Commons Sitting of 21 July 1896

CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (LONDON).
Return [presented 20th July] to be printed.—[No. 306.]
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (LONDON).

  POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy ordered,
  "Of statement of the amount expended for In-maintenance and Out-door relief in England and Wales during the half-year ended Lady-day 1896; and similar statement for the half-year ended Michaelmas 1896."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 307.]

QUESTIONS.

  SHIPOWNERS LIABILITY (EUROPEAN STATES).
  SIR EDWARD HILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many European States do by law limit the responsibility of vessels under their flags, against which damages resulting from loss or accident are claimed, to the value of such vessels; and, whether, in such instances, all rights to recover such damages when ascertained are against the vessels only?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. G. T. RITCHIE,): I am aware that in many European States there is a law of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend, but the, exact effect of the provisions of the several Statutes is a question of difficult legal construction as to which I am not prepared to express an authoritative opinion.

  OVERLAND RAILWAY TO CALCUTTA.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as the distance intervening between the present terminus of the Indian railway system in the south of Afghanistan and that of the Russian railway system on the north is only about 700 miles, and Russia is now making a further extension of the Transcaspian line in the direction of Herat, Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of opening-negotiations with the Afghan and the Russian Governments for the construction of a line through Candahar and Herat connecting the two systems, with a view to the completion of an overland railway to Calcutta?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): It would be quite premature at this moment to consider the expediency of entering into negotiations for the construction of a line of railway beyond the frontiers of India to join a line that is either not yet commenced or only in the earliest stages of progress.

  POSTAL AND TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES (IRELAND).
  MR. W. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office authorities will extend telegraphic communication from Recess, Connemara, to Carna, Connemara, in view of the fact that a steamer calls there once a week from Galway, and that serious inconvenience frequently arises when through any cause the steamer fails to come on the appointed day; and also, in view of the fact that telegraphic communication to that district is most important and
  248
  essential for the proper development of its fishing industry?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General will be happy to make further inquiry on the subject of the extension of the telegraph system to Carna, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.
  MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office authorities will re-consider the question of establishing a delivery of letters to Carna, Connemara, county Galway, on Sundays?
  MR. HANBURY: As was explained to the hon. Member a few months ago, the post to Carna on week days involves an expenditure in excess of the revenue available, and further expenditure for a Sunday service would not therefore be warranted. The circumstances being unaltered, the Postmaster General regrets that he is unable to meet the wishes of the hon. Member.
  MR. J. C. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why parcels sent by post from Ireland, and arriving by the mail train due at Euston at 6.15 a.m., are not delivered in the northwestern postal district of London before 5 p.m.; and if he will take steps to expedite their delivery?
  MR. HANBURY: To avoid delay to the letter mails, parcels from Ireland are not (except on Sunday nights) sent by the night mail viâ Kingstown due at Euston at 6.15 a.m., as the hon. Member appears to assume. The route for parcels is viâ, North Wall, and the train from Holyhead which brings the parcels from the North Wall boat is due at Euston at 6.50 a.m. The delivery of Irish parcels by this mail commences in the northwestern town district about 11 a.m., and is completed about mid-day. Even in the remotest parts of the north-western district, such as Hendon and Mill Hill, the delivery should take place before 3 p.m.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that grave public inconvenience has been caused by the action of the postal authorities in

  249
  discontinuing the night mail from Dromod to Mohill, and thus delaying letters for days from residents in Sligo and Roscommon to residents in South Leitrim; and, whether he will recommend that the night mail he resumed in the same way as existed for the last 20 years?
  MR. HANBURY: The night mail from Dromod to Mohill has not been discontinued, but under a recent alteration it appears that letters from several neighbouring places which formerly fell into the morning delivery at Mohill are not now delivered until mid-day. Directions have been given which will have the effect of restoring the communication which has been temporarily disturbed.
  MR. P. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that night mails between Dublin and Wexford are carried by an ordinary goods train which leaves Dublin at 8 o'clock in the evening, and very frequently does not arrive in Wexford until 7 or 8 o'clock next morning, delaying the rural postmen from an hour to two hours; and, whether the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company are receiving any subsidy for carrying the night mails beyond the ordinary fare for parcels; and, if not, whether he will reconsider the desirability of making arrangements with the Railway Company for carrying the night mails, and provide a regular mail service in future?
  MR. HANBURY: The night mail from Dublin to Wexford is carried by a goods train which leaves Dublin at 8 p.m., and is due at Wexford at 5 a.m. On one occasion only since the 1st June has the arrival at Wexford been so late as 7 a.m., but there has been much irregularity in the working of the train and the rural postmen have consequently been late in starting upon their rounds. The Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company receive under their contract with the post office an annual payment of substantial amount which covers all the services they perform. No particular portion of this payment is earmarked to the night mail, but there is no reason for considering the company to be insufficiently remunerated. The Department is in correspondence with
  250
  the company with a view to insuring a more punctual observance of the contract obligations.

