Commons Sitting of 16 July 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LLANELLY HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now considered."
  MR. ABEL THOMASmoved to leave out the words "now considered," in order to add instead thereof the words "re-committed to the former Committee in respect of Clause 75."—[Clause 75,—HARBOUR RATES.]
  "The Commissioners may demand and take for or in respect of articles mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act exported or imported over he Bar any rates not exceeding the respective rates specified in that Schedule. The said rates are in this Act referred to as "Harbour Rates."]

  1615
  He said he should not have moved this Resolution had he not felt that if the Bill passed in its present form it would really cause a very serious injustice to a large number of traders, who traded in a neighbouring port to the port of Llanelly itself. He proposed that the Bill should only be re-committed so far as Clause 75 was concerned, and his Motion did not in any way affect any other part of the Bill. If the clause, or the subject of the clause, had come before either a Committee of the House of Lords or House of Commons, and had been discussed by them, he should have considered the matter had been inquired into, and should have no right to interfere by trying the get the Bill re committed. The position was this: The Llanelly Port and Harbour Commissioners wished to improve their port. The harbour of Llanelly was on an estuary of a river called the Burry River and the Llwchwr River, and above four miles lower down on the mouth of the estuary there was another port called the Burry Port in behalf of the traders of which place he suggested the Bill should be re-committed. The whole object of the Llanelly Port and Harbour Commissioners was to improve their own port, and in no sense could it be understood or thought that they were going to improve the Burry Port. The lines of deviation of any of the alterations they were entitled to make did not come within two miles of the entrance to the Burry Port. For 60 years both the ports had been carrying on business in the estuary, and no harbour dues could be charged upon goods taken into the estuary unless they were shipped or unshipped in the port of Llanelly itself; but by the alteration which had been made in Section 75 any ships in future crossing the bar whether loaded or discharged at Burry Port or Llanelly, would have to pay for coal 2d., and other goods such as tin plates, harbour dues at the rate of 6d. a ton. There were 125,000 tons shipped and unshipped in Burry Port, and the traders would be mulcted to an amount of £1,000 a year for the purpose of improving Llanelly Harbour. When the Bill came before the House of Lords Committee the rights of the Burry Port people were not affected, but when it came to the House of Commons the clause was altered. None of the shippers knew
  1616
  that their rights were going to be interfered with, and consequently were not represented, so that the question was never raised in either House. It was obvious that where Committees were formed they took all the care they possibly could in regard to the clauses of the various Bills which came before them. But there were 137 clauses in this Bill, and however clever the Chairman or Members of the Committee might be, it was utterly impossible for them to go through clause by clause the whole of a Bill of the kind and find out how it would work with respect to one particular class of persons unless their minds were directed to that specific matter. On the promoters' own showing this was never raised, and although he agreed that it was not a good way of doing business to refer matters back to Committees when they had once considered them, if by some accident a really gross injustice would be perpetrated which was never called to their attention, an exceptional case was made out, and it was the duty of the House to refer the Bill back to the Committee that they might reconsider Clause 75. He could not help thinking that when it was seen that the whole of the Bill was intended for the benefit of Llanelly, they would say that it was ridiculous to make Burry Port pay Llanelly £1,200 a year for the pleasure of having their opponents, the Llanelly Harbour people, improving their own works that they might compete with them. He was quite independent in this matter. Burry Port was in his constituency and so was Llanelly, although it was a borough represented in the House. There were as many of his own supporters or the supporters of his opponents living in Llanelly as in Burry Port. He felt that such an injustice was being done to Burry Port that, if it were brought home to the minds of the people in Llanelly, they would be the first to say they did not want to get an improvement to their harbour at the expense of a neighbouring and similar port.
  MR. LLOYD MORGANin seconding the Motion, said it was clear that the insertion of Clause 75 in the Bill involved great hardship on the traders of Burry Port. They had always been willing to pay for any extra facilities they had ever had; but under

  1617
  this Bill they would have to pay a great deal and get nothing in return. The question was, whether the Burry Port traders had been guilty of such negligence as to disentitle them to have the Bill recommitted that Clause 75 might be reconsidered? When the first Bill was introduced they might have had notice that the question of rates would be raised; but this subsequent Bill contained nothing to indicate that the condition of the traders of Burry Port would be disturbed in any way. The Bill originally introduced contained nothing which prejudicially affected their interest. No fair-minded man would, in such circumstances, consider that they had been guilty of such negligence as would disentitle them to have their case reconsidered. Their attention was never called to the effect of Clause 75, and they had had no fair opportunity to place their views before the Committee. He submitted that they would be very harshly treated if the Bill was not recommitted.
  COLONEL GUNTER (York, W.R., Barkstone Ash)said that, as Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill upstairs and passed it as long ago as June 22nd, he desired to say a few words on the Motion. The Bill came down to the Committee from the House of Lords. Prior to going up to the Lords the Bill contained a clause dealing with dues, but it was found that there were a number of old Acts of Parliament that it was better to repeal, and so Clause 75 was substituted. The Bill, therefore, contained that clause when it came down from the Lords to the Committee. He understood during the proceedings in Committee that the Bill gave the traders of Burry Port free anchorage and everything else they asked for. The fact was that this opposition to the clause was an afterthought. The traders who were now opposing the clause were in the Committee-room and heard the whole of the evidence.
  MR. ABEL THOMAS: The traders were not represented before the Committee.
  COLONEL GUNTERsaid he understood the promoters of the Bill had already spent £5,000, and it would be a great hardship to them, as well as a violation of principle, to recommit the Bill.
  MR. DAVID RANDELLopposed the Motion. The Bill had passed the Lords, and also the Committee of the House of Commons, after a full inquiry, lasting ten days or more, during which the petitioners against the Bill were heard. The Burry Port traders pretended to be taken by surprise in regard to the proposed rates on goods. He could not take that view, because when the Bill was first deposited in the House of Lords there was in Clause 66 express and specific reference to these rates. Notice was again given to the traders in the Parliamentary notices of the Bill which were inserted in the local newspapers, and specific reference was made to the powers asked by the promoters of the Bill to deal with rates. A copy of the Bill was served upon the Burry Port Railway Company, who were virtually the opponents of the Bill that afternoon. ["Hear, hear!"] In the House of Lords, also, the principal witnesses for the promoters were partly cross-examined about these rates. He contended that the traders of Burry Port would suffer no injustice whatever from the clause. Three out of four traders opposing were present before the Committee, and had an opportunity of hearing fully the evidence and the speeches of counsel, and not a word of objection was raised by them. He knew the locality well, and ventured to say that Burry Port traders would suffer no injury whatever. On the contrary, they would benefit by the Bill. It was admitted by the opponents of the Bill that the works proposed to be constructed would improve the entrance to their harbour, and would directly benefit the traders of Burry Port. He hoped the House, therefore, would not agree to the Motion. It would be a great hardship if, after the expenditure of something like £5,000, the promoters had to go before a new Committee and re-examine all their witnesses over again. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said he had very great difficulty in considering this case. It had been very fairly put before the House by the two hon. Members opposite who moved and seconded the Motion. The difficulty he felt was this. All the Rules which the House had laid down for

  1619
  the guidance of persons approaching it in reference to private legislation had been complied with in this case. Notice was given of the Bill covering this Clause 75 as it now stood. It was quite possible that the traders of Burry Port had been misled by the fact that the Bill as originally deposited, contained Clause 66, which was difficult of construction. He had no doubt himself that the promoters of the Bill, in drafting that clause, intended to impose charges on Burry Fort from which it had up to that time been free. On the other hand, the traders of Bury Port, on reading the clause, might very well have thought that under that clause they were exempt, and would continue to be exempt, from the rates and tolls which the promoters intended to charge. The authorities of the House of Lords, as soon as they saw Clause 66, said that in their opinion it was very involved and very difficult of construction, and they thought such a clause should not stand. Thereupon the promoters of the Bill altered the clause, cut out a portion of it, and inserted Clause 75, their object being to make it perfectly clear that they intended to impose those charges on the trade going to Burry Port which the port up to that time had not been subject to. In the Bill which came before the Committee of the House of Lords this clause stood, it was considered, and passed. In the Bill as it came before this House this clause stood, and he thought it was admitted that, not until the Bill was actually through the Committee stage did the traders of Burry Port discover that possibly they might suffer damages from the Bill. Whether that was so must depend upon evidence which he had not heard. There possibly might be a hard case if the Bill went through in its present form. He did not know, but it might be a great hardship to the traders of Burry Port if they had these charges imposed upon them, without perhaps deriving any advantage from the works proposed to be constructed. But he had not been able to form an opinion on that matter. He was there only as a custodian of the Rules of the House, and as such, he could only advise the House that, however hard the case might be, the Rules had been fully complied with. If the traders of Burry Port did not become
  1620
  aware of the fact that these charges were likely to fall upon them, it was their own fault. The notices of the Bill clearly clearly covered the Bill as it now stood; and it would be a dangerous precedent to allow parties at the eleventh hour, or rather on the stroke of the twelfth, to demand the recommittal of a Bill because they had not appreciated the significance of the notice sent to them. If the House were not to stand by the notices which it required, there was little use in insisting on them. He would advise, on this occasion, as the Rules had been complied with, that the Bill should not be recommitted.
  SIR JOHN JONES JENKINShoped that the Bill would not be recommitted. A great advantage to Burry Port would result from the building of the dock. The Commissioners had already been at great trouble to keep the estuary free, and they had spent about £20,000 on the work. All along it had been the view that those who landed or exported goods there could be fairly called upon to con tribute towards the enormous cost of keeping the estuary free. From the first there had been no doubt about the intention of the Commissioners to make this charge, and he hoped the House would not establish a dangerous precedent by recommitting the Bill.
  Question, "That the words 'now considered' stand part of the Question," put and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to, Bill considered.
  Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.

INSANE PERSONS (SUICIDES).
Return [presented 15th July] to be printed.—[No. 298].
BRITISH SHIPS (DESERTION OF SEAMEN ABROAD).
Return [presented 15th July] to be printed.—[No. 299.]

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS, ETC.
Leave given to the Committee appointed by this House to join with a Committee of the Lords to make a Special Report in respect of the Collecting Societies Bill: Special Report brought up, and road; Collecting Societies Bill reported from the Joint Committee.
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 300.]
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 320.]

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS, ETC.
Leave given to the Committee appointed by this House to join with a Committee of the Lords to make a Special Report in respect of the Friendly Societies Bill; Special Report brought up, and read; Friendly Societies Bill reported from the Joint Committee.
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 301.]
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 321.]

FLOODS PREVENTION BILL, [H.L.]
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 322.]
QUESTIONS.

  FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS (IRELAND).
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of applications to have a fair rent fixed which have been lodged with a view to obtain a hearing in the County Courts since the passing of the Land Act of 1887, in the following counties: Clare, Kerry, Limerick, Queen's County, Waterford, Longford, Meath, Westmeath, Tipperary, Kilkenny
  1622
  and County Down; and, can he state the number of cases put down for consideration by the Land Commission, other than cases transferred from the County Courts by landlords, during the same period?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The number of applications to fix fair rents lodged with the Civil Bill Courts in the counties named, from the passing of the Act of 1887 to the 30th June 1896, was 7,446; and the number of such applications lodged with the Land Commission in the same period and from the same counties (exclusive of cases transferred from the Civil Bill Courts) was 27,286.

GIBRALTAR BATTERIES.
LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the new batteries at Gibraltar are likely to be fully equipped?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Both the works and their armament are well advanced, but it is not to the interest of the public service to state the exact dates of completion of fortifications.

DERRY ASYLUM.
MR. J. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain the grounds on which, acting on his own behalf and as representing the Lord Lieutenant, he declined to receive a most influential deputation (appointed at a county meeting held in Coleraine) who desired to submit to him plans for dealing with the congested state of Derry Asylum, which would satisfactorily meet the requirements of the case and at the same time entail a much lighter burden on the ratepayers; and whether, if he still refuses to grant an interview to the deputation, he will admit of the ratepayers being represented before the Privy Council by a lawyer, in order that their position may be clearly understood, before any further action is taken by the Government?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot at the present moment add anything to the reply given by me on Thursday last to the inquiries of my hon. Friend the Member for South Londonderry, namely that I doubted whether a deputation would be the best way of dealing with this question, that the whole matter was now engaging the further consideration of the Irish Government, and that a communication would be made to the gentlemen who desire to form a deputation before any further steps are taken towards passing an Order in Council.

APPROACHES TO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Order of the House of 11th February 1896, which directs that the passages through the street leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, has of late been seriously infringed by the tearing up of the roadway immediately outside this House, causing grave obstruction to the passage of hon. Members to and from the House; whether he can inform the House as to what person or persons are responsible for this obstruction; and what steps he proposes to take to vindicate the authority of this House as declared by its Resolution as above set forth.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): So far as I understand, the Order of the House is a direction to the Metropolitan Police to take care that the streets leading to the House are kept free and open and that the passage of Members is unobstructed. This, I conceive, refers to the regulation of the traffic over which the police have control, and does not exclude the right of the proper authorities (in this case the Westminster Vestry and the London County Council) to interfere with the roadway where necessary; at any rate I am not aware of any power, certainly the police had none, to prevent their exercising these rights. All that the police can do is under existing conditions to
1624
see that the roadways are kept clear in regard to traffic, and this I believe they have done successfully.

UGANDA PROTECTORATE.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recent inclusion within the Uganda Protectorate of the British sphere of influence to the west extends to the territories which were the subject of lease to the sovereign of the Congo State, and were renounced by him, or to those which were the subject of such lease but not at the same time renounced.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE EOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The territories recently included with the Uganda Protectorate extend up to the second of the two regions mentioned in the Question, but the notification does not affect either of the latter.

MULTYFARNHAM NATIONAL SCHOOLS (COUNTY WESTMEATH).
MR. JAMES TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any complaints have reached the Commissioners of National Education with reference to the condition of the Multy-farnham (County Westmeath) National Schools, that the buildings are in a most dilapidated condition, and the out-offices in such an unsanitary state as to be dangerous to the health of the pupils and teachers; whether he is aware that as a consequence a number of children have ceased attending those schools, to the loss of the teachers, during the past three years, and are obliged to travel long distances to other ones; also that there is but one playground for the children of both sexes attending the schools; and, whether, if the condition of the schools is as stated, immediate steps will be taken to have them put in proper repair?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reports of both the manager and inspector on the condition of these school premises are very unsatisfactory, and it is a fact that there has been a falling off in the attendance of pupils at the school

1625
during the past few years. The playground is as stated in the Question. The school was vested some years ago in trustees who are now all dead, and correspondence is proceeding as to the appointment of new trustees. Should suitable persons be found willing to undertake the duties, and should the necessary local contributions be forthcoming, the Commissioners would be prepared to grant aid towards the cost of providing out-offices and effecting other necessary improvements.

IRISH MAILS.
MR. J. H. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why cross-channel and late morning mails for Kilmessan, County Meath, are not sent to Kilmessan Station by the 9.30 a.m. train from Broadstone, in the same way as letters to other stations on the Dublin and Meath line of railway, instead of being sent by the Great Northern line round to Navan, where they are kept for 24 hours before being sent on for delivery?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): An answer to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for Kilkenny was given on the 4th May last. Kilmessan receives one post a day viâ Navan at convenient hours, and the additional letters which could be sent out by the 9.30 a.m. train from Broadstone are few in number, and do not warrant the expense that would be incurred in the conveyance of the bags and the delivery of the letters. The Postmaster General regrets he is unable to meet the wishes of the inhabitants in this matter.

