tenant in under the Ulster custom, and then deprive him of the value of his improvements?
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I propose, in page 6, to leave out from the end of line 26 to the end of the clause. As this provision was not in the Act of 1881, I think it quite reasonable that I should move that it be omitted now. It is for the Government to say why it should be inserted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, to leave out from the end of line 26 to the end of Clause.—(Mr. M'Cartan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): It is proposed to insert this provision in order to meet a great hardship that has been felt in some cases. It is an essential part of the description of a town park that it should be used

  651
  and occupied by a person living in the town, and it is a real hardship that land used as a town park should cease to be a town park through the person entitled to it migrating to another place.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsaid, that if the converse proposition were put, the Government would not accept it.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon, Gentleman says that he proposed this provision in the clause because of a difficulty which arose—that is, a difficulty which arose in the way of a landlord rack-renting his tenant. This is making an inroad on the Act of 1881. Now, the general experience of that Act was that it was not too wide, but too narrow. But this provision tends to restrict and to narrow the definition of town parks, while we have striven to enlarge and widen it. I do not quite follow the reasoning of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, He complains that the law requires that land, to be a town park, should be occupied by a person living in the town. What can be more proper? Why should this not be the law? The common sense of the thing is that land should not be a town park unless it is occupied by a person living in the town, and that the moment it is occupied by a person not living in the town it ceases to be a town park. Why should that most excellent provision be interfered with? Any argument may be good enough to defend a provision in "another place" so long as it is an attack on the Land Act. But we expect here, that if Gentlemen attack that Act, they should give some reason for the faith that is in them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 32, add, "A parcel of land shall not come within the said exemption, which but for removal of the occupier thereof into the city or town, or but for the fact that it devolved or became vested in a person living in. such city or town, or in the suburbs thereof, would have been without the said exemption."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  Question, "That the words proposed be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  To add, at the end of the Clause, these words, "and this section shall apply as well to claims and applications already made, and appeals and rehearings now pending as to claims and applications to be made after the passing of this Act, and more especially to applications under
  652
  the thirteenth section of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.'"—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): We are now altering the law as to town parks, and I see a great difficulty, when Parliament is making a new law, in applying that retrospectively, so as to upset rights and titles which have been established by decisions of the Courts of Law. There would certainly be a danger in applying this clause to cases where decisions of the Courts have been actually given. If this provision were inserted in the clause, how could we answer the objections or meet the claims of those whoso cases had been decided and not appealed? A man who had appealed would, under this provision, obtain an advantage which would not be obtained by a man who did not appeal.
  MR. M'CARTAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it would be a case of hardship to give those tenants whose cases have not boon heard a benefit not given to those whose cases have been heard. I recollect, however, cases where a man who had appealed got his rent reduced, and when a tenant who did not appeal did not got his rent reduced. The former then got an advantage. The true principle is that when justice can be done it should be done.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Purchase of Land,
  Clause 7 (Investment of guaranteed deposit); and Clause 8 (Trust funds may be applied as a guarantee deposit), severally agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Case wherein incumbrance is charged on several estates).
  MR. CHANCE: On this clause I have some observations to make. It deals with incumbrances. I may say I know two cases in which the landlords are £50,000 to the bad—that is, their interest in the land is £50,000 less than nothing, and yet they stand between the mortgagee and the tenant.

  653
  The point I wish to put is this—that the mortgagee, who is now able to sell to any stranger by private contract, or by auction, or any other way, should be enabled to sell to the person who could buy—namely, to the tenant. I would ask the Government to make some announcement in regard to this subject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)was understood to say that this matter would have to be discussed upon a subsequent Amendment, and that it would be better to leave the matter as it was until then.
  MR. CHANCE: As this is a financial matter, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make some declaration upon the point. It will have results of the utmost importance, and I therefore think we ought to have timely notice of the intention of the Government in regard 1o it, and no doubt it will affect the subsequent discussion upon the Bill. I put it to him as a financier, whether it is reasonable to prevent a mortgagee who is more than sole owner of the land, to sell to the person who can now buy, but who is prevented by the person who is less owner of the land than an absolute stranger?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I will consult with the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland, and give an opinion at a later stage.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Duty of Land Commission with respect to enforcement of arrears) agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Expediting proceedings on sales).