  FOREIGN VESSELS IN BRITISH PORTS.
  MR. C. W. CAYZER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the officials of the Board of Trade report to him all cases of Foreign vessels arriving at British ports which they consider overladen or not laden in accordance with the regulations applied to British vessels; if he can state how many Foreign ships have been thus reported, and whether he will grant a return giving the particulars of each case for the last three years; and whether, if these returns have not been reported by the officials of the Board of Trade in the past, he will give instructions to have them reported for the future?
  MR. RITCHIE: Neither the Board of Trade nor its officers have any authority to interefere with foreign vessels arriving overladen at ports in the United Kingdom, except in the case of deck loads of timber in winter.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the resolution recently passed by the Scariff Board of Guardians, in which they expressed their satisfaction that the Irish Light Railways Bill is before Parliament, but urged that the restriction of free grants for the whole cost of construction to congested districts would work unjustly, as it would exclude districts which, though not classed among the congested districts, are equally unable to assist themselves, and suggested that full discretion should be left to the Lord Lieutenant and the Board of Works as to the several areas and the extent of aid to be given in every case considered worthy of financial assistance; and, whether the Government can act in accordance with the recommendations of this resolution?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have received a copy of the resolution in question. The provision

  251
  was inserted in the Bill after full consideration, and I cannot at present see my way to alter it.

  MAHARAJA OF JHALLAWAR.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he will grant a public Inquiry into the case of the Maharaja of Jhallawar, in such a form that the Maharaja may have a full opportunity of making his defence; and, whether this Inquiry will include an examination of the charges made by him against the Political Resident?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The decision of the Indian Government, which I confirmed in a Dispatch of the 1st of May, is final, and I have no intention of re-opening this case.

  INLAND PATTERN POST.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why it is that a pattern or sample sent from one point to another within the United Kingdom is required to have the name, trade, and address of the sender printed or conspicuously stamped (not written) on the outside of the wrapper or label, on pain of a fine twice the deficient postage at the letter rate, whereas in the case of a pattern or sample sent to, or received from, a foreign country in the Postal Union it is not demanded or necessary that the trade of the sender should be printed, stamped, or written upon the wrapper or label, and the address and other particulars allowed may be in writing; and, whether he will modify in these respects the inland pattern post regulations, so as to place British traders on the same footing as their foreign competitors?
  MR. HANBURY: The object of the inland regulation to which the him. Member refers, is to insure the sample post being used only by persons engaged in trade. In the case of foreign sample packets, it could not be adopted without the concurrence of the other countries
  252
  belonging to the Postal Union. The British trader is really not hampered by this difference of practice, as all he has to do is to buy an indiarubber stamp to use, which probably gives him much less trouble than writing his name and other particulars on every parcel.

  VESTRY ELECTION (ST. MARY, NEWINGTON).
  MR. JAMES BAILEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to what occurred at the last Vestry Election of the St. Peter's Ward of the parish of St. Mary, Newington, when the Returning Officer permitted some of the candidates and their polling agents to act as counting clerks in taking the poll; whether he will ascertain the legal effect of these proceedings; and, supposing that such persons failed to make the declaration of secrecy required by the Ballot Act, if the whole election has been thereby rendered void; and whether, in any case, the employment of a candidate or his polling agent in counting the votes at the poll for his own election is such an infringement of the provisions of the the Local Government Act, 1894, as to invalidate the election?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I have made inquiry of the Returning Officer, and I gather from his communication that two of the candidates at the election in question, and another person, all of whom had been appointed as counting agents, did take part in the counting of the votes. I am informed that these three persons took the declaration of secrecy required by the Ballot Act, and that the two who were candidates were not successful in their candidature. The Local Government Board have no authority whatever to determine a question as to the legality of the election of a vestry-man. When it is desired to obtain a decision with regard to the validity of an election, an Election Petition should be presented, within the Described time, in order that the question may he determined by the Election Court. It is not a matter in which the Board can in any way intervene or express an opinion.

  AREMBERG CHUTE ESTATE (COUNTY KERRY).
  MR. JAMES ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) why the sale to the tenants of the Aremberg Chute Estate, Castleisland, Kerry, was not carried out when their offer of £7,502, including tithe and head rent, was accepted by the Land Commission, and the tenants had for some time paid the statutory rate of interest, and consequently regarded themselves as the purchasers; (2) whether he is aware that a sale for a sum of £6,083 for the same property has lately been made to another party, whilst all the tenants are still desirous to complete their contract of purchase; and (3) whether, pending the completion of this last sale, he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to having the former sale carried out?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not correct to say that the offer of the tenants on this property, to which reference is made, was accepted by the Land Commission. It is the fact, however, that negotiations with a view to purchase were commenced in 1892, but subsequently fell through in consequence of the failure of the parties to comply with certain requisitions issued by the Commission. I believe the property has since been sold to another party, as stated in the second paragraph, but I have no official information as to the amount for which it has been sold.
  MR. DENIS KILBRIDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the failure consisted of?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I don't think I could state off-hand. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I will endeavour to answer.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Did it not consist in the fact that one of the tenants did not come in at the time the other tenants did so! Later on he did come in and did consent.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I rather think that refers to a later date.
  MR. MICHAEL FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tenants in question made their Offers as early as November 1891: that they have been paying rent on the basis of those offers, and that the rents are being accepted? ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe, Sir, the offers were made; I am not aware of the fact as regards the payments made by the tenants since that time.