GUN LICENCE (ACHILL ISLAND).
DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he can state why Mr. Patrick Gallagher, a farmer and publican, of Doragh, Achill Island, was refused, on 1st May, at Achill Petty Sessions, licence to carry a rifle; and, (2) if he is aware that Gallagher has already had a shot licence for the past eight years, and that he merely wants the rifle for the purpose of killing seals?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the second paragraph, though it appears that the licensing officer, when he refused to issue a licence for the rifle of Mr. Gallagher, was not aware that he was already licensed to carry a double-barrelled gun. The licensing officer is now making further inquiry into the matter.

CRETE.
MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has any information as to the alleged skirmishes in the neighbourhood of Retimo, Crete: and whether the Mohammedans continue the pillaging of villages, even in the military zone; if so, whether Abdullah Pasha, as Military Governor of the island, has any cognisance of these events?
MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Consul in Crete has reported that, according to his information, frequent collisions have recently taken place between the Christians and Mussulmans in the neighbourhood of Rethymo, resulting in loss of life on both sides. The Christians also complain that native Mussulmans are permitted to cross the military cordon to Christian villages, which they pillage and burn. Her Majesty's Government cannot, of course, tell to what extent Abdullah Pasha may have cognisance of these alleged events.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has received any information in respect to the alleged disturbances in the Kalyvia district of Crete, and also whether Abdullah Pasha, the Military Governor, is dispatching troops against the insurgents, contrary to the armistice: whether a Turkish war vessel opened fire upon a number of women and children who happened to be on the beach and killed several of them; and what action, if any, has been taken by the representatives of the Powers?
MR. CURZON: A Report has been received from her Majesty's Consul in Crete stating that on the 12th inst. an officer and nine men, sent from a Turkish gunboat to search native boats for ammunition, were shot by Christians from the shore near Kalives. The gunboat

1627
shelled the coast for nine hours, but did not direct its fire against any Christian village or house. We have no information that women or children were killed. [Cheers.] For the purpose of recovering the bodies of the officer and men of the gunboat the troops stationed at Kalives moved inland on the 13th and 14th inst., and serious fighting has since taken place, of which, however, no details have been received. The representatives of the Great Powers have to-day addressed a strong remonstrance to the Turkish Government with reference to the conduct of the military in the island, and have urged that strict orders should be given for the troops to remain entirely on the defensive in conformity with the engagements undertaken by the Porte. [Cheers.]
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Have the Powers made any remonstrances as to the unprovoked attack on the crew of the gunboat?
[No answer was given.]
*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the action of the Consuls in making this protest to the Turkish Government was to imply that the Christians were to be permitted to kill Turkish troops without retaliation.
[No answer was given.]
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I will give notice of the Question.

MUZZLING DOGS.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Departmental Committee, appointed to inquire into the Dog Laws, will take evidence as to the inefficacy of the muzzle in preventing rabies or dogs from biting; whether evidence of that nature has been tendered, and when it is likely to be taken; and, whether any special payments are made to the police for what they do in regard to dogs under the muzzling orders; and, if so, to what amount and on what principle are such payments awarded?
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I understand
1628
that evidence as to the value of muzzling for the purpose of preventing the spread of rabies has already been received by the Departmental Committee, and that further evidence on the same subject has been tendered and will be given at the next and succeeding meetings. It rests with the various police authorities to determine whether special payments should be made for work done under muzzling orders, and no general information on the subject is available. I may state, however, that in the Metropolis no such payments are made, but certain fees taken on the restoration of dogs to their owners are paid into the Police Pension Fund.

WOOL SORTING.
MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in framing rules to regulate woolsorting, and in determining the kind of wool for which special precautions will be taken, the Home Office will adopt the rules, or some modification thereof, issued by the Bradford Town Council, which are generally accepted throughout the trade applying to dangerous classes of wool; and, whether he will give full opportunity of conference with representatives of those concerned before rules are finally determined?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The special rules which have been suggested by the Dangerous Trades Committee and which I propose to adopt are based on the Bradford regulations with some modifications and additions. The rules will apply like the Bradford regulations to all kinds of wool, in so far as they require that all bales shall be opened by skilled persons, but in other respects they will apply to those kinds only that are dangerous. When they are issued, there will be ample opportunity for both offering and considering objections; but in view of the general acceptance for many years past of the Bradford regulations and of the desire which has been expressed that they should be given the force of special rules, I hope no serious opposition will be encountered.

AMALGAMATION OF POOR LAW UNIONS (IRELAND).
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he can state when he proposes to introduce his Bill for the amalgamation of Poor Law Unions in Ireland; (2) whether, as it is proposed to appoint a small Commission under the Bill to decide what unions it is best to amalgamate, this Commission would be such as could hold inquiries at convenient centres in Ireland to determine that question; and, (3) whether the proposed Bill would contain a clause to prevent the deportation or transference of paupers from England and Scotland to Ireland?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Bill is ready, and could be introduced any day after midnight. The Commission which it is contemplated to appoint in connection with the Bill, would have power to make local inquiry. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative?

PASTOR KHAMIS.
MR. M. M. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the charge of treasonable correspondence, on which Pastor Khamis, the aged Nestorian Minister, is now kept as a prisoner in Dizza, was based simply on a letter addressed by him to his son in England, asking for pecuniary help towards his maintenance; and, whether it is proposed to take any steps to procure the pastor's release?
SIR CHARLES HALL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, is the Foreign Office aware that, in the case of Pastor Khamis, the aged Nestorian Minister, now prisoner in Dizza, the charge of treasonable correspondence against him was based, it is alleged, on a letter sent by him to his son in England, asking for pecuniary help towards his (the father's) maintenance; and, will the Foreign Secretary consent to make further inquiry?
*MR. GIBSON BOWLESreferring to the words "it is alleged" in the second Question, asked the Speaker if it was in order for an hon. Member to embody in
1630
a question an allegation without making himself responsible for it, or to put the allegation in question upon the shoulder of some person not named?
MR. SPEAKER: The Question begins properly enough by asking whether "the Foreign Office was aware," etc., the hon. Member thus taking the responsibility of the truth of what he has stated, but the words "it is alleged" are certainly irregular, and ought not to stand in the Question.
MR. CURZON: Pastor Khamis was arrested for sending a letter containing accusations against the Turkish Government. There was also found in his possession a diary full of compromising statements. As I have previously stated in reply to a Question in this House, Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Van has reported that the case is not one in which, in his opinion, Her Majesty's Government ought to interfere.

ROYAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, COOPER'S HILL.
MR. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether there is shortly to be a vacancy in the post of the President of the Royal Engineering College, Cooper's Hill; and, if so, whether, in appointing a successor, the claims of eminent Civil Engineers to fill the post will be favourably considered, as the College is an institution for the education of Civil Engineers?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): There will be a vacancy next September in the post of President of Cooper's Hill College. The claims of all classes of officers, qualified to succeed to the vacancy, have received full consideration and an appointment will, I hope, be shortly announced.

MILITARY OPERATIONS IN CENTRAL AFRICA.
CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government for recognising and adequately rewarding the distinguished services of those officers and men recently employed under Sir H. H. Johnstone, K.C.B., in the successful expeditions against the

1631
slave dealers in the British Protectorate in Central Africa?
MR. CURZON: The issue of the Central African Medal has been sanctioned to the officers and men engaged in the operations from 1891 to 1894 inclusive. Its issue for the operations in 1895 is under consideration. The services of the officers of Her Majesty's Regular Forces have been brought before the Secretaries of State for War and India with a view to their being recognised as entitling those officers, as far as the regulations admit, to be considered as having been "mentioned in Dispatches." The question of any further recognition of services in consequence of this mention is being referred to the Secretary of State for War.

GAS CONSUMERS.
MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Gas Light and Coke Company has been supplying gas to small consumers by means of a special apparatus, and also that the South Metropolitan Gas Company is freely meeting the wants of this class of consumers; and, whether he can take any steps to secure that equal facilities shall continue to be given by the Gas Light and Coke Company?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I am informed by the Gas Light and Coke Company that they have been and are supplying automatic prepayment gas meters, together with stoves and gas fittings, at the rate of about 500 per week; that since July 1st last year the company have supplied 31,462 customers, and that they have on hand orders which are being executed as quickly as the meter makers can deliver the necessary apparatus. The company also inform me that some months ago, owing to the inability of the meter makers to furnish the company with meters as fast as applicants were sending in their requisitions for supplies, the directors, to prevent disappointment, found it necessary to suspend accepting any further orders until they should be in a position, with the aid of the meter makers, promptly to execute every order as and when received.

CONGO FREE STATE.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many coloured subjects of the West African dominion have been engaged under contract with the Congo Free State with the knowledge of Her Majesty's representatives in the West African Colonies, and how many have been returned, under the conditions of their contract of service, to the ports whence they had embarked; what was the date of the last engagement of this character made with the knowledge of Her Majesty's representatives; what measures, if any, have been taken regarding the native Sierra Leonese named Porter through whom a number of natives were so engaged in return for a payment by the Belgian authorities of 5s. per head; and, whether he will make inquiry of the Consul at Sierra Leone as to the fate of a Sierra Leonese named John Bull, employed in the Congo State military service under that name, and numbered in the roll and on his medal S. L. 2702.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): During the last eleven years many hundreds of men have been engaged in Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast and Lagos, for service in the Congo State. They have been engaged with the knowledge of the Colonial Governments, and on being returned to their homes have in many cases engaged themselves for further service; but I do not know precisely how many have been engaged, and how many returned. Recruiting for the service of the Congo State was stopped on the Gold Coast in November 1894, in Sierra Leone in December 1895, and in Lagos in March 1896. The last engagement of men in Lagos took place in November last. The recruitment of labourers for the Congo Railway Company, however, has not been stopped. No measures have been taken regarding Mr. Porter, who has not, so far as I am aware, done anything to which exception could be taken. If further particulars are given as to John Bull, inquiry will be made. Such particulars should show when, where, and by whom he was engaged, and what is the last that his friends heard of him.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the amount of the small fine originally imposed upon Mr. Bannister, the late Vice-Consul at Boma, by the Congo Free State authorities?
MR. CURZON: The fine was 500 francs or £20. It was subsequently remitted by Royal Decree of August 4th, 1894.

BALLINDINE POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
MR. M. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether complaints have been made by the Claremorris (county Mayo) Board of Guardians about the existing postal arrangements in the parish of Ballindine; whether these complaints, together with suggested alterations in the defective delivery of letters, were brought under the notice of the Postmaster General some two months ago; and, when a reply to the complaints in question can be expected?
MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has received a complaint from the Claremorris Board of Guardians respecting the postal arrangements at Ballindine. It is not quite two months ago since the complaint in question was received, and the Department is still in communication with the railway company relative to the establishment of a mail bag by which the convenience of the applicants would be met. A reply will be given as soon as possible.

CAVAN MILITIA BARRACK.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, can he state the reasons which induced the War Office to take the contract of straw for the Cavan Militia Barrack from a local contractor and give it to a Belfast contractor at a higher figure than the local contractor had tendered at?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): These contracts are arranged locally. The contractor at Cavan was struck off the list of contractors for twelve months by the General Officer Commanding, on account
1634
of his refusal to complete a tender which he had sent in for the supply of straw to the troops.

ARMY RESERVE OFFICERS.
SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to the more economical organisation of the Army, now proceeding, and the possibility of the employment under certain contingencies of the Reserve forces, both of officers and men, whether any means have been taken, or, if not, are proposed to be taken to discriminate between the various classes of Officers in the Reserve, both the General Officers and those of inferior rank, and to eliminate from the Reserve list all those not likely ever to be efficient for service, while fully retaining to them the enjoyment of all emoluments earned in the past by honourable military service?
*MR. BRODRICK: There is no question of economy involved. Reserve Officers draw no extra pay unless employed during national emergency, when they will be selected from those who are considered the most efficient and the fittest. It would not be practicable to examine Officers of the Reserve as to physical fitness before the time arrives for their employment.

ARMY MEDICAL STAFF.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many names of candidates for the next examination for Army Medical Staff in August have been received; and what are the completed ages of these candidates?
*MR. BRODRICK: A large number of applications have been made for information as to the examination and as to the qualifications necessary. As the list does not close till the 30th instant, and as most of the candidates usually apply in the last week, a statement of the number of names at present sent in would be misleading.

CONVICT PRISON WARDERS.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state to the House how many hours

1635
per day are prison warders in convict establishments kept on duty; whether it is a fact that in many cases warders are kept on duty 16 hours per day; and, whether it is a fact that in other Government establishments the hours of labour are limited to eight hours per day; and, if so, whether he will take steps to reduce the hours of duty for prison warders?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The hours of actual duty average, on the whole year, nine hours and five minutes a day. No case of an officer being kept on duty for 16 hours a day is known to the Directors. The question of the hours of duty received most careful consideration from a Departmental Committee appointed for the purpose, who reported that the existing hours were not excessive, and that none of the schemes submitted to them for carrying out an "eight hours system" appeared either practicable or desirable. This report was accepted by my predecessors, and I am unable to discover any analogy between the conditions of work and service in the prisons and in the industrial establishments of the Government which would justify the expenditure that an eight hours day would involve.

CHRIST CHURCH, LANE END, NATIONAL SCHOOL (FOREST OF DEAN).
MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Christ Church, Lane End, National School (Gloucestershire, Dean Forest), which appears by the recent Return of Contributions in Aid (No. 242, 1896) to have been receiving since 1803 an annual grant of£15 from the Woods and Forests Department, is the school which appears in the Annual Report of the Education Department for 1864–5 as the Dean Forest Christ Church Boys, and in subsequent Reports as the Dean Forest Christ Church Jubilee School; if so, whether that school, which ceases to appear in the Reports from 1890–1 onwards, was closed during the year 1889–90; and, if the Lane End School is not the same as the Jubilee School, under what name does it appear in the Annual Report of the Department?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Christ Church, Lane End, National School is not the same as the Christ Church Jubilee School. In 1890, the name of the latter school was changed to Coleford Lane End National School, under which name it is now carried on.

MERCHANT SHIPPING REGULATIONS.
MR. ALFRED THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any foreign vessel loading grain at a foreign port for a port in the United Kingdom is subject to any, and which, of the regulations for the carriage of grain contained in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; whether such a foreign vessel is subject to any of the restrictions as to the quantity or weight of cargo carried which apply to British vessels: and whether foreign vessels discharging cargo (other than deckloads of timber) at British ports are free from all the restrictions imposed by British law upon British vessels?
*MR. RITCHIE: The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act with regard to the stowage of grain cargoes, and with regard to the overloading or improper loading of ships bringing cargoes (other than deck loads of timber) to ports in this country, do not apply to foreign ships.
*MR. C. W. CAYZER: May I ask whether the Board of Trade make a report, or, if not, if they will make report of all the foreign ships arriving overladen or not laden in accordance with the regulations and restrictions applicable to British ships?
*MR. RITCHIEsaid if the hon. Member would put the Question on the Paper he would take care to obtain the information if it could be obtained. For his part, he believed, as far as foreign ships outward were concerned, they were subject to due restrictions, but with regard to grain cargoes, the restrictions applying to our own ships did not apply to foreign ships. He did not regard the law as at all in a satisfactory condition, and would like to see it remedied. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. GIBSON BOWLESwished to know if it was to be understood that as regards equipment and loading the Board

1637
of Trade officers inspected foreign ships outward bound, but not inward bound on arrival?
*MR. RITCHIEsaid he did not want to go into details, but undoubtedly in regard to foreign ships outward bound, the law gave them the power of inspection and regulation which does not apply to the same ships when homeward bound.

