Commons Sitting of 4 June 1891

QUESTIONS.

  WORK IN INDIAN FACTORIES.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the letter of Mr. Holt S. Hallett on night work in Indian factories, which appeared in the Times, of 20th May; (2) whether he is aware that Mrs. Pechey Phipson, who for the last seven years has medically attended native Indian females, declared in her recent lecture, delivered in Bombay, that
  "A Hindoo girl of 15 is about equal to an English girl of 11, instead of the reverse, and that statements to the contrary by Englishmen who have no opportunity of becoming acquainted with Hindoo family life are totally misleading;"
  (3) whether his attention has been drawn to the grave evils which result from night work in factories in India; (4) whether he is aware that girls in India from 14 upward are classed as women, and do the same work as men; (5) whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Mr. Robert Baker, one of Her Majesty's Senior Inspectors of Factories, given be-
  1594
  fore the last Factory and Workshops Act Commission in this country, wherein he declared that "all night work for anybody is very injurious," and that this is a fair sample of the views held by each of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories and by every medical man who has been consulted on the subject; (6) whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the honourable Mr. Bliss, that
  "The Indian idea of night is that it is a cool and pleasant time when all work which does not require a better light than can be easily and readily afforded can best be done;"
  (7) whether, as a fact, the temperature in Indian factories is usually very high, even at night being frequently 95 degrees;(8) whether the new Indian Factory Act affords any protection to hands employed in factories working less than four months in the year, or where less than 50 hands are employed;(9) whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given before the Bombay Factory Commission of 1884, proving
  "That five-sevenths of the small ginning factories are in a dangerous condition," that "the same set of hands work both night and day with half-an-hour's rest in the evening. The same set continue working day and night for about eight days. …. The hands who work these long hours frequently die;"
  and whether Mr. Holt Hallett's statement, that children under the new Act are allowed to work 168 hours a week in the minor factories and workshops, is correct?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The answer to the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The Secretary of State has had his attention drawn to the letter of Mr. Holt S. Hallett on night work in Indian factories. which appeared in the Times of the 25th of May, who is no doubt a high authority on matters of this kind. With regard to the third paragraph of the question, the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the evils which result from night work in factories in India. Night work for women is very much restricted by the Indian Factory Act, and is absolutely prohibited for children. In reply to the fourth paragraph of the question, I have to say that girls of 14 and upwards are classed as women; but the Secretary of State is not aware that they do the same work as men. The

  1595
  answer to the next question is in the affirmative. The answer to the sixth and seventh paragraphs of the question is also in the affirmative. The temperature in Indian factories is usually very high. The answer to the eighth question is that the Indian Factory Act empowers the Local Government to apply its provisions to factories employing 20 hands and upwards, provided that they work more than four months in the year. I understand that most of the cotton and linen factories in Bombay will come under the Act. The answer to the ninth question about the Bombay Factory Commission is that the statement of the hon. Member is perfectly correct; and the reply to the last question is that in the factories and workshops employing less than 20 hands there is no restriction whatever on the length of children's labour.
  MR. S. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Government of India to the very unsatisfactory condition under which children are employed?
  SIR J. GORST: I cannot do so, but I know that my noble Friend the Secretary for India has done so, and proper arrangements will be made for the protection of children.

  TREATMENT OF INDIAN COOLIES,
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the telegram from Rangoon, which appeared in the Times of 1st June, regarding the treatment of Indian coolies returning from the Chin Hills; whether the Government have any information regarding the alleged harshness and neglect with which it is stated they have been treated; and whether inquiry will be made into the accuracy of these statements?
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir; the Secretary of State has no information which corroborates the statement made by the Times Correspondent.

  INDIAN ORDER FOR DISTINGUISHED SERVICES BY LADIES.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether there is an Indian Order which can be conferred upon ladies for distinguished services in India; and
  1596
  whether, if so, it is intended to confer it on Mrs. Grimwood?
  SIR J. GORST: My noble Friend the Secretary of State regrets extremely, in view of the courage and devotion exhibited by Mrs. Grimwood during the attack on the Manipur Residency and the retreat, that there is no Indian Order which can by its statutes be conferred on ladies for distinguished services.
  MR.LABOUCHERE: For what service is the Star of India, as it is called, conferred upon ladies?
  SIR J. GORST: I think the Star of India is not conferred upon ladies. It is confined to males.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then for what service is the Order which is conferred upon ladies conferred?
  SIR J. GORST: I am unable to say.

  ADHESIVE POSTAGE STAMPS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can supply a Copy of Correspondence on the subject of the adhesive postage stamp, which passed in the early part of the year 1840, between Mr. Rowland Hill, then an official in the service of the Treasury, and Mr. James Chalmers, Dundee?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I have made inquiry, and I cannot trace any such correspondence as that mentioned by the hon. Member in the year 1840.

  WHIPPING OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether in view of the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction (Juvenile Offenders) Bill, now pending in this House, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of any rules or regulations now in force in Scotland for the whipping of juvenile offenders, whether sanctioned by the Lord Advocate as required by "The Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1860," or otherwise; and whether, under the Act of 1862, relating to the whipping of juvenile offenders (25 and 26 Vict. cap. 18), there is any authority for the whipping of such offenders in Scotland between the ages of 14 and 16?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I shall be glad to lay on the Table of the House a Copy of

  1597
  the regulations referred to in the first part of this question. The hon. and learned Member will observe that these regulations were issued by the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), and by my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Clackmannanshire (Mr. J. B. Balfour), and I see no reason to differ from the view they took—that whipping may be inflicted on offenders in Scotland between the ages of 14 and 16, although not necessarily for all or every offence.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the arrangement with the Newfoundland Delegates to proceed to an agreement for further "Legislation by which the Treaties are to be enforced," and for "compensation due to persons who may suffer under them," contemplates Newfoundland legislation only, and does not involve the acceptance of any suggestion that compensation should be paid by the British taxpayers to people in Newfoundland who may be found by the arbitrators to be in the wrong; and whether the acceptance by the Newfoundland Delegates and Legislature of the temporary Act, to give effect to the Treaties and modus vivendi, is free from any promise to pledge British credit for railways or other public works in Newfoundland, as was at one time proposed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): My answer to the first question of the hon. Gentleman is that nothing that has happened involves the acceptance of any suggestion that compensation should be paid by the British taxpayers to people in Newfoundland who may be found by the arbitrators to be in the wrong. My answer to the second question is that the arrangement which has been come to is free from any such promise.

  EGYPT.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is true that, since Sir E. Baring's Report dated 29th March, the Egyptian police has been put under the Military authorities, and Colonel Kitchener, Adjutant General or Chief of
  1598
  the Staff, has been appointed to command that Force, in addition to his military duties; whether, under this arrangement, the system stated by Sir E. Baring, namely, "the police are under the orders of the Mudirs Governors of Provinces," will cease, or whether the Mudirs are to be under the orders of Colonel Kitchener and the active interior administration is practically to be put under the Military Authorities, or what is to be the arrangement; and whether Her Majesty's Government have approved of it?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Colonel Kitchener, in addition to his duties as Adjutant General of the Egyptian Army, will act as Inspector General of Police in succession to Baker Pasha. I have no reason to suppose that this arrangement will entail any change of system, nor has the approval of Her Majesty's Government been asked for any such change. It is impossible to say what changes and reforms may be recommended with a view of remedying the defects in police arrangements and detection of crime pointed out in Sir Evelyn Baring's Report.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of Sir E. Baring's very unfavourable Report of the sanitation of Egyptian towns, and the prevailing high mortality there, it is contemplated (as stated in some of the public prints) to allow the application to sanitation and other local purposes of the local town duties (octroi and the like), which have hitherto been appropriated either to the central treasury or as part of the fund set aside for payment of the bondholders; and whether Her Majesty's Government will urge the adoption of an arrangement such as prevails in all civilised countries, so that the local taxation should be applied for the most necessary local purposes, and not appropriated as hitherto?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:The Egyptian Government have just addressed a Circular to the Powers parties to the Convention of 1884, asking their consent to the application of half the amount of the octroi duty to the improvement of the sanitary condition of Cairo. As this arrangement would entail an addition to

  1599
  the annual sum fixed by the Convention for the administration of Egypt the consent of the Powers is required before it can be carried out.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Is the Foreign Office of opinion that the transfer of duties for local purposes would be a fair expenditure for the Egyptian Government to undertake on the terms of the Convention?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to interfere as little as possible with the discretion of the Egyptian Government, but they would not hesitate to express their opinion if a British officer employed by the Egyptian Government were to recommend any course which, in their opinion, was an improper one. I apprehend that the proposal is to apply the tax to municipal purposes.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Memorial recently received by him from the Trustees and Directors of the National Gallery, respecting additional space for the exhibition of pictures, and calling attention to the danger from fire to the buildings containing the National collection?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The Memorial referred to in the question was not addressed to me, but to the Treasury, and I understand that it reiterates the views already expressed in this year's annual Report of the Director of the National Gallery. Those views were also stated in a question which was put to me on March 17 last, to which I replied on behalf of the Government. I cannot, therefore, at present see the necessity of laying the Memorial upon the Table of the House.

  CHATHAM DOCKYARD.
  MR. E. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the writers of the Expense Account Department in Chatham Dockyard have been continuously employed on extra time (without pay) for the past five weeks; and, if so, for how long they are likely to be so employed; whether these
  1600
  writers are being constantly placed on extra time without pay during the year; and, if the staff is not sufficient to perform the work during the regular office hours, whether he will take steps to increase the staff; and, whether he will also cause inquiry to be made as to the accuracy of the weekly returns supplied as to "Hours Extra Employed"?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): About two-thirds of the writers employed in the Expense Accounts Office at Chatham have, during the past five weeks, been employed on an average four hours per week longer than they are usually required to work. Even with this additional number of hours, they have attended less than the Dockyard hours which they can be called upon regularly to work. The extra attendance has been in part due to changes incident to the recent increases in dockyard pay, and to a want of energy in some few members of the staff. Under the terms of their agreements writers can be required to give attendance beyond the ordinary working hours of the dockyard, without extra compensation, but the Admiralty take care not to strain the proviso, and endeavour to confine it to cases of pressure, such as during preparation of the Estimates and Annual Accounts, when increased labour is thrown on all members of the staff, and is, as a rule, cheerfully rendered. No complaints on the subject of overtime have reached the Admiralty from the writers at Chatham, and it is essential for the maintenance of proper discipline and for good administration, that representations from persons aggrieved should be made direct through the ordinary official channels. I have inquired into the accuracy of the weekly returns and am satisfied they properly represent the number of extra hours ordered to be worked to meet pressure. Extra hours worked up to make up arrears due to business are, however, not included.

  THE COAL MINES REGULATION ACT.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at certain collieries in the Cannock Chase District the 22nd general rule of "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887," which provides for the supply

  1601
  of suitable timber at a place in the mine convenient to the workmen, is systematically infringed; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to ensure the observance of the rule in the collieries in question?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Inspector that he is not aware of any evasion of the rule quoted. If the hon. Baronet will supply me with the names of the collieries where the infringement is alleged to take place, immediate inquiry will be made.

  SCHOOLS.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can inform the House how many parishes there are in England and Wales in which parents have no choice of schools for their children, there being only one school in the parish, and that a denominational school; and whether he can state how many of these parishes have Church of England schools, how many Wesleyan, how many British, and how many Roman Catholic schools?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): It is roughly estimated that there are about 6,848 school districts in which there is only one school, but a fourth of these approximately have Board schools, and in respect of many others there is accommodation available in schools outside the district. Such districts are not classified according to the denomination to which their schools belong, but no doubt the bulk of them are provided with Church of England schools.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
  MR. STERN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether an inquiry under "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890," as to whether there is sufficient and decent accommodation for labourers in Ixworth, Suffolk, is to be held on 15th June; whether this is the first inquiry in a rural district under the Act; and whether the Local Government Board will send an Inspector to assist the labourers at the Inquiry?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I believe that the County Council of West Suffolk has determined that an Inquiry shall be held under the Act referred to, and that it will be the first Inquiry of this character under the Act. The Local Government Board do not propose to send an Inspector to assist at the Inquiry. It would be entirely opposed to the practice of the Board to intervene in the Inquiries which are held by County Councils; and I think that it would be very inexpedient that they should do so.

  HALE- AND FULL-TIMERS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state, for the towns of Oldham and Bradford, what was the percentage of passes for half-timers and full-timers in the same standards, for the year ending August, 1890, in all the schools, and, also, what was the percentage of bare passes, as compared with good passes, for the same scholars, for half-time and full-time respectively, during the same year?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: No figures are available from which to make a general statement of the kind asked for, and the Inspectors have no data upon which to found a comparison covering such minute distinctions as those to which the latter part of the question refers.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that there are 1,176 voluntary schools in England and Wales without any voluntary subscriptions; and that of this number 548 have neither subscriptions nor endowments; and whether he will cause a Return of the amount and distribution of the voluntary contributions to public elementary schools to be prepared and presented to Parliament?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I am aware that a certain number of schools, which by the hon. Member's own showing is not large, have neither subscriptions nor endowments. The Return already published gives the information asked for in the latter part of the question

  1603
  and I have no objection to supplying any further summary which the hon. Member thinks would be useful, but I may have hereafter to make some important reservations as to the application of the same.

  EPPING FOREST.
  MR. MORTON:I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the recent refusal of the Conservators of Epping Forest to place on the register of commoners any person holding less than half an acre of land; whether, in view of the rights confirmed by Clause 5, and Sub-section 8 of Clause 33 of the Epping Forest Act of 1878, the Conservators are justified in depriving the small commoners of their ancient rights, as protected by Clause 5 of the said Act; and whether the commoners have the right to attend the meetings of the Conservators?
  MR. PLUNKET: My attention has been called to the circumstances mentioned in the question of the hon. Member, and I have consulted my legal advisers on the subject; but I am assured by them that the Epping Forest Act gives me no right to interfere in the matter in dispute, which is, as I understand, a question of law, and under these circumstances I think it is not for me to express any opinion on the subject.
  MR. MORTON: Do the Commissioners claim the power to deprive the commoners of their rights?
  MR. PLUNKET: The hon. Member had better put the question down upon the Paper.
  MR. MORTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that these men will be in a condition to defray the expense of vindicating in a Court of Law the rights they are supposed to have?
  [No answer was returned.]

  MANICALAND.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to hand over Manicaland to the Chartered Company of South Africa, in the event of this territory coming under British Protectorate; and whether, if so, in view of the fact that the promoters of the South Africa Company have reserved to them-
  1604
  selves one-half of all net profits derived from the concession to them of certain mining rights in Mashonaland from Lobengula, which half they have assigned to a company, consisting of themselves and others, for the sum of £4,000,000, represented by shares of the company, and thrown all the expenses of administration of Mashonaland, in consideration of meeting which they were granted a charter, on the Chartered Company of South Africa; and, in view of the fact that all persons engaging in mining operations in Mashonaland are required to pay to the Chartered Company and to the parent company formed by the promoters one-half of all net profits, steps will be taken to secure to British subjects the right to engage in mining operations in Manicaland without being obliged to pay this vast royalty to the promoters of the Chartered Company of South Africa, and to reserve free access to all of Her Majesty's subjects to that territory?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): So much of Manica as is not within the Portuguese boundaries is already within the field of the British South Africa Company's operations, as defined by the Royal Charter. Her Majesty's Government accept no responsibility for the financial arrangements of the British South Africa Company, or for the hon. Member's description of them; but as the Company will be required to expend large sums for the purpose of maintaining order and good government, Her Majesty's Government do not propose to object to their raising revenue in the manner described, or to require that British subjects not contributing to such revenue shall have free access to the territory under the company's control.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give an assurance that British troops shall not be used in the protection of the company's interests?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I cannot answer a question that is purely hypothetical.

  THE THAMES ABOVE KEW BRIDGE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether

  1605
  he is aware that the island in the Thames above Kew Bridge is being undermined by the action of the tide; that the trees on it are likely to fall and possibly crush passing boats; and that when they do fall, the plants and shrubs in Kew Gardens, to which they afford protection from wind and weather, will suffer; that the island is becoming an eyesore to the neighbourhood, and that the attention of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests has been called to this state of things, but that no notice has been taken by them of the communication; and whether, in view of these facts, he will urge on the Commissioners their obligation, as trustees of this National property, to keep in proper condition this island?
  MR. JACKSON: It appears doubtful whether the island referred to is being undermined so much by the action of the tide as by the wash of passing steamers. I am informed that care will be taken to remove any trees that are likely to be dangerous to passing boats.

  THE SCOTCH CENSUS.
  MR. KEAY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell) whether, in the matter of the recent Census in Scotland, the registrar of the parish had the duty of dividing it into sections corresponding to the number of the enumerators, whether this duty was performed subject to confirmation by the Registrar General; did the Registrar General issue any rules as to the number of miles required to be traversed by the respective enumerators; what check exists on the number of miles charged for by the enumerators; and how is such charge certified as correct, and what official is responsible for so doing?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HERBERT MAXWELL,): I am unable to answer this question, which I would suggest to the hon. Member ought more properly to be addressed to the Lord Advocate.

  MINING INSPECTORSHIP—WEST LIVERPOOL DISTRICT.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, on the occurrence of the vacancy in the Assistant Inspectorship of Mines for the West Liverpool District
  1606
  (which includes the Counties of Denbigh and Flint), lately filled up by the appointment of Mr. E. Stokes, there were several candidates who, in addition to the highest general qualifications for the post (as shown by their testimonials and other evidence), possessed also a thorough knowledge of the Welsh language; and whether, under these circumstances, the appointment of an Assistant Inspector having no knowledge of that language constitutes a direct contravention of the provisions of Section 39, Sub-section 1, of "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887"?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I appointed Mr. Stokes as the best qualified of a list of 28 candidates, who were themselves selected as the most eligible out of a much larger number. Of these 28 some were acquainted with Welsh, including one gentleman, whom I nominated for a vacancy which occurred about the same time in South Wales. I do not consider that Mr. Stokes' appointment was a contravention of the Coal Mines Regulation Act. Not only did he appear the best qualified candidate, but the Liverpool District is mainly an English district.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: Has this gentleman any means of communicating with the thousands of miners in Flintshire and Denbighshire who speak nothing but Welsh?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The right hon. Gentleman had better put another question.

  THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that when asked on 22nd February, 1888, to lay upon the Table of the House any correspondence that had taken place during the previous year between Her Majesty's Government and Foreign Powers with respect to the position of this country in regard to the Triple Alliance that was entered into in 1887 between Austria, Germany, and Italy, and particularly in regard to any declarations made to Italy, which may have induced her to enter into that alliance, he replied (Hansard,) Third Series, vol. 322, p. 1186) that "the time had not come when there should be any publication of such

  1607
  correspondence," and in view of the fact that assertions are being made by Deputies in the Italian Chamber, and have been uncontradicted by the Italian Ministers, with a view to lead that Chamber to conclude that special undertakings exists between England and Italy, for the defence of Italian interests, of such a nature that they render the position of Italy secure by sea and land against all Foreign attack, in order that a majority may be secured in the Chamber in favour of a renewal of the Triple Alliance next year, he will now lay upon the Table of the House all communications that took place in 1887 between this country and Italy in regard to the Triple Alliance, to the adhesion of Italy to that alliance, and to the special undertakings (if any) of this country towards Italy which have been referred to in the Italian Chamber?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: On the occasion referred to I pointed out that such correspondence as would naturally pass between Her Majesty's Government and Foreign Governments at a time when the affairs of Europe were in a somewhat critical condition, in the interests of peace and in reference to the existing and possible elements of danger, was not of a character that could be published without depriving this country of its beneficial influence in the maintenance of peace. I say so still; but I repeat, as I then stated, that Her Majesty's Government have entered into no engagements pledging the employment of the Naval and Military Forces of the Crown in any contingency, and that Her Majesty's Government retained their full liberty of judgment as to what action we should take and as to what means we should employ in any conceivable circumstances. At the same time, Italian statesmen are well aware that Her Majesty's Government are at one with them in desiring that there shall be no disturbance of the existing order in the Mediterranean and adjacent seas, and that the sympathies of this country would be on the side of those who would maintain a policy so important for the British interests involved. We have in no degree changed our attitude since the hon. Member last questioned me on the subject.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to give notice that on the Foreign Office Vote I
  1608
  shall move the reduction of the salary of the Foreign Secretary by £100, in order to call attention to this matter.

  OUTDOOR SPORTS IN LONDON.
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, having regard to the growth of the population of London, and the increasing absorption of the open spaces available for outdoor sports in and near the Metropolis, he will consider the possibility of allowing cricket to be played at stated hours, on all or certain days of the week, and under any necessary restrictions, in the north-west corner of Hyde Park?
  MR. PLUNKET: The question of allowing cricket to be played in Hyde Park has often been raised for many years past, and I should, of course, be glad to afford the same facilities for the game in Hyde Park as are enjoyed in Regent's Park; but the circumstances of the two parks as to demands upon the space by other sections of the public are quite different, and I must reluctantly adhere to the refusal which has always hitherto been given.
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has visited the north-western portion of the park in the evening?
  MR. PLUNKET: Yes, Sir, I have, both morning and evening, and in the middle of the day also.
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I shall call attention to this question at the first opportunity.

  BRITISH WEST AFRICAN SETTLEMENTS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the unsanitary condition of many of the towns and stations comprised within the limits of the British West African Settlements, and whether he can inform the House if the Government have taken, or intend to take, any steps to remedy a state of things that imperils the life and health of Her Majesty's subjects in those parts?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Secretary of State is well aware that the sanitary conditions of many of the towns and stations in the British West African Colonies are not by any means all that

  1609
  could be desired. Measures for their improvement are constantly being carried out, but these are limited by (1) the amount of funds at the disposal of the different Colonial Governments, (2) by the difficulties of snpervision caused by the climate, and (3) by the opposition frequently manifested by the natives themselves to sanitary improvements. A perusal of the Reports sent home by the Colonial Governors, and presented to Parliament, will show that much, however, has already been done.

  THE PROBATE AND LICENCE DUTY.
  MR. T. ROBINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a great many of the county boroughs in England are very dissatisfied with the decisions of the Commissioners as to the division of the sums received for Probate and Licence Duty granted under the provisions of "The Local Government Act, 1888"; whether he has been informed that in all cases the Commissioners have refused leave to appeal upon points of law and otherwise; whether it is true that the county borough of Gloucester (by the decision of the Commissioners) is only to receive the small sum of £4,050, whereas the County Council of Gloucestershire is given the large sum of £74,000; whether he is aware upon what grounds the Commissioners arrived at this decision, and that the effect of it will be to deprive the citizens of Gloucester of nearly all the advantage they expected to receive under the provisions of the aforesaid Act; whether he is aware that the City of Gloucester was an independent county of itself before the passing of the Local Government Act, and not liable to pay any sum to the then County Authority; whereas, under the decision of the Commissioners, the citizens will now have to pay to the County Council yearly, out of the sums received within the limits of the county borough for Probate and Licence Duty, the large sum of £3,000 and upwards; and whether the City Council have any, and, if so, what, remedy under the Act?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Commissioners are discharging the duties which have been expressly entrusted to them by Parliament, and their awards are binding and conclusive to and for all in-
  1610
  tents and purposes, and have the like effect as if they were made by a Judge of the High Court of Justice. The Local Government Board are furnished with copies of the awards made by the Commissioners; but they obviously have no authority to inquire as to the proceedings of the Commissioners and the grounds for their decision. With respect to the statement in the question that the City of Gloucester will have to pay yearly out of the sum received within the limits of the county borough, for Probate and Licence Duty, upwards of £3,000, I must remind the hon. Member that for the purposes of the distribution of the Licence Duties and the Probate Duty grant the city is to be deemed to he situate within the county, and that the only claim which the city has is to such an amount in respect of the grant referred to as the Commissioners determine to he equitable as between the city and the county.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY AND THE BOERS.
  CAPTAIN GRICE - HUTCHINSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any further information as to the reported movement of Boer Trekkers into the territory of the British South Africa Company?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The latest information encourages the hope that this project has been dropped.

  PURCHASE OFFICERS IN THE ARMY.
  GENERAL FRASER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the great anxiety experienced by the purchase officers of the Army, relative to their position as affected by Royal Warrants, when it is probable that the Army Estimates will be brought before the House, and when an opportunity will be given for the alleged grievances of the officers to be fully discussed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I should wish to point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the great anxiety of the purchase officers for a Debate on this subject might have been gratified either on February 19 or 23 or March 5, in Committee on Army Esti-

  1611
  mates, or some effort might have been made to obtain a day by ballot. It will be for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to fix the day when Army Estimates can again be taken, but personally I shall be very glad to discuss this matter as soon as possible.

  LIVERPOOL CUSTOMS ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Treasury will consider the desirability of applying to the eight second-class clerks of the old establishment in the Customs at Liverpool the provisions of the recent Treasury Order, by which a large number of the redundant clerks in the Customs in London are placed on the Upper Division, with antecedent rights as regards pay and priority of position, from the dates of the vacancies to which they are now held to have been respectively entitled, the cases of the clerks in both places being similar, their condition since the year 1880 being governed equally by the provisions of the Treasury Order of August in that year, the periods of service being longer and the official disadvantages greater in the case of the Liverpool clerks?
  MR. JACKSON: I think the question of the hon. Member is based upon a misconception, as the cases of the clerks in Liverpool and London are not similar, the London clerks being governed by the Treasury Order of August, 1880, whereas the Liverpool clerks are subject to the conditions of a later Treasury Letter, which does not extend to them all the London conditions.

  LINCOLN POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. HENEAGE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the cause of the great delay in carrying out the proposed improvements in the postal arrangements in the Lincoln district; and whether the difficulty which has arisen between the Post Office Authorities and the Midland Railway as to the new sorting office at the Lincoln Station is a legal or practical difficulty?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The proposed improvements in the rural post
  1612
  arrangements in the Lincoln District cannot be carried out until the sorting office at Lincoln Railway Station is ready. Some little delay unavoidably took place in obtaining the necessary approval of the Midland Railway Company to the plans of the new office, but the sanction of that company has now been received, and the Office of Works has been asked to proceed with the building with all possible expedition.

  ST. PAUL'S SCHOOL.
  MR. KEAY: I intended to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether it is a fact, as stated on page 16 of a pamphlet entitled St. Paul's School and its Scandals, by Mr. James Beal, Member of the London County Council, that the High Master of St. Paul's School has for several years drawn from the funds of the Charity large sums in excess of what he is allowed to draw by the scheme passed by Parliament in 1876 and 1879, and which sum for the year 1889 is there alleged to amount to £640 6s. 8d; and whether the Charity Commissioners will take steps to inquire into the truth of these allegations? I have, however, been requested to postpone the question until Monday.

  CENSUS ENUMERATORS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the complaints of many of the Census enumerators who have not yet been paid for their work in connection with the taking of the Census; and whether he will communicate with the Registrar General with a view to accelerating the rate at which the payments to the Census enumerators are being made?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have communicated with the Registrar General, and I understand that drafts on the Paymaster General for the payment of all local Census expenses, including enumerators, fees and allowances, have been sent in accordance with the Census Act to the Superintendent Registrars of 630 of the 632 Registration districts of England and Wales. The Census Returns for the two remaining districts are not yet com-

  1613
  plete, and the claims for local expenses have, therefore, not been received at the Census Office.

  ALBANY STREET CAVALRY BARRACKS
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the plans and designs for the new Cavalry Barracks in Albany Street can be inspected by the public, as the inhabitants of the neighbourhood wish to do so; and, if so, under what conditions?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The plans are not yet complete; but as they do not involve any re-construction of the exterior of the buildings fronting the public way, I do not see what good end would be attained by their public exhibition.

  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF MERCHANDISE.
  MR. HOLLOWAYI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the rapidly increasing disparity between the imports and exports of merchandise during the past half-century, and the ever increasing consumption in this country of foreign produce and manufactures, without a corresponding export of British productions, such disparity having increased from £80,000,000 in the 10 years ending 1850 to £1,000,000,000 in the 10 years ending 1890; and if the Labour Commission will be directed to inquire into the effect which this ever increasing consumption of foreign goods has upon the industrial classes of this country?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I could not answer my hon. Friend's question without entering into argument on a subject which has afforded material for innumerable discussions for many years. But I may say that, though there is no doubt that the excess of imports over exports has been increasing during the last 30 years, the figures given are not correct. There was no valuation of imports in 1850 as there is now, but only an old official computation based on the prices of 1697, which was entirely out of date, and several very important items of our receipts, such as the interest on foreign
  1614
  investments, the earnings of our ships, and the commissions of merchants, are not included in the Returns of imports. It is for the Royal Commission on Labour to judge how far this matter may properly fall within the terms of their Commission, but I should say that it could only incidentally do so.

  EMPLOYMENT BY TURKEY OF KURDISH IRREGULAR TROOPS.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish Government persists in the intention it declared some time ago to arm. certain regiments of Kurdish irregular troops; and, what communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Sultan with regard to this hazardous scheme?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have no reason to believe that the proposed organisation of the Turkish Cavalry is abandoned. From the Reports on the subject, which we have received from Sir W. White, it appears that the object with which it has been undertaken is to create a Body of Cavalry after the model of the Cossacks, for the defence of the border provinces of the Empire. Sir W. White has made inquiries on the subject, but there does not appear to be anything in the scheme which calls for communications to the Porte on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and none have been made.

  THE OMNIBUS STRIKE.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the advisability of endeavouring to avert the threatened strike of omnibus and road car men, and the probable great inconvenience to the public, by bringing pressure to bear on the companies to grant the men's reasonable demands, as was done by the Government in Vienna two years ago in a similar case?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It has never been considered one of the functions of the Home Office to interfere in trade disputes between private companies and their employés, and I do not propose to create a precedent by acting on the suggestion of the hon. Member in this instance.

  THE TAILORS' STRIKE.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under whose orders the police, in the neighbourhood of Spitalfields, where a tailors' strike is going on, used their batons in dispersing the pickets who were on duty on 1st June?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no orders were given to use truncheons on the occasion in question, and that as a matter of fact truncheons were not used.

  BRITISH TRADE IN GERMANY.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a letter recently read before the North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce from Her Majesty's Consul at Frankfort on the Maine, suggesting his employment as a private salaried agent of the Chambers of Commerce to communicate information to them affecting the interests of British trade in Germany, and whether such a proposal had the approval of the Foreign Office; whether it is already a chief part of the consular duties to transmit such information for the general use of the public; whether, however, there are in fact no paid Consuls to perform such duties in so important a country as Germany, and there is only one paid commercial attaché for all Europe, except Russia; and, whether it is proposed to remedy this state of things by allowing consuls to act as private salaried agents reporting to special employers, instead of employing more paid consuls or commercial attaches to look after and report publicly upon the general interests of British trade?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Consul referred to is unpaid, and is therefore free to carry on private business. The suggestion he lately made to Chambers of Commerce was to afford to their members information on matters beyond his consular duties; agency business of this nature is legitimate in his position, and there could be no objection to it on the part of the Foreign Office. There are now three salaried British Consuls in Germany—at Dantzic, Hamburg, and Stettin; allowances for office expenses
  1616
  are made to the Consul General at Frankfort, the Consul at Dűsseldorf, and also to seven Vice Consuls. The commercial attaché for Europe, who resides at Paris, was long resident in Germany, and is fully conversant with German commercial subjects, and can visit that country whenever public interests require him to do so. The Royal Commission on Public Establishments did not consider the existing arrangements in Germany inadequate for the general interests of British trade, and there is no present intention of altering them.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to give notice that on the Foreign Office Vote I shall call attention to the inadequate representation of British interests abroad, and move a reduction.

  SCHOOL PUNISHMENT.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he will direct the attention of the Public Prosecutor to the evidence given in the inquest on the body of James Harry Russell, aged 8 years and 9 months, in which it was stated that the lad had been hit about the head with a strap and a stick by the schoolmaster of Shentone School (near Lichfield)?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): In reply to the question of the hon. Baronet, I am informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that he received no communication from either the Coroner or the Police Authorities, nor had he any knowledge of the matter until the question of the hon. Baronet appeared. I had no information as to the case. I have to-day obtained some particulars, and I will go into the matter and will communicate with the hon. Baronet when I have had an opportunity of considering the evidence given in the case.

  EMIGRATION TO BRITISH COLUMBIA.
  MR. RANKIN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have now come to any decision with regard to the proposals of the Government of British Columbia with respect to assisting emigration from the Highlands of Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom to British Columbia?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I had an interview yesterday with a Representative of the

  1617
  Government of British Columbia upon this question of assisting emigration. I told him the conditions upon which we should be prepared to assent generally to the proposals made to us, and he will submit these conditions for the consideration of his Government.

  IMMIGRATION OF DESTITUTE ALIENS.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Russian newspaper, Vedomosti, that a Society has been formed to assist the emigration of the poorer class of Jews to the United Kingdom, and that the Society is negotiating with a Baltic steamship line for carrying an immense number of Jews from Libau and Riga to London; that, it is calculated that with four steamers constantly engaged 60,000 Jews can be landed in the Thames before the close of navigation in the Baltic; and whether the Government will take means to learn the truth of this statement, and propose legislation to protect our overcrowded population from this addition to their numbers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I have no communication to make on this subject, except that we have telegraphed to the Consul at Riga to inquire whether there is any foundation whatever for the statement quoted in the question. I have not seen the newspaper to which the hon. Member refers. I shall be obliged to him if he will send me a copy. I believe it, however, to be impossible that such an intolerable abuse of the system of emigration can be contemplated.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, apart altogether from the circumstances referred to in this particular question, there is a very strong popular feeling in this country with reference to the immigration of foreign paupers, and will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to consider this subject in all its bearings, and the expediency of taking some steps before allocating finally all the remainder of the time at the disposal of the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish it were in the power of the Government to allocate finally all the remainder of the time at our disposal this Session. I have
  1618
  always understood that the matter rested rather with the House itself. But I have no doubt that if it appears to the House desirable that this question should be discussed an opportunity will be found for doing so.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing the small amount of time left this Session for a full and adequate discussion of the Education Bill, and in order to give the country time to consider its previsions, the Government will, after the Bill has been brought in, postpone the Second Reading of it until November?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot agree that there is not sufficient time left for the adequate discussion of the short Education Bill which we shall submit to the House.
  MR. COGHILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that the discussion upon Votes in Supply will this Session take a shorter time than usual?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes; I have reason to believe so. I think the House will not desire to sit beyond the end of July, and therefore that it will not unduly prolong the discussion of Supply or of any other subject.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What ground has the right hon. Gentleman for thinking that hon. Members on this side of the House object to sit beyond the end of July if the business of the country requires that they should so sit?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no doubt that there are some hon. Gentlemen who are anxious to sit into August, or even September, and the hon. Member is doubtless one of them; but I think the House generally feels that it would be desirable to adjourn earlier.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it would help us to know when Supply will be concluded if we were told when Supply will be begun?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I shall be exceedingly glad to name a date for the resumption of the consideration of Supply, which has already been considered on many days during the course of the present Session, if the right hon. Gentleman can give me some indication

  1619
  of the date when the Land Purchase Bill and some other measures will have been disposed of.