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hooper), and to ask for an explanation from the Government of the meaning of this clause, or that part of it I propose to omit.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 1, to leave out the words from "any" to "thereof," in line 3, inclusive.—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): All of us who are acquainted
  654
  with the holding of farms in Ireland know that it is very difficult to make out titles, and the Land Commission thought there should not only be power to investigate the title, but that it was their duty to investigate the tenant's title. The result of that is to create a burden of costs on the sale. The object of the words proposed to be struck out is to enable the Land Commission to recognize the contract with the vendor, and that this shall be dealt with in the sale. It is a valuable provision, and I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied to accept the words as they stand.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I moved an Amendment in the very terms and sense of the words of the clause as they are here, and I appealed to the Committee, I appealed to the Government, and I almost grovelled before the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have the same mercy for these people coming under the same Act, but he, having such faith in Lord Ashbourne's Act, refused to accept the Amendment. This is deliberately done now for the purpose of showing how impossible it is for us to get the same terms for our side that they ask for theirs—they want to facilitate purchase, we want to facilitate fair rent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman refuses; but he will facilitate purchase upon unfair rent. I showed that in those cases where Lord Ashbourne's Act had been used to get public money, that where a father made a bogus tenancy with his son, and made an agreement for sale, everything was in apparent order, and that they got money at 3½per cent from the British Exchequer and wore robbing the Irish tenants.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I would like an explanation on certain points in regard to this clause. This clause is to provide for the case of a tenant who cannot technically make out his title; it, therefore, may follow that the tenant who has not a good title may purchase the land under this clause; that necessarily follows, and what I would ask, Sir, is this—If such a case arose, if a tenant who had not a good title bid for it, and succeeded in getting the whole of the purchase money advanced by the Government, and he had paid off one-fifth, in what position would he be in to recover that in case the real owner of the tenancy, who would be the real owner of the land, came forward

  655
  and executed the trust created by this clause on the tenancy?
  MR. GIBSON: It is hardly fair to ask me that which I would be most happy to communicate to him in the usual way in Ireland. I would say, however, it is my opinion the tenant would be entitled to his money; he would have a paramount lien and would be able to recover.
  MR. CHANGE: May I ask another question upon this? It is a serious question, and is not put with the view of defrauding the right hon. and learned Gentleman of his lawful honorarium. Supposing a bargain were made that he will undertake a certain liability to pay a certain sum of money, will the real tenant be liable to pay that, to complete that bargain afterwards? I understand that under Lord Ashbourne's Act, if the transaction is carried out by a vesting order, the real tenant would only have invested in him the liability of 49 years.
  MR. GIBSON: I must assume the man who has got the real title would be affected by the operation in some way or other. The way would probably be this—if he wanted to take benefit of the transaction, he must come in and acquiesce.
  MR. CHANCE: I do not want to press the right hon. and learned Gentleman too hardly; but if the position is this, that as the bargain is to be made by the person not the tenant and not entitled, is the real tenant to be asked to take up the estate encumbered by a bad bargain?
  MR. GIBSON: My impression is that the gentleman is not likely to suffer much from this.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the question between this and Report?
  MR. GIBSON: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Crown rents, quit rents, and tithe rent-charge).
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: The object of the Amendment standing in my name is this—as the clause now stands, it restricts the power to the case of sales to tenants, while the Land Commission has power to sell to others; and it is for the pur-
  656
  pose of extending the power that I move this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 9, to leave out the words "to a tenant."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)
  Question, "That those words be there left out," put, and agreed to.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is necessary to correct an error in drafting.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 32, after the word "Crown," insert the words "or quit."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, lines 35 and 36, leave out the words "tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commissioners or of."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 37, after the word "works," insert "or redemption of tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Apportionment and redemption of annuities and charges).
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 7, after the word "annuity," insert the word "or."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed be there inserted"
  MR. PAENELL: I should like to know the effect of this Amendment, which appears to me very different to the other Amendments of the hon. and learned Member, and seems to have a thoroughly narrowing effect upon the clause as it stands now.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: The object of the Amendment is this. There is existing, independently of this Bill, a power to apportion rent in the Land Commission under the Act of 1885, which incorporates a section of the Landed Estates Court Act, and it is inexpedient to give another and a narrower power. The power under the Landed Estates Court Act applies to rent generally; and it is quite unnecessary there should be two

  657
  distinct Statutory powers, which might give rise to some difficulty. I can assure the Committee that, so far from narrowing the power of the Land Commission, the object of the Amendment is to prevent the extensive powers under the Landed Estates Court Act being narrowed by this clause.