KANDAHAR RAILWAY.
MR. R. SOUTTAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the Government of India has at present before it any project for completing the earthworks for the extension of the railway between New Chaman to Kandahar; whether any communication has been made to H.H. the Amir of Afghanistan on the subject; and, are any proposals being entertained by the Indian Government for the construction of a railway from Gwadar, on the Mekran Coast, to Seistun, and to the latter place from Nushki and Chageh, on the recently demarcated Beluch-Afghan line of our extreme sphere of influence?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: So far as I am aware, neither of the projects referred to by the hon. Member is under the consideration of the Government of India, nor has any communication on the subject been made to the Amir.

CRETAN DISTRESS FUND.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether a communication has been received at the Foreign Office from the Cretan Distress Fund Committee expressing their desire that the administration of relief should be on an international basis; and whether steps have been taken with a view to the co-operation of the Consuls of other Powers in the distribution of the funds?
MR. CURZON: A communication of the character described was received at the Foreign Office and was referred to Her Majesty's Consul in Crete, who reported that the establishment of a local international Relief Committee was impracticable. It would, however, have been open to any of the Consuls of the
1638
other Powers—to whom indeed the offer was made—to accompany Mr. Biliotti in the journey that he proposed to make for the distribution of the relief funds.

CASTLEBLANEY STATION (GREAT NORTHERN OF IRELAND RAILWAY).
MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that passengers at Castleblaney Station, on the Great Northern Railway (Ireland), have to use a level crossing at serious risk: and, whether he will direct the Great Northern Railway Company at Castleblaney to erect an overhead bridge for the safety of passengers, and how soon?
MR. RITCHIE: I have no power to direct the Great Northern Railway of Ireland to erect a footbridge at the place referred to; but, in reply to a communication from the Board of Trade, the Railway Company inform me that the question is now under the consideration of the Directors.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Irish Constabulary authorities are in the habit of regulating the amount of pension granted to a constable injured in the discharge of his duty by the amount of compensation levied upon the ratepayers of the district in which the injury is received; and whether, in view of the great hardship thus inflicted upon Irish cesspayers, who have no representation upon the taxing body, instructions will be issued to the proper quarter to allow constables so injured pensions upon the highest possible scale?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no foundation for the assumption contained in this question, as, in the cases of men incapacitated for further service in the constabulary, by malicious injuries received in the execution of their duty, the Constabulary authorities, with the full approval of the Irish Government, have invariably recommended the award of the highest rates of pension payable under Statute, quite irrespective of the amount of compensation which may have been granted by public bodies for the malicious injuries.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action taken by the County Court Grand Jury on the 11th instant, in awarding £800 pounds to Constable John Quinlan, Royal Irish Constabulary, as compensation for injuries received while endeavouring to quell a drunken brawl in a public-house on the 17th March last; whether he is aware that the ratepayers upon whom this tax will be levied had no representation upon this body; and whether the Grand Jury acted within the legal limits of their fiscal powers in placing this heavy charge upon the ratepayers of the county Cork?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): My attention has been called to the award by the Grand Jury of Cork of the sum of £800 to the constable named in the Question. I have not seen a report of the evidence given before the Grand Jury when the application was made, but I presume it must have been been supplied to bring the case within the provisions of the 106th section of the Grand Jury Act, under which the Grand Jury purported to act. The taxpayers have not any elected representatives on any Grand Jury. The answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

LOANS TO LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND).
MR. J. J. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has further reconsidered the question raised by several public men and public bodies in Ireland as to the rate of interest charged on loans for purposes connected with lunatic asylums in that country; and whether he is aware that, while the Government can borrow money at 2½ per cent. interest, interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. is charged for loans for the purposes referred to; and, if so, whether the Treasury will be allowed to continue to make a profit out of such transactions, especially in view of the fact that the boards of lunatic asylums in Ireland are not allowed to borrow in the open market, and that, in almost every other civilised country the
1640
Government, instead of throwing the cost of the housing and maintenance of the lunatic poor on local rates, provides for it out of the resources of the State at large?
MR. HANBURY: The question assumes that the State makes an appreciable profit out of the loan transactions, which is not the fact. The money lent has been raised by a 3 per cent. stock irredeemable for 16 years to come; and with 3 per cent. payable on the money so raised, with administrative and other charges which the Loans Fund has to meet, and with certain loans made in Ireland at exceptionally low rates (loans, for instance, to tenants for the purchase of their holdings at 3⅛ per cent.), there can be and there is (as the annual accounts show) no more than a very small and uncertain margin. As the law, therefore, at present stands, it is not possible to reduce the rate of interest on loans as suggested in the question.

ARMY PENSION (HENRY BEATTY).
MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the case of Henry Beatty, who, after a service of more than 13 years, six of which were spent in the East Indies, where he contracted fever and ague, and after a further period of service in the Army Reserve, was discharged with a good-conduct badge on the 7th January 1886, on a pension of 6d. a day, to become payable on his attaining the age of 50 years; whether Private Beatty has been certified to be still suffering from the effects of the diseases he contracted in the East Indies; and, if all this be so, whether the Secretary of State can make any further provision for Private Beatty?
MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The soldier referred to in the Question did not serve long enough to be entitled to a pension immediate or deferred, and the 6d. a day was for his pay while in the Reserve, and ceased in 1886. As Beatty was discharged on the termination of his period of engagement, and not on account of disability contracted while in the service, there is no regulation under which any further grant can be made to him.

POOR LAW SCHOOLS.
MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to place under the inspection of the Education Department, the education of the children in those Poor Law schools where the guardians desire to transfer such inspection from the Local Government Board to the Education Department, and where the Local Government Board assents?
SIR J. GORST: From 1846 to 1863 the Committee of Council inspected the educational part of the work of Poor Law schools; but the arrangement was found to cause so much friction that in 1863 these inspectors were transferred to the Poor Law Board. The Committee of Council doubt the expediency of separating the educational from the other inspection of these schools, but they are in communication with the Local Government Board upon the subject.
MR. STUARTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been drawn to the report of the recent Commission on Poor Law Schools, in which it was said that the educational work of those schools should be brought under the supervision of the Education Department, and whether the right hon. Gentleman signed that report?
SIR J. GORST: Yes, Sir; I am aware of that report. I signed it myself. [Laughter.]

TITHE RENT CHARGE APPORTIONMENTS.
MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the minutes of the parish meetings, and the agreements and valuations made preceding the signing of the formal tithe-rent charge apportionments by the Commissioners, are in the custody of the Board of Agriculture; and whether he will, in the event of an application being made by a parish council or meeting to inspect any such deposited documents, give inspection to a person duly appointed by any such council or meeting to examine the documents for the purpose of obtaining information as to the boundaries of common lands, ancient
1642
rights of way, or any such matters of public interest?
*MR. LONG: In only a few cases are the minutes of the parish meetings and the detailed valuations in the possession of the Board of Agriculture. The agreements are embodied in the apportionments, which are open to public inspection. I do not think that it is necessary, or that it would be practicable, to give further facilities for the inspection of the papers in our hands relating to the commutation of tithes, but I should of course consider carefully any application which might be made to me for information in specific cases.

DONINGTON EDUCATIONAL SCHEME.
MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, what has been the result of the Amendment carried in this House to the Donington Educational Scheme, and how it has affected the grammar school, which has been in existence for 170 years; and, what will become of the educational endowments under the amended scheme?
SIR J. GORST: The result of the Amendment, as explained at the time to the House of Commons, is to extinguish the trust for the maintenance of the grammar school of the foundation. The endowments in question will revert to the use of the poor of Donington, in accordance with the terms of Mr. Cowley's original bequest.

WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS (MESSRS. KYNOCH & CO.).
MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether he is aware that the men employed at Messrs. Kynoch and Company's works are being forced to sign agreements to belong to no trade union society; and whether the firm have any War Office contracts; and, if so, what action the War Office propose to take in reference to such contracts, having regard to the promise made by Sir John Hibbert in a similar case?
MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have no knowledge beyond what is stated in the newspapers of the matter referred to

1643
in the Question; but if any complaint should come to hand it will be investigated. Messrs. Kynoch are the holders of Army contracts.

WRECK OF STEAMSHIP "MORESBY."
MR. J. DILLON: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Waterford (Mr. J. J. SHEE), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, has the attention of the Board of Trade been called to the great danger to life and property arising from the position of the wreck Moresby off the Waterford coast; and what steps the Board of Trade propose to take to have this danger removed?
MR. RITCHIE: The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to this case by the Dungarvan Harbour Authority, who have been informed that the Board have no funds for the purpose of removing the wreck. The wreck in question is within the jurisdiction of the Dungarvan Harbour Authority, who have statutory powers to remove it.

LOANS TO IRISH RAILWAY COMPANIES.
MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he can grant the Return appearing on the Order Paper of this day in reference to loans granted to Irish railway companies?
MR. HANBURY: The Return in question can be given; but it would be most convenient to insert it as an Appendix to the forthcoming Report of the Board of Works, instead of issuing it separately. I hope this will meet the hon. Member's wishes.

MOMBASA-UGANDA RAILWAY.
MR. R. W. PERKS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of wages the directors of the Mombasa-Uganda Railway have agreed to pay the native workmen imported from India for the purpose of building that railway; and whether any agreements have been entered into with such employés; and if so, what are the terms of such agreements?
MR. CURZON: The greater part of the native workmen imported from India for the construction of the railway are serving under agreements, the terms of which as to pay, nature and termination of labour, and repatriation, have been approved by the Government of India. The remainder are under agreements with sub-contractors, in which the Indian Government have required alterations to be made, which are in course of being carried into effect. Every suggestion on the subject made by the Indian Government has been at once adopted. The minimum rate of wages has been hitherto fixed by the agreements at no less than 15 rupees a month with free rations, but the Indian Government admit that the future minimum wage is a question for discussion.
MR. T. BAYLEY: Is there a Board of Directors I Who are the Directors?
MR. CURZONsaid that there was not a Board of Directors because the railway was being constructed by the Government. The management was in the hands of a committee. There were local engineers and managers responsible for the works on the spot.

HYDE PARK FOOTPATHS.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that for many years past the principal footpaths in Hyde Park have been topped with shell gravel, whereas this year coarse gravel has been used for this purpose, to the great discomfort of many pedestrians; and whether he will take steps to have the former practice reverted to?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The point raised by the hon. Member came under my notice some weeks ago. Owing to the increased demand, and at the same time to the diminishing supply, it is yearly getting more difficult to obtain shell shingle free from pebble. I am doing all I can, by raking, and frequent rolling and watering, to remedy the evil, which has necessarily become aggravated by the abnormally dry weather of the past few weeks.

BUDA-PESTH TELEGRAPH CONVENTION.
MR. HENNTKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster - General, whether the official representatives of the Government at the Buda-Pesth Telegraph Convention have yet reported their proceedings; and whether any decision has been arrived at regarding the official code vocabulary which was sought to be brought into operation?
MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not yet in a position to make any general announcement of the result of the proceedings of the International Telegraph Conference which is still sitting at Buda-Pesth, but he understands that for the present the Official vocabulary of code words to which the hon. Member refers will not be made compulsory.

LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if, under the provisions of the Light Railways Bill, as amended, it will be practicable for the promoters of a line already authorised under the Tramways Acts to apply to the Light Railway Commission for powers to take land compulsorily and for further variations of the Provisional Order authorising their undertaking?
MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; the Light Railway Commissioners could not entertain an application to vary the terms of a Provisional Order, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the owners of a tramway putting themselves in a position to make their property the basis of an application for a Light Railway Order.

MATABELELAND.
MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the cattle in Matabeleland seized by the Chartered Company, called the King's cattle, were distributed amongst the natives under the same conditions as to milking as during the sovereignty of the late Lobengula; what is the present number of cattle possessed by the natives, and how many of these cattle distributed amongst them in February last have either died or been killed in
1646
consequence of the rinderpest; how many have been captured and retained by the Chartered Company during the present military operations; and, whether the cattle that come into the possession of the Company in consequence of seizure after the last Matabele war, or in consequence of the present military operations, are retained by the Company as its property, or have been distributed among the European settlers, or sold to them; and, if retained by the Company, how are they cared for, and by whom?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As will be seen from the last Paper in the Blue-book C 8,130, pending the final distribution of cattle among the natives, they were allowed to remain in charge of the "King's cattle," under the same conditions as before, but, as a result of the distribution, 40,930 cattle were handed over to the natives as their absolute property. It is obviously impossible at the present time to answer the other Questions put by the hon. Gentleman.

ORDNANCE FACTORY VOTE.
CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to take the Ordnance Factory Vote; and, whether it has ever been taken before so late in the financial year?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,),who was received with cheers, said: I believe it has been usual to take the Vote at an earlier period, but the rule has not been an invariable one. I think the Vote was not taken until August 9th in 1890. I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind, and, if possible, bring the Vote on at an earlier period in a future Session.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSION.
MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in accordance with his statement of 14th May, the Government have considered the advisability of referring opposed schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners to a Select Committee for inquiry before they are rejected or amended in the House; and, what course will be taken with such schemes in future?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Before a new Session commences I shall indicate what the views of the Government are upon this subject.

INDIAN BUDGET.
*SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state what arrangements are being made to bring on the Indian Budget at a date when Indian matters can be properly discussed; and, whether he will provide one day for general debate on Indian affairs on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and one day for the discussion of the East India Accounts in Committee?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that he did not entertain much hope that it would be possible to devote more time to the Indian Budget than had been devoted to it in previous years. He hoped that the discussion of the Indian Budget might not have to be put off to so late a period of the Session as that to which it had unfortunately been found necessary to postpone it in recent years.
*SIR W. WEDDERBURNasked the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that the late Secretary of State for India had undertaken to defend his action in respect to the Indian cotton duties, or to criticise the decision of the Government, and that the discussion of the subject would certainly occupy a large portion of one day.

AGRICULTURAL RATES (IRELAND) BILL.
SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the judgment pronounced on Tuesday night by the representatives of Scotland upon the scheme proposed in the Agricultural Rates, etc. (Scotland) Bill for employing the sum of £214,000 allocated to Scotland, thirty-three Scotch Members having opposed it, while twenty-one supported it, Her Majesty's Government intend to proceed further with that Bill?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The principle underlying the Question is to me an entirely novel one,
1648
and it is not, I think, one that could be accepted. If, however, the Scotch and the Irish and the Welsh representatives who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman are prepared not to take any part by speech or vote in questions affecting England, of course I shall be ready to reconsider my position. [Laughter and cheers.]
MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that English Members will not take part by vote or speech in Irish questions? ["Hear, hear!"]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I asked hon. Gentlemen opposite to set an example. [Laughter.] When that example is set I will consider the matter.
MR. DILLON: We cannot answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman until we know. [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to ask whether, if the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion were accepted, we should not be deprived of the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman himself in English matters. [Laughter.]

TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will move to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule on the nights when the Irish Land Bill is down for discussion?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In all probability, on Monday next I shall have to ask the House to consent to a general suspension of the rule.

MATABELELAND.
SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETTasked whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies had received any confirmation of the alarming telegrams from Matabeleland published that morning with regard to a want of food, the closing of roads, and the inadequacy of the military force? He had given the right hon. Gentleman private notice of the Question.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my hon. Friend might have put his Question down upon the Paper. ["Hear, hear!"] I have received no confirmation of the pessimistic reports to which

1649
he refers, and the last telegram which I have received from Sir E. Carrington says that he did not anticipate that any more troops would be required to quell the rebellion. That telegram was received on Saturday night.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  [Progress, 12th June.]
  Clause 2,—

  EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN HOLDINGS.
  (1.) The Land Laws Acts, except Section 6 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (which amends the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, in respect of compensation for improvements), shall not apply to the following tenancies:—

  (a.) To a tenancy in any holding which is not substantially either agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral:

  (b.) To a tenancy in any holding which substantially consists of—

  (i) land being a home farm; or

  (ii) land which when first demised was held as demesne, and which the provisions of the contract of tenancy, or the circumstances of the case, show was intended to be preserved as demesne or resumed as demesne at the will of the landlord; or

  (iii) land annexed to, or incorporated in, a demesne by the tenant, and forming part of a demesne at the time the application to fix a fair rent is made:

  (c.) To a tenancy in any holding ordinarily termed a town park, which adjoins or is near to any city or town, and bears an increased value as accommodation land over and above the ordinary letting value of land occupied as an ordinary farm, except where such town park is let and used substantially as an ordinary farm, whether agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral:

  (d.) To a tenancy in a holding (other than a holding let to be used wholly or mainly for
  1650
  a dairy farm) which is let to be used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture—

  (i) if it is of the rateable value of one hundred pounds or upwards; or

  (ii) if the tenant does not, actually reside on the holding, or where the holding adjoins or is ordinarily used with another holding to which the Land Law Acts apply, then on the latter holding;

  (2.) Provided that nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall extend to any holding in respect of which a judicial rent has been fixed before the commencement of this Act.
  (3.) Where a distinct and substantive part of the property hold under one demise is demesne land, or is not agricultural or pastoral in its character, or is an incorporeal hereditament, and the court consider that that part is not the substantial part of such property, the court may direct that that part shall thenceforth be, or, if it is an incorporeal hereditament, be treated as, a separate holding, and he held at such rent during the continuance of the tenancy as the court determine to be the proper proportion of the rent reserved by the demise, and the court may fix a fair rent for the remainder of the property held under the demise, and the said Acts shall apply to that remainder as if it were a separate holding.
  Amendment again proposed, in page 2, line 26, to leave out the words "annexed to or."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'annexed to or' stand part of the Clause."
  Debate resumed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYrose to move to omit Sub-section (c).
  MR. JOHN DILLONrose to Order. He wished to know whether the following Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gal way (Mr. Pinkerton), ought not to come first.
  ["to leave out Sub-section (c), and to insert,—To a tenancy in a holding ordinarily termed a town park adjoining or near to any city or town which had a population according to the census of one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one of over two thousand inhabitants, unless where the holding is used substantially as an ordinary farm whether agricultural or pastoral or partly agricultural and partly pastoral."
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I think not. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Galway is really drafted in an improper form, because it proposes to leave out a sub-section of the Bill in order to insert another sub-section almost identical with that proposed to be left out.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYmoved the omission of Sub-section (c).
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member for Cork City is entitled to move the omission of the whole sub-section (c), and upon that Amendment he is entitled to support it on the ground that it ought to be omitted from the Bill, or on the ground that he has an alternative scheme to suggest. If the omission were carried, then an alternative scheme could be submitted. The words I should have to put if the hon. Member for Cork moves his Amendment, are the first words of the subsection, in order to permit subsequent Amendments to be raised, supposing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork is not carried.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYintimated that in order to raise the whole question he intended to move that sub-section (c) be omitted.
  MR. DILLON: The Motion of the hon. Member for Galway City (Mr. Pinkerton), is to omit sub-section (c), and it is on the Paper.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The Motion of the hon. Member for Galway, although in form proposing to omit sub-section (c), yet is really a substitute for it, and proposes to re-enact ipsissimis verbis three-and-a-half lines of sub-section (c). Therefore, in my opinion, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway is not properly drafted. I have re-drafted it in such a way that he could move his Amendment after I put from the Chair the question that the first words of the sub-section stand part of the Bill.
  MR. DILLON: On a point of order I would ask whether the hon. Member for Galway City is not entitled to move his Amendment to omit sub-section (c)?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: That is my Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I think the form of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway City is irregular, and that it is not properly drafted. If the hon. Member for Cork City proposes simply to omit sub-section (c), he is in order, and he says that is what he intends to move. I call upon him.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to leave out paragraph (c), of Sub-section (1). He explained that he moved the omission of the sub-section not for the purpose of substituting other words, but in order that the law might be left in its present condition. So far from the sub-section helping the Irish tenants, it would be a serious detriment to them. It made three changes in the law. Under the existing law, before a holding could be excluded from the benefits of the Land Act, it was a condition that the tenant should reside in the town near which the holding was, or in the suburbs, or should have done so on August 22, 1881. That condition the Chief Secretary now proposed to abolish, and to enact that a holding should be a town park, notwithstanding the fact that the tenant did not reside in the town. One consequence of the existing state of the law was that the courts had held that where a tenant resided on a holding the holding could not be a town park. That important protection would be taken from the tenant if this clause were passed into law. The change which the right hon. Gentleman thus proposed to make had two consequences. In the first place, after the passing of this Bill, a holding might be a town park even though the tenant did not reside in the town; and, in the second place, it might be a town park even though the tenant resided upon it. What was the third change in the law which this clause would bring about? The Irish Land Commission and the Court of Appeal had held that market gardeners were entitled

  1653
  to the benefits of the Land Act, and large numbers had had fair rents fixed. But if the clause were passed in its present form every market gardener in Ireland who had not already had his rent fixed before the Bill became law would be excluded from such a benefit. He did not know whether that was deliberately contemplated by the Government, and he should be surprised if, without any pretext for it, they attempted to make so important a change, which would detrimentally affect so large a class. He held that the clause would exclude market gardeners from the benefits of fair-rent applications, because a market garden was adjoining or near to a city or town. The saving words which would protect the tenant were "except where such town park was let and used substantially as an ordinary farm." It was therefore clear that the effect of the clause as drafted, would be to exclude market gardeners who had not already had fair rents fixed from obtaining that boon in the future. ["Hear, hear!"] The consequences of this clause were therefore, in several important points, very detrimental to the Irish tenant. What was the compensation they got in return? Not one atom, except one minute change in the law for their benefit. The Act of 1887 provided that a holding should not be deemed a town park if let and used as an ordinary agricultural farm, and it had been held that if it was let as an ordinary pastoral farm it was not within the Act of 1887. Therefore, though a holding was let as an ordinary farm, yet, if it was used for pastoral purposes, it was excluded from the Land Act. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed to amend that defect in the law by providing that if a holding was used either as an ordinary agricultural or pastoral farm it should not be excluded as a town park. That was a minute change which could not affect 60 cases throughout the length and breadth of Ireland Over and over again the question of town parks had been raised, and in 1887 there passed the Commons a Bill which conferred the benefits of the Land Acts on all holdings, whether town parks or not, adjoining towns which had a population not exceeding 2,000. This provision, however, was struck out in another place. When the House of Commons passed the clause
  1654
  to which he referred the law relating to town parks was not at all in the bad condition for the Irish tenant that it at present was, for within the last few years places of 200 or 250 population had been held to be towns for the purpose of having town parks and excluding tenants from the right of having fair rents fixed. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill would make a minute change in the law for the tenant's benefit, but enormous changes to his disadvantage. If he had to choose between the Bill, as far as it related to town parks, and the existing law, he would prefer the existing law as being better for the Irish tenant.
  MR. DILLONsaid that if the distinction excluding town parks were removed, and the Commissioners and Land Courts were allowed to fix fair rents, giving the town clerks the same rights as those enjoyed by agricultural tenants, he would support the omission of the sub-section.
  MR. J. JORDANsupported the omission of the sub section. He did not see why town parks should be treated differently from land elsewhere, and exempted from the operation of the Land Courts as to the fixity of tenure, fair rent, and free sale. He did not know what the landlord of a town park could want beyond his rent. Let this be fixed in view of the accommodation afforded and the contiguity of the land to the town. Nothing had caused greater litigation than town parks, and if they adopted the proposal of his hon. Friend they would avoid complicated and costly litigation, and prevent the injustice of the tenant, after improving his land, being evicted by the landlord whenever it suited the latter's convenience.
  MR. EDWARD CARSONsaid he did not like many things in the sub-section. Words were introduced which seemed to reopen vast questions. Then the sub-section repealed what was deliberately put in by the Unionist Government in 1887—a proviso that rents should not be fixed with regard to town parks where the court might be of opinion that it might prevent the proper development of the town. Undoubtedly small advantages were given to the landlords in allowing the section to apply to cases where the tenant might reside on the holding or elsewhere. On

  1655
  the whole, he thought the law as it stood would be more satisfactory than the section as it stood, and unless he had an intimation from the Government that they would accept Amendments put down he should certainly vote with the hon. Member if he went to a Division. In regard to the application of the word "agriculture" in the Act of 1887—as ruled by the Courts—which it was proposed to remedy by this sub-section, he argued for the tenant in that case, and although it was clearly an oversight in the Act of 1887, he could not see, as a lawyer, how the Court could be supposed to remedy oversights in Acts of Parliament. He would suggest, if the Chief Secretary decided to accept the Amendment, which would leave the law as it stood, that the defect in regard to the application of the word "agricultural" should be remedied by a few words on Report.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNsaid the ground on which differences of opinion existed on the Irish Benches was that they wanted to improve the Bill and to improve the existing law. ["Hear, hear!"] During the discussion on the Agricultural Rating Bill the Government found it impossible to define accommodation land, when they wanted not to exclude the English landlords and the English tenants from the benefit of the Measure; but in this Bill they defined accommodation land because they wanted to exclude the Irish tenants from its advantages. ["Hear, hear!"] If they admitted these town-park tenants to the benefits of the land legislation, landlords would not be prevented from getting a fair agricultural rent for such holdings on account of their proximity to town.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that before 1870 the word "town park" was utterly unknown in Ireland, and it was inserted in the Act of that year for the benefit of the landlords, by enabling them to rob the tenants of the benefits of the compensation they would derive from the Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Government did not consent once for all to include these town-park tenants, it was clear this Bill was arranged in the interests of the landlord section in Ireland, that the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were mere puppets, and that the Irish landlords
  1656
  pulled the strings. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. DILLONasked whether, if this Amendment were accepted, its effect would be to sweep away the other Amendments to the sub-section on the Paper?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: If the Amendment were adopted, I should take it to mean that the Committee had decided not to deal with town parks in this Bill, and therefore all the other Amendments on the Paper would fall to the ground.
  MR. DILLONsaid that raised a very serious difficulty, inasmuch as they were now constrained to raise the question of accommodation tenants or lose the opportunity of raising that issue. He was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University would support the Amendment.
  MR. VESEY KNOXsaid that if the Amendment were carried and the Repeal Section in the Schedule was not altered, the effect would be that town parks would be fully admitted to the Land Acts. He asked whether, if the Amendment was carried, the question of accommodation tenants could not be raised on the Repeal Section.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,on the point of order, said that, as he understood the matter, if the Amendment were accepted, and the Bill were allowed to stand exactly as it was, a change would take place in the law. Town parks would be included in the Land Acts, and might have fair rents fixed. That result would be obviated by moving to omit certain words of the subsection, and if those words were omitted town parks would be in the same position they were in now. Following up the questions which had been put from the other side, he would ask whether it would not be in order on the Schedule to discuss whether or not the law should remain as it was, or, in the alternative, that town parks should be included in the operation of the Land Acts; but that, on the other hand, it would not be competent to discuss the various Amendments on the Paper in regard to this sub-section?
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: It is perfectly obvious that on the Schedule it would not be possible