  WELSH SUNDAY CLOSING ACT.
  MR. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government proposes taking any action this Session towards carrying out the recommendations made by the Royal Commission appointed by the Government in May, 1889, to inquire into the working of the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, and in which recommendations the Members of the Royal Commission were unanimous?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government do not propose to legislate on the subject this Session. No doubt the recommendations of the Commissioners will not be lost sight of whenever an opportunity may arise for amending the law.

  LOANS TO SCHOOLS AND TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the cause of the prolonged delay in circulating the Loans to Schools and Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill, introduced on the 8th of April, and set down for Second Reading on Monday last?
  MR. JACKSON: I am sorry that I am not quite in a position to give an answer to-day; but I may say that the question has been considered. The view of the Treasury is that legislation is not necessary. Communications have been passing between the Irish Office and the Treasury during the week, but no decision has been arrived at. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to repeat the question on Monday.

  MALICIOUS BURNINGS.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it be true that a man named Kilpatrick has for the fourth time made application to the Grand Jury of the County of Armagh for compensation for alleged malicious burnings; and if, in three instances, compensation was awarded; if the attention of the County Inspector of Constabulary has been drawn to those repeated burnings, followed by compensation in each case; and if he intends to take any steps before the fourth applica-
  1620
  tion for compensation is placed before the Grand Jury?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Constabulary Authorities report that Kilpatrick claimed, and obtained, compensation from the Grand Jury in respect of two cases of alleged malicious burning. A third claim is, I understand, pending. The Grand Jury have full power to reject any such claim, should they consider it unsustained.

  DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the small farmers and labourers in Glengarriff, County Cork, are in great distress owing to the failure of the potato crop and want of employment; whether they are receiving outdoor relief from the Bantry Board of Guardians; whether he is aware that the Bantry Board of Guardians have recommended the making of roads, but that only two are being made; whether he is aware that the distance from the nearest of them to the greater number of men in want of employment is eight miles; and whether other roads will be immediately constructed with a view to relieve the distress in Glengarriff?
  DR. TANNERalso put a question upon the same subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Relief works have been established, and I am informed that they afford sufficient employment.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a great number of men who are not employed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a great amount of distress prevails in the Schull Union; and, if so, whether he will provide employment for the people there with a view to alleviate it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is, I believe, some distress in the Union, but there are relief works in operation.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the distressed condition

  1621
  of the people of Drinagh (in the Skibbereen Union); and whether he purposes opening public works to afford employment there?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The condition of this district has engaged the attention of the Government, but it has not been found necessary to institute relief works.

  CHARGE OF MURDER AT GLENGARRIFF.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that a man named Maurice Healy has been arrested and charged with the murder of a gamekeeper named Daniel Harrington at Glengarriff; whether Healy has been remanded 16 times; whether he has been kept in prison from the 14th February to the 22nd May; and whether evidence in support of this grave charge has been given against Healy; and, if not, whether he will be compensated for the wrong inflicted on him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the Magistrates acted in the ordinary way. I am not aware that there is any necessity for compensation in the matter.
  MR. SEXTON: It appears that this man has been remanded 16 times successively. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to lay on the Table of the House a copy of the evidence on which the Magistrates felt justified in ordering 16 successive remands. I have not known of such a case in the whole of my experience.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the Magistrates acted on the evidence adduced before them.
  MR SEXTON: Upon what legal principle does a Magisterial tribunal act in remanding a man for 16 times?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Magistrates act on the probability of being able to obtain evidence.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the Home Secretary if he has ever known a similar case?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir. Remands of this kind are a matter of daily occurrence. There is a case in Wales which is exciting great interest, in which the prisoner has been remanded over and over again.
  MR. SEXTON: I shall feel it my duty to call attention to this case on the Vote for Law and Courts of Justice in Ireland.
  MR. MAC NEILL: As a matter of fact, was not one of the Magistrates a paid agent of the Government—a Resident Magistrate?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the least idea.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Then I can say that it was so.

  DISTRESS IN THE ROSSES.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the letter of the Most Rev. Dr. O'Donnell, Lord Bishop of Raphoe, in the National Press, of June 1, describing the great suffering of the people in the parishes of the Rosses, Gweeharra, Gweedore, and Falcarragh, and complaining that no relief works had been instituted in this the most poverty-stricken district of Donegal; and whether any steps will be taken by the Government to give immediate employment to the people of this locality?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The condition of the districts mentioned has engaged, in common with other localities, the careful attention of the Government, who I am glad to say have found no necessity for the opening of relief works there.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland has been called to the general complaints which have been made as to the tendency of their new rules to restrict the benefits of intermediate education to students of the better class who obtain a classical education at Board schools to the prejudice of the poorer class of students who by the operation of the system as previously administered were enabled to obtain a good commercial education in the various day schools which sent forward pupils for examination; and whether they will re-consider their recent rules, so as to secure that the public moneys which they administer

  1623
  will benefit the poorer class of students who most need education assisted by the State; whether book-keeping, though hitherto a subject of study in the junior grade, is now omitted as well from that grade as from the new preparatory grade; whether natural philosophy and chemistry are omitted from the preparatory grade, though these subjects were hitherto included in the junior grade, and though the proposed preparatory grade includes five languages, Latin, Greek, French, German, and Italian; whether the new preparatory grade, being only provided in the middle and senior grades, is thus practically restricted to students in their 17th year or older, though youths intended for a commercial life generally leave school in Ireland in their 15th or 16th year; and whether the Board will re-consider the new rules, with a view to giving greater encouragement to commercial education; whether the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland, in fixing the subjects of study in the new preparatory grade, have excluded Celtic, though Celtic has always hitherto been one of the subjects for students, no matter of what age, entered for the junior grade, and all the other languages hitherto prescribed as subjects in the junior grade, namely, Latin, Greek, French, German, and Italian, have been now prescribed as subjects for the preparatory grade; for what reason Celtic has been put on a different footing from the other languages mentioned; whether he is aware that the exclusion of Celtic has caused great dissatisfaction in the schools where Celtic has been studied; and whether the Board will consider the danger that students, if precluded from the study of Celtic for the two years while in the preparatory grade, will not make it a study at all? I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the increasing tendency of the Board of Intermediate Education in Ireland to give their examinations a purely literary direction to the detriment of students desiring a commercial education; whether, in the new preparatory grade, purely literary subjects (Greek, Latin, English, French, German, and Italian) between them are allowed 5,500 marks out of a possible total of 7,300, while the
  1624
  commercial subjects (arithmetic, Euclid, algebra, and drawing) get only 1,800 marks, and book-keeping, natural philosophy, and chemistry are entirely excluded, though always hitherto included in the curriculum for boys of the age for whom the preparatory course is intended; whether, in the other grade, the same disproportion is observed between literary and commercial subjects, and the new commercial course only comes into operation for youths in their 17th year, an age at which very few youths intended for commercial pursuits can continue to remain at school in Ireland; and whether the Board will reconsider their new programme, with a view to making it less unfavourable to commercial students?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education report that the Board have fully considered all communications addressed to them in reference to their rules, and have embodied their views in draft rules now before the Lord Lieutenant for consideration, and which, if approved, will be issued in due course. The Board do not propose to make any further changes in the rules and programme of 1892. The rules and programme for 1893 will, in the ordinary course, come before the Board in November next, when they will fully consider any communications which may be laid before them in reference thereto.

  THE LAND PURCHASE BILL.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Sub-sections (4), (5), and (6) of Section 5 of the Land Purchase Bill are intended to apply to cases affected by Sub-section (3) of the same section; and whether, if so, they will require some modification to make them applicable?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): Yes, Sir; it is intended that these sub-sections should apply to cases affected by Sub-section (3) of the same section. My examination of the clauses as drawn leads me to the conclusion that they will not require modification to make them applicable; but I will again consider the matter.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, in the Land Purchase Bill as it now

  1625
  stands, the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund is liable to be drawn on in respect of a default made in the payment of a purchase annuity, notwithstanding that the instalments in arrear have not been declared irrecoverable, though the guarantee deposit cannot be drawn on until that has been done; and whether it is intended to make any express provision as to the point when the guarantee deposit becomes liable?
  MR. MADDEN: The existing provisions of the Land Purchase Acts of 1885 and 1887 are applicable to deposits under the present Bill. Such deposits, however, cannot be made responsible for default until certain legal processes have been gone through.
  MR. M. HEALY: What I wish to know is whether the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund is liable to be drawn on in respect of a default made in the payment of a purchase annuity?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes, Sir, undoubtedly. As the Bill stands, the Guarantee Fund is made liable.

  LOANS TO IRISH LANDOWNERS.
  MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the case of a loan to a landowner in Ireland under "The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880," at an annuity of £3 8s. per cent., where the landowner is desirous of paying off the loan, the Treasury will calculate the amount to be paid according to the present value of an annuity of £3 8s. per cent. for the number of years still unexpired for which the annuity has to be paid?
  MR. JACKSON: A landowner who has borrowed under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880, and who desires to redeem his loan, is allowed to do so on payment of a sum equal to the present value on a 3 per cent. table of the remainder of the annuity payable by him in respect of his loan.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the rules of the Board of National Education in Ireland, ordinary assistant teachers are paid the same, no matter to what class they belong; whether assistant teachers in model schools and training schools are,
  1626
  notwithstanding this rule, paid according to class and also for extra duty; whether Sir Patrick Kerran has frequently represented the injustice of the rule in question to the Treasury without effect; and whether, in allocating the funds available this year for education in Ireland, provision will be made to enable this rule to be modified so as to treat ordinary assistant teachers on the same footing as those in model schools and training schools, and thereby give them some incentive to rise to a higher class?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to repeat the question to-morrow?
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the difficulty which has arisen in many cases in Ireland in obtaining sites for national teachers' dwellings; and whether the Government would assent to a Bill providing for the acquisition of such sites compulsorily?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is a fact, I believe, that difficulty has been experienced, but I do not propose to submit a Bill to provide for the compulsory acquisition of sites.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the fact that at examinations for results under the Irish National Board of Education the teacher is not allowed to see the questions put by the Inspector; whether a different rule prevails in England; and whether the Board will consider the advisability of modifying the Irish practice, which has given rise to great complaint?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of Education are not aware that such a practice prevails, and I believe that the rule followed is the same as that in England.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists amongst teachers with the reading books in use in Irish National Schools, as being unsuitable for children; how long is it since the books in question were compiled; and whether the National Board propose to modernise these books or revise them in any way?
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that from time to time dissatisfaction in the matter mentioned has been expressed, but that the books can hardly be described as unsuitable, seeing that 94 per cent. of the children examined in them in 1889 passed and earned result fees for their teachers. The books were compiled in 1867, and have since been improved from time to time. They are now undergoing a thorough revision.

  IRISH FISHERIES.
  MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a notice dated 22nd January was issued from the Office of Irish Fisheries, saying that a meeting would be held in the
  "Court House, Carlingford, on Thursday, 12th February, 1891,"
  to consider an application
  "To be permitted to dredge for, take, and have in possession foreign oysters during the close season for oysters in Carlingford Lough,"
  and that said meeting was postponed without due notice given to persons interested; whether a silimar notice, dated 7th May, 1891, has been issued to say that a meeting will be held in the same place for a like purpose on the 9th instant; and, whether, if said meeting is to be postponed, due notice will be given to persons interested?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries report that due intimation of the postponement was given by notices sent to the persons concerned and by publication in the Press.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and if so what, steps will be immediately taken to prevent the destruction of immature mackerel and hake on the southern and southwestern coast of Ireland by British fishing boats?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The subject-matter of this question is at present engaging the attention of the Government.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not a matter of urgency? Will not the Government, who are anxious to protect the Behring Straits fisheries, do something to protect the interests of the poor Irish fishermen?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether legislation is possible in the case.
  DR. TANNER: Has any attempt been made this Session to deal with the question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  LAND DEPARTMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will bring in the leaseholders' redemption clause of the Land Department (Ireland) Bill as an independent measure: and, if so, whether he will consider the utility of including in the measure the turbary clause of the Land Department Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be ready to bring in the first clause mentioned as an independent measure, and to consider the propriety of adding to that clause the provision relating to turbary if I were assured that the introduction of the measure would not evoke opposition.
  MR. SEXTON: I believe that there would be no material opposition to a Bill embodying the two clauses mentioned.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give a Return of the appropriation of £40,000, voted last year in aid of the provision of labourers' cottages, by Irish Boards of Guardians?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The information required by the hon. Gentleman will be contained in the Annual Report of the Local Government Board, which will shortly be issued.

  PROPOSED NEW COINAGE.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the instructions given to the artists for the preparation of new designs for gold, silver, and copper coinage, care has been taken to ensure that the value of each coin is expressed in words or figures upon it?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Memorandum furnished by the Committee on the Design of Coins to the artists invited to submit designs contains the following paragraph:—

  1629
  "In the case of the florin the denomination should be expressed either on the obverse or reverse, but the indication of the value of the other coins is optional."

  PORTUGUESE IN AFRICA.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the proposed Treaty with Portugal, Her Majesty's Government recognises as Portuguese territory both banks of the Zambesi from Zumbo up to the Katima rapids; whether the parallel of 18° 30 south latitude is now adopted as the southern limit of Portuguese territory, instead of 16 as was fixed by the Convention of last August; whether a large tract of territory amounting to several thousands of square miles, the exploration of which has been almost exclusively British, and which was claimed as British in the Convention of last August, has now been recognised as Portuguese; whether the Treaty, if ratified, will prevent the northern boundary of the British possessions in South Africa reaching the Zambesi; whether the British sphere of influence north of the Zambesi will now be separated from British territory south of the Zambesi by possessions recognised as Portuguese; whether the Government of the Cape Colony has been consulted as to the proposed boundaries and provisions of the Treaty; and whether it has expressed its approval thereof?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: To this question I can only answer that until the Treaty has been signed its provisions cannot be disclosed. As none of the boundary lines with which it deals, nor the commercial and other provisions, affect the Cape Colony, the Government of that colony has not been consulted.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can reply whether the statement in my question is substantially accurate?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We cannot publish the Treaty in full, and I cannot therefore explain it by a process of exhaustion.

  THE CHIEF SECRETARY ON THE STATE OF IRELAND.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury
  1630
  whether his attention has been drawn to the important statement made yesterday by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as to the satisfactory condition of Ireland, and whether he will be prepared in consequence to remit the remainder of the sentences of Mr. J. Dillon and Mr. W. O'Brien?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have to confess that my occupation has been so incessant to-day that I have not read the speech of my right hon. Colleague, and that I am not aware of its contents.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to know whether, if the statement of the Chief Secretary that, as Ireland is quiet, the Crimes Act is no longer necessary has been made with the consent of the First Lord of the Treasury, he is prepared to remit the sentences of the prisoners?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may make any inquiry which he wishes from the Chief Secretary, and I have no doubt he will get a suitable answer. I have just been informed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is slightly mistaken as to what the Chief Secretary said.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Secretary was at the time addressing a crowd of dissentient females?

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Rules, Orders, and Forms of Procedure of the House of Commons relating to Public Business, 1891.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILL Consolidated from PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) LAW AMENDMENT BILL and PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 268.]
  Miuutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 268.]
  Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into Consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 352.]

  FACTORY LEGISLATION (REPORTS FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.)
  Address for—
  "Copies of Reports from Her Majesty's Representatives abroad on the measures which have been taken by Foreign Governments to give effect to the recommendations of the Berlin Labour Conference."—(Sir William Houldsworth.)

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (FEE GRANT).
  Committee to consider of making further provision, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for assisting Education in public Elementary Schools in England and Wales (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Monday next. —(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 2.)
  Order [26th. February], for committing the Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c. read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  William Dunn, esquire, for Borough of Paisley; Sir Reginald Hanson, baronet, for City of London.
MOTIONS.

  MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Chaplin, Bill to amend "The Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chaplin, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, and Mr. Long.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 353.]

  RUSSIAN DUTCH LOAN BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Bill to make provision for paying off the British portion of the Russian Dutch Loan, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 354.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SEAL FISHERY (BEHRING'S SEA) BILL.—(No. 345.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: I beg
    1632
    to move to add, after "Order," "if the Legislature of the Dominion shall consent to such prohibition." The persons most concerned are the Canadians, and they are by no means consenting parties to this measure. The Americans require that they should be allowed to kill 7,500 seals on their own account. Whatever number of seals they claim to kill, they ought to kill in the open seas and not in the rookeries. These 7,500 seals are not to be killed for food for the islanders. But the United States state that they keep 300 Aleutian islanders in the seal fisheries; and if the prohibition is to affect them, they will have themselves to keep these servants of theirs, and for their wages will have to pay some £20,000. A more monstrous claim could not be put forward. If there is to be any claim at all, it should be made by the Victorian fishermen.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line after l, the word "Order," to insert the words "if the Legislature of the Dominion shall consent to such prohibition."—(Mr. A. Staveley Hill.)
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I regret that my hon. and learned Friend is not satisfied with the assurance which the Government has given. I said distinctly on the Second Reading that the Government could not assent to the introduction of these words. The Dominion has a right to legislate so far as her own people are concerned, but she has no right to legislate for the British Flag. The Behring Sea is some thousand miles away from Canada, and the Canadian Government have received every assurance that compensation shall be given to any British subject who, it can be shown, will suffer loss. Her Majesty's Government hope that the British losses will be a great deal less than my hon. and learned Friend supposes. The destruction of 7,500 seals is considerable, but we are willing to consent to that proposal in order to put an end to a serious danger.
    MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: After the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I shall not proceed any further with my Amendment.
    MR. BRYCE: I think the Government ought to afford us some

    1633
    information as to what has passed between them and the Canadian Government on the subject, and the nature of the terms that have been arranged. I think, moreover, that we ought to press Her Majesty's Government for an assurance that no Order in Council will be issued until a satisfactory arrangement has been arrived at.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Communications have been going on upon the subject within the last fortnight, and Her Majesty's Government have satisfied themselves that the Dominion Government have accepted the views I have already indicated. I will endeavour to give the House further information on the subject as soon as possible, but at the present moment the information is not in a complete form.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I think we ought to have a more explicit assurance than we have yet received on the subject of compensation. I hope the Government will take care that there is no ambiguity in the assurance they may give on this subject. What I particularly want to know at the present moment is whether the Government have accepted the principle that we are to pay the compensation. On a former stage of this Bill we were assured that the feelings of the taxpayers of this country would be carefully considered. Therefore, I hope that if the principle of compensation is accepted, the burden will not be thrown upon the taxpayers of this country. I hope the Government will see that no injustice is done to the British taxpayers in this respect.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3.
    MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I should like to ask, with reference to the phrase "marine animals," whether it is not too vague. It would include whales, or indeed any kind of fish.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The phraseology of the clause has been carefully considered, and these words have been deemed necessary; but, of course, Her Majesty's Government do not intend to prohibit the catching of whales.
    Clause agreed to.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported without amendment.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope the House will allow the Bill to be read a third time now. The measure is one of great importance, and it is very desirable that no delay should take place.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot but concur with the First Lord of the Treasury in hoping that no objection will be taken to the course he has suggested. I wish, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will lay on the Table of the House the communications which have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Dominion?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The painful circumstances in which the Government of the Dominion are placed rendered it impossible for us to hold regular official communications with them, and those which had passed were sufficient to satisfy us that the Dominion Government were consenting parties to the proposals we had made to Parliament, subject to the concession of compensation to British subjects for any loss they could be shown to have sustained by reason of the prohibition, and to the acceptance of the terms of arbitration by the United States Government.
    MR. SEXTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will appreciate the forbearance of the Irish Members in not opposing the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 342.)

    CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    As amended, to be further considered.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd June], "That the Clause (Jurisdiction of Land Commission, 40 & 41 Vic, c. 57,) — (Mr. Knox,)—which was offered to be added on Consideration of the Bill, as amended," be now read a second time.
    MR. KNOX: The Attorney General opposed this clause last night, on the ground that he objected to piecemeal legislation on the subject of a Land Department. I admit that there is reason in his contention, and I do not think it necessary to ask

    1635
    the House further to debate this clause. Therefore I ask leave to withdraw it.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to move the clause which stands in my name as to the purchase of lands by tenants formerly in possession of holdings. I have ventured to put this clause on the Paper with a view of arriving, if not at a satisfactory conclusion with regard to the whole question, at any rate at a reasonable solution of the difficulty at the present moment. I can conceive that four objections maybe urged to the clause I have now ventured to move, two of a minor character and two of a serious nature. The first objection is of a minor kind, and has reference to the limitation of the period to five years. I admit that a good deal can be said against that limitation; but still I call it a minor objection. The second minor objection deals with that part of the clause which provides that if this clause is to be taken advantage of this should be done within six months of the passing of the Act. I think that this is a point which should be dealt with as speedily as possible, and I demur to the allowing of such an arrangement to hang over either for a year or for an indefinite period. The first serious objection to the clause is that which would be taken by the hon. Member for the Eccles Division of Lancashire as to the initiative in this matter being left to the landlord. But it should be borne in mind that the landlord is in possession of the lands, and that the ex-tenant has sacrificed any equitable claim that might be urged on his behalf. The objection, however, is not a practical one, because the landlord on those estates would be as anxious to come to terms as the ex-tenant. The last objection is that the clause only deals with vacant land and not with the tenanted land. I think I may say that the clause goes as far as it is safe to go and as far as the House will be willing to go. So far as the Plan of Campaign Estates are concerned, possessing as I do pretty accurate knowledge of what has taken place upon them, I venture to say that not more than 50 settlers or planters will be found on them. It is quite true that a great many evicted farms are still
    1636
    untenanted. But so far as the tenanted holdings are concerned, there would be enormous difficulty in bringing them under the operation of this clause. I do not see how, at this time of the Session, and in view of the possibilities in another place, it will be possible to touch the question of tenanted land. This clause deals with evicted farms in the hands of landlords, or derelict, or held by caretakers, and I say that that is going a considerable distance in the direction hon. Members wish to go. I believe it would settle three-fourths of the Campaign Estates. It is not possible to settle all those estates. One estate, for instance, has been actually sold under the Ashbourne Act, and is consequently past dealing with entirely. I do not know, too, whether it is of any use hoping anything can be done with the Clanricarde Estate. This clause, however, would certainly meet the cases of the Ponsonby, Olphert, and Clongorey Estates. Now, the present position of the landlords is this: Before they can come to terms as to purchase, the tenants must be re-instated, for until that is done the Land Commission will not hear any motion for approving any agreement. My clause proposes, however, that the landlord and his ex-tenant may come to an agreement without previous re-instatement, and that the Land Commission shall then be empowered to hear and consider applications. I have also inserted a provision that in cases where, owing to the temporary depreciation of the land, due to its having been left derelict, the Land Commission may deem the security insufficient, the Land Commission may take from the purchaser collateral security. I think this will facilitate many sales that might otherwise be prevented. In conclusion, I desire to explain that I do not move this clause as an act of justice, nor do I say anything as to mercy. I move it because I think it will afford a fair chance of securing an honourable settlement of these matters. I do not talk of mercy; but I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire, that these men have been misled and many of them ruined. I have always taken a strong line against the Plan of Campaign, but I am anxious and willing, upon fair and reasonable terms, to bring the fight to a close.

    1637
    think that this is a clause which the Government can accept with credit, and with honour, and I hope it will not be marred by the fact that I move it. I ask hon. Members below the Gangway to believe that I have no possible political capital to make out of this clause. The certainty is that I shall be misunderstood in the country and by my own constituents. But I believe the time is opportune for a settlement, and I hope the House and the Government will not allow any personal feeling to interfere with it.
    New Clause—
    (Purchase by tenants formerly in possession of holdings.)

    "(1.) When the tenancy of a holding has been determined within five years before the passing of this Act, and the former landlord or his successor in title is in occupation of the holding, it shall be lawful for the former landlord or his successor in title, within six months of the passing of this Act, to enter into an agreement under the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act for the sale of the holding to the former tenant or his personal representatives.

    (2.) An advance for such purpose may be made by the Land Commission, in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the purchaser was at the date of the agreement in possession of the holding as tenant, and thereupon all the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act shall apply to such agreement and advance.

    (3.) If the Land Commission are of opinion that the holding would be sufficient security for the advance but for its having become temporarily deteriorated in value, they may make the advance upon the purchaser giving such security as they may deem sufficient to meet any risk arising from such temporary depreciation,"—(Mr. T. W. Russell,)

    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. SMITH-BARRY: I said the other night that if a clause properly drafted were introduced to deal with this important question I, for one, certainly would not oppose it. I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone has now proposed such a clause, and I sincerely hope Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accepting it. I know it does not meet all the wishes of hon. Members opposite, but it will, I think, open a very fair and proper door to the evicted tenants to enable them to get back into
    1638
    their holdings by purchasing under this Act. It opens a much wider door than did the proposal of the hon. Member for West Belfast, for he only wanted to prevent fixing in their holdings men who have taken evicted farms. His clause did nothing to bring about a settlement with the ex-tenants of derelict and unoccupied farms. This clause properly safeguards those new tenants who have taken evicted farms. I certainly would strongly oppose any proposal which was likely to interfere with those men who, at great risk to themselves, have taken and are occupying and working evicted farms. I think it affords the best way of getting over the difficulty in connection with the evicted tenants. A settlement of the disputes on the Plan of Campaign Estates is an exceedingly difficult and delicate matter, and I always have thought that the best method of settlement is by some system of purchase. Some two years ago I suggested purchase under the Ashbourne Acts as a settlement of the dispute on the Ponsonby Estate, because I considered that the best and easiest way out of the trouble. I hold now to the same opinion. I therefore cordially support this clause, which has been moved by my hon. Friend. With regard to the five years' limit, which is, after all, but a minor point, I think that possibly a better plan would be to fix some definite date. As to the provision that all applications shall be made within six months, I think that a very desirable condition, for landlord and tenant ought to be able to come to terms within that time; and if they are not coming to terms, it is most undesirable to encourage the evicted tenants to continue living in the neighbourhood of their old holdings in the hope of a settlement which will never come. It would be much better for them to go and try to earn an honest livelihood elsewhere. My hon. Friend spoke on behalf of the tenant farmers of Ireland. I, as a representative, not of the Irish tenant farmers, nor of the Irish landlords, but of the British taxpayers, also approve the provision with regard to collateral security in cases of farms which have depreciated in value owing to their being left derelict. I think the Land Commission will be bound to see that any evicted tenants who may become purchasers under the Act will be able to give such security

    1639
    as will ensure that the British taxpayer will not suffer.
    MR. SEXTON: I recognise the spirit in which the clause has been moved by the hon. Member for South Tyrone; but there are some criticisms I should like to make. The hon. Member did well not to speak of mercy, because there are two sides to the case. This is, we think, a case for the exercise of justice and mercy. The hon. Member seems to think that by his present action he will expose himself to misunderstanding. I fancy there are few incidents in his career more satisfactory than his conduct in bringing in this clause. I am glad that the hon. Member has, on reflection, abandoned the view that the evicted tenants ought to be treated as paupers. In the last Debate he spoke of them as paupers.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Many of them.
    MR. SEXTON: And intimated that that penalised their position, and offered a reason for not admitting them to the benefits of the Act. If these tenants have no money, they have, at any rate, the sympathy of their fellow-countrymen, and certainly will be as good security as the persons generally planted on evicted farms in Ireland. The Amendment is open to the same objection of incompleteness as the Chief Secretary urged against the clause I moved. The landlords may be willing enough to take back the tenants on the vacant farms, and yet refuse to take back the tenants on the farms for which they had found new occupiers. My own clause provided that the supplanted tenants should be taken back; and if that had been passed, it would have naturally followed that the evicted tenants whose holdings are still vacant would be taken back. Unless provision be made for the tenants whose farms have been "grabbed," there will be a serious impediment to the operation of the Bill, for public feeling in Ireland will not be allayed. The condition of the evicted tenants whose farms have been taken by the land grabbers or planters constitutes the crux of the Irish question. So long as they remain out of their holdings, I greatly fear the Act will not work smoothly. I fear the hon. Gentleman is beginning at the wrong end. Does it not occur to
    1640
    him that if his proposal be not supplemented in the manner I suggest Parliament will be open to the reproach that the interest of the landlords has been its only consideration. You propose to deal with the cases in which the landlord is suffering heavy and continual loss. You propose to facilitate an arrangement between him and the evicted tenant in cases in which he has found it impossible to sell or let the farm, but you will not go into the case of those tenants who have lost their holdings, and whose farms have been taken by grabbers. When the Chief Secretary, in speaking at St. George's Hall on Wednesday, adopted the tone of a conqueror, he went rather beyond the fact. He succumbed to a natural temptation. He was speaking to a peculiar audience, an audience inclined to enthusiasm rather than to criticism. Here, however, we are better qualified to be critical than to be enthusiastic. The clause of the hon. Member for South Tyrone is the best answer to the right hon. Gentleman's contention that he is having it all his own way in Ireland; for, on the hon. Member's showing, of the farms rendered vacant during the last five years, three-fourths are still vacant, and that five years is the period during which the right hon. Gentleman was mainly responsible. What becomes, then, of the interesting observations of the right hon. Gentleman at St. George's Hall? Why, the fundamental object of his Coercion Bill was to put an end to the boycott and intimidation which kept the farms vacant! Yet, after five years coercion and all his elaborate, costly, and cruel policy, three-fourths of the farms are still vacant. Surely that should diminish the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence. The clause practically proposes that the Land Commission shall be able to treat evicted tenants, for the purposes of purchase, as though still in actual possession. This may ease the situation, but the proposal is of greater value as showing the desire of the Legislature that the landlords of the derelict farms shall come to terms with their tenants. The five years' limit which the hon. Member proposes will really operate in favour of those tenants whom the hon. Member regards as least meritorious, namely, the Plan of Campaign tenants. He says that the

    1641
    tenants who engaged in what he calls a criminal conspiracy should receive special consideration, but that the tenants who lost their holdings in previous years through poverty are still to be excluded from the benefits of the Act. By drawing any limit at all landlord and tenant are both injured, and the tranquillising effect of the Bill is marred. If there is a landlord willing to sell, and an evicted tenant willing to purchase, why in the name of common sense should these people be prevented from coming together by the terms of the Bill? It would be to every one's advantage that the transaction should take place, and to the advantage of nobody that the transaction should be forbidden. The hon. Member for South Hunts spoke as if the drawing of this line would prevent the evicted tenants remaining near their holdings in the future. But it will not prevent those evicted more than five years ago still hanging about the locality. As to the six months, why should that hard and fast line be drawn? We know the tenants cannot make bargains alone. I am sorry that, by an after-thought which differs from the proverbial after-thought, in being not better, but worse than the first thought, the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward an Amendment which will greatly embarrass the operation of this Amendment if it be carried into law. He proposes that if the holding has deteriorated the advance may be made on the basis of the undeteriorated value; but that the tenant, on buying, is to be obliged to give additional security to the Land Commission for the advance made to him. Let me point out, as a practical matter, that the permanent value of the farm is not deteriorated by the absence of the tenant. The only deterioration, as far as I can see, will be the deterioration of the house, which was not built by the landlord. For goodness sake treat the question reasonably, and from the point of view of common sense; and if you determine to take back these evicted tenants treat them as men in regard to whom the general principle of the Bill may be pursued, and not more stringently than you treat the other tenants. The planters are few in number, and those who have taken farms other than on the evicted estates are usually men with other means of living. I do not propose to
    1642
    ask the House to withhold compensation. I assume that the planters would all be willing to quit on obtaining compensation; I think it highly likely they would be. These people, detested by the people about them, and living a most inconvenient and disagreeable life, would, I think, be very glad to go for reasonable compensation; but, if necessary, I am willing to consider an Amendment providing that no tenant shall be asked to go unless he is willing. Where is the compensation to come from? I propose that it shall come from the Irish Church Temporalities Fund. That is a fund which by common consent is applicable to national purposes, and I say that never was the application of a fund for national purposes more urgently needed than in the present case, when it would restore tranquillity to convulsed districts and consolidate the elements of social order in Ireland. Let me point out that it is only the interest of the Church Surplus Fund that the right hon. Gentleman uses for the congested districts; and even if you take a considerable sum. out of the fund for the purpose of this Amendment, it would not materially affect the matter. My proposal is that the Land Commission shall treat with the evicted tenants subject to the willingness of the new tenants to go; and that if they do go, they shall be paid compensation out of the Church Surplus Fund. The number of evicted tenants during the last 10 years has been largely diminished by death and by emigration—for a great number of them have to be included in the 700,000 persons whose flight from Ireland during that period is a proof of the success of British rule. I do not think that the principle of compensation, administered in a judicial manner, would make any substantial diminution in the amount of the fund, and I most earnestly press the proposal on the attention of the House. I am satisfied that if it be accepted the effect will be to give us a conclusive guarantee that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will be attended with success.
    SIR W. HABCOURT: I am sure we shall all feel that we have now come to a very important chapter of this question, and that, to a great extent through the exertions of the hon.