  CONSTABULARY (BELFAST).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the fact that within the current year ten sergeants of constabulary from the depot, and four from counties, have been drafted for service into the Belfast force, could he state how many constables of over 15 years' service are now in the Belfast force still without promotion, and how many of these have passed their qualifying examination for promotion: and will he instruct the Inspector General to withdraw the 14 sergeants referred to, in order to make room for a similar number of constables in the Belfast force qualified for advancement?
  Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: During the current year two sergeants and one acting sergeant were drafted into Belfast, and in their places two acting sergeants were moved out of Belfast, and another sergeant will be moved soon. Further, two constables have been specially promoted and transferred from Belfast during this month, and they will not be replaced in Belfast by two sergeants or acting sergeants. There are 193 constables of over 15 years' service in Belfast without promotion. Of these, 101 have passed the qualifying examination; but only 65 of them have been recommended by their officers for advancement. The Inspector General cannot, in the interests of the service, transfer a number of sergeants or acting sergeants from Belfast without replacing them by a like number of the same rank taken from the counties to which the former are transferred; but he is quite prepared to transfer, at public expense, on their application, according as opportunity may offer, any good senior constables who are well recommended for promotion to any county in Ireland that they may select, in which they have no connections, and where they consider their chances of promotion would be better than in Belfast.

  REGENT'S CANAL.
  MR. M. M. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he is aware that, owing to insufficient fencing, upward of 2,300 feet of the frontage of the Regent's Canal is in an entirely unprotected state; that in the first 8 months of 1895 there had been 31 cases of drowning and 43 persons rescued from drowning; and that within the last seven weeks there had been 15 similar accidents within the Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, and other eastern boundaries of the canal; and, if this be so, whether any measures will be adopted, without further delay, to sufficiently fence the canal so as to prevent the occurrence of such accidents?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): The number of accidents stated in the question is, I am informed, unhappily correct. As I explained, however, on a previous occasion, the canal banks are private property, and I have no power to compel the company to take measures to prevent the occurrence of such accidents.

  COUNTY CARLOW GRAND JURY.
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he will ascertain what sum the costs came to which were allowed by the County Carlow Grand Jury in the case of the malicious burning of a cabin in the lands of Lieutenant Colonel John James Hardy Eustace; (2) whether the Grand Jury approved of the actual amount before it was included in the rates and collected from the ratepayers in the special area over which the amount was levied; and (3) if the costs were taxed or checked before being passed; and, if so, by whom?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The costs allowed in this case amounted to £1 10s. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative, and to the last paragraph in the negative.
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will state upon what legal authority the county Carlow Grand Jury on the 13th instant passed a presentment for £12 to Mr. Charles H. Thorpe, solicitor, for preparing
  256
  and registering the bonds of six barony constables appointed at the previous assizes, and pay £24 a year to that gentleman for that service; and whether the cost of preparing these bonds should be borne by the barony constables themselves; under what authority and by whose instructions Mr. Thorpe performed this work; and whether Mr. Thorpe also charges the six barony constables £1 each for these bonds, in addition to the amount paid by the Grand Jury?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): I have received a telegram from the Secretary to the Grand Jury which does not contain sufficient information to enable me to answer the Question. I have called for a further report, when I have received it I shall be happy to answer the hon. Member; but I may perhaps refer him to the answers given to several questions similar to the present to the effect that the Executive is not responsible for and has no control over the Grand Jury in matters such as these, and that if any ratepayer contest the legality of a presentment, his best way is to traverse it before the Judge of Assizes and have its validity determined.

  RIFLE RANGE (COUNTY DOWN).
  MR. M. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now say if any inspectors were recently sent to inspect the ground of the proposed new rifle range at Ballykinlar, near Dundrum, county Down; whether he will also state the date of the last inspection, the nature of their Report, and what is intended to be done in the matter; and, if any inquiry has been made as to the value of the lands required and the amount to be paid the tenants, and with what result?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODKICK,): Inquiries on the subject referred to in the Question are at present taking place, but I am not in a position to make any definite statement as to the result.

  RENT REDUCTIONS (ULSTER).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  257
  of Ireland, with reference to the generous reductions in rent alleged to have been given by Ulster landlords in flax-growing districts, whether he is now in a position to say were such reductions given in respect of last year's rent upon any, and, if so, how many, of the large estates in the counties of Down and Antrim, where flax is largely grown?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The matters referred to in this Question have already been dealt with by me in answer to previous questions of the hon. Member, to the replies to which I have nothing to add. It has been the invariable custom to withhold the description of particular estates on which rent abatements have been granted or refused, and from this custom I cannot depart. I may add that I have gone personally into the matter, and am satisfied of the correctness of the previous replies to the hon. Gentleman's questions.
  MR. McCARTAN: I did not ask for the names of particular estates. I only asked whether there were any estates.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down again, I will try to answer it.