  1657
  to discuss fresh provisions in regard to town parks. The only question would he whether this particular sub-section applying to town parks should be repealed or allowed to remain. It would not he possible to propose fresh conditions, such as extent, value, and matters of that sort, as regards town parks.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said he thought that what the Chairman had said made it clear that, if the Amendment were carried standing alone, it would have the effect of putting town parks exactly on the same footing as any other holding to which the Land Acts applied. It would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment in that sense, and if it were accepted it would be a necessary corollary that they should afterwards move to omit those conditions and repeal the Schedule which dealt with town parks in the existing Acts. It would be also necessary to omit Clause 5, which was intimately connected with the present sub-section. He did not disguise from the House that personally he should regret that this sub-clause should be left out. It had been very carefully considered, and it would bring within the operation of the Land Acts a certain number of tenants who were at present excluded from them. Under the existing law agricultural was held to exclude pastoral, and the Government proposed to insert pastoral in order that it should be made clear that, if town parks were held to be used as agricultural or pastoral farms, they should be brought within the provisions of the Acts. There was another point. By a clause in the Act of 1887, it was provided that where a holding which would otherwise be a town park was not used as an ordinary agricultural farm, it was not to be included within the benefit of the Act if, in the opinion of the Court, its inclusion would substantially interfere with the specific character of the farm.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I have not known a single case of exclusion for that reason.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he believed there had been cases. The Government believed that the clause would include a number of tenants who
  1658
  would otherwise be excluded. But if it were no I approved by those in whose behalf it was immediately designed, nor by the landlords, then the Government would withdraw it, subject to the conditions which he had named.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had fairly admitted that the only benefit of his clause over the existing law was to admit pastoral tenancies; and there were no pastoral town parks, because no holding above 15 or 20 acres would be held to be a town park. What were the disadvantages of the clause? It struck away the enormous protection of the existing law as to townsmanship. The Lords rejected the Amendment moved by the Unionist Government putting a limit of 2,000 to towns, and that limit would not now operate, because the landlords had served notice to quit on the tenants, and converted the holdings into future tenancies. It was far better to let the law stand in its present form than to accept the clause of the right hon. Gentleman amended by the hon. and learned Member for Trinity College.
  *MR. J. PINKERTONsaid that as a layman he was incapable of understanding this Bill, which had been drafted by lawyers for lawyers. No one who was not a member of the legal profession had praised the Bill; and of course Irish lawyers were enamoured of it, because it would prove a fruitful source of litigation. It was most necessary that a limit should be introduced in the definition of a town, in order that the Sub-Commissioners might have a standard of measurement. In the superior Court there was Mr. Justice Bewley giving one definition, and Mr. Commissioner O'Brien giving another. Legally, there were no villages in Ireland now, because the Commissioners decided that every two or three houses constituted a town. In the Act of 1887, a limit of 2,000 in the population was moved by the present Leader of the House, but the Amendment was negatived in the Lords, and, when the Bill came back to the Commons, the right hon. Gentleman actually made a speech in favour of the rejection of his own Amendment. The landlords required to be protected in the matter of town parks as much as the tenants.
  MR. DILLONsaid that he could not support the Amendment, for he found that its result would be to leave the law as it stood. The people of Ireland were profoundly discontented with that law in relation to town parks, and there would be great disappointment and anger in Ireland if the Irish Party allowed this opportunity to pass without expressing the sense of the injustice done to the holders of town parks. If there was a question on which the Government might have been expected to meet the Irish Members half way it was this question. Their demand that the limit should be fixed at 2,000 was a very modest one. All the inquiries which had been directed to this part of the law had agreed in condemning it as promoting endless litigation. As long ago as 1886 the Cowper Commission reported unanimously that the doctrine of town parks should not be applied to any towns with a population of less than 5,000. On no point was the Land Acts Committee—the last great Inquiry on this question—stronger than on this subject of town parks. The Land Acts Committee recommended that "no place be considered a city or town within the meaning of the subsection, excluding town parks, unless it has a population over 2,000." Having quoted further from the Report of evidence of that Committee, he said he thought a population limit of 2,000 would afford protection and relief to a very large body of town-park holders in Ireland. It would be still better, of course, if the Government could see their way, to do away with the exclusion of town parks altogether—["Hear, hear!"]—but that was probably more than could be expected from them. He could not accept the view that the law as it stands was satisfactory or anything approaching satisfactory. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave the law as it stood, and consequently to prevent the discussion of questions which were raised by the Amendments now on the Paper as to population limit and other matters, and he certainly could not support the Amendment. He had received numerous communications from Ireland on the subject. One from Irvinestown, co. Fermanagh, which had a population of 800 or 900, referred to the exclusion by the Chief Land Commission, on appeal of a number of tenants in the neighbourhood.
  1660
  He claimed that an opportunity should be given for bringing forward the case of town parks. It was extremely desirable that Ulster Members should have an opportunity of recording their votes one way or other on the question of population limit.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsubmitted that the practical question was whether the existing state of the law, plus the removal of the grievance of agricultural and pastoral, was not better than the law would be if the new clause in its entirety were passed, and, in addition, the withdrawal of the 5th Clause altogether. To his mind it was perfectly clear that would be a better state of things from the point of view of the tenant, and therefore he was entirely in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork. He did not understand or sympathise with the attitude of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Dillon). The hon. Member was perfectly right in claiming an opportunity of raising the grievance of the town-park tenants, and pointing out the inadequacy of the present law. The hon. Member complained that he had no opportunity of stating their case. Why, he had been stating it for the last 20 minutes—[Ministerial cheers and laughter]—and had been fortifying his statement by quotations from the Report of the Committee with which every Member was perfectly familiar, because the Report had been quoted ad nauseam, and had further fortified his statement by quotations from some of his numerous correspondents in Ireland. In other ways he could raise the question; he could raise it by any number of new clauses; and, if he said they would never reach the stage when the new clauses could be discussed, that was a matter which largely rested with himself. [Ministerial cheers.] It was sincerely to be hoped that as time passed on the hon. Member would be less prodigal of his quotations and eloquence. [Ministerial cheers.] There was another reason why he was in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, and that was that it would undoubtedly facilitate the progress of the Bill.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid that if he believed this Amendment would facilitate the progress of the Bill without doing any injury to

  1661
  other changes in the Land Law which he desired to see, he would support it; but as far as he could make out they should be debarred in fact from the most convenient way of discussing the question of town parks, and, therefore, he was not disposed to vote for the course the hon. Member recommended. It was no use their facilitating the progress of the Bill unless the Committee had had a good opportunity of discussing the questions of town parks. He submitted that the regular course for discussing the question of town parks would be to allow this clause to go on in the ordinary way. Then the hon. Member for Cork could move his Amendment, and also the Amendment for dealing with the limit of population. This was an unfortunate way of raising the question so as to enable the House to see the various objections to the law as it stood and the merit or demerit of the various proposals which hon. Gentlemen had put on the Paper. The Committee would be much deceived if it was not alive to the fact that there were few points in the Bill which excited more lively interest in land reform in Ireland than the question of town parks, and there was no question which excited a livelier interest in Ulster, which was particularly affected. There was an enormous quantity of evidence before the Commission from the North of Ireland, especially by Lord Justice Fitz-Gibbon and Mr. Justice Bewley, to the effect that legislation on the question of town parks was not necessary. The plain effect of this Amendment would be to damage and prejudice a discussion which was so important in connection with the various changes to be made in the Town Park Provisions of 1881 and 1887.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that nothing which had been urged had changed his view as to the importance of the Amendment he had moved. No one was more anxious than he was that the various questions affecting town parks raised from time to time should be fully discussed, but it would be an expensive price to pay if the consequence was that after the discussion was over this clause remained part of the Bill. That was a risk which he was not prepared to take.
  MR. J. MORLEYasked, on a point of Order, whether, supposing this clause were rejected and the Amendment carried, would it be in Order to reintroduce a clause containing the Amendments which his hon. Friend proposed as a new clause, or would not the Committee be considered to have decided the question.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I think it is clear that the best place to decide the questions as to the size of the holding, the population of the towns, and so forth is upon the sub-section the Committee is now discussing. [Cheers.] I am not prepared to say that the matter cannot be raised by a new clause.
  MR. FLYNNmaintained that the remarks of the Chief Secretary had entirely altered the position of affairs in his judgment.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONrose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that no doubt several members from Ulster wished to speak on this important question, which was looked upon with great anxiety in that part of Ireland. He drew attention to the alterations of the town population limit—first at 10,000, next to 5,000, and finally the compromise of 2,000—and recalled a declaration made by the First Lord of the Treasury when Chief Secretary, in 1887, to the effect that the Government were distinctly of opinion that where land was used as accommodation land it should remain one of the exceptions of the Land Act of 1881. The right hon. Gentleman added that the effect of the definition had been in certain cases to exclude from the operation of that Act holdings which were truly farms, and the Government did not wish to exclude what were really and truly farms from the Act of 1881. Were the tenants in these circumstances to be content with less than what the Government intended to give them in 1887? Though he could not support the Amendment, he hoped that their votes would not be misunderstood. [Ironical cheers.]
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDprotested against the attempt which

  1663
  was being made to kill the Bill—[laughter and cheers]—to kill it, not on its merits, but simply because it was a Tory Bill. It was well known that the Opposition desired to hinder this Bill from becoming law, not because they believed it would benefit the farmers of Ireland, but because, if it did not become law, it would injure the Government and the Tory Party. [Ministerial cheers.] He supported the Bill and emphatically protested against attempts to kill a Measure which was likely to do some good to the farmers of Ireland. He was not prepared to join in those attempts simply to please the Liberal Party who when in office did nothing for the farmers and did not want the Tories to do anything for them.
  MR. M. MCCARTANobserved that the hon. Member for East Clare had shown the House that his first object was to support the Tories. This question of town parks was a burning question in Ulster. He would have supported the Amendment if an assurance had been given by the Government that the section dealing with town parks in the Schedule A would be repealed if the Amendment were agreed to. But they had given no such assurance. On the contrary, they had been told that that section would not be repealed. Therefore, if the Amendment were carried, they would have no opportunity this Session of amending the law relating to town parks. He saw no reason why fair rents could not be fixed in the case of town parks without doing injustice to the landlords. Power might be given to the landlords to resume the land if it should be required for building purposes. There ought to be no exclusion of town parks, but if there must be exclusion there ought to be some definition of the term "town." The Cowper Commission recommended that the limit of population should be 5,000, and a limit of 2,000 had been adopted by that House for some purposes. Mr. Justice Bewley, the Chief of the Land Commission, had said that the adoption of a population limit was the only expedient that he could devise. The state of the law in regard to town park's in Ireland was a scandal. There was the case of Dundrum. A special commission decided that Dundrum was a town; Mr. Justice Bewley reversed the decision
  1664
  and decided that it was not a town. That decision was in its turn reversed, but finally the Court of Appeal decided that Dundrum was not a town. Some guidance ought to be given to the Land Commissioners in these cases, so as to enable them to protect tenants against robbery. The law as to town parks enabled landlords to put their tenants on the rack. In the circumstances he could not face his constituents if he were to vote for this Amendment.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 261.—(Division List, No. 336.)
  Remaining words of sub-section omitted.
  MR. SMITH-BABBYmoved to leave out paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1). It was, he said, the opinion of himself and friends that it would be very much better if the law relating to pastoral holdings were left as it was rather than that it should be amended as suggested in this sub-section. He contended that no reason had been shown why the figure of £50 should be raised to £100, or why Parliament should extend the principles of the Act of 1881 and give further concessions and advantages to the tenants than were given under that Act. In his view, the Land Act of 1881 went a great deal too far. Whilst he, and those who acted with him, did not desire in any way to disturb or take away anything which the Act of 1881 intended to confer upon the tenants, at the same time they objected to any extension of that Act, and it was because the sub-section gave such an extension that he moved its omission.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURdeclined to accept the Amendment, the effect of which would be to exclude from the Land Act all pastoral holdings of £50 a year and under, and to abolish the test of residence in every case of pastoral holdings. The Committee were probably aware that this provision had been inserted to carry out the suggestion made by Mr. Justice Bewley. The reason for the change in the law was this. The Act of 1881 excluded from its advantages large graziers, who were

  1665
  a distinct class. But there had undoubtedly been in Ireland, in consequence of the changes in agricultural conditions, a tendency towards an increase in the number of fanners who belonged strictly to the same class as those who farmed tillage land, and it seemed to him only fair, after the change in the agricultural conditions, that they should no longer insist upon the exclusion of a body of men who practically belonged to the same class as those whom the Act was intended to benefit. ["Hear, hear!"] He would point out that, if the Amendment were carried, dairy farms would be excluded from the operation of the Measure. He believed that dairy farms never had been excluded from the operation of the Land Acts, and he could hardly believe his right hon. Friend seriously desired to import so large a change as would be involved in his Amendment, as regarded dairy farms. It was necessary to make clear in the Bill that such farms were not to be excluded from its advantages, and although they had not hitherto been excluded there seemed to be some doubt as to the interpretation of the law. The Government thought that the extension from £50 to £100 was desirable, having regard to the change in agricultural conditions generally, and he did not think that, coupled with the further provision in the Bill that the tenant must either reside upon his holding or else upon a holding subject to the Land Act, there was any fear that the amendment of the law which would be effected by the sub-section would lead to the inclusion of a class of men whom it was the intention of the Act of 1881 to exclude. ["Hear, hear!"]
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that two years ago one of the Members of the Land Commission (Mr. Justice Bewley) spoke of raising the limit, and he declined to give any reason. The Government wanted to disturb the settlement made under the Bill of 1881 for no reason that he could conceive. The ground on which, mainly, Mr. Gladstone based the justice of the Land Bill of 1881 was that there was in Ireland a vast number of tenants who could not themselves, without the assistance of legislation, come to fair and equitable terms with their landlords. That was the basis of the Land Act of 1881, and
  1666
  the limit was placed at £50 because Mr. Gladstone and his Government felt that above that amount tenants were perfectly able to take care of themselves. In no sense of the word did holders of pasture farms resemble the small tenants for whom the Act of 1881 was passed He could not conceive why the Government should deliberately elect to change the law without any reason whatever, except that the late Government proposed to fix the limit at £200 and the present Government thought they would make a compromise by fixing it at £100. He protested against the raking up of the settlement of 1881. He had regarded this Bill as a supplementary Measure to rectify any faults or defects that might he found in the Act of 1881 and not to introduce any new principles. The Government seemed willing to accept Amend merits from the other side of the House but not from their own side. He hoped that before the Bill took its final shape the law as it stood would be maintained and that the proposed interference with it, for which no valid reason had been given, would be rejected by Parliament. He trusted that those English Members who sympathised with justice and the rights of property would support him and his friends in the Division. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CARSONsaid he hoped the Government had not absolutely made up their minds on this question. When this Bill was introduced it was stated that its main object was to elucidate questions not foreseen when the Act of 1881 was passed. This particular clause, at any rate, did not come within what was stated to be the object of the Bill. When it was considered that the alteration proposed by the section—which Irish Unionists so strongly objected to—was to raise the limit of £50 to £100, one could hardly understand why the Government should think it necessary to enact a section of the kind as against many of their own supporters which could not affect any considerable number of tenancies in Ireland. Why were the tenants of pasture land excluded from the Act of 1881 at all? It had always been stated that the tenants who hold grazing farms stood on an entirely different footing from the ordinary farmer who resided on his holding and who lived simply by the cultivation of it.