    1643
    Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), there is a prospect of a fair settlement of it. Unjust imputations have been cast upon gentlemen representing Irish constituencies to the effect that they Lave been guilty of obstruction. But for the firm stand that was made in the Debate on Tuesday night upon the subject of the evicted tenants, it is not very likely that proposals of the character now before the House would have been made—proposals which alone can give a hope of peace to the warfare which has so long been waged between landlord and tenant in Ireland. I hope the offer that has been made will be accepted. That the Government should have proposed this Bill without any provision dealing with the evicted tenants is most surprising. I certainly expected that they would have seen that of all questions relating to Ireland this is the one which most needs settlement, and that a proposal of this kind should have come not from the authors of the Bill, but from the opposite side of the House, is an astonishing fact. However, we have now arrived at this stage—that it is universally admitted that the tenants evicted in consequence of the Plan of Campaign are men who ought to receive consideration at the hands of this House. If we can by any means get rid of this great source of irritation, it will be wise to do so, and I would recommend the Chief Secretary, if he wishes to give peace to Ireland, to deal with the matter, and to deal with it in no grudging or niggard spirit. What is the use of endeavouring to remove this mischief unless you remove it entirely? and if you leave outlying sources of irritation, you will have conceded a great deal and accomplished very little. I was much struck with what the hon. Member for West Belfast meant when he pointed out that if you take only the Amendment as it is proposed by the Member for South Tyrone it will appear to the Irish mind you have only made provision for those cases where the landlord will benefit. I suppose you really wish that the derelict farms shall be occupied. You must remember that there is a, feeling of brotherhood between these men, and they will not occupy derelict farms when those whom they regard as their brothers are left out in the cold. If you are going to deal with this matter in a really statesmanlike
    1644
    manner, with a desire to close what the Member for South Tyrone called a strike, it is desirable you should close it altogether, and in a liberal manner. I am not going into the details of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for West Belfast; we are now only dealing with the general question, recognising, I do not know what you call it, the rights or interests. I hope no language will be held upon either side that will be provocative as regards the landlords, or derogatory as regards the tenant, or that will prevent a settlement of the question. I trust we shall all recognise that there are interests on both sides which ought to be conciliated. I have been told by those who have the most intimate knowledge of the Irish Question, that if this matter of the evicted tenants is not dealt with, and if the sore is not healed, there will be great dangers in the future. I only rose to heartily support the Second Reading of this clause, as I would support any clause the object of which is to recognise the interests of the evicted tenants, and I think it is a proof how opinions may be coming together that the Member for South Tyrone should be the special advocate of the interests of the tenants evicted under the Plan of Campaign. That being so I hope the Government will agree in the principle of reinstating the evicted tenants, or placing them in a position to purchase, and then they can proceed to consider upon the clause itself how far it shall go, and the further it can go safely the better it will be. I do not quite understand the Member for South Tyrone when he said his object was that the former tenant should be in possession without being reinstated. Why should the former tenant not be reinstated and put on the same footing as other tenants in regard to purchase? I see the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Waring) smiles. I suppose he is of opinion that the landlord should not have to reinstate a tenant unless he is certain of getting money for the purchase. I do not think that is a spirit in which to regard this question. If the landlord says, "The tenant may be reinstated if I can get the money, but he shall not if I cannot get the money," I cannot conceive any spirit more odious or one more likely to interfere with a good settlement. But

    1645
    these are matters which doubtless will be fully discussed by gentlemen who have a great familiarity with the subject.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is certainly a most remarkable fact that the right hon. Gentleman never takes part in a Debate, however much previous speakers have endeavoured to remove it from the arena of Party politics, without bringing it into that arena. The right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly well aware that Gentlemen in every quarter of the House have taken part in the Debate, and that although we have sometimes been most bitterly engaged in controversies on the Irish Question, they have one and all abstained, as far as they could, from saying anything in Debate which would introduce bitterness of spirit or anything in the nature of Party feeling. It is reserved to the right hon. Gentleman—
    SIR W. HARCOURT: What have I said?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is reserved to the right hon. Gentleman to come down this afternoon, and in the intervals in which he is not engaged in imploring the Government to treat this subject in a broad and generous spirit, he takes the opportunity to say as many things as he can to irritate Party feeling, to say as many things as he can to try to twist the Amendment into a triumph for a certain section of Irish tenants, and altogether to convert this, which, in the opinion of the authors and supporters of the Amendment, is intended to smooth away and heal differences, into some wretched capital for his own purposes. The right hon. Gentleman thought fit to denounce the authors of this Bill for not having themselves introduced a clause relating to the evicted tenants. But surely evicted tenants are not a new phenomenon in Ireland? There were evicted tenants in 1886. There were the tenants evicted under the No Rent Manifesto. Did they not require to have justice done to them? Did they not require to have the great principle recognised that every evicted tenant ought to be put back under terms highly favourable? Was not the right hon. Gentleman joint author of a Bill in which there was no allusion, however distant or remote, to any evicted tenant?
    1646
    As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman has not misrepresented the action of the Government in the course of this Debate merely in the particular to which I have just referred. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this Amendment is the fruit of the discussion on Tuesday last. That is not the case. I may remind the House of what has occurred. In the Committee stage of the Bill there was an Amendment down in the name of the senior Member for Cork, on very much the lines of the suggestion made on Tuesday night by the hon. Member for the Eccles Division. That embodied two principles. One was the principle embodied in the present Amendment; the other was a proposal that the evicted tenant should be allowed to buy over the head of the sitting tenant where there was a sitting tenant. No ruling was given or asked for on the point in the Committee, but it was understood that the Amendment was not in order.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I think the right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate in his description of the second part of the Amendment of the senior Member for Cork.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may have forgotten the exact terms of the second part of the proposal. It was the first proposal that remained in my mind, and it was considered by a large number of gentlemen to be out of order, and it was not moved because it was thought it was out of order. Therefore this Amendment was put on the Paper by my hon. Friend on Tuesday, not in consequence of the Debate on Tuesday, but in consequence of the ruling of the Speaker on Tuesday in response to an appeal from me when I asked whether the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Eccles Division would not be out of order. It was ruled that it would be in order, and it is in consequence of that ruling that the Amendment is now down upon the Paper and has come up for discussion in the House. Therefore the account given by the right hon. Gentleman of the genesis of this Amendment is wholly inaccurate. I do not mean to go now into the details raised on this Amendment. Objection has been taken to this clause in one or two particulars. I will give the opinion of the Government on those particulars when they come up

    1647
    in Debate after the clause has been read a second time. For the present, it is sufficient to say that we should incur a great responsibility if we resisted the clause of my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone, representing as he does a large body of tenants in the North of Ireland, and especially as my hon. Friend is supported by the hon. Member for South Hunts, who has been engaged in one of the most serious of these controversies, and by the hon. Member for West Belfast, who, speaking from a different point of view, has given his adhesion to the general principle of the clause. A clause so supported naturally commends itself to the Government. It appears to me it will benefit the peace of a district by leading to a settlement on Plan of Campaign estates, it will be for the benefit of ex-tenants where no new tenants have come into the holdings, and the right hon. Gentleman is not wrong in saying it is eminently calculated to assist those landlords from whose estates those tenants have been evicted. I am glad it benefits the tenants and the locality, and I am very glad it benefits the landlords. I am very glad it will give to those gentlemen who have been the victims of an illegal and criminal conspiracy an opportunity—
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Oh, oh!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman object to doing anything for the landlords?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I only emphasized the "irritating language" of the Chief Secretary in relation to this conciliatory proposal.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not dwell on the fact of the criminal conspiracy, but that the Plan of Campaign was a criminal conspiracy everybody knows, and it has been abundantly proved.
    MR. GILHOOLY: Justified by the action of the landlords.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not discussing that; I only say that the landlords having been the victims of what has been admitted to be a criminal conspiracy, I rejoice to think that this clause will serve their interests. It is for the reason that everybody has to gain, and nobody has to lose, by the clause, that I recommend the House to read it a second time. I shall be prepared at a later stage to state the views
    1648
    of the Government on various points of detail.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for South Tyrone has moved this clause, and I particularly appreciate his remark that it offers a means of settlement honourable to both parties. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has given a correct account of the origin of the clause. It is almost identical with one of the clauses, or a portion of one of the clauses, moved by the senior Member for Cork at an earlier stage of the Bill, and if I am asked why my hon. Friend did not put down the whole clause for this stage of the Bill, I should say it was because it would be out of order to deal with the whole case of the evicted tenants now. He considered, and I think rightly considered, that the question of the evicted tenants could not be thoroughly dealt with at this stage, and that it would be wiser to deal with the question in as full a manner as it can be dealt with by the clause of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The right hon. Gentleman has asked why the tenants could not be reinstated first and the bargain be made between them and the landlords afterwards. Now, as the law stands at present, so far as regards the sales to tenants under the Purchase Act, there is nothing whatever to prevent the landlord reinstating them and then coming to a bargain. Not only is there nothing to prevent it, but it is a situation that has frequently occurred; the evicted tenant has been reinstated and the land sold to him under the Ashbourne Act. The fact is that when the tenant is reinstated he is in a much better position to make an equal bargain with the landlord. I maintain that the position would be greatly improved by the insertion of the second clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork, which would be out of order if proposed at this stage, the clause in which he held out an inducement to Irish landlords to reinstate their tenants, offering them, under certain circumstances, a sort of compensation for so doing. I wish it to be clearly understood that, though we assent to this clause, it does not completely meet our wishes, and only does part of the work. I would earnestly press upon the

    1649
    Chief Secretary still to consider in what manner he could introduce some clause offering some inducement to landlords to reinstate evicted tenants in their holdings independently of the question of purchase. There are many estates which cannot be sold at the present time, the owners not being in a position to sell, and which cannot be sold except under a compulsory Act, and it will be very hard that a distinction should be made in the position of evicted tenants, because on one estate the landlord is not in a position to sell, and on another estate the landlord is in very different circumstances. Then with regard to the five years' limit—
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not insist on that.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: The hon. Member will meet the objection on this point, and I suppose that applies also to the six months' limit.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLexpressed a negative.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: Six months is a very brief interval, but I reserve my remarks on these details to a subsequent stage. I shall cordially support the Second Reading of the clause, and I am very glad indeed that from all sides of the House it has been approached in this spirit, and I think it indicates a probability that before very long we shall arrive at a full settlement of the question of the evicted tenants.
    MR. JOICEY: I have not taken part in the discussion of the details of the Bill, and I am thoroughly opposed to land purchase where an English guarantee is given; but perhaps I may be allowed to express my view on this most important Amendment now before us. The question with which we are now dealing is perhaps the most important part of this great measure. The object of the Bill, as stated by the Chief Secretary, is to bring peace to Ireland so far as the land question is concerned, and I consider that any measure professing to deal with the land question by a great scheme of land purchase, and which did not contain a provision by means of which evicted tenants could be restored to their holdings, would be most imperfect. In relation to these evictions and disputes upon Irish estates, we have had
    1650
    many illustrations of similar difficulties in the ordinary trade disputes in this country. I have always looked upon the disputes on the Plan of Campaign estates much in the same light as I regard strikes in the large industrial concerns of this country. Again and again have we seen cases where, after the difficulties have been settled, the "blacklegs," if I may be allowed the vulgar expression, and I do not wish to do so offensively, have been sent back to the places whence they came, and the old hands reinstated, the "blacklegs" being allowed something by way of compensation. I think the same principle would be wisely applied to the case of the evicted tenants, and perhaps one plan of providing such compensation would be that some addition should be made to the value of the holding—it might be one year or two years, or the question might be left to the Land Commission. I am glad to find that even hon. Members like the hon. Members for South Tyrone and South Hunts, who have taken active parts against the Plan of Campaign, recognise that something should be done for these evicted tenants. It is clear that the question of purchase cannot be satisfactorily settled unless you have this point in view. I think it would be wise for the Chief Secretary to adopt the suggestion made a few minutes ago, that before accepting this clause he should give the matter further consideration, and see if he could not bring up another clause having a wider application than this clause has. It is in the interest of good government in Ireland that the question of evicted tenants should be settled on such a basis as will prevent difficulties in the future. I share with the hon. Member for West Belfast the feeling that it would be unfair to many of these men who have taken possession of evicted farms, and have worked upon them for some time, that they should be evicted therefrom without compensation, and I suggest the method of compensation to which I have alluded—an addition to the value of the holding and a repayment over the 49 years in the instalments. I believe the tenants who are most anxious to return to their holdings would be willing to consent to some such scheme, and the opportunity is offered to effect a settlement of one of the greatest difficul-

    1651
    ties the Government have ever had to deal with in Ireland.
    MR. KNOX: The Chief Secretary in, his remarks just now, which were of a particularly irritating character, did not admit that any credit for this clause is due to my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, and he said that it arose out of your ruling, Sir. But how, I ask, could that ruling have been obtained if my hon. Friend had not persisted, running the risk of accusations of obstruction, in raising again and again this question of the evicted tenants? My hon. Friend persisted, and he found that though but little of what we think ought to be done can be done in view of the relation of parties in this House, he found at last that something could be done, and I may add that this something may be of considerable value if it is clearly put forward as the wish of the Government that this clause should be taken advantage of by landlords—if it should be supplemented by what a former Chief Secretary once called "pressure within the law."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: This is a question in which I have ever taken a deep interest, and I cannot but express my satisfaction that the Government have admitted the clause as it at present stands. The success of the clause mainly depends upon the spirit in which the landlords of Ireland receive and act upon it. I cannot but hope that, having regard to the almost unanimous expression of opinion we have had, that the clause will be so accepted. I venture to hope that when we come to the discussion of details the Chief Secretary will be prepared to entertain the proposal of the hon. Member for West Belfast, and I can assure the Government that unless they can see their way to do something in that direction they cannot effect a complete settlement in this matter. The number of cases in which holdings have been made over to other tenants in place of the evicted tenants is comparatively small; but, however few the cases, they are unimportant, and the clause should not leave the House without such an extension as the hon. Member has suggested. However, matters of detail have to be dealt with later, and at present I have only to
    1652
    say that I view with great satisfaction the consent of the Government to the clause being read a second time, the spirit and tone of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for South Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry), and other representatives of the landlord class who have spoken.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time.
    MR. SEXTON: I now propose to leave out the limitation of time in the 1st sub-section. I was struck by an observation of the hon. Member for South Hunts in the Second Reading Debate, when he spoke of the danger of evicted tenants remaining in the district after eviction. Now, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman, and all who take an interest in the discussion of this clause, that if this limit of time is allowed to remain, evicted tenants will be divided into two classes—those evicted within the last five years and those evicted at an earlier period. The tenants evicted within the last five years will be allowed by the use of the credit of the State to return to their holdings, while those evicted at an earlier date, no matter how hard may have been the circumstances of their eviction, will be shut out from all participation in this advantage. There will be a danger that while the one class goes back to their holdings, the others will remain hanging about their old homes, to the detriment of the landlord and the tenants upon the estate. Generally speaking, the further back the eviction was the more reason is there that the tenant should be reinstated. If the eviction occurred 10 years ago, and the evicted farm has remained vacant ever since, the prospect of the landlord finding another tenant is obviously very near the vanishing point. Therefore, even in the landlords' interest alone, though I hope the House will not leave the tenants' interest out of view, but taking the landlords' interest as for the moment predominant, it is necessary that this limit of time should be removed. An evicted farm in Ireland means trouble to the Government, extra police, possibly outrage, extra cost in maintaining prisoners, and otherwise; the landlord loses the rent, and is put to expenses for caretakers, while the evicted tenants'

    1653
    existence is made miserable. It is not the time but the fact of eviction that is material
    Amendment proposed, in lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words "within five years."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: We cannot leave the provision without some limit. We felt in framing the clause a line must be drawn somewhere. I admit that five years will not cover all the evicted tenants, and if it will shorten discussion I am quite willing to insert ten years instead of five.
    MR. SEXTON: If I may be allowed a suggestion, evictions on a large scale began in 1879, and if the hon. Member will say 12 years there need be no further discussion upon the point.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I have already expressed my opinion against the introduction of such a clause and have nothing to add, but, since we are to have the clause, let us make it as little defective as possible. I agree that it is inexpedient to maintain the limit of five years, but the difficulty is what period shall be allowed. According to the principle of the hon. Member for West Belfast, we might go back to the Norman Conquest. It appears to me that it would be more convenient to name a period when a fresh departure in legislation took place than to have a fixed period of years. I would suggest the period should be since the passing of the Land Act, 1881.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I point out to my hon. Friend that there is really no difference between the period he has named and the proposed term of ten years.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: We are dealing with the case of untenanted farms, and how can it be an advantage to landlords that a difficulty should be put in the way of such farms being sold and properly occupied? Why we should have any limitation of date at all I cannot understand. The clause deals only with vacant farms, and even if it should, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, go back to the Norman Conquest, it would be so much the better for the landlords. The Land Act of 1881 was passed to cure evils which had been growing during the two preceding years, and the period proposed would just exclude the great
    1654
    evictions of 1879 and 1880. We should be most unnecessarily leaving behind a great sore if we omit from the benefits of the clause those men whose eviction date back to 1879. Why do you say our interest is only in the men of the Plan of Campaign? Why is it that they are the subject of the special solicitude of this House? There can be no reason for making a distinction between the different classes of evicted tenants. What you want is to get rid of the untenanted farms and evicted tenants. I should say you ought to have no date at all.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I cannot see what object there is in putting in any limitation whatsoever, because we are not by this clause applying any compulsion to anybody; we are only trying to facilitate voluntary agreements between landlords and tenants. Why you should exclude tenants who were evicted a certain number of years ago from coming to voluntary arrangements I cannot understand. I think hon. Members will agree that this House is not very easily moved to legislate for Ireland. In 1881 this House did legislate for Ireland in a very marked way. What caused the House to legislate for Ireland at that time? It was the fact that for some time up to 1878 high prices had ruled in Ireland. In 1879 the prices suddenly fell, and the rents which the Irish landlords had exacted from their tenants became impossible. Some few landlords exercised the rights which the law gave them in such a harsh manner that this House was forced to step in and interfere, but the legislation was in no way retrospective. The proposed limit of 10 years would exclude from the operation of the clause those very tenants whose hard cases of eviction led to the passing of the Act of 1881. If the hon. Member for South Tyrone would add two years, and make the limit 12 years, I think that would be perfectly satisfactory.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think there is force in what has been said by the hon. Member for West Belfast and repeated by the hon. Member for Meath. The agricultural distress out of which these early evictions sprang commenced in 1879; and if my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary sees no objection, I should be glad to substitute 1879 for 1881.
    MR. M. HEALY: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has made this concession, as I think it will cover almost every practical case, but may I suggest there is some danger in introducing any limit at all. The danger is that you may create doubt as to what the existing law is, and you may suggest to the Land Commission, that except in cases to which the limit applies, it would be illegal for them to make any advance at all. I think, this is a serious danger, and I have not in the course of the Debate heard any practical reason given for imposing a limit of time.
    MR. SEXTON: I would suggest that the date should be the 1st of May, 1879.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed, in line 1, after the word "determined," to insert the words "since the 1st day of May, 1879."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the words "Before the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    MR. ROBY: I wish to move the omission of the words" and the former landlord or his successor in title is in occupation of the holding." I cannot see why any class of tenants should be prevented from coming within the provisions of the clause.
    Amendment proposed, in lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words "and the former landlord or his successor in title is in occupation of the holding."—(Mr. Roby.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I confess I do not quite understand the object of the hon. Member. So far as I can make out, he proposes by leaving out the words to effect what the somewhat lengthy Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast proposes.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, if this is in order. If I understand the hon. Member rightly his Amendment would practically raise precisely the same question which the Committee disposed of on Tuesday night.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast would be out of order. On page 10, after Clause 6, the hon. Member proposed to insert a clause which practically amounted to this, that if the previous tenant made application the sitting tenant should be practically disqualified from purchasing under the Act. There is no difference in the present proposal which practically would prevent a particular person, who is a bonâ fide occupying tenant, from taking advantage of that which is expressly provided for his benefit; and this clause not only goes the same length as the clause previously discussed and divided on, but provides compensation in the event of eviction. Therefore, to discuss again the question of pre-emption of the last tenant over the sitting tenant, would be raising exactly the same point discussed for many hours on Tuesday night, and would be out of order. If the hon. Member were to make the arrangement voluntarily, of course it would be an entirely different matter.
    MR. SEXTON: I understand that this would not operate except by the will of the tenant. I would propose to insert in line 4 of my Amendment, after the word "may," the words "with the consent of the person who is in occupation."
    MR. ROBY: Do I understand you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that the Amendment I propose is out of order?
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment in substitution of that of the hon. Member for West Belfast, notwithstanding that it is a compulsory arrangement, and that it would cause great injustice to the occupying tenant by having pre-emption given against his will to an ex-tenant.
    MR. ROBY: I did not imply anything about compulsion. I desire to enable the landlord to enter into an agreement with the ex-tenant, even though he is not the tenant in possession.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: With the consent of the tenant in possession it might be.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move to omit from the clause of the hon. Member for South Tyrone the words "within six months of the passing of this Act." The Chief Secretary will agree with me, I think, that it is probable that these cases of evicted tenants will arise and be dealt with in connection with sales on estates by landlords to tenants who are in possession of their holdings. Many a landlord may not consent to sell for five years to come. Whenever; he comes to sell his estate to the occupying tenants there may be a ragged fringe of these evicted tenants to be dealt with. Will anyone "suggest why a landlord should be debarred from selling his whole estate and from admitting these evicted tenants? Then the evicted tenants may be scattered. Some may be at work in England and Scotland, and even in America, and time should be given to enable them to be communicated with. On grounds of practical convenience of the landlord and tenant, and also on the general ground that it is expedient to encourage these persons to purchase without limit of time, I would strongly urge the hon. Member to accept my Amendment.
    Amendment moved to the Clause, in lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words "within six months of the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not think that the same argument applies to this as applied to the last Amendment. I am of opinion that it is of the greatest importance that what is done should be done promptly, and with that view I think a statutory limit ought to be imposed. On the whole, looking to what I consider to be the absolute necessity of healing this long-existing sore in Ireland quickly, I must stand by the clause. I do not think there is likely to be as much difficulty in arranging matters as the hon. Member for West
    1658
    Belfast supposes. Both Parties in Ireland are weary of the strife; both Parties have been sadly injured, and if there is a chance of coming to terms, I think they will be glad to avail themselves of it. I believe six months is quite sufficient time, and I am, therefore, very much inclined to stand by the words in the Bill. As to the evicted tenants who may be in England or Scotland I have no doubt that their relatives in Ireland would communicate withthem.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has quite reflected on one of the aspects of this question. There are many estates in Ireland where the sitting tenants would be willing to perform the operation prescribed by this clause. Their bargains, however, could not be completed because of the existence of these discontented and unhappy and, in the opinion of their fellows, injured men, who are outside the possibility of the bargain. Now, we all know that it is a very long business for a landlord to come to an arrangement with the great body of his tenants. Landlords in this position, I have no doubt, have despaired of coming to any of these bargains, and, in many cases where such bargains have been possible, they have not even begun them. Now, I venture to say that anyone who knows anything of the operation of the Ashbourne Acts knows that six months is not enough time to effect these arrangements. Many of the evicted tenants may be as far off as America, and it appears to me quite plain that in the interest of the Act, the evicted tenants, and the tenants on the estate six months is not enough. The evicted tenants may be impecunious, and in all probability will be, and will require a longer period to complete all the necessary financial arrangements for purchase. I do not suggest a period, but I think three years is the very least that should be given.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not intervene in the Debate on the preceding Amendment, as it did not appear to me vital or material to the success of the clause. The limit might be fixed at 5, 10, or 12 years; but I think the new point that has been raised is one of much greater importance. I would strongly recommend the House to adhere