  BELFAST WORKHOUSE (DEATH OF INMATE).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at an inquest, held in Belfast Workhouse into the death of an inmate named Eliza Jane Hanna, in which it appeared that the deceased had been a patient in Belfast Asylum; (2) will he state when and under what statute she was transferred to Belfast Workhouse; (3) whether she belonged to the Belfast Union; and, if not, under what authority did the Guardians of the Poor there admit her and keep her confined in Belfast Workhouse at the expense of the ratepayers of Belfast; (4) whether Belfast Workhouse has ever been certified by the Inspectors of Lunatics or the Board of Control as a suitable and proper place for the reception of the insane; (5) whether he is aware that the doctor of the workhouse swore at the Inquiry that the patient was transferred without any consultation between the doctors of the
  258
  two institutions, and that the recreation yard at the workhouse was so small and usually so noisy that it had been described by one of the inspectors as a pandemonium; and (6), whether he will have full inquiry made into the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been drawn by the Question to the proceedings at the inquest referred to in the first paragraph. The clerk of the union states that the woman was received into the workhouse in December 1893, as a presumably destitute person, in exchange for another person sent from the workhouse to the lunatic asylum. The woman did not belong to the Belfast Union. The reply to the fourth paragraph is in the negative; no such certificate is required. As to the fifth paragraph, no consultation is held regarding the condition of patients between the medical officers of the two institutions. I understand the medical officer of the workhouse stated at the inquest that he had heard that an inspector of lunatics had described the recreation yard in the manner described, but I have not ascertained from the inspector of lunatics whether he has been correctly reported.
  MR. McCARTAN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, did he make any inquiry as to the correctness of the Report?
  Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: I am making that inquiry.
  MR. McCARTAN: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the Question under what authority the guardians admitted the woman and kept her confined in the workhouse at the expense of the ratepayers of Belfast?
  Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: I will make inquiry into the matter.

  STREET COLLECTIONS.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) whether he will consider the propriety of establishing some system of regulation, and insisting on satisfactory proofs of good faith and the production of credentials, before sanctioning street collections for charitable objects in future; (2) whether the police have recently been made aware of gross abuses and frauds on the public in this

  259
  connection; and, (3) whether the "move on" regulation can be applied to persons who take up fixed stations in the streets without leave or authority?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: These collections are not sanctioned either by myself or by the police, and without statutory powers I cannot make regulations or insist on the production of credentials or proofs of good faith. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative, and to the third that if obstruction is caused or the general public annoyed by these collectors they would be cautioned and, if necessary, removed. But so far I have received no complaints of obstruction.

  COVENT GARDEN THEATRICAL FUND.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Parliamentary representative of the Charity Commissioners, whether any inquiry into the management and present position of the Covent Garden Theatre Fund, established in 1765 for the support of aged, infirm, and indigent actors and actresses and relief of their widows and children has been instituted; and, whether he can state to what extent this fund is now fulfilling the objects for which it was founded?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The Covent Garden Theatrical Fund is regulated by an Act of 16 Geo. III. c. 31, and so far as it is in the nature of a friendly or benefit society it: is exempt from the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. No such inquiry as is mentioned has been made or asked for, and consequently no such statement as is now asked for can be given.

  ARTILLERY PRACTICE RANGES.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will decline to sanction any of the several sets of bye-laws proposed to be made by the War Office in respect of artillery practice ranges from Gilkicker Fort, Spit-bank Fort, St. Helen's Fort, Horse Sand and No Man's Land Forts, No. 2 Battery Stokes Bay Lines, Park-pool Battery, Lumps Fort, the Eastney Batteries, and Fort Cumberland, until
  260
  a public inquiry has been held by the Board of Trade under the provisions of the Artillery and Rifle Ranges Act, 1885, c. 36, sec. 3, sub-sec. (2); whether at such an inquiry not only the bye-laws above referred to shall be considered, but the War Office shall be requested to bring forward any bye-laws in respect of other places which they may have under consideration, and to state the extent to which such bye-laws will affect the sea areas proposed to be affected; and, whether at such an inquiry all persons who consider themselves to be affected by such bye-laws might have an opportunity of being heard?
  MR. RITCHIE: It is intended that a local public Inquiry should be held with respect to the several sets of bye-laws proposed to be made by the War Office, in respect of artillery ranges in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight, as soon as all the bye-laws at present proposed for ranges in that neighbourhood have been advertised. It will not be convenient to deal with bye-laws for ranges in other parts of the United Kingdom at the same Inquiry. I have no doubt that full information will be given at the Inquiry by the representatives of the War Office, as to the extent and effect of the proposed bye-laws. The Inquiry will be public, and all persons interested will be heard.

  CASTLECOMER COAL MINES (COUNTY KILKENNY).
  MR. P. McDERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the men working at the coal mines of Castlecomer, county Kilkenny, cannot now be employed full time on account of the accumulation of coal due to the want of railway accommodation for its removal; and, whether he will consider the desirability of having railway connection with Castlecomer established in the interests of the men employed at the collieries, and for the further development of the colliery industry there.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In reply to this Question I can only repeat the statement made by me on the 11th May, namely, that the proposal referred in the second paragraph will be considered in connection with other similar proposals.

  MILITARY BARRACKS (MANCHESTER AND SALFORD.)
  MR. W. J. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided to demolish the Hulme Cavalry Barracks, Manchester, and Regent Road Infantry Barracks, Salford, and in sell the sites upon which these barracks stand; whether it is intended to maintain the garrison in the future at the same strength as has bean the case in the past.
  MR. BRODRICK: No decision to sell these sites has been arrived at. The whole question of barrack accommodation and the necessary garrison for Manchester and Salford is at present under consideration.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND (COMMISSIONERS' REPORT).
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will endeavour to secure that the Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland should be distributed in time for the adjourned Debate on the Education Estimates next Friday.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Report in question was circulated this morning.