  1667
  Many of the holders of these grazing farms were not farmers in the ordinary sense, but cattle-dealers in England, and others, who were just as well able to take care of themselves as the landlord or any other person. Let him examine the reasons given by the Chief Secretary for this section. The first reason was that since the Act of 1881 a large number of farmers had turned their holdings into grass. In those cases the section would not apply. The Chief Secretary forgot that the words of his section referred to holdings which were let for use. He gave another and said that if the Amendment were carried it would put out the words of the section "other than a holding let to be used wholly or mainly for a dairy farm." That was an exception which he did not know of as being in any other of the previous Acts. Then he said that the Courts had held that dairy farms were to be within the Act. If that were so all he could say was that it was a pity that in a Bill which they had only a short time to discuss he should enact a law which he said already existed.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that what he stated was that there was a doubt about that, but, as a matter of fact, they had always been allowed.
  MR. CARSONsaid that if they had always been allowed he did not know where the doubt came in. There was one other reason. When Mr. Justice Bewley was examined he was asked his view as to the limit, and he said he thought it might be raised from £50 to £100. He gave no reason, and the Government had not invented one. It came to this. Each successive Government thought it necessary from time to time to bring in a Bill dealing with the Irish land question, and, no matter how the law might have been settled, to take a small slice of what remained to the landlord. ["Hear, hear!"] It was part of the everlasting attempt to make peace in Ireland by giving sops to one party at the expense of another. He hoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division, and that many Irish Members who asked for a reason for what the Government were doing would, unless a satisfactory one was given, support Irish Unionist Members in this matter.
  Question put, "That the words 'To a tenancy in a' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 293; Noes, 54.—(Division List, No. 337.)
  MR. T. M. HEALYmoved, in paragraph (a), Sub-section (1), after the words "to a tenancy in a," to insert the words "crag or mountain farm or." In the barony of Burrin in the county of Clare there were a number of crag farms so called because of the number of rocks and boulders they contained—which were not let to be used for the purposes of pasture, but which had been excluded from the benefits of the Land Act of 1881, because the House of Lords held on appeal that though there was no specific agreement that they should be used for pasture, as the nature of the land rendered the use of the plough impracticable, they must have been, in the intentions of the parties, let to be used for pasture. That decision amounted to this—that because a man's farm was rocky, he must continue to be rackrented. A great deal was said about the settlement of 1881. Was it not a hard thing that the people of a whole barony in county Clare should be excluded from the benefits of the Land Act, because their farms were so full of stones that the plough could not be used on them? Many of the mountains in Ireland had been slowly reclaimed up almost to the top by spade labour; but there would never be any general mountain reclamation by the tenants unless they had some protection for their improvements. The Amendment was in favour of the poorest class of tenants.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid that as representing the district referred to, he could fully bear out what had been said. The Amendment was earnestly desired by large numbers of the poorest and most deserving of the tenant-farmers in Clare.
  MR. MACNEILLhoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETTthought the Amendment ought to be accepted, though some definition of its terms would be necessary.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,)regretted that the Government were unable to accept the Amendment. The words were quite vague; and it was not possible to define what was a "crag or mountain farm." By introducing the words as proposed, all crag farms would be excluded, no matter how large, and notwithstanding that they might have been let expressly for pasture. As to farms used for pasture, though without any express agreement to that effect, it had been decided that, in dealing with lettings before 1881, it was necessary to ascertain the use which the land was reasonably capable of being put to in order to discover the purpose of the letting. If the farm could not be used for anything but grazing, the conclusion was that the intention of the parties was to let the farm for grazing purposes.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the "intentions of the parties." Did anyone have any intention of being born in county Clare? [Laughter.] The men were born and brought up on crag land and found that they could not use the farms in any other way than for grazing. It was a natural disability; not any intention of the parties. But he was willing to modify his Amendment so as to exclude from it cases where there was a contract to use the farms for grazing purposes. The exclusion from the Act of these poor people all resulted from the decision of a Scotchman in the House of Lords. [Laughter.] He asked the Government to consider the matter before Report.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid that if the hon. and learned Gentleman knew the barony of Burrin he would understand the nature of crag farms. It was a monstrous injustice that, because the poor people who inhabited that immense and curiously-formed tract of country in Clare, could not plough the land, they should be excluded from fair rents.
  MR. KNOXthought that there was some hope of compromise. His hon. and learned Friend was willing to except cases where there was an express agreement to use the farm for pasture. It was of this barony of Burrin that it was said in Cromwell's time that there was not enough wood to hang a man, enough
  1670
  water to drown him, or enough earth to bury him.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CARSON MR. CARSON moved to omit from paragraph (a), Sub-section (1), the words "other than a holding let to be used wholly or mainly for a dairy farm." He was perfectly sure that if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in keeping the words quoted in the sub-section, and many others which had unfortunately been introduced in this Bill, there would be a series of litigation all over the various holdings which had been excluded under the law as it stood up to the present time, excluding holdings let wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture. Because, supposing a tenant-farmer wished to get within the Act, there would be nothing to prevent him using the farm for a time as a dairy farm and then going into the Court and saying that though it was true the holding was let wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture, he found it convenient to use it as a dairy farm, and as there was no exclusion in the lease for dairy farming, he would claim to come within the purview of the Land Acts. With reference to a statement made by the Chief Secretary upon another Amendment, he knew of no case where the Courts came to the conclusion that a holding, let mainly for the purpose of pasture, was really a dairy farm, and ought to be allowed to come within the Acts. He should like, indeed, to be referred to any such case. Why, then, should there be something new engrafted upon the sub-section? Why should they now, after 15 or 16 years of definite decisions arrived at, after very great expense to landlord and tenant, engraft upon the law as to holdings let wholly or mainly for pasture, an additional exception as to dairy farms? He felt the more justified in pressing the Amendment because the right hon. Gentleman himself stated that the Courts had always held dairy farms to be within the Act. That being so, why should his right hon. Friend introduce words which would be argued over and over again as laying down some limitation to this particular class of cases under the sections that had existed under the Act of 1881? If there was one objection more

  1671
  than another to the way in which this Bill was drafted, it was that words like those in question had been put in brackets here and parenthesis there for no real object save to raise conundrums for the Courts in Ireland to decide.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that his right hon. Friend had somewhat misinterpreted the meaning of the words he had used a short time ago, though he admitted that the words might have given some justification for the interpretation. He did not intend to convey that this question had been raised in the Courts, and that the Courts, by holding that certain holdings were let "mainly or wholly" for the purposes of pasture, had then overruled the effect of that decision on the ground that they were used as dairy farms. What happened was this. The landlords had, in a vast majority of cases, not raised any objection to holdings which were used as dairy farms being included within the benefits of the Acts, but the language which had been used, especially by Lord Fitzgerald, had given rise to the belief that if the law was strictly interpreted, and if the landlords did require the exclusion of farms on the ground that, as dairy farms had been dealt with before, it might be decided against the tenants of the dairy farms. He could hardly believe that his right hon. Friend, after thousands of cases of dairy farms had been allowed to come within the advantages of the Act should now wish to exclude them. His purpose in putting the words in the Bill was not to change the existing practice, but to mention it and to prevent it from being interfered with.
  MR. CARSONsaid that the case referred to with reference to dairy farms was not a case in which the contract was "wholly or mainly" for the purpose of pasture. Where they had an expressed contract limiting the use of land for the purpose of pasture, they would create tremendous difficulty by the introduction of those words, which were wholly inconsistent with the contract.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETTsaid he had heard the objection raised that land laid down for the purposes of pasture might, by the introduction of a single cow, be taken to be used for the purpose of a dairy farm. He thought that the words "wholly or mainly" in connection
  1672
  with a dairy farm absolutely precluded any such possibility.
  MR. W. FIELDsaid that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to ignore the fact that many dairy farms had been started in Ireland, and that it was a growing industry. Dairy farms ought to be protected by legislation in the same way as agriculturists.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved after the words "to a tenancy in a holding," to insert the words, "which has been laid down in permanent pasture by the tenant at his own expense."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it seemed to him that a great deal could be said for the Amendment in principle, but he would like further time to consider it. The Amendment might be brought up on Report.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that on this assurance he would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. CARSONsaid that, supposing a tenant before the lease had himself laid down the land in pasture. A contract was then entered into between the landlord and tenant to make it a pasture letting. The Courts were to go beyond the lease and were not to construe it as pasture land. The Court would have to investigate the circumstances in which the lease was made, how far the landlord forced the lease on the tenant, and how far it was voluntary. The Amendment would open up a wide field for discussion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MCCARTAN MR. MCCARTAN moved an Amendment excluding a holding of the rateable value of "£200" instead of "£100 or upwards "as proposed in the Bill.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Committee had already pretty fully discussed this Amendment. It was obviously a question of degree, but the object of the Government had been to include those tenants who ought to be included, having regard to the provisions of the Act of 1881. But the limit proposed was too high.
  MR. DILLONsupported the Amendment, because the figure proposed had

  1673
  been settled upon by the Land Acts Committee.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLappealed to the Chief Secretary to accept this reasonable figure of £200. It was, of course, an arbitrary figure, out having referred to the change which had taken place in the circumstances of the tenants in many parts of Ireland, he thought the valuation of £200 was reasonable.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. McCARTAN MR. McCARTAN moved to omit paragraph (ii) sub-section (1):—
  "If the tenant does not actually reside in the holding, or where the holding adjoins or is ordinarily used with another holding to which the Land Law Acts apply, then——"
  MR. DILLONsaid that if the Amendment were not accepted, tenants who ought to receive the benefit of this legislation would be excluded from it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURpointed out that if the Amendment were carried it would alter the existing law considerably. It was at present a condition that a tenant who wanted to have a fair rent fixed must reside in the holding or in an adjacent holding. The only innovation which was now proposed to be made was the condition that the adjacent holding must itself be a holding to which the Land Acts applied. He could not assent to the omission of the whole sub-section. The object of the Government was to make it clear and certain that those who were to receive the benefit of this legislation must really belong to the class of farmers. If the sub-section were omitted, occupiers of villa residences or in town houses might come in and claim the benefits of the Land Acts. That would lead to a good many cases of abuse. On the whole, the balance of argument was in favour of retaining the provision.
  MR. KNOXdid not think that the Government really meant to go as far in the direction of exclusion as this subsection went. There was the case of holdings purchased under the Land Purchase Acts.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he would be willing to add to Paragraph (ii) of the sub-section the words "or on a holding which has been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts."
  MR. KNOXthought it would be best to leave the law as it stood at present. He did not believe that cases of abuse were likely to arise.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONcontended that no case had been made out for the concession asked for by the supporters of the Amendment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that it sometimes happened that a tenant held under two leases. A tenant holding a pasture farm valued at £100 would be admitted to the benefits of the Land Acts. Supposing, however, that under two leases, he held two pastoral holdings, valued respectively at £50, the holding on which he did not reside might be excluded by this provision. That exclusion could not be justified. It was common in some parts of Ireland for a man to have two leases for what was practically, and to all intents and purposes, one holding—two portions of land adjoining each other, and used for similar objects. The land was only separated by the fact of there being two leases. There was no physical division whatsoever between the land; but a farm being taken under one lease, the tenant might subsequently desire to extend his acreage, and for that purpose take up a quantity of land adjoining the original land. Now, although there might be no actual division of the portions of land, yet the bare fact of two leases being in existence would set up the artificial separation to which he had alluded. It would be unjust to exclude a man from the benefits of the Acts in regard to the particular portion of this land on which it might be said he did not reside.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDopposed the Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he understood that one of the objects of the Bill was to remove difficulties in the way of tenants getting a fair rent fixed, but he feared the clause, unless amended, would have an opposite effect. The sub-section, as it stood, would, under the existing state of the law, have the effect of depriving certain tenants of existing and vested rights they now enjoyed. He thought the Amendment should be accepted.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLthought it was unnecessary, in any circumstances, to retain in the sub-section the words "to which the Land Law Acts apply,"

  1675
  and suggested that the object of the subsection would be equally served if those words were omitted. If a man held a piece of land which, though really one, was divided technically by being held under two leases, and he resided on that land, surely, other conditions being observed, he should not be excluded from the benefits of the Acts. ["Hear, hear!"] The main object in view, he understood, was to meet the cases of persons who lived at a distance from their farms. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not think the words materially altered the intention of the Act of 1881, but he admitted that there were difficulties and complications in the matter. He suggested that the Amendment might be withdrawn, and that the next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tipperary, to omit the words referred to, be accepted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. THOMAS CONDONmoved in the same paragraph to leave out the words "to which the Land Law Acts apply."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved at the end of the paragraph to insert the words:—
  "Provided that where a tenant is entitled to meadow or sell hay off a holding such holding shall he deemed to he let for the purpose of pasture."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the Government were unable to accept the Amendment. He submitted that the law as it stood was in a satisfactory condition—namely, that this was one of the elements to be taken into consideration.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the growing of hay was an agricultural operation. As he understood the matter, if a man meadowed the whole of his land and sold the hay, his farm would not be regarded as a pasture farm. Perhaps the better plan would be for his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and to raise the question again on Report, when, no doubt, they would be able to satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURmoved to omit Sub-section (2).
  Amendment agreed to.
  After the usual interval, Mr. GRANT LAWSON took the Chair.
  MR. T. H. ROBERTSONmoved to omit Sub-section (3), on the ground that it was an absolutely new provision which would lead to litigation, which would undoubtedly injure the landlord, and which would not benefit any of the tenants for whom these Land Acts were intended. They had already provided in the same clause that if a holding was substantially agricultural or pastoral, it should come within the purview of the Land Acts. That was effected by the word "substantially" in paragraph (a) Sub-section (1). The words in this Sub-section were absolutely new in Irish legislation. The words "property" and "demise" were not used in Irish legislation. The word "holding" was used instead of "property." It was true that the word "demise" occurred in the Act of 1860, after the word "lease," but nobody had been able to say exactly what it meant. He had merely called attention to the wording of the clause in order to show that it was novel in character. It was clear from the language of the clause that the portion to be separated must be a substantial portion, otherwise it would have been dealt with at the commencement of the clause. He, however, did not understand what fraction of a property the framers of the clause intended should be dealt with. It was one of the disadvantages of the clause, as it was drawn, that it was impossible to discover whether the portion to be separated was to be a quarter, or a half, or any other fraction of it. When the portion of the property was separated, the Commissioners were to fix its judicial rent, and in the future it was to be deemed to be a separate holding. The clause as it stood was so palpably unjust that it could not be passed, and therefore the

  1677
  right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had placed upon the Paper an Amendment to it providing that the Commissioners should only divide the property in the event of such division not diminishing the landlord's interest. But to insert such an Amendment would render the clause absurd, and therefore the hon. Member for Louth had given notice of his intention to amend the proposed Amendment in such a way as would practically annul the Amendment. These two Amendments showed him all the difficulties to which the clause must necessarily give rise. Hon. Members must admit that the property could not be severed without injuring the landlord's interest. He confessed that he could see no ground at all for inserting this clause in the Bill. What reason was there for protecting persons who had taken tenancies which no English farmer would have taken? This clause would not benefit any ordinary tenant-farmer in Ireland, while it would be most unjust to the landlord. On these grounds he, with some confidence, asked the Committee to reject this clause.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had taken a view of the clause that was not justified by its language. At the present time there were holdings that were excluded from the operation of the Land Acts by reason of their being included in some other property, and the clause proposed that in such cases the property should be separated in order that the holding might be dealt with by the Land Commissioners and a fair rent fixed. The Amendment he had placed upon the Paper provided that that should only be done in cases where the interest of the landlord would not be injuriously affected by the separation of the property. Unless very much stronger reasons were put forward for granting this concession, the Government must adhere to the words of the clause.
  MR. CARSONsaid it was very interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman defending this new real-property law which had been introduced by a Unionist Government. He was not surprised to hear that, as the result of their deliberation, the Chief Secretary had resolved not to accept the Amendment, but to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth. As far as he
  1678
  could see, the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind that the only Amendments he would accept were Amendments coming from that quarter of the House in which the hon. Member for Louth was sitting; but he had some hope that, since the right hon. Gentleman had conceded about six Amendments to the other side, the turn of the Unionists might come. Of all the comical sections ever put into an Act of Parliament, the section under consideration was the most comical. What did it pr pose to do? It proposed, in the first place, to give to the Land Commission in Ireland the power to separate into two holdings, under two different tenures, at two different rents, and with two entirely different attributes, what the landlord, by contract, had let as one holding. That, he ventured to say, was a very serious matter for the consideration of the Committee. But the clause went further than that. It allowed the tenant, when the holding had thus been split into two parts, to throw back on the hands of the landlord one part, while he reserved to himself the other part. But the really comical part of the clause was when they came to deal with the separation of the incorporeal hereditament from the corporeal hereditament. He would like to ask any lawyer in the House whether he had ever known a case in which the incorporeal hereditament was treated as an absolutely separate holding from the corporeal hereditament out of which it flowed. Suppose a landlord let the land with the shooting. This clause would enable the tenant to go into Court and say: "True it is that a substantive part of the property are the shooting rights which I have taken in the lands, but a more substantive part of the property is the land I hold, and I now call upon you so to treat these two hereditaments, corporeal and incorporeal, as to give me the land to hold in perpetuity under this Act, and also to give me the right of shooting only so long as I wish to keep it," A more comical result could hardly be conceived. Suppose the tenant were to say: "I shall pay the rent for the corporeal hereditament, but you may do what you like about your incorporeal hereditament. "The landlord would say: "I shall bring my action." The tenant would