  MR. HALDANE: I am satisfied with the assurances of the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose authority on a question such as this we all recognize; but I should be glad to know distinctly if the Government concur in the view the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken, because I remember in the discussion in "another place" special importance was made of the necessity of this clause, which was brought in by Lord Monteagle, with the full sympathy of Lord Ashbourne, and this, I understand, is the result of what took place. The clause is most important, from the great difficulty that has been found in regard to apportionments. If the Government have considered the matter, and concur, I shall be satisfied.
  MR. GIBSON: I do concur.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. Serjeant MADDEN, the following Amendment made:—In page 10, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words "or head rent."
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 8, after the word "expedient," insert the words "and it shall appear just so to do."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. PARNELL: This appears to be a narrowing Amendment.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: This Amendment is, to a certain extent, perhaps, a narrowing Amendment, and does require more explanation than the former Amendments. There is a power of apportionment given under the Landed Estates Court Act, and, under that Act, it was thought right, to prevent injustice to an annuitant upon an estate, which estate is the subject-matter of several holdings, that there should be this safeguard, that the Court before apportioning should consider the whole circumstances of the annuity, and see that no injustice be done. This provision is introduced in the Landed Estates Court Act, and it
  658
  is considered right that the interests of owners of rent and annuities should be protected by similar words in the present Bill, and it would prevent an injustice that might possibly occur.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: As my hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) has said, this is a narrowing Amendment. It is a narrowing Amendment as it is an Amendment to prevent sales when the Court thinks it would do injustice to annuitants, or other persons. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not made it plain to me what precise necessity there is for it.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): If there is any objection to the Amendment, it will not be pressed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The words are synonymous with words that are already in the clause.
  Question put, and negatived.
  On the Motion of Mr. Serjeant MADDEN, the following Amendments made:—In Clause 13, page 10, line 10, after "annuity," insert "or;" in line 11, leave out "or head rent;" in line 20, leave out "head rent," and insert "rent;" in line 22, after "1870," insert—
  "The last mentioned power of apportionment may be exercised in any case, notwithstanding that it may have been agreed that the sale shall be carried into effect by means of a conveyance;"
  in line 24, leave out "head rent," and insert "rent;" in line 27, leave out "head rent," and insert "rent."
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 27, after "thereof," insert "and may, notwithstanding the fact that no apportionment has been made, order the redemption of any annuity, rent-charge, or rent affecting land sold."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHANCE: I think we need a word of explanation on this point. It seems to me it would enable the Land Commission to say—"here is a rent that applies to land other than the land sold, and we compel you before the land is sold to redeem." I am afraid it would give that power; but I am perfectly certain I can rely on a very candid and satisfactory answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: I shall shortly explain the object of this addition. As the clause now stands, suppose an annuity or rent of £ 100 a-year affected an estate, and the estate was being sold in two lots to two tenants, the Court would have the power to apportion and then to redeem; but the effect of the clause as it originally stood was that supposing the annuity affected one holding only, there would be no power to redeem. It would be necessary in order to redeem to go through the process of apportionment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: As I understand it, the clause drawn originally was in the interests of the landlord—I think I am right vi saying that—that is to say, if the Land Commission did affect this apportionment which might prejudice the landlord, he might ask that the whole thing should be redeemed, and this is an extension of that power that the landlords are not to be prejudiced.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: No, Sir, the clause, taken as a whole, could not be called in favour of the landlord. It is a section that facilitates sales. I am sure Gentlemen of experience—it is the result of my experience—must have felt the extreme difficulty of carrying out pales to tenants where there is an over-riding charge of any kind.
  MR. CHANCE: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has quire caught the point. The 3d sub-section of the clause commences—
  "The Land Commission shall, on the application of the person entitled to a part of an. annuity, rent-charge, or head rent apportioned by them upon land sold, and may, if they think it expedient, without such application, order the redemption of such annuity;"
  and so on. The hon. and learned Gentleman will follow me. A person entitled to part of an annuity may, by application to the Court, compel the Court to order the redemption of the whole. That is the blot of the clause, and the Amendment does not affect that, and it will still be in the power of the person to compel the Court to redeem the whole.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: The sub-section of the clause begins, no doubt—
  "The Land Commission shall, on the application of the person entitled to part of an annuity,"
  660
  and it gees on—
  "Without such application order redemption of such annuity."