  IRISH TEACHERS' PENSION FUND.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury who were the members of the Committee on the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund, and by whom were they appointed; and, whether he will lay a copy of their Report, together with any actuarial Reports which were placed before them, upon the Table of the House, in order that hon. Members may have an opportunity of examining it before the adjourned discussion on the Irish Education Estimates is resumed?
  MR. HANBURY: The Committee consists of Mr. Redington (the resident Commissioner of the Education Board), Mr. Finlaison (the Actuary of the National Debt Office), and Mr. Spring Rice, of the Treasury. It was appointed by the Treasury, with the concurrence, of the Irish Government. I fear that their Report cannot in any ease be ready in time for discussion in Supply, nor can
  262
  the Government pledge themselves as to its presentation before it has been received; but, as I said on the 8th of June, "as soon as the Report of the Committee has been considered by the Government a full explanation of the position of the fund will be made to Parliament."
  MR. J. J. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proposed grant-in-aid of the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund will to any extent benefit the teachers in Irish Convent National Schools: and, if not, how is it proposed to recoup those teachers for the loss they have sustained by the now admittedly insufficient amounts granted to Ireland in respect of the school grant for the last four years?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to defer this Question till Thursday.

  EAST LONDON WATER COMPANY.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the East London Water Company has cut off the supply to its customers from 9 o'clock in the evening to 6 o'clock in the morning until further notice; and, if so, considering the great inconvenience caused in East London, is he prepared to take any steps in the matter?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am aware that the Last London Water Company have given notice that the water supply will be shut off from 9 at night until G in the morning. Immediately I received the information I requested General Scott, the water examiner of the metropolis, to inquire into the facts and to report to me the result. I much regret to state that this discontinuance of the supply at night has become necessary as a precautionary measure, in consequence of the fact that the works authorised by the Act of 1894 have not yet been fully carried out, and also because of the long-continued drought, which has been far more serious even than in the previous year. I am in communication with the East London Water Company on the subject, and I hope that the New River Company—with whom, also, I am

  263
  in communication—will be able to render some assistance as regards the supply by the East London Water Company.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. J. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to a Renter's telegram from Cape Town, in which it is stated that in their report of the circumstances attending the Jameson Raid the Select Committee of the Cape House of Assembly find that the Chartered Company supplied all funds with the knowledge, of the London office; and, whether, if on inquiry he ascertains that the Select Committee have thus reported, the Government will, pending the investigation into these matters at home, consider the propriety of advising the Crown, in the exercise of the prerogative, to suspend all rights and powers conferred on the Company by the Charter of 1889?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): In reply to the hon. and learned Member, I have to say that, so far as I can judge, there is some error in transmission in Reuter's telegram. The portion of the message referred to in the Question is not borne out either by my own official advices, by the very full telegram of The Times, or by the Central News message. Inquiry is, I have reason to believe, being made by the Chartered Company on the subject, and the matter will be cleared up in a day or two.

  IRISH LANDED ESTATES.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he has inquired to what extent English and Scotch insurance companies have lent money on the security of Irish landed estates; and, (2) whether he is in a position to affirm or deny that English and Scotch insurance companies are in the aggregate thus involved in Irish landed estates to the extent of over seven millions sterling?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No such inquiry as suggested has been attempted. The Government has not
  264
  power, nor would it be possible or desirable, to investigate the mortgage or other indebtedness of the owners of estates in Ireland, and no apparent advantage would result in attempting to distinguish between those incumbrance vested in English or Scotch insurances companies, and those vested in other public bodies, or in private persons. I am not in a position either to affirm or deny the statement made in the second paragraph.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, before the Committee Stage on Clause 34 of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, which provides for the forced sale of Irish estates to the tenants at any price fixed by the Land Commission, he will present a Return showing the aggregate amount of capital invested by English and Scotch insurance companies in those Irish estates which are now in the Incumbered Estates Court, and to which the provisions of Clause 34 would apply?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Question does not correctly represent the terms of Clause 34, the price and the conditions at which the holdings are to be offered are to be determined by the Land Judge, having regard to what he may consider reasonable and just, taking into account "the interests of all persons interested in the estate." It would not be possible to obtain even an approximately accurate Return, such as that suggested in the Question, and even if such a Return could be obtained not just reason appears to exist for attempting to distinguish between debts due to English and Scotch insurance companies and those vested in either public bodies or in private persons.

  FISHERIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. CHARLES WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if be would endeavour to pass into law, this Session, the Fisheries Acts Amendment Bill, which is to prevent the sale of immature fish, and is pressed on the Government by the deep sea fishing interests of the East Coast, and as affecting the supply of fish to the people.
  CAPTAIN PIRIEasked at the same time whether the Government would be prepared to receive a deputation on the subject.
  MR. RITCHIEdid not think it necessary that a deputation should wait upon him to inform him as the various phases of this important question. A deputation had already been received at the Board of Trade with reference to it, and he himself had had the advantage of hearing a long discussion on the subject in London by representatives of the fishing committees throughout the country, and he found that there was quite a unanimous opinion on their part that legislation in the direction of the Bill already introduced by the Government was urgently required. Having regard, however, to the statement made by the Leader of the House yesterday, he did not imagine there was much chance of the Bill being dealt with in this House this Session, unless, of course, he could receive some assurance that the Measure would be practically an uncontested one.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANANcould at once give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that the Kill would be highly contentious.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the fact that there was very strong opposition to this Bill in the most important fishing centres.
  MR. RITCHIE: I know there is opposition, but my opinion is that it is not a strong one.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unanimous representations against, the Bill have been received from Ramsgate and Lowestoft?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am also aware that at the meeting, where all the fishing committees throughout the kingdom were represented, my right hon. Friend took up an attitude of opposition to the report and found himself in a minority of one. [Laughter].
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fishermen were represented at all at this meeting?
  MR. RITCHIE: I cannot say whether any particular class was represented, but I know it was attended by representative
  266
  men from all the fishing committees throughout the kingdom.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill deals with a highly contentious question as between the steam trawlers and the line fishermen?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am quite satisfied that the Bill is of such a contentious nature that it is impossible to contemplate passing it this Session.