  1679
  say: "All right;" but when the landlord came into the land there was nothing to seize. In the case of the land he could bring an ejectment, but what was to become of the incorporeal hereditament? He could imagine a landlord in Ireland searching in vain to find his incorporeal hereditament, and probably the only place where he would be able to find it would be in gremio legis. Again, suppose the case of a house valued at £90 a year, standing on land valued at £100 a year. Nobody ever dreamed that such a holding as that could be brought into the Land Court. But under this section the tenant might say: "I have got a house valued at £90 a year, and land valued at £100. My house is not agricultural or pastoral in its character; you must segregate the mansion from the land and fix a portion of the rent on the mansion. I will keep the land, and the landlord may come and let his house as best he can." That would be the result of this section. It would lay open a large vista of litigation in the Courts. It would enable anybody who had land of any kind to come into Court and say: "I am within this Land Act, and I can separate the holding into two parts, and I will hold one portion in perpetuity under the Land Act which has been passed by a Tory Government, and the landlord may do what he likes with the other." A more direct interference with the elementary principles of the rights of property had seldom been put forward, even by a Radical Government. He really did hope that the Government had not come there simply for the purpose of pacifying opposition on the other side, absolutely to refuse to consider every Amendment coming from their supporters, so that they might avoid the necessity of throwing up another Bill. It would be better far that there should be no Act of Parliament passed at all than that a Unionist Government should persist in passing an Act which was a direct interference with the most elementary principles of the rights of property.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman came to this—that if there was a holding, the whole of which was agricultural in its character, so long as there were half-a-dozen grouse on that holding it was to be excluded from the Land Act.
  1680
  The hon. and learned Gentleman had described the clause as a comical one. He did not think it was anything like so comical as the hon. and learned Gentleman's own argument. He hoped the Government would not give way on the point.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDcould assure the hon. Member who had last spoken that the Government had no intention of giving way upon this question. ["Hear, hear!"] There were in Ireland, and especially in the north, numerous cases where tenants had taken holdings, a very large and substantial part of which was agricultural, but at the same time they might have included in the letting either a mill holding or demesne land. This clause was designed to allow these men to go into court and get a fair rent fixed on what was really the substantial part of the holding—namely, the agricultural part. Under the present state of the law, no matter how small the part might be winch was non-agricultural in character—whether it be a portion of demesne land or mill holding, inasmuch as the holding in its entirety did not fall within the Act—the tenants were excluded from getting fairments fixed at all. The sub-section enabled them to go into court and get a fair rent fixed for that part which was agricultural and which was the substantial part of the holding, leaving in the condition they were before the remainder. His right hon. Friend the Member for the Dublin University selected the instance of a person with a large residential holding and 50 or 60 acres of land attached, and suggested that such a person might go into court, say his residence was not an agriculcultural holding, demand that his residence should be separated, and a fair rent fixed upon the portion of land he held. As to that argument, he thought it might be fairly urged that any Court would hold that this combined or entire letting was not an agricultural holding at all, but residential. But, even if the Court should hold it was not a residential holding, the Government had endeavoured to guard against injury which might be inflicted on the landlord by the Amendment introduced by the Chief Secretary providing that the separation should not take place where, because of it, the interest of the landlord might be diminished in

  1681
  some way other than the mere fixing of the rent. He submitted to the Committee that a grave defect existed, and that there were a number of tenants excluded from the Act who ought not to be, by reason of the fact that something that was not agricultural had been let to them along with the holding. It was most desirable they should be included, and no useful purpose could be served, or any good be done to the landlord, by excluding them. ["Hear, hear!"] It was, perhaps, possible that an occasional case might arise when some such extravagant and absurd conclusion as that which had been suggested by his right hon. Friend might be arrived at, but that was no reason why they should deny to the large class of tenants to whom he had referred that redress to which they were entitled. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Question put, "That the words 'Where a distinct and substantive part of the' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 49.—(Division List, No. 338.)
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in the same sub-section to leave out the word "demise" and to insert instead the word "tenancy." He submitted that the word demise was never used except in connection with contracts in writing. In some cases the contract of tenancy might not be in writing, and the tenancy might be from year to year. He wished to make it plain that the clause should not be limited to contracts in writing.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the word "demise" had been in use for over 400 years.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid that, according to the 28th Section of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1860, the word demise included a parol tenancy. Let the Clause be placed beyond all doubt on the subject What was wanted was to leave as little to the lawyer as possible. [Laughter.]
  MR. GERALD BALFOURthought the Committee ought to adhere to the word "demise."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GERALD BALFOURmoved, in Sub-section (3), after the words "substantial
  1682
  part of such property, the court may," to insert the words
  "if they are of opinion that, apart from the fixing of a fair rent, the separation of the property into two parts will not diminish the value of the landlord's interest therein."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURmoved to add at the end of Sub-section (3) the words—
  "Nothing in this section shall extend to any holding in respect of which a judicial rent has been fixed before the commencement of this Act."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYmoved to add, at the end of the section—
  "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, shall apply to any holding to which the Land Law Acts apply."
  Where there were holdings in respect to which the tenants could claim compensation for disturbance under the Act or 1870, though they could not have fair rents fixed, a fair rent could not be fixed for any holding in respect to which the tenant could not claim compensation for disturbance His Amendment was necessary if only for the sake of legal symmetry, and he could not imagine that it was anyone's interest to resist it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURagreed that, from the point of view of legal symmetry, a great deal might be said for the Amendment. But the Committee was not dealing with the Amendment of the Act of 1870, and if one Amendment of that Act were accepted the door would be opened for further Amendments.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CARSONmoved to add, at the end of the section:—
  "Provided that it shall not be lawful for the tenant, without the consent of the landlord, to surrender one portion only of the said property."
  The object of the Amendment was to secure that, where a holding was divided by the Land Commission Court into two, and the tenant thereby gained in perpetuity the good portion of the holding, the tenant should not have the power, unless the landlord consented, to surrender the portion for which he had not had a fair rent fixed. It seemed

  1683
  contrary to the principles of justice that, where a landlord and tenant agreed between themselves that a certain portion of land should form a holding, it should be left to the tenant to give up a portion of that holding, and not the whole, to the injury of the landlord. He submitted chat it was no hardship to the tenant that he was in the position of being able to surrender if he wished to surrender the whole, but he should not be able to surrender part of that which was let to him as a whole.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURadmitted that there would be a great deal in the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman if the Government had not provided for the case by an Amendment of their own. The Government thought they sufficiently protected the landlord by their own Amendment.
  MR. T. H. ROBERTSONhoped on reconsideration the Government would allow the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. All it asked was this, that where a man had created one tenancy, the tenant should not be allowed to throw part of it back upon the landlord's hands while retaining that which he considered most valuable, He agreed that the Chief Secretary had put in words which to a certain limited extent helped the landlord; but still, he submitted that was no reason why, the rental being reduced as to part of the property, the tenant should be allowed to come forward and say, as to the remainder of the property, on which the old rent remains, "I do not want it; you can take it back."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had not the smallest objection to make that concession to the landlord party if they on their part would let the Land Court fix a fair rent upon the whole thing.
  MR. CARSONsaid that was a somewhat cool proposition. It came to this, that the Land Court should not only have power to separate the matter into two holdings, but should have power to fix a fair rent upon what was admittedly the portion which was excluded from the Land Act. As to the answer to the Chief Secretary, he thought that words equired to be introduced into the Government's Amendment to meet the case where plainly injury would be done to the landlord by having a portion of his property thrown back upon his hands, or else the right hon. Gentleman ought
  1684
  to accept what carried out the object in another way.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDwas understood to say that as to the one part of the holding the tenant would get a permanent tenure, and as to the other an ordinary tenure; and that, as to the portion on which a fair rent had not been fixed, the landlord would have the right to evict and the tenant would have the right to surrender.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 3,—

  EXCLUSION BY SUBLETTING OF HOLDING.
  (1.) For the purpose of an application to fix a fair rent, the tenant of a holding shall he deemed to he in bonâ fide occupation thereof notwithstanding—

  (a) that any dwelling-house on the holding, not being the dwelling of the tenant, and not having been erected by the tenant in breach of his contract of tenancy or of a statutory condition, is sublet to or in the occupation of another person; or

  (b) that any other part of the holding is, otherwise than in breach of the contract of tenancy, or of a statutory condition, sublet to or in the occupation of another person, if in the estimation of the court a part not less than seven-eighths or thereabouts in value of the holding remains in the bonâ fide occupation of the tenant; and if the sub-hitting was made before the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, or was substantially in substitution for a letting existing before that date:

  Provided that this enactment shall not apply unless the court think it reasonable to entertain the application having regard to the acreage of the holding and to any other matter which they think should be taken into consideration, and the court may entertain the application notwithstanding that any such house or part of a holding is occupied by a person to whom it has been sublet in contravention of Section two of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.
  (2.) Where a part of the property held under one demise is sublet, and the property was let to the tenant subject to the tenancy of some other person in the part sublet, the court may direct that the part so sublet shall thenceforth be, or, if it is an incorporeal hereditament he treated as, a separate holding, and shall be held during the continuance of the tenancy at such rent as the court determine to be the proper proportion of the rent reserved by the demise, and the court may fix a fair rent for the remainder of the property held under the demise, and the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act shall apply to that remainder as if it were a separate holding;

  1685
  Provided that, if the landlord so elect, the I court shall order that the tenant of the part so sublet shall he the tenant of such landlord as his immediate landlord.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in paragraph (a) subsection (1), to omit the words "not being the dwelling of the tenant." He asked whether they could not be interpreted to mean that, in the case where two holdings, each with a separate dwelling-house, had been joined together, the tenant would not be allowed to sublet the dwelling-house which he did not occupy.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that the intention of the words was that, where the dwelling-house was in the occupation of some person other than the tenant, that should not be held as a reason for deciding that the tenant was not in occupation of the tenancy. In the case put by the hon. and learned Member, the tenant would be able to sublet one or two dwelling-houses.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL*MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL moved, in the same paragraph, to omit the words "or of a statutory condition," on the ground that the words were superfluous.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDthought that the words were necessary, and they had been introduced in order to prevent cases of seeming hardship, which had arisen under the Act of 1881, when a tenant applying to have a fair rent fixed was found to have sub let.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "seven-eighths" and to insert instead the words "three-fourths," as the portion necessary for qualifying as bonâ fide occupation in order to have a fair rent fixed.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURcould not accept the Amendment, on the ground that seven-eighths was a reasonable amount for qualifying.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved, in the same paragraph, after "value of the holding, to insert the words "excluding from such value the value of any buildings
  1686
  erected by the tenant." He said there were many cases where a farmer had erected three or four cottages for his labourers, and if they were erected by himself they ought to be exempted from the eighth, which might be sub-let.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he was prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL*MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL moved in the same paragraph to omit the words:—
  "and if the sub-letting was made before the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, or was substantially in substitution for a letting existing before that date."
  There seemed to him, he said, to be no reason for drawing the line at the particular date mentioned in this paragraph of the clause. There was nothing to indicate why it should be so drawn, and it appeared to him to be unnecessary and arbitrary
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid if his right. hon. and learned Friend had read the clause more closely, he would have seen there was every reason for selecting the limit that had been made. Up to 1881 a tenant from year to year was not prohibited from sub-letting, and therefore sub-letting up to that period was "innocent sub-letting." The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, for the first time prohibited a tenant from year to year from sub-letting, and the Government had framed this clause so as to enable him to get a fair rent fixed, nothwithstanding that he had sublet when it was no violation of any law, but they prohibited him from getting a fair rent fixed where the sub-letting was a violation of the law. That was the distinction.
  MR. CARSONpointed out that the word "before" ("the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887") should be "at."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURagreed that that should be so.
  *MR SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid he would not press his Amendment, though he was not convinced as to the necessity for the limit.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Word "before" struck out, and word "at" inserted instead thereof.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved at the end of paragraph (b) Sub-section (1) to insert the words:—
  "Provided that a sub-letting or sub-division shall not, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a breach of the contract of tenancy unless, with a reasonable time after the subletting or sub-division came to the knowledge of the landlord or his agent, he served on the tenant notice of his dissent from the sub-letting or sub-division, or instituted a proceeding against the lessee founded upon the said breach of contract."
  The object of the Amendment was to provide that the prohibition of sub-letting in a contract of tenancy if it was to operate against the tenant must have been an actual operation. He remembered one case particularly where the tenant had had his holding sub-let for 60 years prior to the passing of the Act of 1881. The landlord knew of the subletting and the agent knew of it, and no objection had ever been taken of it. In a case of that kind would it not be a hard thing to call into life a prohibition of the lease, not to secure any good result to the tenant or to the suit-tenant, but simply to prevent a fair rent being fixed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that in October 18th 1894, at a Land Conference in Belfast, the hon. Member for South Tyrone strongly supported the proposals of the Morley Committee on the subject of sub-letting. The hon. Member said that there were cases of sub-letting to which the landlord had tacitly assented, but that as soon as the tenants prepared to apply to have fair rents fixed, the landlord raised the objection that there had been sub-letting. The hon. Member pointed out that it was not the sub-letting to which the landlord objected, but the fixing of a fair rent. The speech of the hon. Member might have been delivered in support of the very Amendment now proposed. The fact that a tenant had sub-let ought not to be used as a means of cheating him out of a fair rent when no detriment was done to the land in consequence of the sub-letting.
  MR. CARSONhoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. Tenants ought to be compelled to keep to the provisions of their contracts, and also to the statutory conditions affecting their position.
  MR. KNOXsaid that it was not proposed to interfere in cases where there
  1688
  had been a breach of statutory conditions. It was only fair that a tenant who broke those conditions should suffer. But a distinction ought to be drawn between those eases and cases where there had been a breach of contractual provisions. There was a good deal of sub-letting in Ireland; indeed, in parts of Ulster it was customary. There was less rigid adherence formerly than now to stipulations against sub-letting, and it was not fair that tenants should suffer in consequence.
  COLONEL WARINGsaid the hon. Member had spoken of chicanery and all sorts of subterfuges being resorted to by the landlord in order to prevent the tenant, who might have sub-let, from getting the advantage of a fair rent being fixed. How did the hon. Member mean to prove that the sub-letting by the tenant came to the knowledge of the landlord at any period? The hon. Member had stated that there were cases in which tenants had sub-let for many years, that the fact was within the knowledge of the landlord, and yet that the landlord had sought to prevent the tenant going into Court because of that sub-letting. Well, he had known cases where tenants had sub let for two years, and had successfully hidden the fact from the landlord in the most skilful way. It would be, impossible to prove in cases of this kind, where the subletting or sub-division was carried out clandestinely, when the fact came or was brought to the knowledge of the landlord or his agent. The Amendment would lead to endless irritation and litigation. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid his Amendment would do no such harm as the hon. and gallant Member suggested, for, unless the tenant succeeded in proving that his landlord knew of the sub-letting and tacitly consented to it, he would not be able to claim any benefit from the provision. The Amendment, therefore, required that it should be shown that the landlord was aware of the sub-letting, and all he asked was that, in cases where the fact of the subletting had been known for years by the landlord, he should not be able to prevent the tenant from going into Court to get a fair rent fixed on the ground that the tenant had sub-let without agreement. The Government had recognised in a subsequent clause—the 8th