  What these additional words were intended to meet was this—the cases in which it might be proper to redeem without apportionment.
  MR. CHANCE: These words are all right; but it does not cover the whole ease, and I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, to say if, under the clause as it stands, it would be in the power of a person holding 10 s. out of £ 100 a-year, by application, to compel the Land Court to redeem the whole? That is not desirable, and I therefore trust it will be looked into.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: I will communicate with the Attorney General for Ireland upon this question.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. Serjeant MADDEN, the following Amendments made:—In page 10, line 33, after "1870," insert—
  "The award of the Court of Arbitrators shall be recorded in the Court of the Land Commission, and the provisions relating; to the Civil Bill Court, in the said Schedule contained, shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken to apply to the Land Commission."
  On the Motion of Mr. Serjeant MADDEN, the following Amendment made:—In page 10, lines 35, 36, and 39, leave out the words "head rent." and insert the word "rent."
  MR. HALDANE: I wish to draw attention to what seems to be a mistake of a technical nature in the drafting of line 40. The words "principal moneys" are used there in connection with a reference to the Settled Land Act. I am familiar with every line of the Settled Land Act, and there is no such phrase in it as "principal moneys." It should be "capital moneys," and as the proper use of this terra carries with it important consequences, I move to leave out "principal," and insert "capital."
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 40, to leave out the word "principal," and insert "capital."—(Mr. Haldane.)
  Question proposed, "That the word "principal" stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The hon. Member is quite right. I assent to the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'capital' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Limit on advances by Land Commission).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I beg to move, in page 11, line 5, to leave out "five thousand," and insert "two thousand five hundred." This is an Amendment which I have put down in the interests of the British taxpayer. I quite admit that the clause as proposed by the Government contains a limitation which is in the interests of the British taxpaper. I only want to go a little farther. I think it will be admitted that the advance of money is to be at a very cheap rate. Half the rate at which a loan could be obtained in the market will be a very great boon to the tenants. I do not think that such a rate could be justified on financial or economical grounds; indeed, it is only on political grounds an advance of this kind can be supported. On political grounds, I think that such an advance can only be justified in the case of the small tenants. I do not think we are bound to give this boon to the large farmers. Now, £5,000 is a large sum. Supposing the purchase is made at 20 years' purchase on the net rent, £5,000 would cover the case of a farmer paying £250, say, £300 a-year. I say that it is not necessary for us to advance money in a case of that kind. I will take the case of one of my own countrymen. A Scotch farmer goes over to Ireland and takes a large farm, with a number of small tenants on it, at a rental of £500 or £600, and this is reduced in the Land Court to £300 or £400. In that ease, he will tie able to borrow the money to purchase the estate at 3 per cent. I say that is going too far. The Government propose a limitation of £5,000. I should like to confine the advances to the cases of tenants with £150 a-year; and I think that if we limited the advance to £2,500 we should about kit the mark. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. If they do not, I say that the British taxpayer, who in a case of this kind has not many friends, must suffer.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, tine 3, to leave out the words "five thousand," and insert the words "two thousand five hundred."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'five thousand' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. LEA: I hope the Government will not accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. It is very desirable that we should encourage purchase as far as possible in Ireland, and it is necessary that the tenants of both large and small holdings should agree to purchase. If you reduced the limit from £5,000 to £2,500, the possibility is that you would do very much to prevent the tenants of large holdings from purchasing. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be adopted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment said he did so in the interests of the British taxpayer. Well, as far as I can understand, the British taxpayer is protected by this clause, because the effect of it is to prevent the tenant from borrowing on more than one transaction, or going beyond a certain limited amount. The intention is that no single individual shall be at liberty to increase the total aggregate of his borrowing to over £5,000. But I may call attention to this—that, as far as the security of the taxpayer is concerned, not only do we limit the total amount to be lent to individuals, but we provide that a considerable percentage shall be provided by the individual himself, the result being to insure that the farmer is a solid and substantial man. It is very desirable, of course, that the benefits of the measure should be extended to the small tenants; but, at the same time, the interests of the strong and solid tenants ought not to be forgotten. The limitation is adopted so as to prevent an undue drain being made on the public funds by any single man, and also to give greater security.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I quite understand that the proposal of the Government is a distinct limitation, and, in the name of the British taxpayer, I thank them for it. I should like to go a little further. I am against a large

  663
  extension of this system of purchase, except from a political point of view. I do not think we are bound to assist in training- the well-to-do farmer into a landlord. As, however, Irishmen in all parts of the House seem to be united in opposition to my Amendment, I will not press it to a Division.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: No; I do not withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. I will have it negatived.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Member wished to withdraw it.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: No. Sir.