    1659
    to the clause as drafted by my hon. Friend. It is said that the negotiations between landlords and their tenants have dragged on interminably, and covered far more than six months. There have not been many such cases; but it is true that in some instances titles had to be examined and difficult negotiations had to be carried through, and tenants had to be persuaded—by their priests and others—that it was to their interest to purchase. But I hold that if, in these cases, the tenants had been told that they would have to settle in six months or not at all, they would probably have settled in six months, or three months, or two months. Recollect the amount of time required is not the amount necessary to complete the sale. All that is required is that the tenants should agree with their landlords to purchase on certain terms, and if six months is not enough for that, six years, and even 600 years, would not be enough. If you allow these matters to drag on, I am sure that, instead of allaying the sore about which we have heard so much today, you will be doing your best to keep it still open. I hope the House will adhere to the clause.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I had doubt on this matter until I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I have none now, for the reason he defends the six months is this—that the landlord will be able to say to the tenant, "You must agree for six months or not at all;" that is to say, that the landlord will be able to put the tenant under a pressure that I do not think he ought to be placed under under the circumstances. The shorter the time allowed the greater the screw put upon the tenants. I think the period of six months is unreasonably short, although it is for those hon. Members who are familiar with the working of these matters to say whether the time should be 12 months, two years, or even longer. If the period is made too short you will be defeating the object of the clause altogether.
    MR. RATHBONE: I cannot quite agree with either side on this question, and it seems to me that the real point lies between the two. It has been said that
    1660
    men who are now in America may wish to return. I think, however, that they are far better off where they are. But I do not believe a matter of this sort should be settled too rapidly, inasmuch as some of the tenants may want a fair interval in which to make up their minds. I would, therefore, suggest that the period should be 12 months instead of 6 months. I admit that in Ireland they are quicker in doing these things than we are. I quite see the object of the Amendment which is to prevent this matter dragging on.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I think that while six months may be a sufficiently long period for settling with one or two tenants it is not so for settling with all the tenants on an estate. The time should be extended to 12 months, and there should be a proviso for a further extension of 12 months on condition of a joint notice being presented by the landlord and the tenant. Such a proposal, if adopted, would enable landlords and tenants to bring matters to a satisfactory conclusion.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I strongly urge the Government to re-consider their decision in this matter. In nine out of ten cases in Ireland the landlord will refuse to sell unless he can sell his entire estate; and on the majority of estates the evicted tenants form the minority. Therefore, if the proposed time limit be retained, the evicted tenants will have to make their bargain under great pressure, for the other tenants will be in no hurry. The proposal practically curtails the existing rights and privileges of the evicted tenants. I urge most strongly upon the Government not to enlarge the period of time. I think the only point the hon. Member for South Tyrone was able to show in favour of his proposition was that some pressure should be brought to bear on these people.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I quite agree that most sales under the Act will be sales of the whole estate rather than of portions. This clause is brought before the House on the allegation made by hon. Members, that the evicted tenants are extremely anxious to buy, and that the landlords are anxious to sell to

    1661
    them. If that is so, there can be no difficulty in the parties to the agreement coming together. I protest against the enlargement of the proposed time limit, because it would only serve to keep open the existing agrarian difficulty. Hon. Members have spoken of the case of evicted tenants now in America; but the clause is not to be passed in order to bring back to Ireland men who are now in America. No one can assert that it would be well to bring a man back from a land where he has shaken off his old habits under the necessity of working for his living or of going rapidly to the wall.
    MR. KNOX: I would point out that the landlords will deal with the existing tenants first in effecting sales; and as we know the time which is occupied by these transactions, it will be a long time before the evicted tenants get an opportunity to purchase.
    MR. M. HEALY: I do not see why this discussion should be continued. The whole thing is sufficiently clear. You have a landlord willing to sell and a tenant willing to buy, and I do not see why any obstacle should be interposed between the two. The effect of this Amendment would be to bring together two people who have hitherto been kept at arm's length. One of the most efficacious modes of settling disputes of this kind up to the present time has been the process of arbitration, and if arbitration be adopted under this clause it will necessarily take some time to arrive at a decision. I think, therefore, that the limitation of six months which is attached to the clause is both unwise and dangerous. If the House wishes the clause to be really operative it will allow a sufficient time. I think, therefore, that the Amendment is a reasonable one, and I appeal to those who desire to render the clause workable to support it.
    MR. JORDAN: I would also urge that the proposal is a reasonable one. Six months in many cases would be too short, and I do not see what objection there can be to prolonging the period. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) has talked of six days being sufficient, but the hon. Gentleman can hardly get home to his place in Ireland "and open
    1662
    his letters in that time. I would suggest that in the interest alike of landlord and tenant the period should be made one year, which is the shortest term in which a satisfactory arrangement could be come to between the landlords and the evicted tenants. This would give the landlords time to consider whether they will sell and the tenants time to consider whether they will buy. To make the period 12 months would amount to what we call in Ireland splitting the difference. I am surprised that the hon. Member for South Tyrone adheres so rigidly to his clause as to refuse so reasonable a proposition. I would, therefore, endeavour to press upon the hon. Member the necessity of extending the time so as to prevent a large number of tenants from being left out in the cold through not having sufficient opportunity of coming to terms with their landlords. I myself know of one case in which negotiations have been carried on under the Ashbourne Acts for something like three years, and a final settlement has not even yet been arrived at. That is in the County of Fermanagh. I trust the House will permit this Amendment to be carried.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I would suggest that my hon. Friend should not press this Amendment, but should allow another to be moved substituting 12 months for six months. I agree with the hon. Member who tells us that months would not be a sufficient time in many cases for the completion of negotiations.
    MR. SEXTON: I am quite willing to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn."[Cries of "No!"]
    MR. P. J. POWER: I hope the Government will see their way to a favourable response to the appeals made from this side of the House. They must see that in many cases six months must necessarily be too short a period. I hope my hon. Friend will press this matter to a Division, because I think it desirable in the interests of Ireland.
    (7.31.) The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 75.—(Div. List, No. 263.)
    MR. SEXTON: I accept, of course, the decision of the House on the Main Question. Since the House has determined to retain the limit of six months after the passing of the Act, perhaps the Government may be disposed to make allowance for special cases by introducing the words "or such further period as for special cause may be allowed by the Land Commission." I move the insertion of those words.
    Amendment proposed to the Clause, in line 5, after the word "Act," to insert the words "or such further period as for special cause may be allowed by the Land Commission."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a far more tolerable suggestion than that which has just been negatived, but I do not think it will improve the Bill or the position of the ex-tenant. My imagination fails to conceive what are the special circumstances that could induce the Land Commission to extend the term. The harm that will be done by the Amendment will be that tenants will be tempted to put off arrangements to the last day in the hope that the term may be extended, and the very fact that a tenant entertains such a hope would militate against the settlement which all desire to see effected. The Amendment seems to me to be almost useless, and I certainly think that the Bill would be better without it.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I might advance one other reason against extending the term. There are too many happy-go-lucky people in Ireland—both landlords and tenants—who will not come to an agreement unless pressure is brought to bear upon them. If delay is but possible they will take advantage of it. I do not think any difficulty is likely to arise through keeping this limit. Both parties are, I believe, anxious to effect the settlement, and as the dispute generally is only one of price, six months ought to be an ample period to allow of an arrangement.
    MR. KNOX: The right hon. Gentleman asked as to what special
    1664
    causes my hon. Friend referred. Possibly the phrase is a little too vague. The special causes he had in his mind are no doubt those which may best be described by words used in the 7th clause dealing with sales to large tenants in exceptional cases—"Where it is necessary for carrying into effect other sales on the same estate." In cases where the bulk of the holdings on an estate are evicted farms, no doubt it would be possible to come to an arrangement within six months; but in cases where other tenants than evicted tenants have to be considered, it will be necessary to allow a somewhat longer period. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make this concession.
    MR. P. J. POWER: I could name several cases where negotiations have been going on for over six months. Surely it would be well to leave some discretion in this matter in the hands of the Land Commission. There must be cases in which there ought to be power-given to extend the time.
    MR. CRILLY: I think I traced a contradiction in what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman. A little while since, while opposing the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast, he said that purchase in Ireland was not bound specifically by the six months, and that if the Land Commission on the application of landlord and tenant came to the conclusion that insistence on the limit would interfere with the transaction they would be able to extend the time. Now he asks what special cause there could be for delay; what could possibly induce the Commission to extend the time? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he meant by his first statement?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think I made any such statement.
    MR. CRILLY: Yes; I took a note of it at the time. Unquestionably, the right hon. Gentleman said the purchase of these holdings was not absolutely bound by the six months, and that there was power to extend the time if it were seen that there was a disposition on the part of the tenant to buy and the landlord to sell. I am acquainted with a case under the Ashbourne Act in which the sale negotiations occupied a period of

    1665
    two years. Therefore, I do urge that this is a reasonable Amendment.
    MR. MACARTNEY: Although hon. Gentlemen opposite have been challenged to indicate the special causes which would justify an extension of time they have only advanced one, namely, when an arrangement has to be come to with two classes of tenants—evicted, and occupying on the same estate. It is perfectly obvious that negotiations with these two classes of tenants would have to be conducted on a totally different basis, and, therefore, the point does not apply.
    MR. KNOX: But several such cases have already occurred.
    MR. MACARTNEY: If so, and there was difficulty, there can be no necessity for enlarging the time.
    MR. KNOX: The negotiations took considerable time.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I do not think it would be possible, with regard to estates on which many farms are derelict, for the landlord to attempt to sell to the occupying and to the evicted tenants on the same terms. I think that the Land Commissioners themselves would be obliged to distinguish between the two sets of cases.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I think the hon. Member for South Antrim has advanced a strong argument in favour of the Amendment. He says that the cases of the sitting and of the evicted tenants must be considered separately. If that is granted, then surely there ought to be an extension of time in cases where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Land Commission that the extension is required for the purpose of carrying out different sales of holdings on the same estate. The Chief Secretary must be well aware that there are estates in Ireland where the landlord is not in a position to sell only one or two holdings, and supposing in those cases there were two evicted farms, the ex-tenants of which were willing to buy, and the landlord being willing to sell, it would be impossible to carry out the arrangement, because there might not be sufficient time to come to terms with the other tenants on the estate. All we ask for is an extension of time under these circumstances.
    MR. P. J. POWER: And there is the difficulty likely to arise if a landlord dies while the negotiations are pending.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: As my hon. Friend the Member for Water-ford points out, the landlord may die, and the new landlord not take possession within the limit of time, or the landlord may be abroad. Surely these are strong reasons for an enlargement of the period of six months. The concession we ask for is a very small one, and it will in no way interfere with the object of the limitation. Before the time can be extended it will have to be proved to the satisfaction of the Land Commission that the parties have practically come to an agreement, and it is only asked that, in order to prevent hardship being inflicted, this discretionary power should be conferred on the Court.
    MR. MAC NEILL: It is very much to be regretted that, on a point dealing with eminently legal and technical matters, the House should not have the benefit of the advice of the legal adviser to the Irish Executive. He has had large experience in the working of the Courts, and would have been able to explain the effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment. The hon. Member who has just sat down is the only Member taking part in this Debate who has had practical experience of the working of the Land Commission. He was a Land Commissioner himself for some years; he knows what the work really is, and he is fully in favour of this Amendment. When the Land Act of 1881 was passed a provision was inserted stating a limit within which applications to have fair rents fixed should be made. The result was that large numbers of tenants were unable to avail themselves of the benefit of the Act, and although the Commissioners strained the law to the uttermost point, a good deal of hardship was the result. And the same effect will follow on this clause if the Amendment be not inserted. There are many causes which might lead to delay. A landlord might die, he might be a lunatic, or he might be abroad. I say that in the interests of both landlord and tenant this Amendment is necessary. Why should a bargain, if struck, have to be rushed through in this way? The hon.