  MATABELELAND.
  Mr. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been drawn to the Press Association special telegram of Friday last from Buluwayo, stating that Native Commissioner Thomas had been on a grain-collecting expedition and had, besides killing 30 natives, collected 1,300 bags of grain; that 1,020 of these bags of grain, valued at £12,500, had been destroyed in obedience to orders; that owing to the destruction of the grain famine is imminent; and that if the natives act in accordance with the amnesty and come in it will be utterly impossible to feed them for one day; and whether, if this be the case, he will take steps to prevent such waste of food and to insure a supply of food sufficient to fulfil the terms of the amnesty?
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a statement contained in a Reuter's telegram dated Buluwayo, 17th July, to the effect that Native Commissioner Thomas had destroyed about 1,000 bags of grain which he had captured from the natives, that famine was imminent, many of the native kraals being entirely without food, and that if the starving people should surrender and come in to Buluwayo there was not food enough in the place to feed them for a single day; whether this has been done with his authority, and, whether he will take steps to prevent the repetition of such proceedings?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In answering this Question I may be allowed to take the opportunity of also answering the similar Question by the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire. I have no official confirmation

  267
  of the statement referred to. I do not propose to interfere with the discretion of Sir F. Carrington in the measures he may take for the suppression of the rebellion, but it does not appear to be true that the rebels are required to come to Buluwayo. If they submit, I do not doubt that every possible effort will be made to save them from starvation.

  PRISON OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take into consideration the desire for an amelioration of the pensions of the prison officers, and if necessary, make recommendations to the Treasury?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have already given the fullest consideration to the petitions which have been submitted to me by prison officers for an improvement in the terms of their superannuation, and regret that I do not see my way to propose, or to recommend the Treasury to propose, the alteration in the law which would be necessary to place prison officers on a better footing than other civil servants in this matter. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the conditions of service of prison officers were fully inquired into by a Departmental Committee in 1891; this Committee, while recommending improvements in those conditions in other respects, some of which have been effected, reported against any alteration in the pension scale, and the considerations which led them to that decision remain unaltered.

  PARTY DEMONSTRATION (NEWBLISS COURTHOUSE).
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that Orange flags were displayed from all the windows of the Newbliss courthouse on Monday the 13th July; that the courthouse was occupied during a portion of that day by a numerous body of Orangemen, including a band which crowded the magisterial bench, and played "Kick the Pope," "Boyne Water," and other party tunes; and that two justices of the peace, adorned with Orange sashes, took part in this demonstration;
  268
  (2) is he also aware that there was suspended across the principal street of the town an Orange arch, under which the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the place, in proceeding about their ordinary business, were obliged to pass, amidst the gibes of persons assembled there; (3) will he take notice of the conduct of the magistrates who gave encouragement to these proceedings; and (1) will he advise that some other building than the present be obtained for judicial purposes in Newbliss?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On the 2nd and 9th instant I stated, in answer to Questions put to me, that the room in which Petty Sessions are held at New-bliss had never been used for party purposes, nor had flags or emblems ever been displayed from this room. That statement was, I believe, correct; but I am informed that on the 13th instant Orange flags were displayed from the windows of this room, that the room was occupied by Orangemen, including a band which played several tunes, the names of which I have not been able to ascertain. Regarding the second paragraph, the police inform me that so far as they can ascertain there is no foundation for the statement that insult was offered to Roman Catholics who passed under the floral arch. As to the use of the Petty Sessions room in the manner described on the 13th instant, I have referred the matter to the Lord Chancellor.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (TEMPORARY TYPEWRITING CLERK).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether an application has reached the Treasury from the Education Department for £3 3s. per week for a temporary typewriting clerk; whether he is aware that this clerk has passed no examination and has less than four years' service, whereas Second Division clerks must pass a severe competitive examination and serve 14 years before reaching a salary equal to that proposed, which is moreover unattainable by assistant clerks in the same Department, some of whom have over 20 years' service; whether the salary of the officer superintending the typewriters at the Local Government Board, whose duties include translations,

  269
  shorthand, typewriting, and attendance at interviews, is only 30s. per week: and, whether there are several of the permanent staff' competent to perform the duties required from the clerk for whom the application above referred to is made?
  MR. HANBURY: I am not prepared to communicate to the hon. Member what, if any, proposals affecting the establishment of other Departments are before the Treasury. Any proposal submitted by the Education Office will receive full consideration.

  RAILWAY OUTRAGES.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will urge upon the railway companies the desirability of making such alterations in the structure of carriage compartments as will prevent the perpetration of outrages similar to that which has recently been committed on the Brighton line?
  MR. RITCHIE: I propose to place myself in communication with the Railway Association on the subject referred to.