  DR. CLARK: I object to the Amendment being withdrawn, and I wish to support it. I think that you will have a difficulty very soon in the congested districts of Ireland, and will require to have a migration from the hills to the plains. Take the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who represents Ireland here. He is a very good landlord. Well, on the famous plains of Boyle, with their beautiful alluvial land, there are no people at all, except big graziers. All those who used to be there are on the hills, and what you have to do is to bring them down from the hills. I think that both on the ground that we ought not to pledge the British taxpayer too far, and that we ought not to do anything to perpetuate the large holdings, but ought rather to make it possible for the people to go back to the land, the Amendment is deserving of support.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—namely, in page 11, line 3, after "all," insert—
  "Nor shall the Land Commission, in considering the security for any advance, take into account, as a security, tenants' improvements within the ninth sub-section of section eight of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' or any guarantee deposit within section three of 'The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885.'"
  I have two objects in view in moving this Amendment. One is to enable the tenant to retain his own property; and the other, which I commend to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), as the representative of the British taxpayer, is to protect the British
  664
  taxpayer. Now, hon. Members are aware that the Purchase Act is supposed to be carried out by mutual agreement between, the landlord and the tenant; but we outdid that in many cases the tenant is forced to agree to unfair terms of purchase. What has been taking place in the past? What has occurred is clear from the following facts. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour), in answer to a Question I put to him some time ago, informed me that in 67 cases in which the Land Commission had originally refused to purchase on terms of purchase supposed to have been arrived at by mutual agreement between landlord and tenant, they subsequently did sanction purchases, but only after the aggregate of the purchase-money had been reduced from £61,000 to £50,000. That shows that in these 67 cases the unfortunate tenant, by some moans or other, had been forced to agree to purchase at an extravagantly and unfairly high price—so high, indeed, that the Land Commission refused to sanction the terms, although they had as security, not only the property the tenant was supposed to be purchasing, but also the additional security of all the tenant's improvements. Now, that is what it has been possible for the landlord to do in the past. What will the landlord be able to do in the future? Since these 67 eases came under the notice of the Land Commission the Government have passed a Coercion Act, and they told us, whilst passing it, that one of their objects in view was to enable them to carry out their policy of purchase. Further than that, the Coercion Act will be an extra screw on the unfortunate tenant to make him purchase. In view of the amount of the pressure the landlord will be able to bring to bear on the tenant to force him to purchase, I propose to afford the tenant some real protection through the Land Commission. My proposal is, that in considering the security for the money to be advanced, the Land Commission shall take into account the property which it is the intention of the tenant to purchase, but shall not be able to consider property which does not belong to the landlord, and which is not supposed to be purchased by the tenant. Now, this applies only to the Commission not taking into account the tenants' improvements.

  665
  There is also another part of the Amendment which provides that the Commission shall not take into account the guarantee deposit. I contend that this guarantee deposit was intended to be an extra security to the taxpayer; but it is quite possible that it will not be an extra security at all. Take the ease of a farm worth £800, excluding the tenant's improvements. The Land Commissioners, if they took into account the guarantee deposit, and if they believed that the farm itself was a good security for £800, would be fully justified in advancing £1,000, because, whilst the farm would be security for thoe£800, the purchase-money lodged with them would be security for the rest. I will not now detain the Committee any further. I have brought my reasons for this Amendment before thorn, and I ask for an answer.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 3, after the word "all" insert the words, "nor shall the Land Commission, in considering the security for any advance, take into account us a security tenants' improvements within the ninth subsection of section eight of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' or any guarantee deposit within section throe of' The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885.'"—(Mr. Mahony.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment to a Division, because it is one which, if agreed to, would limit the benefits of the Purchase Act considerably, and, more than this, it would make the Purchase Act unworkable, because it would cause inquiries of such a kind as would render the Act nugatory.