    1667
    Gentleman opposite said with great justice that different considerations would apply to tenants in possession and to evicted tenants. That is quite true, and you may be sure that the landlord will see that he gets full value for the holding. I say there is no magic in the period of six months. It is inequitable: it will tell badly for both parties. I therefore hold with my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan that on estates where the landlords have to deal with two classes of tenants the Land Commission ought to have power to extend the time if necessary. I shall be glad to know whether the hon. Member for South Tyrone is not aware of the enormous exertions made by the Land Commission to extend the time for lodging originating notices, and thus enable men who, through their misfortune, had not been able to comply with the requirements. This is a mere matter of equity, and I appeal to the Chief Secretary to make some concession.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I join with my hon. Friend (Mr. Mac Neill) in regretting that the Attorney General for Ireland is absent, for I think he would recognise that six months is an altogether insufficient period within which to lodge the necessary documents. Searching for title, for instance, is an exceedingly difficult thing, especially when it is connected with Irish land. Again, there must be negotiations between landlord and tenants as to the amount of the purchase money; there must be much correspondence and great difficulty in getting tenants together. The hon. Member for South Hunts might be on the Continent; indeed there are very many reasons why six months is an insufficient period. It is useless for the Chief Secretary to ask us to specify reasons: a hundred reasons might arise. It would be extremely difficult even to arrive at a preliminary agreement as to the number of years' purchase to be given by the tenants. All the work would have to be crowded into six months, and I greatly fear that if the limitation is not extended the clause will be nugatory. No matter how much diligence is shown; it will be absolutely impossible to complete all the arrangements in six months. I therefore
    1668
    appeal to the Chief Secretary to re-consider his decision.
    (8.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 92.—(Div. List, No. 264.)
    MR. SEXTON: Sub-section (3) is a great defect in the clause, and will place the tenant in an inferior position. It suggests that the landlord and tenant may agree at a price higher than the Land Commission are willing to sanction, and I think it takes too restricted a view of the question in regard to the amount of the advances. I do not think the Land Commission are bound, in considering what advance they may make, to limit themselves to a consideration of the state of the farm at the moment of the agreement. The Land Commission would not be obliged to value the farm, and I think there is no probability that the case contemplated in the 3rd sub-section will arise. Beyond being unnecessary, the sub-section is very prejudicial. An evicted man has been out of his farm for some years, living perhaps on public contributions, and you say to him, "You are not to be allowed to purchase unless you do a thing which we ask no other tenant to do—give security." Where is he to get the security? Such a provision would prevent transactions taking place under the clause.
    MR. P. J. POWER: Before we come to that I wish to move, in line 7, after the words "representatives," these words—
    "At a price to be fixed by the Land Commission on the application of either landlord or tenant."
    The Land Commission at present have the power of saying whether the security offered is a good security for the sum advanced by the landlord, but they have no power whatever to come to the assistance of either party in making a bargain. The result will be that in many of these cases the landlord will ask a price which the tenant cannot possibly give, and the Land Commission have no power at present to say what would be a fair sum to give for the farm. My object is to give them a discretionary power.
    Amendment proposed to the Clause,
    In line 7, after the word "representatives," to insert the words "at a price to be fixed by

    1669
    the Land Commission on the application of either landlord or tenant."—(Mr. P. J. Powr.)
    Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If this Amendment is inserted it will stultify the arrangement. It would make the clause compulsory.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I think the Amendment would be a good one if it meant an alternative arrangement, but at present I think it would weaken the whole clause.
    MR. SEXTON: The Amendment is defective in this respect: that it would limit the operation of the sub-section to the case of a reference to the Commission. I would suggest that my hon. Friend should make the Amendment read—
    "At a price agreed upon between the landlord and tenant, or a price fixed by the Land Commission upon the application of both parties."
    MR. P. J. POWER: I accept that.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed to the Clause,
    In line 7, after the word "representatives," to insert the words "at a price to be agreed upon between the landlord and tenant, or to be fixed by the Land Commission on the application of both parties."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MACARTNEY: This would be a boon to persons who are not tenants at all, which the hon. Member himself declined to grant to the occupying tenants.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. SEXTON: I have already stated my reasons for thinking Sub-section (3) unnecessary. If retained it will greatly prejudice the prospects of the clause.
    Amendment proposed to the Clause, to leave out Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The proposed purchaser from the Land Commission may have been reduced to something like poverty byhaving been out of his
    1670
    farm for two, three, or four years, while the farm may have been derelict and have gone to absolute wreck, growing nothing but weeds or thistles. The proposed purchaser comes before the Land Commission. The Inspector goes down and reports that, in view of the condition of the farm, there is the greatest danger in the Land Commission accepting the security of the land. This clause is drawn distinctly to facilitate the sale of a farm under these circumstances. (8.30.)
    (9.6.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. M. HEALY: It appears to me that the sub-section is based on an erroneous impression of what the law is, for under the existing law the Land Commissioners already have power to exact sufficient collateral security in such cases as the hon. Member for South Tyrone contemplates. They have exercised that power whenever they have thought fit—in fact, they have exercised it so as to call for considerable criticism in a portion of the Irish press. I do not think, therefore, that this sub-section will serve any good purpose. It seems to me that it would direct attention to a particular class of cases, and indicate to the Land Commission, in no obscure way, the intention of the legislature is that in the case of evicted tenants some additional security should be exacted. It must be remembered that a tenant who has been out of his holding for some time is likely to be a man who would experience the greatest difficulty in finding collateral security, in getting people to back his Bills. No doubt many of the holdings will have deteriorated, but when the Land Commission send down an Inspector to value the land, that Inspector will not consider it as land which could never be improved. The value of a holding is its value considering all the circumstances of the case, and taking into account the condition into which it can be brought by labour and skill. Therefore, it appears to me, that what the Land Commissioners would have to consider is not the present condition of the holding, which may have deteriorated through non-occupation, but whether the holding, having regard to all the

    1671
    circumstances, is worth the money the tenant asks for. If it is not of sufficient value, they will not, of course, make the advance. I am very much afraid that the effect of the sub-section will be to direct the Land Csmmission to advance any sum which the necessity of the tenant and the cupidity of the landlord combined may have made the subject of agreement. The effect of the sub-section would be in the interests of the landlord rather than in those of the tenant, and I think it would be both unnecessary and unjust to exact additional security from the evicted tenants under the circumstances referred to. It seems to me that the sub-clause would limit the discretion of the Land Commission, and induce them not to look too closely into the conditions of the purchase and the reckless bargain the landlord and tenant may have entered into. It may induce them to overlook the fact that the landlord has induced the distressed tenant to give too much for the holding. I believe that the hon. Member for South Tyrone drafted the clause with a good intention, but it appears to me it is open to grave objection, and is likely to be mischievous.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In a very few words I think I can show the hon. Member who has just sat down and the House, that it would be to the interest of both tenant and landlord that the sub-section should remain. It cannot be expected that the landlord will take less than a fair price for the land he sells, and as any depreciation of the holding through vacancy will fall upon him rather than the tenant, the landlord will be justified in asking the same price is if the holding had been held throughout. Owing to the fact that the land has not been cultivated, the tenant's portion of the holding may be depreciated to a certain extent; but the depreciation only will be temporary. The value of the holding will not be permanently affected. Bat the Land Commissioners may say that owing to the temporary depreciation the tenant may not be able to meet his instalments for the first two or three years, and they will take the risk into account. Under these circumstances it is to the interest both of the purchasing tenant and of the selling
    1672
    landlord, that a sale should take place, and some provision should be introduced by which the Land Commission may sanction a sale essentially fair in itself and which they could not sanction if some such sub-section were not inserted in the clause. Observe, the question is not whether the holding will be able to cover the necessary instalments for 49 years, but whether during the first few years the tenant will be able to pay the instalments, and it seems to me most important that we should place this discretionary power in the hands of the Land Commissioners. The hon. Member for West Belfast was discussing quite another question—the general condition of the evicted. He pointed out to us that the evicted tenants have a means of obtaining credit that is not open to other tenants. I agree with that. Through obtaining the credit in question they will be able to come to an arrangement with the landlords—an arrangement similar to that which is come to by tenants who have not been evicted. In case the sub-section is rejected, I fear no landlord will be willing to sell property which has not been deteriorated permanently in value, and which, after a few years of cultivation, ought to rise to the value it would have had if the tenant had never been evicted. In conclusion, I would strongly urge the House to adhere to this subsection.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: The value of the landlord's interest is no depreciated, that being the article you are selling. Why, therefore, do you want additional security from the tenant? You are asking the tenant to give a collateral security of his tenant right to the State, and this is the first we have heard of it. The value of the landlord's interest cannot be depreciated, but then we come to the tenant's interest. That may be depreciated, and therefore he is called on to give security to the State. Everybody admits that when an estate goes out of cultivation it will take an industrious tenant a year or two to get it back again. The question then will arise, who caused the depreciation? It may have been through want of cultivation, or it may have been through the landlord pulling down houses as in

    1673
    the case of the Vandeleur Estate. We know that landlords' agents have set fire to houses and have pulled them down, and under this sub-section tenants might be called on to give security to the State on account of loss sustained through the wilful acts of the landlords. Surely nothing could be more unreasonable. Nothing could be more outrageous. Take the case of the Vandeleur Estate. The tenants on that estate would be called upon to give security for loss which they never occasioned. I am greatly at a loss to understand how this sub-section can be defended on any logical basis. I will move the following addition to the clause:—"Unless such deteriorated value has been caused by the action of the landlord." Otherwise the operation of the sub-section would be grossly inequitable.
    MR. SPEAKER: That Amendment should be moved after the present Question has deen determined.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am quite unable to understand the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary or the motive of this clause. It appears to me that the only effect will be to put a difficulty in the way of the settlement of these cases. Many of the tenants will find their houses pulled down and their land covered with thistles and weeds. I think in such cases the tenants will find all their local credit exhausted in putting their house in order, and why you should impose further difficulties upon them by insisting upon security I cannot understand. I should have thought that the better plan would have been to relieve the tenants when they are first placed in their holdings from the operations of the first subsection of Clause 5, so as to enable them to obtain the full benefit of the reduction of their previous rent. It appears to me that the only effect of the sub-section will be to make arrangements far more difficult, and practically to interfere with the whole object the hon. Member has in view.
    MR. JORDAN: I think this sub-section can do no good, and may do a considerable amount of harm. It was not in the first draft of the new clause, and it was only after second thoughts, or
    1674
    further inspiration, that the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) introduced it. It is objectionable in many ways. It throws on the Land Commission the assumption that the holding is temporarily deteriorated. I know something about land, and, as a matter of fact, the landlord's interest in the holding is not deteriorated because the land has not been cultivated for a few years. The hon. Member has ridden about on an outside car in summer time, and has seen the hay growing on derelict farms, and concluded that it was weeds and thistles. As a matter of fact, if these things are allowed to rot they enrich the land. ["Oh, oh!"] It is so. I am not a literary character, like the hon. Member for Tyrone. I worked on a farm in the early part of my life, and I know what I am talking about. If a tenant is evicted it is difficult for him to obtain security. He may receive doles from associations, but security is another thing. His own note of hand will not be taken as security, and I assure the House it is a most difficult thing for small farmers to obtain security to the extent of £5 or £10. Neighbours sympathise with them, but if you ask a neighbour to put his name upon stamped paper he will hesitate for fear of the consequences. I know it is most difficult to get people to put their names on a note, even for amounts due by themselves to shopkeepers. One would think, from the way in which this clause is drawn, that you were dealing, not with Irish farms, but with London houses in regard to which there is an engagement to paint and paper at certain periods. I think that if any person is to give security, it should not be the tenant; and if any person is to be compensated for temporary depreciation, it should be the tenant. In the case of the tenants on the Vandeleur Estate, the arbitrators assessed their loss at a sum equal to four years' rent. I do not say that that was not excessive; but it is clear that the tenants were entitled to compensation for the loss occasioned by their eviction. In this case I would neitherassess damages against the tenant nor the landlord; and I maintain that, under all the circumstances of the case, this is a bad sub-section, and one only adopted on second thoughts.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I venture to express a hope that the hon. Gentleman who has moved the omission of the sub-section will not press his Motion. We have had an interesting lecture from the hon. Member who has just sat down on practical agriculture; and I am far from denying his right to speak with authority on the subject. It is, no doubt, true that certain classes of farms will not deteriorate by allowing hay and grass to rot on them; but, on the other hand, many farms will deteriorate if left uncultivated. In such a case, although the tenant is anxious to buy, the Land Commission may think the land, owing to deterioration, not a sufficient security, and the tenant's application to purchase will be refused: It is, therefore, in the interest of the tenant that the sub-section should be retained. It is said that the difficulty as to security may be met by dispensing with the Insurance Fund. But, surely, it would not be a sound principle to dispense with the Insurance Fund in a case which is ex hypothesi a risky one. On the whole, I think this sub-section a most valuable portion of the clause, because it would render possible transactions which would otherwise be impossible.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: The right hon. Gentleman has left out of sight the fact that it is the Treasury who are buying those farms, and that they are doing so at a greater price than their selling value. The right hon. Gentleman has been deceived by the phrase which has been used so frequently to-day—the tenant-purchaser. It is not the tenant who buys the farm. The Treasury buys, and has to recover during the next half century the capital value of the land by instalments paid in addition to the rent. Now the Treasury is asked to buy these farms for greater than their actual selling value. This is a sub-section put forward, not in the interest of the Treasury or of the tenant, but solely in the interest of the landlord, in order that he may get a higher price for the land. It is not in the interest of the tenant, for he, in some way or other,
    1676
    will have to pay annual instalments which will represent more than the selling value of the land. If this land had to be sold, not in Ireland, but in England, does the right hon. Gentleman opposite mean to say that it would sell for as much if deteriorated as it would if it were not deteriorated? We are bound to put ourselves into the position of the landlords who are selling the land, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I see present, if private individuals would buy deteriorated land for as large a capital sum as they would give for land which was not deteriorated? No one in his senses would say that they would. And I would ask this: Would any English landlord wish to buy an estate with such terms upon it, and with tenants in such a condition that the only means they had of paying rent was by borrowing money. Everybody knows that a material reduction in the selling price would be made under such circumstances. I hold, therefore, that any deduction which in such circumstances would be made in a private contract, ought also to be made in a public contract. The sub-section would not be in the interest of the State or the tenant, who would have to find the security. It would be in the interest of the landlord, and that alone.
    MR. COLLERY: The credit of the evicted tenants is at present at such a low ebb that no sensible man would become security for them, and, therefore, if security is insisted upon, it will simply be taking away with one hand what you have given with the other. If this sub-section is retained it will practically put a stop to the purchase of farms by evicted tenants.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I cannot understand on what grounds it can be necessary to require further security from the tenant, because the property that would be deteriorated would not be the landlord's property, but the tenant's interest. I know that it has been the practice of the Land Commissioners to agree to the sale of farms that have somewhat deteriorated under similar circumstances on the landlord increasing the amount of the guarantee deposit. I desire to ask if this passes in

    1677
    its present form, will it be in the power of the Land Commission to permit the landlord to increase the guarantee deposit instead of requiring the tenant's security, or will this operate as a direction to the Land Commission not to advance the money under the circumstances unless there is that security?
    (9.46.) The House divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 65.—(Div. List, No. 265.)
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I beg to move to add to the sub-section words providing that the Land Commission shall not make the advance, even upon the purchaser giving sufficient security, where the deteriorated value has been caused by the action of the landlord. I trust the hon. Member who has moved the clause will see his way to accept the Amendment. The clause will Act as a mandatory provision to the Land Commission, and the Commission, when the valuer reports that the land has been deteriorated, will be bound under it to demand security on account of that deterioration. Take the case where the deterioration has been the burning or pulling down of a house by the landlord, surely in such a case the tenant should not be called in to give an increased security. I think the deterioration should be confined to that which has taken place through the action of the tenant.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "unless such deterioration in value has been caused by the action of the landlord."—(Mr. Matthew Kenny.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I would ask the hon. Member what he would do in cases where the injury to the house has occurred through the tenant resisting eviction?
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I should decide in such a case that the damage was the fault of the tenant.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then I say there has been scarcely one case of injury to property which has not resulted from the resistance of the tenant.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I have now to move an Amendment to come in after the word "depreciation," in the following terms: "Unless the landlord shall consent to increase the guarantee deposit to the amount that will satisfy the Land Commission." There may be cases in which the tenant may find it impossible to get the required security, but in which the landlord might be willing to meet the difficulty in this way. I know of several cases where the landlord, after having come to terms with his tenant, reinstating him for the purpose of enabling him to make application to the Land Commission for a loan; the Land Commission have refused to sanction the loan, on the ground of deterioration of the holding, but have subsequently sanctioned it upon the landlord agreeing to increase his guarantee deposit. I think the Amendment might allow a certain additional number of cases to come within the clause when the tenant cannot find the required security.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause, to add the words "unless the landlord consent to increase the guarantee deposit to an amount which shall satisfy the Land Commission."—(Mr. Mahony.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not think this Amendment can be accepted, nor would it promote settlements. In most cases the landlord would not be in a position to act in this way, having had no rent for years. If the tenant requires help, he may get it from the neighbouring tenants, or from those friends to whom the hon. Member for West Belfast has alluded, who are so deeply interested in the tenant's welfare.
    MR. SEXTON: This last remark is a curious illustration of how much ignorance may prevail, even among those who are nominally Irish representatives. I never said that the tenant's friends would assist in finding security. I said in reference to the suggestion that the evicted tenants were paupers, that they would receive help on being restored to their holding in resuming the cultivation. A sack of oats for seed, a supply of food on the security of the coming crop, is a very different thing to an unlettered man to putting