  CUSTOMS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the boy messengers employed in the Statistical Office, Customs, London, receive an annual increment of pay 56 per cent. greater than that received by the majority of established men clerks engaged in that office; and, if so, whether he can see his way to remedy this inequality?
  MR. HANBURY: The majority of men employed in the Statistical Office of the Custom House. London, are of a grade lower than that of clerk, entitled "statistical abstractor." They are paid on a scale of annual salary common to abstractors throughout the service—namely, a scale rising from a minimum of £80 to a maximum of £150 by annual increments of £2 10s. The office of boy messenger in the Customs Department is a temporary appointment: the boys employed, whose services are discontinued when they attain the age of 20, are paid weekly wages a, the rate, of 6s. 6d., rising by 1s. 6d. a week per annum to a maximum of 14s. a week. The annual increase
  270
  in the weekly wages of boy messengers is 56 per cent. greater than the annual rate of increment of the grade of abstractors, but the two situations are obviously of such totally different characters that a comparison of this kind, relating to a single incident of their respective emoluments, is valueless.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the reason of the delay in appointing the new grade of assistants of Customs; and, whether he would take early steps to appoint those men who have been declared qualified for the position, and remove the dissatisfaction which at present prevails?
  MR. HANBURY: There is no undue delay in appointing the new grade of assistants of Customs, a considerable amount of detail, with a consideration of the circumstances of each port, being involved. The work of assigning numbers to the respective ports is in a forward state, and, when this work is completed, successful candidates will, within the limits of the aggregate number sanctioned by the Treasury, be forthwith appointed. Meanwhile, the Treasury have allowed the Board to make these appointments retrospective to the 1st January last, so that no pecuniary loss will ensue to to the officers appointed. No expression of dissatisfaction on the subject has reached the Board of Customs.

  IRISH SCHOOL FEE GRANT.
  Mr. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in addition to the correspondence mentioned in the Report of the Board of National Education for Ireland, between that body and the Treasury, on the subject of the Irish School Grant, there are any other letters or documents relating to that matter which have passed between the Board and the Treasury: and whether he would have any objection to lay upon the Table a complete copy of the correspondence?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already stated that the correspondence on this subject is of a Departmental and Confidential character, and that I cannot consent, to lay it on the Table of the House.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS (WRONGFUL DISMISSAL).
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount of the law costs incurred by the Commissioners of Irish Lights in defence of the action brought against them by Principal Keeper John George Harrison for wrongful dismissal and libel, and what Department sanctioned the payment of the costs in this action, and from what fund was the payment made; and can he state by what Department the payment by the Commissioners of Irish Lights of a sum of money as compensation to John Francis Harris, assistant keeper, for wrongful dismissal and libel, was sanctioned, and from what fund was it paid?
  MR. RITCHTE: The Commissioners of Irish Lights, by the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, paid Mr. Harrison in full discharge of all claims and £80 for costs. The Commissioners had also to pay their own costs and fees of the Jury. The Board of Trade sanctioned the payment of the costs in this action as expenses incurred by the General Lighthouse Authority. In the case of Mr. Harris, payment of £40 compensation and £5 5s, costs was also sanctioned by the Board of Trade.

  POLICE SUPERVISION.
  MR. F. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of an ex-convict who, at Lowestoft on Monday last, was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour for failing to report himself to the, police; whether he will state who authorised the prosecution; and whether it was true that the man had obtained employment at sea for four months, that he had reported himself the day before going away at Hull and again on his return at Grimsby; and, if so, will he advise the remission of the remainder of the sentence?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have received a report of the reconviction of the man referred to. On his release in December last he took up his residence at Lowestoft, and last reported himself to the Lowestoft police on
  272
  the 1st January. During that month a summons was taken out against him for assault, but he disappeared, and though special attention was called in the Police Gazette to the fact that he might be found at Hull or Grimsby, the places where the prisoner alleges he reported himself, nothing more was heard of him until the present month. On his own statement even, which was entirely unsupported, he had committed an offence by leaving Lowestoft without reporting his intention of doing so to the police. The Hull police, moreover, deny that he has reported himself to them during the present year. The prosecution was undertaken, in the usual manner, by the county of Suffolk police, and I see no reason for interference. The man's previous record is a very bad one.

  ASSIZE ARRANGEMENTS.
  LORD EDWARD MANNERS: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether an Order in Council is under the immediate consideration of the Lord Chancellor giving effect to a Resolution of the Judges, whereby the town of Leicester and the county of Leicestershire are to be deprived of a civil assize and sent either to Derby or Nottingham; and, if so, by what right this is to be done without consulting the town or county in any way?
  MR. E. H. HULSE: I beg to ask the Attorney General if the Lord Chancellor contemplates issuing an Order in Council for the abolition of civil business at all future assizes in the county of Wilts and other counties; and if he can state what are the exact terms of such proposed Order; and to request that such Order may not be promulgated until the local authorities and the County Councils have had an opportunity of expressing their protests against this attempt to deprive them of their historic rights?
  MR. A. F. GODSON: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether it has been decided that in future civil assizes will be hold only once a year at Worcester; and, if so, why this course has been proposed, thus depriving that county and city of their ancient privileges without any consultation with the local authorities?
  MR. A. STRAUSS: I beg to ask the Attorney General if it is proposed that in future the Cornish assizes, or some of them, shall be held at Exeter, instead of Bodmin as heretofore; and if he will take immediate steps to prevent that proposal from being carried out, as the great distance from many parts of Cornwall to Exeter would entail great inconvenience to litigants and witnesses?
  MR. W. W. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the Lord Chancellor purposes, by an Order in Council, to deprive Buckinghamshire of a civil assize; and, if so, on what grounds such a proposal is made, and whether the interests of the county have been consulted?
  MR. C. G. PYM: I beg to ask the Attorney General if the Lord Chancellor contemplates issuing an Order in Council for the abolition of civil business at future assizes in the county of Bedford, and whether the promulgation of such Order could be post-posed until the county and borough of Bedford have had an opportunity of expressing their views on this proposal to deprive them of their ancient rights?
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked whether a similar resolution was in contemplation for the city of Hereford, and whether the inhabitants would not he consulted before the change was made?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): In reply to these questions, I am directed by the Lord Chancellor to say that, so far as he is concerned, no alteration in the assize arrangements will be made without opportunity being given to those who are interested in the matter being heard; but it is not desirable at the present stage to enter upon a discussion of matters which are the subject of communications between the Lord Chancellor and Her Majesty's Judges.