  MR. MA URICE HEALY: I am afraid we can hardly be content with the right hon. Gentleman's answer that this is a limiting Amendment. There are limits and limits. If this would be a limit on the power of the landlord to extort an unfair price, I am afraid it can hardly be regarded as an answer to say that it is a limiting proposal. The position is this. We feel there is the greatest danger that tenants in Ireland, for one reason or other, either under the existing law of purchase, or under any future scheme which may be adopted, may be induced to give too much for their
  666
  holdings. That this is not an illusory fear, I will prove by some experience which I have myself had during the past month. Two tenants came to me, and told me that they had entered into an agreement with their landlords for the purchase of their holdings, and that the Land Commission had written to them refusing to sanction the purchase. When I inquired into the matter, I found that the Commission had refused to carry out the agreement because they considered that the price was too high. I accordingly wrote to them, asking what they regarded as a fair price. The Commissioners wrote back, saying that if £100 were cut off the purchase-money in one case, and £50 in the other, they would agree to that. Well, the landlords jumped at the offer of the Land Commission to reduce the purchase-money by those amounts. Now, Sir, if the Land Commission had an absolute power to protect the tenants in cases of this kind, there would be no necessity for this Amendment. But the difficulty is that their power is one not to protect the tenants but to protect the State. If the estate, including the tenant's improvements, is of sufficient value to secure the advance, they have no power to say—"Although the farm is value for that amount it was made value for it by your own exertions." No doubt, the scheme proposed by my hon. Friend is somewhat artificial; but, at any rate, it would afford some protection to the tenants, and some protection is needed, as anyone who conies in contact with the tenants in a professional way must be aware. When hard pressed for his rent the tenant is too apt to jump at anything the landlord may propose to him for relief from the present pressure, only to find in the course of time that he has made a very improvident bargain. I only hope that the Government will consider this matter, and that if they are averse to this particular form of protection, they will, in some way, at any rate, seek to protect, not merely the tenants, but the taxpayers, from the danger of improvident bargains of this kind. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) that the Amendment would involve inquiry, is, to my mind, no answer at all. It is the very virtue of the proposal that it would involve inquiry, and I can imagine no happier state of things than

  667
  one in which the most stringent inquiry took place.
  MR. FLYNN: I desire to press this Amendment on the attention of the Committee. I am acquainted with several cases in my own constituency in which advantage has been taken of the tenant's distress to press him j to buy from the landlord under Lord Ashbourne's Act on terms the most inequitable, and terms which it was almost I impossible for the tenant to carry out. I should like to give an illustration of how the thing will work, unless some I restraining power is given to the Land Commission. Several tenants came tome with reference to a proposed purchase under Lord Ashbourne's Act. I consulted several of their friends on the subject, and they thought the price far too high. The price was 23 years' purchase on a very high judicial rent. When I pressed I the tenants for the reason why they consented to these very extraordinary terms they said—"Oh, sure, if we can't meet the installments in two or three years' time, we can have another turn round and go off it." Well, I say that in any scheme which the Government adopt the very basis of the undertaking must be final, and there should he no possible chance of repudiation on one side or the other. It may be urged that this Amendment is unnecessary; but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) has pointed out very clearly that it is necessary to give the Commission some power of this kind. If the Amendment is inserted, it will, at least, be a matter of guidance to the Commission as to the way they should act.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Charging order for securing payment of advance).
  On the Motion of Mr. Serjeant MADDEN, the following Amendment made:—In page 11, line 9, after the word "order" insert—
  "Or in any order made by a Land Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, under the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Priority of charge for advance); Clause 17 (Writ of possession);
  668
  and Clause 18 (Specific performance), severally agreed to.
  Appeals.
  Clause 19 (Provision for hearing of appeals under the Land Act).
  MR. PAENELL: I will now ask the Government to report Progress, and perhaps they will tell us what they have finally decided in reference to Clauses 19, 20, and 21.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to Clauses 19 and 20, the Government feel, with some reluctance, that in the present state of Business they cannot press them.
  MR. PARNELL: As to Clause 21,I think it would be very desirable that we should have our Amendments on the Paper before discussing it. There are important points in connection with the clause which will have to be attended to, and I therefore ask what course the Government think of following in regard to it.
  Clause struck out of the Bill.
  Clause 20 (Procedure on appeals) struck out of the Bill.