  1689
  Clause—the propriety of this protection being given to tenants placed in the circumstances stated, and he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the 8th Clause referred to a state of things and circumstances different to that contemplated by the hon. and learned Member. However, it would be admitted by everyone who knew anything about agricultural land in Ireland that the practice of sub-letting was a great evil, and had always been so regarded. Numbers of statutes had been passed during the last half century in order to restrain it, and this clause was framed to deprive a tenant of the advantage he would otherwise have of getting a fair rent fixed in cases where he had sub-let in violation of his contract. If the terms of his contract that he should not sub-lot, and yet he did so, it was difficult to see why he should be put in the same position after the violation of contract, as a man who had observed the terms of his contract. ["Hear, hear!"] The evil of sub-letting could be shown in no more forcible way than by the fact that when the Act of 1881 was passed it was one of the statutory conditions that the moment a tenant got a fair rent fixed he was to be absolutely prohibited from sub-letting. That section could not have been inserted in the Act unless sub-letting was treated as a great evil and was to be prevented in every possible way. The 8th Clause, as he had said, dealt altogether with a different matter relating to the Statute Law of Ireland, and one which to some people might seem absurd and grotesque. If a landlord made a lease containing a prohibition against assignment, and if the tenant sublet, the lessee might afterwards turn upon the tenant at any time and say "although I am sub-letting and been in occupation for years, yet you are not my tenant, because the lease under which I myself hold contains a prohibition against sub-letting. That was a ridiculous position of things, and the he 8th Clause was introduced to prevent a manœuvre of this kind.
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid that what he wanted to point out was that they were all agreed that public policy was opposed to sub-letting, and that the law should be so framed as to prevent as far as possible that rule of public policy being contravened. But in the case referred
  1690
  to, the landlord had been for years conniving at the infraction of the rule of public policy, and it was only when the tenant went into Court for the purpose of having a fair rent fixed that the landlord suddenly awoke to the fact that there had been an infraction of the rule, and objected on that ground to a fair rent being fixed.
  MR. CARSON: How could the landlord help the sub-letting.
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid that at any-rate the landlord had acquiesced in the subletting of the holding, and therefore it was not right that he should be allowed to raise the objection that the holding had been sub let as a ground for refusing to fix a fair rent. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DILLONsaid that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork would be a barrier against sub-letting. ["Hear!"]
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that under the existing law, if the tenant had obtained the landlord's express consent to the sub letting of the holding, the tenant could not get a fair rent fixed.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he was quite ready to consent to an Amendment of the clause as would enable a fair rent to be fixed in cases where the landlord had given an express consent to the sub-letting. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that in that case he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved at the end of paragraph (b) Sub-section (1), after the word "date," to insert,—
  "or
  (c) that a portion of the holding is sublet if the holding was let to the tenant subject to the tenancy of some other person."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURopposed the Amendment. They had dealt with the problem in a different way. The policy had been to discourage middlemen as much as possible—["hear, hear!"]—and the effect of the Amendment would be to encourage them. He thought that the Bill as it stood would give more protection to the tenant than was proposed by the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved after Sub-section (2) to add—
  "(3) The subletting of any such dwelling-house as is referred to in Sub-section one (a) of this section during the continuance of a statutory term shall not be deemed to be a breach of any statutory condition."
  He said he hoped that this Amendment would be accepted by the Government.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he was not quite sure that the breach of the statutory condition contemplated by Subsection (a) was of the same kind as that contemplated in this Amendment. In Subsection (a) it was a question of where the dwelling-house had been erected by the tenant in breach of his contract of tenancy. Here it was a question not of the erection, but of the sub-letting of such dwelling-house. He should like to consider the Amendment a little more carefully before he gave any definite answer upon the subject.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. KNOX MR. KNOX moved at the end of the clause to add:—
  "(3) Where on a holding subject to the Ulster custom the sub-letting was not such as would have barred a claim for compensation under the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, the tenant shall be entitled to have a fair rent fixed."
  MR. CARSONpointed out that one of the main objects of this Bill had been to separate entirely the law in its application to disturbance and compensation and the law as to the fixing of fair rent. If they entered upon an inquiry as to how far the two are co-relative, they would get into a great amount of discussion which seemed to have been cleared away by the Amendments put down by the Chief Secretary. There seemed to be no reason in the world why because sub-letting was not a bar to a claim for compensation it should not be a bar to the fixing of a fair rent.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he should like to know in what respect the provisions of the Act put the Ulster tenants in a different position in regard to the question of sub-letting.
  MR. KNOXsaid he thought perhaps he had better not press the Amendment further.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4,—

  AMENDMENT AS TO IMPROVEMENTS.
  (1.) Where an application is made to the court to fix a fair rent for a holding, the court shall ascertain whether any improvements on the holding—

  (a) if claimed by the tenant have been made wholly or partly by or at the cost of the tenant without his having been paid or otherwise compensated by the landlord; and

  (b) if claimed by the landlord have been made wholly or partly by or at the cost of the landlord;

  and shall record any improvements so made which they consider to be capable of accurate record, and that record shall be admissible in evidence on its mere production from the proper custody.
  (2.) No rent shall be allowed or made payable in respect of an improvement made by the tenant on a holding, by reason only of the work constituting such improvement not being suitable to the holding.
  (3.) In fixing the fair rent for a holding where it appears to the court that, after an allowance by way of interest has been made to the tenant on account of the present value of an improvement, such allowance falls short of the return equitably due to the tenant in respect of any benefit to the holding from such improvement, the court shall make such further allowance to, as having regard to the nature of the improvement and the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively, and considering all the circumstances, the court may deem just.
  (4.) For the purpose of an application to fix a fair rent, a tenant shall not be deemed to have been paid or compensated for any improvement not coming within the provisions of any contract, except to the extent to which, in the opinion of the court, any money or money's worth has been given by the landlord in respect of the improvement.
  (5.) A contract by a tenant not to claim on quitting his holding compensation for an improvement made by him, if money or money's worth was not given in respect of the entering into that contract, shall not authorise the allowance of any rent in respect of any improvement.
  (6.) Section four of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, shall not authorise the allowance of any rent in respect of any improvement, provided that rent may be allowed in respect of an improvement made by the tenant—

  (a) if made in pursuance of a contract for which money or money's worth was given; or

  (b) if made twenty years before the passing of the said Act, and not being a permanent building or reclamation of waste land, and if the said section four would but for the passing of this Act have been applicable to the holding.

  (7.) For the purpose of this section, money or money's worth shall be held to have been given

  1693
  where from all the circumstances of the case the court are of opinion that the rent was reduced or abated, or that the land was let to a particular tenant at a lower rent than he would otherwise have paid;
  Provided that where the tenant of a holding had, before the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, made improvements on a holding held by him under a tenancy existing at that passing, the court, in determining whether and to what extent money or money's worth has been given in respect of such improvements, shall take into consideration the time during which the tenant enjoyed the advantage of the improvements, the rent of the holding, and any benefit received by the tenant from his landlord in consideration, expressly or impliedly, of the improvements so made, but as regards improvements whenever made, neithen the letting of the land on lease or otherwise, nor the mere enjoyment of any improvemont, shall of itself, apart from other considerations, he held to be money or money's worth.
  (8.) Sub-sections two and four of Section live of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, shall not have effect in the case of applications to fix a fair rent.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYrose and said that, as the Committee was aware, this clause had gone through so many changes that at the present time it was not easy for the Committee to discover exactly what was the form the Government desired it to take. The difficulty had been got over more or less effectually by the clause being printed on a separate paper, as it would stand supposing it were adopted in the form the Government now desired to see it. But, on the whole, he thought it would be the most convenient course, if the Committee consented, that they should negative the clause at the present moment and bring it up at the end of the Bill in the form of a new clause with all the Government Amendments to it. He thought that would be an advantage, and he hoped the Committee would assent to the course he had suggested.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSput the Question, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he was sorry to have to dissent from the view expressed by his right hon. Friend. This was, no doubt, the most important clause in the whole Bill; and it depended largely on the form the clause took what attitude they were bound to take towards the Bill as a whole. If they postponed the consideration of the clause to the end of the Bill, it might then assume a shape which, when presented to them, would cause
  1694
  them to reject the Bill altogether. He hoped that would not be so, because he desired to see the Bill pass. He admitted the difficulty of considering a clause which only appeared on the Paper that morning, and he would suggest that the best thing would be to report progress, so that they might consider the matter. The Committee would see, from the observations of his right hon. Friend, that the Government had not absolutely made up their mind as to the final form the clause was to take. He hoped the Leader of the House would consent to report progress.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSthought he ought to remind the hon. and gallant Member that as he had put the Question—namely, that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill—it would not be in the province of the Committee to consider Amendments to the Clause. If a new clause came up, of course an opportunity would be afforded to move Amendments.
  MR. J. MORLEYdid not understand that the Chairman put the Motion that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid hon. Members would recollect that the Leader of the House suggested that Clause 4 should be negatived in its present shape in order that it might be reintroduced in an amended form, and he gathered from the general sense of the House—[cries of "No, no!" from below the Ministerial gangway]—that that proposal commended itself to the acceptance of the House. Hon. Members would recollect that he paused a little before he put the Question. [Cries of "Oh!"] He saw that if he did put that Question Amendments could not be moved unless the Motion were withdrawn. If the Motion were withdrawn the clause would be open to amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had stated that, in order to shape his attitude he wanted to see what shape the clause would take. That afforded him an opportunity of saying that he would like to see what shape the other clauses of the Bill were going to take before he made up his mind. If they got entangled in a long series of discussions on the purchase clauses, he hoped they would be allowed at once to approach the

  1695
  consideration or Clause 4 by the dropping of the intervening clauses.
  MR. J. MORLEYwas bound to say he considered that the course proposed by the Leader of the House was most extraordinary. What was the history of the clause? It appeared in the Bill. After a certain number of weeks a new clause was put on the Paper. That clause was withdrawn. This morning there was circulated a fourth version of the 4th Clause, and now to-night they were told that this important clause—this organic clause—had better be discussed at the end of the Bill. Surely so extraordinary a course had never before been taken in the House. The obvious course was to report progress, so that, if the Government really knew what the clause was going to be, hon. Members would have several days to consider the clause. They had heard no reason whatever from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury why this extraordinary proposal should have been sprung upon the Committee, and he must protest against the course that had been taken.
  MR. DILLONthought the right hon. Gentleman himself would admit that the course he had taken approached rather closely to sharp practice. Nobody had had the least hint throughout the night of the intention of the Government, and now, at a moment's notice, it was very difficult to estimate the bearings of the proposal. The probability seemed to be that the Committee would get entangled in the discussion of the numerous clauses which must come before Clause 4, and would eventually find themselves in this position, that the most important clause in the Bill was withdrawn from the consideration of the House. The Committee ought to have some assurance that full discussion would be given to this clause. For his part he humbly confessed that he felt considerable difficulty in deciding what course to pursue. He would have been inclined to move to report progress, but if the Chairman did not take the view of the point of Order which was taken by him and his Friends, there would be no use in reporting progress. He contended that the whole situation ought to be reconsidered, and he would ask the Chairman to say whether he was in order in putting the question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that he had perhaps acted irregularly in putting the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. The reason why he did it was because he gathered from the manner in which the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury was received, generally in silence and in some parts of the House with approval, that the Committee generally approved of the course proposed. Therefore, he took what was an irregular course. The only way of reinstating the situation was that the First Lord of the Treasury should withdraw his motion and that he (the Chairman) should commit the further irregularity of withdrawing the question he had put.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that, if the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had remained silent, his view would have been different; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated that it was his wish to oppose the Government in this matter. In whatever direction the hon. and gallant Gentleman steered, he should steer in the contrary direction.
  MR. KNOXconsidered that the course which had been suggested by the First Lord of the Treasury, although it had come upon them by surprise, would be the wisest to adopt.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYremarked that it was suggested, if this clause were postponed, that the Government might then find themselves face to face with it in a form they did not like. He had never concealed from the House that it was really only by something approaching consent that a clause like Clause 4 could pass at all, and if any large section of the House were going at this or a later stage to set themselves against the clause in its present or in any other form it was obvious that it could not possibly pass during the present Session. His hon. and gallant Friend need therefore be under no apprehension that any of the serious consequences which he appeared to anticipate were likely to occur. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman's fears were illusory, look at the obvious and undeniable convenience of the course the Government proposed. He was not going to justify—although he thought justification would be easy—the various transformations the clause had undergone, but the result would be, if they were to set to work upon Clause 4 as printed in the Bill, and put it

  1697
  gradually, by amendment and discussion, into the shape of Clause 4 as it appeared upon the loose sheet, that which was in any case a difficult task would be rendered doubly and trebly difficult. He therefore asked his hon. and gallant Friend, and, if he might, he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were anxious that the Bill should pass, to assent to the course which the Government had advanced in the interests of business. ["Hear, hear!"] Everybody must recognise that the path of the Bill was a difficult one, and when the Government asked hon. Members to adopt a plan by which that path could be smoothed, the least they could ask the House to do was to consent to the course which had been suggested. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. MORLEYdid not gather from the right hon. Gentleman what had happened to cause this extraordinary change.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is not extraordinary. It is simply putting one clause at the end.
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that this clause was the most difficult in the Bill, and could not be passed unless there was a considerable amount of agreement upon its merits. But what was to happen if, after they had passed all the other clauses of the Bill, they then came to what was now Clause 4 and found this agreement unattainable? What reason was there why agreement should be less attainable on Monday or Tuesday than at the end of the Bill? ["Hear, hear!"] The Government had decided substantially what the position of the clause was to be, and why should the discussion not take place upon it now? That was the only chance of making sure the time of the Committee should not be wasted. ["Hear, hear!"] All would depend, as the right hon. Gentleman said, upon this clause being assented to; but what reasons were there why it should not be assented to at the end of the discussion, which would not be equally strong next Monday? He did not think any reason had been given for taking the course suggested, and the fact that such a suggestion had been made showed the extremely unsatisfactory state of mind the Government must still be in on this important and organic part of the Bill. [Cheers.]
  MR. DILLONconsidered the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury made it perfectly manifest that the Government intended to drop Clause 4 altogether. [Cheers and Ministerial cries of "No!"] He complained that a motion of this character should be suddenly sprung upon the Committee without notice.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Further Proceeding on consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY WORKS [MONEY].
  Committee thereupon deferred till Tomorrow.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [15th May] further adjourned till Tomorrow.
  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Tuesday next.
  RAILWAY ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) SUPERANN UATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND EARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [19th May] on consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), further adjourned till Monday next.
  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  ELECTION PETITIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [26th June] further adjourned till Monday next.
  TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  TEACHERS REGISTRATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (WHIPPING) BILL [H.L.]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Tuesday next.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  BATHS AND WASHHOUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.
  WOMEN BAR ASSISTANTS (LIMITATION OF HOURS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  LIBEL BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  DISTRICT COUNCILS (WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  SURVEYORS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'clock.