    1679
    his hand to paper, becoming security for a legal claim. The hon. Member has mistaken the purpose of the Amendment. Instead of the Land Commission exacting an increased guarantee deposit, there is no question of "shall," but the landlord "may" if he pleases increase the guarantee to carry through the transaction. But I may direct attention to the third section of the Act of 1885, and by that I believe that if the landlord, or anybody else, is willing to increase the amount of guarantee there is nothing to prevent this being done.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: I need occupy but a few minutes in proposing the next Amendment.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say I think the Amendment standing next in the name of the hon. Member is inadmissible. The House has been dealing with the case of farms vacant, or in the occupation of the landlord, but the hon. Gentleman now proposes that where the holding is in the occupation of a new tenant an agreement between the landlord and the former tenant shall operate as a determination of the new tenancy. This is a compulsory action, whereas action under the clause is voluntary. The proposed Amendment is not relevant to this clause, and it would not be in order to move it.
    MR. SEXTON: Perhaps, Sir, you will allow me to explain that the clause deals not only with derelict farms, but with farms in the occupation of the landlords. Secondly, the question decided is that where a sitting tenant wishes to purchase, and the evicted tenant offers a higher price, the offer of the evicted tenant shall be accepted.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman introduces entirely new matter by his proposal, he introduces the question of compensation.
    MR. SEXTON: I suppose, Sir, I should be entitled to raise the question in the form of a new clause?
    MR. SPEAKER: I must see the clause first. It is a question of how far it is consistent with the decision of the House, that negotiations should be concluded under which the Land Commission would
    1680
    be bound to put the former tenant over the head of the existing tenant.
    MR. SEXTON: The objection might be met by the introduction of the words "with the consent of the person aforesaid."
    MR. SPEAKER: Then I fall back on the original objection that it has nothing to do with the clause with which we are now dealing.
    Clause, as amended, added.
    MR. ROBY: I have some hesitation about moving the new clause standing in my name. I am not clear whether it would be in order.
    MR. SPEAKER: The clause would not be in order. The introduction of a new tenant over the head of the sitting tenant would be disabling not an enabling clause.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The clause I have now to propose is a very simple one, but it will, I think, conduce to the efficient working of the Act. It is a proposal that where an agreement has been made between landlord and tenant the Land Commission shall have power to settle disputes as to boundaries, rights of way, and matters of that kind. The right of way to, and use of, a well, for instance, is often a matter of dispute, and it is desirable that the Commission in effecting the sale of an estate should have the power of settling such disputes and so preventing future litigation. It is a simple clause and I hope it will be accepted.
    New Clause—
    (Power of Land Commission to determine disputes between tenants.)
    "Where any tenants of an estate have agreed to purchase their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts, the Land Commission shall have power, if they think fit, to determine for the purposes of the sale, all questions which may arise respecting the boundaries of the holdings, easements, turbary, or appurtenances claimed by any of the tenants of such estate against any other such tenants of the same estate; but if the Land Commission think it expedient to refer the matter to the decision of an ordinary court, they shall not be bound to determine the matter under this section,"—(Mr. T. W. Russell,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    COLONEL NOLAN: This, I think, will prove a most useful clause. I know disputes of this kind do continually arise, and they will continually arise under this Bill. If they are peaceful people they settle the dispute among themselves, but if they are fond of litigation, they go to Quarter Sessions, where the Chairman leaves it to the landlord, who does often settle the matter after a fashion. Certainly I think these are matters the Land Commission might very well decide, it will save the tenants from possible expense and discourage the habit of constant litigation.
    COLONEL WARING: I hold an entirely opposite opinion to that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. If the clause is agreed to the Land Commission will have to investigate many small and infinitesimal questions, and great delay will arise in consequence of the Commission doing this work. We, who know Irish life, are familiar with these local disputes, and I think they had better be left to the rough but efficient methods of settlement indicated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The landlord does not like the duty, but he is the person best acquainted with the facts, and is not personally interested. I shall vote against the clause.
    MR. M. HEALY: I quite agree that when the purchase of a holding is effected, there may be a constant tendency to litigation over questions of right of way, of turbary, bog, seaweed, and questions of that kind, and if any official procedure could be desired by which a satisfactory settlement could be arrived at without resort to a Court of law, I shall support it. But I have carefully read the clause proposed by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and it seems to me it proposes an inadequate method of dealing with such questions, and will introduce enormous obstacles in the way of land purchase. What has happened in the Land Purchase Court? By virtue of the Act of 1887, there are powers existing by which the Land Commission can hold an inquiry such as is held in the Landed Estates Court; but they have wisely refused to exercise
    1682
    those powers, because it would involve the going through that process which renders a sale in the Landed Estates Court such an enormous burden to the parties concerned. When an estate is sold in that Court the rights of everybody have to be ascertained, every conceivable right has to be adjusted, and the Court has been compelled to enact a series of rules, and the sale is a most costly and elaborate proceeding. More than that, I think the endeavour to prevent litigation by the definition of rights will lead to more litigation than if those rights are left at large. For more than 40 years the learned Judges in the Landed Estates Court have gone on trying to settle these rights, and though they have done it efficiently, it has been at the expense of an enormous delay in the business of the Court. The Land Purchase Commissioners have the same power under the existing law, and may proceed by vesting order, having the same effect as a Landed Estates Court conveyance, but wisely they have decided not to do this, because it would involve elaborate inquiry and long delay. In the Landed Estates Court these inquiries are only made as between estates, but the Land Purchase Commissioners would have to make these inquiries as between different holdings on an estate, so it appears to me the task imposed upon the Commissioners would be highly calculated to enormously delay the proceedings in their Court. I am desirous that the Land Commission should decide such matters if it could be done cheaply, and without delay, but I doubt the possibility of that. I certainly cannot advise acceptance of the clause.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I sympathise with the object of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, but there are so many difficulties in the way of arriving at the object aimed at by the clause, that I hope my hon. Friend will not press it. Anybody who knows anything of Irish agrarian life, knows how many questions of this kind arise. I feel certain that, while agreeing with the hon. and gallant Member opposite that there would be an advantage in the Land Commission deciding such questions, they could not do so without an expenditure of time and trouble they

    1683
    cannot afford. I think the tenants themselves would not desire to see their right, real or supposed, decided by a tribunal like the Land Commission. It would deprive Irish country life of all excitement if, after abolishing the landlord you take away from the Irish tenant one of the first joys of life, "having the law" of his neighbour. There is in my neighbourhood a well, access to which has been the cause of numerous faction fights and proceedings rising therefrom, and some actions for slander and libel, and I am not sure that a countryman of mine is not now undergoing penal servitude as the result of a part he took in a fight in reference to this well. I do not believe that the Land Commission could ever discharge this task if it were imposed upon them, and if their decision were made a condition, I am afraid it would put an end to negotiations for purchase.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: The 9th clause of the Ashbourne Act gives powers identical with these, with the exception of the rights of turbary, but this section has remained inoperative, so that manifestly the Land Commission is not a competent tribunal to decide questions of boundaries, rights of way, easements, and so on. Those familiar with matters in the County Courts of Ireland, know how these questions are raised; how from 20 to 40 witnesses are ranged on one side, and a like number on the other, how maps and plans are produced and proved by engineers, how the oldest inhabitant is brought up to depose that nobody ever went that way without the consent of plaintiff, and the next oldest inhabitant asserts that it has been the custom to pass that way without any man's leave. If the Land Commission is going to undertake the settlement of these questions there is no limit to the time that will be required to get through the sale of one estate.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have listened with considerable interest to the discussion, and I sympathise with the object my hon. Friend has in view, but as it appears that hon. Members from Ireland consider that their countrymen have a natural taste for litigation, from the indulgence of which it would
    1684
    be cruel to deprive them. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone will not run counter to the national proclivities, but will withdraw the clause.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: Despite the natural proclivities, I hope the hon. Member will not withdraw the clause. I have not forgotten the remarks the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland addressed to the barristers at Cork. The learned Judge congratulated the Members of the Bar on the prospect of increased litigation, owing to the passing of the Land Purchase Act. I think this clause is calculated to diminish litigation, and that is my reason for giving it my most cordial support. The junior Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy) referred to the fact that the Landed Estates Court has to define all rights, and that that leads to great delay in carrying out sales. Yes, but what is proposed by this clause is a totally different matter. The Landed Estates Court has to make the most careful inquiry; they have to serve notice on every interested party, and once they have completed their inquiries no one can go behind them. The hon. Member for South Tyrone does not propose that the Land Commission should do anything of the kind. He only proposes that where an application is definitely made to them they should be empowered to come to a decision. If there is difficulty in coming to a decision, if it appears to the Land Commissioners that the inquiry would cause delay, all they have to do is to refuse to come to a decision, and send the matter to some other Court. If the clause is read a second time, I think it would be worth the while of the hon. Member to consider whether it would not be wise to accept an Amendment empowering the Land Commissioners to make inquiry in cases of this kind through a sub-commissioner on the spot.
    MR. KNOX: My objection to the clause is not at all that of the hon. Member for South Antrim. The hon. Member seemed to object to the provision on the ground that it would stop litigation. I think it would cause increased litigation; that it would cause a whole crop of claims to arise on the

    1685
    occasion of a sale. Sub-section 2 of Section 9 of the Ashbourne Act of 1885, has not been used in many cases because it was felt that if it was once proposed to inquire into every easement affecting the holding there would be such a long course of litigation that the sales would not be sanctioned for perhaps many years. The Land Commissioners felt they really could not go into these matters. Though sometimes, unfortunately, there may be litigation, as a rule these questions settle themselves. I have known cases in which tenants have ruined themselves by litigation over trifling rights of way, but for one case in which there has been litigation, there have been half a dozen cases of dispute in which there has been no litigation. If this clause were passed there would be an inducement to the tenants who have any dispute with their neighbours to make claims, and there would be litigation lasting I do not know how long before the sale could be carried out. This Amendment is not, therefore, to be desired in the interest of the tenants, whereas it is greatly to be desired in the interest of the lawyers.
    MR. LEA: One thing has struck me, and that is the clause has been opposed almost altogether by lawyers in the House. That is sufficient to cause one to be a little suspicious. The hon. Member for Mid Tyrone says the clause does not differ from the clause in the Land Act of 1881. If that is the case, what possible objection can there be to it? I know that the late Land Commissioners, Mr. Litton and Mr. Justice O'Hagan, longed that there was some such clause as this, which would give them power to settle disputes very much to the benefit of the tenants. This is essentially a clause in the interest of the tenants, and one the House ought to pass when it is passing an Act for the benefit of the tenants.
    MR. MADDEN: If the House has to come to a decision upon the clause it is well to have a clear understanding as to how the clause will affect the existing law. It is not the fact that all that the clause proposes can be done by the Commissioners under the powers of the 9th section of
    1686
    the Act of 1885. Under that section the decision of the Commissioners can only apply to a vesting order, and not to advances to complete sales by conveyance. But a greater difference is that under the Act of 1885 the Commissioners must either leave the rights, easements, and boundaries wholly undetermined, or they must determine every right or easement affecting the holding, while under the present clause the Commissioners may without going into the question of easements generally decide any little twopenny-halfpenny question that barred the way to an agreement, not touching other details. The Commissioners may determine, if they choose, some question affecting a boundary or pathway, without going into the whole question, and this specific power may be usefully exercised.
    MR. JORDAN: The fact that this clause is opposed by the lawyers of the House is one reason that commends it to my support. If this clause will only prevent the ruinous litigation which takes place in Ireland it will be most valuable. I know of one case where the rent was ¾d. a year, and where two neighbouring tenants spent hundreds of pounds in litigation, collecting the money for the legal expenses from their friends. If the sale of the land was conditional upon the consent of the tenants to settle these easements the tenants would soon come to terms. Instead of retarding sales this clause will facilitate them.
    MR. SMITH-BARRY: I think that this proposal, although made with the best intention, is scarcely likely to carry out its object. I am afraid it will lead to more litigation than is supposed, but perhaps if the hon. Member were to amend his clause by inserting the words "at the request of the tenants," all objections might be met.
    (10.45.) The House divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 47.—(Div. List, No. 266.)
    MR. M. HEALY: I beg to propose, after the word "where," at the commencement of the clause, to leave out the word "any," and insert "all the tenants." As the clause stands, any one tenant who purchases his holding has the right to cite any other tenants before

    1687
    the Land Commission. When all the tenants on an estate purchase, and when the land passes completely out of the landlord's hands, you may well say the Land Commission shall have power to adjudicate on the rights of the tenant, but where only a fractional part of the tenants purchase, I am surprised it is proposed that one or two tenants purchasing shall have the power to drag all the other tenants before the Land Commission, and have the Land Commission determine summarily all questions relating to boundaries, and so on. I say there is no justification whatever for taking the case out of the charge of the ordinary legal tribunal, and I am amazed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have consented to do so. I beg to move the substitution of the words "all the" for "any."
    Amendment proposed, after the first word "Where," to leave out the word "any," in order to insert the words "all the,"—(Mr. M. Healy,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. MADDEN: The Government cannot accept that Amendment. The clause will, however, have to be altered slightly, in order to make the intention of the House clear.
    MR. KNOX: I think the clause by no means meets the necessities of the case. It is almost impossible to imagine how a question of turbary can be decided under it as it stands, without prejudicing the interests of adjoining tenants. In the case of a dispute between a landlord and a purchaser the Court may come to a decision without knowing about the claims of adjoining tenants who have not purchased, and seriously affect their interests. I think the clause should only apply to those cases in which the whole of the tenants on an estate have agreed to purchase at once.
    MR. SEXTON: The question of turbary may be common to all the tenants on an estate. Yet by this exceedingly raw and crude proposal two or three of the tenants who happen to buy may go into the Land Commission Court and have a question settled which affects not only them, but numbers of other
    1688
    tenants. I think that would be most disastrous. I cannot imagine why it is necessary thus to pile question upon question, involving delay and expense. Why should this matter be taken out of the hands of that cheap tribunal—the County Court?
    MR. MADDEN: If the alteration is made which I have to suggest the jurisdiction will only exist in cases where the claim is made by one purchasing tenant against another, and against him alone.
    COLONEL WARING: This proposition appears to complicate things considerably. A tenant may buy his farm. He may have a dispute with the adjoining tenants, one of whom has purchased, while the other has not. In one case he will be obliged to go before the Land Commission, and in the other before the County Court Judge. Is that simplifying the matter? The arrangement now in force works very well, and the alteration will only lead to confusion.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim described just now how many dozens of heads were broken over one of these disputes. I really think the House ought not to whittle down the effects of the last Division. It was by no means a Party vote. I am well acquainted with this question of turbary, and I declare that neither this nor any other clause will settle it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I wish to move to insert, in line 2, after the word "shall," the words "if requested by them." I am strongly opposed to this clause. Great difficulties will be created on estates where only a portion of the holdings have been sold.
    Amendment proposed, in line 2, after the word "shall," to insert the words "if requested by them." — (Mr. Macartney)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I may offer advice to my hon. Friend opposite, it will be that he should accept this Amendment. I am not quite sure whether the words proposed are the best

    1689
    likely to carry out his intention. I understand his object is to leave it to the contracting parties to voluntarily bring in the Land Commission as judges in this matter. Probably the best words would be "if they think fit," or "where the agreement for sale so provides." It would conduce to the harmony of these proceedings if some such Amendment were accepted.
    MR. SEXTON: If such a suggestion bad been made half an hour ago by the right hon. Gentleman it would have saved much debate.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: In line 6 I propose to add words giving the power to appoint Sub-Commissioners for the purpose of enabling them to hold a local inquiry.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 6, after the word "estate," to insert the words "and may appoint a Sub-Commission for the purpose of holding any inquiry which they may deem necessary." —(Mr. Pierce Mahony.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. M. HEALY: My opinion is that at present the Land Purchase Commissioners have no power to appoint Sub-Commissioners. This would consequently be an innovation of doubtful wisdom. If when you have one County Court Judge doing work of this kind you dispense with his services and appoint three gentlemen in Dublin, you will have to send them into the country to decide a trumpery case which might well have been left to the County Court Judge.
    COLONEL WARING: I take it the Land Commissioners will be men of common sense, and after what has been said they probably will not trouble themselves at all about this clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I beg to move the omission of the last three lines of the clause. I think they are totally unnecessary.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "but" to end of Clause. —(Mr. M. J. Kenny.)
    MR. MADDEN: In my opinion these words are unnecessary.
    MR. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what will be the nature of the procedure of this Court? Will it proceed by affidavit, or take evidence in Court? What does the clause as it stands mean? I have not the slightest idea.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended, be added to the Bill."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I shall take the sense of the House upon this clause. I regard it as a thoroughly bad one. It is utter nonsense. The only hope I have is that the Land Commission will exercise common sense, and refuse to put the clause into operation. We are now told that it will only operate in the case of simple disputes. In the course of my experience in the Law Courts I have never heard of such a limitation. There was no procedure laid down in the clause, but whatever manner of deciding the case is adopted, it will necessarily be imperfect and unsatisfactory.
    The House divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 85.—(Div. List, No. 267.)
    MR. LEA: I rise to move the clause standing in my name.
    MR. SEXTON: I rise to order. I submit that the clause standing in the hon. Member's name is one that cannot be accepted, inasmuch as it is in direct contravention of Clause 14.
    MR. SPEAKER: Inasmuch as the Land Commission have jurisdiction in matters included in this Bill, I think a clause dealing with the powers of the Land Commissioners would be in order.
    MR. LEA: I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned, seeing that the clause which stands next in my name deals with a matter of great importance.
    MR. SEXTON: I shall oppose the Motion, and I cannot see why we should be placed at a disadvantage by the hon. Member. If it is pressed I shall divide.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: This is probably one of the most important questions that can be dealt with in the whole Bill, and there should be ample time for its consideration.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has not moved yet.
    MR. LEA: The new clause I have to move is as follows:—
    "Nothing in section seventeen of 'The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885,' shall be deemed to limit the jurisdiction of any member of the Land Commission under Part V. of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, and the Acts amending the same, and anything done by any member of the Land Commission in carrying the said Acts into effect shall be as valid and effectual as if it were done by the Land Commission: Provided that any person aggrieved by the decision of any Commissioner acting alone in carrying the said Acts into effect, may require his case to be reheard by three Commissioners, of whom the Judicial Commissioner shall be one, but none of such Commissioners shall be the Commissioner before whom the case was originally heard.
    All rules to be made by the Land Commission for carrying into effect the Land Purchase Acts, as amended by this Act, shall be made by a majority of the Commissioners, which majority shall include the Judicial Commissioner."
    The hon. Member for West Belfast complained of disadvantage, but I believe the greatest disadvantage will be to myself; for when I withdrew my clause in Committee the hon. Member said he would make it hard for me on the Report stage. In having to move the clause at this hour—close upon 12 o'clock—I shall not be able to reply to the numerous speeches which hon. Members will make, so that the advantage lies with those gentlemen. This clause stood first in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone; but, owing to illness, he did not move it, and I adopted it in principle, though not in words. I am rather surprised that during the Debates we have heard so little with regard to the question of administration; and yet it is one almost more important than legislation itself. Ulster has never been properly considered in this question of administration. Over and over again complaint has been made that that province is scarcely represented on the Land Commission, and not at all on the Land Purchase Commission. A good many people might fancy that there is no further need
    1692
    of administration with regard to this matter; but in four or five important particulars the Bill is entirely different to the system of the Ashbourne Act or that which the Land Purchase Commissioners had to administer up to the present time, and these are reasons why the present Land Purchase Commissioners, as at present constituted, cannot properly administer this Bill.
    It being Midnight, Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
    Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND CHARGES [PAYMENTS.]
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, and, so far as those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums lent by the National Debt Commissioners for the commutation of annuities under 'The Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889,' in pursuance of any Act of the present Session, to amend certain provisions of the Law with respect to money charged on or payable out of the Consolidated Fund, and with respect to Public Accounts."
  Resolution agreed to.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND CHARGES BILL.—(No. 252.)
  Considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  FORGED TRANSFERS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 323.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1890.
  Copy ordered, "of Tables showing the Progress of British Merchant Shipping." —(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 269.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.