  Clause 21 (Remission of local rates).
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite understand the position of hon. Members opposite on this clause, and I shall be glad to hear what views they take with regard to it.
  MR. PAENELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree, at all events, to postpone the clause?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; I will postpone it. I beg to move its postponement.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Clause 21 be postponed,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—put, and agreed to.
  Equitable Jurisdiction.
  Clause 22 (Power of court to stay eviction).
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Courtney, I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress, to sit again upon Monday next.

  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' HOLIDAYS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 311.]
  (Mr. Thorium, Mr. Barclay, Dr. Clark.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Act to apply to Scotland only) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Farm servants to be entitled to four holidays).
  MR. ESSLEMONT: With, regard to this clause I find that there is a certain objection taken to it by the farmers in my constituency, in respect that there is no suitable provision made for live stock upon the farm. It has occurred to them that if the holidays were arranged as they arc here in the Bill the employer would have no power to command as much service as would be required to attend to the live stock. I therefore propose to add, after the word "otherwise," in line 8—
  "The master shall be entitled to require such reasonable service; as may be necessary for the proper care of the live stock, provided always that this shall not deprive the servant of at least one complete holiday every three months."
  I understand the promoters of the Bill are prepared to accept the Amendment, and so, without detaining the Committee further, I move it accordingly.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 8, after the word "otherwise," to insert the words "the master shall be entitled to require such reasonable service as may be necessary for the proper care of his live stock: provided always, that this shall not deprive the servant of at least one complete holiday every three months."—(Mr. Esslemont.)
  Question. "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (New Year's Day, the first Saturdays in March, July, and October to be the holidays).
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the words "the first Saturday of," and insert the words "one day, not being Sunday, in."—(Mr. Thorburn.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'the first Saturday of' stand part of the Clause."
  DR. CLARK: I am rather opposed to the Amendment of my lion. Friend (Mr. Thorburn), because I am afraid that, if it is carried, it will introduce a very awkward state of things. Probably, you will have various holidays at various places, and servants visiting each other on the farms will prevent work being done. It is much bettor, in my opinion, if you are going to have statutory holidays, to have the days fixed rather than to have changes in this way. One set of holidays in one district and one set of holidays in another will only introduce perplexity into a very simple matter.
  MR. THORBURN: I have to say in reply to my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark), that I have moved this Amendment in consequence of representations made to me by many farmers in my constituency. They seem to think that the fixing of one unalterable day will cause a great deal of inconvenience, and they are convinced that the alteration proposed would make the Bill more workable. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his objection.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'one day, not being Sunday, in,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. THORBURN: For the reason I have just stated I beg to move the next Amendment on the Paper. It is consequential upon the one which has just been passed.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 11, after the word "October," to insert the words "The employer shall determine the day of the month on which the holiday is to be held, and give the servant at least ten days' previous notice of the day so fixed; and, if such notice be not given, then the second Saturday of the month, in which it is herein provided the holiday shall be hold, shall be the holiday for that month."—(Mr. Thorburn.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Other days may by agreement be substituted).
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Now we come to Clause 4, and although I do not wish to oppose the clause, I do not think it is altogether necessary, especially considering the position of the masters and the circumstances under which they arrange with their servants. Unless the promoters of the Bill can

  671
  prove any occasion for it, I hope the clause will be withdrawn.
  MR. THORBURN: If my lion. Friend and the House generally is in favour of that course, I have no objection.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Clause 4 be added to the Bill," put, and negatived.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move the now clause of which I have given Notice. The object of the Amendment is to secure for farm servants in Scotland one half-holiday in every month—that is to say, that on the last Saturday in every month they shall cease work at throe o'clock in the afternoon. The Scotch farm servant is hired by the half-year, he works practically every day, and he has no holidays. The artizan gets his holidays every Saturday afternoon, and what I now propose is to give to the Scotch agricultural labourer, once a month, what other labourers have four times a-month.
  New Clause—
  (Half holiday of farm servants.)
  "On the last Saturday of every calendar mouth farm servants shall be entitled to a half-holiday, and the day's work on such Saturdays shall end at three of the clock. No deduction from the wages of a servant shall be made in respect of such half-holidays,"—(Dr. Clark,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. THORBURN: I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I have consulted a great number of farmers and also labourers, and so far as I have been able to judge, there seems to be no demand for this on the part of the servants, while the employers think it unreasonable. I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I cannot think my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark) is serious in moving this Amendment; because, being one of the promoters of the Bill, and this matter having been before the public of Scotland for some time, he has sprung this Amendment upon the Committee with very little Notice. The Amendment is more far-reaching than the Bill itself, and I cannot suppose the hon. Member intends seriously to advocate this new
  672
  clause. If he does we shall have to discuss a very large and important principle, introduced for the first time into an Act of this sort.
  DR. TANNER: I regret that I was not in the House when this Order was reached, so that I might have moved the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper. But I shall certainly have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the proposal of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr.Clark). I should like, in the first place, if the Committee will permit me, to state my reasons for having interposed an obstacle to the progress of the Bill. Believing in an old and well-known motto, when I saw a Liberal Unionist introducing a Bill like this, then, certainly——[An hon. MEMBER: Question.] Hon. Members may call out "Question" if they like; but, at any rate, when a measure like this is introduced by an hon. Gentleman belonging to the Unionist Party, of course we have to look at it with a certain amount of suspicion and doubt——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must point out that the hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). That is the question before the Committee.
  DR. TANNER: Certainly, Sir. I was trying, as far as I could, to confine myself to the Amendment, and I hope to be allowed, with your indulgence, and the indulgence of the Committee, just inflict these few remarks as being pertinent to the present occasion. I really must say that when we have a Bill of this sort introduced by a Unionist Member——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  DR. TANNER: Well, Sir, I will not pursue that line of argument. I really want to back up the Amendment of the hon. Member (Dr. Clark), for I think we should try and gain as much as we possibly can for these agricultural labourers of Scotland. When I see hon. Gentlemen, who I know to be associated with the cause of Ireland, associated also with a proposal of real benefit to these agricultural labourers, Tarn anxious to stand by them to the end of the chapter. I sincerely hope that the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark) will obtain the consideration and support of all true Libe-

  673
  rals, and there happen to be some true Liberals even on the other side of the House. I was not here to move the Amendments I had put on the Paper; but I trust that we may still get what I there suggested—that is, six holidays in the year for these people instead of four.
  DR. CLARK: I must press this Amendment, and I must point out to the Committee that you are giving nothing to the agricultural labourer by the Bill. You are simply making statutory what we had in the past in the shape of fast days, when people did not fast, but did the reverse; and you are now going to recognize it, and place it on a different footing. Now, as it is not proposed that they should have any more holidays than they previously enjoyed, I suggest that they should have a half-holiday once a month—a dozen in the year, that is. Can you suppose that farm labourers will work day in and day out, week in and week out, without any holidays? They want some time for amusement, for education, for the cultivation of their minds. They are at the bottom of the ladder; they bear all the agricultural burdens, and I know they will not stand it much longer. My hon. Friend (Mr. Esslemont) represents the farmers' view here; but I tell him that if he continues to do so, the labourers will have something to say to him at the next General Election. These men are not in the same position as the agricultural labourers of England, who are paid a weekly wage and go home at night. They live on the farm; and they are pigged in places which you would not put your dogs or your horses into. I have asked for an inquiry into their condition; but the Government will cot give it. They work seven days a-week. They are never out of their employer's house, or off their employer's land; they have no time to themselves, and I do not think it is too much to ask that once in each month they shall be released from their work at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and have the rest of that day to themselves.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Perhaps the hon. Member (Dr. Clark) will allow mo to deal with my own constituents, and concern himself more particularly with Caithness. I believe that in my constituency there are a much larger number of agricultural labourers than in
  674
  Caithness-shire; and I may inform my hon. Friend, lest he should be in any doubt about it, that I have consulted a large number of the farm servants of East Aberdeenshire—who are a rather intelligent and independent set of men—and with regard to having a half-holiday on certain Saturdays, of course they are willing enough; but they want to have some sort of Home Rule on the subject Probably my hon. Friend forgets that these men are not under the Factory Acts, and consequently not limited to any fixed number of hours per week. Without, perhaps, professing so much, I think I have the interest of farm labourers at heart just as much as my hon. Friend has, and I claim for them that this matter shall receive more consideration before we give them a half-holiday of only three hours monthly by Act of Parliament.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 66: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 336.) [2.15 A.M.]
  Remaining Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock till Monday next.