  GOVERNMENT BILLS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what days he proposes to ask the House to make progress with the Truck Bill and the Coal Mines Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)was understood to say that he could not make the statement asked for, but the Bills referred to would not be taken to-night.

  ORDNANCE FACTORIES VOTE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state when he hopes to take the Ordnance Factories Vote?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYwas unable yet, to state when the Ordnance Factories Vote would be taken.

  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. J. SAMUEL: I beg-to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that many Members are keenly opposed to the Military Land Act (1892) Amendment Bill, it is still his intention to include this Measure in the list of Bills to be proceeded with as non-contentious?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he could not admit that the Military Lands Act (1892) Amendment Bill was opposed by any large number of Members. He thought he could show that it was a Measure which had receive support in so many quarters that he should not like to say more at the present time on the question of proceeding or not proceeding with it.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it would be possible, with a view to the convenience of Members, to state each day before Public Business what Bills will be taken after 12 p.m. on that evening; and also whether some arrangement could be made as to the day on which the Uganda Vote should be brought on?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In regard to the Uganda Railway I believe the Treasury contemplate bringing on the Bill as soon as possible, but of course not to-day. With

275
regard to the general question on the Paper it will he impossible for me to give a pledge on the subject. What Bills will be taken on any evening after midnight must inevitably depend upon the nature of the business which he House has to discuss. With regard to to-night, there will be no idea of curtailing proceedings on the Irish Land Bill for the purpose of taking any other Measure that will require to he discussed.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: May we take it for granted that the Military Works Bill will not be brought on to-night?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Certainly, if that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House give us 24 hours' notice of the Uganda Railway Bill?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will endeavour to do that. I think that probably it could be done.
MR. DILLONasked that some notice should be given as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the business on the Paper—e.g., whether he could not state that if the Irish Land Bill was continued till after 1 o'clock, he would not take other Government business after that late hour, or give notice at the beginning of business each night?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As I have just stated, it is not my intention to take any business which would occupy time after the Irish Land Bill, and there is no idea of curtailing the discussion on the Irish Land Bill, in order to give time for anything else. I do not propose to do anything of the sort. But if there be any Measure quite uncontroversial, I see no objection to its being advanced.
SIR W. HARCOURT: With regard to the notice on the Paper, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would make arrangements, on the additional days proposed to be set apart for Supply, for two subjects of paramount importance. There must be a discussion as to the state of affairs in South Africa and the intentions of the Government with reference to the Inquiry into the Chartered Company. [Cheers.] That is one question; but I do not ask the
276
right hon. Gentleman to fix the exact date. In making his arrangements for Supply, however, I think he might set a day apart for this discussion. There is still another matter which I confess I regard as of still more paramount and urgent importance, and that is the discussion of the present condition of things with reference to the Venezuelan boundary. ["Hear, hear!"] That is a matter of most urgent importance. The Prime Minister has invited opinion on that subject in publishing the Dispatches, and, of course, the opinion of the House of Commons ought to be expressed with reference to it. Therefore I trust the right hon. Gentleman will set apart a day so that the opinion of the House of Commons may be ascertained and stated on that question.
THE FIRST LOLD OF THE TREASURY: With regard to the appeal made to me by the right hon. Gentleman, of course a desire expressed from that quarter of the House that there are great questions of public urgency requiring discussion is one which cannot be ignored or rejected by the Government. With regard to South Africa, I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that there have been two days already given to that question, and I am not aware that anything new has occurred since the last discussion to necessitate further Debate.
SIR W. HARCOURT: What has occurred has been this. The Colonial Secretary has always stated that he could not announce to the House what course was going to be taken with regard to that Inquiry until the conclusion of the trial now going on. It is obvious that we have had no statement on that subject, and we must have a statement which must be discussed on that question.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The best time for the discussion would be when my right hon. Friend makes his promised statement. But I do not think we could give up a day set down for Supply. We must find some other day, because the 23 days for Supply are already fully occupied; but if the discussion has to interfere with Government time I see no alternative. With regard to Venezuela, it is true that Papers have been published, but it is also true that the negotiations to which

277
the Papers refer are still pending, and there are obvious inconveniences in the House discussing questions of international diplomacy which are not completed matters, but which are still under discussion by the two Governments concerned. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would confer with me on those two subjects in order that we may be able to come to some arrangement.
MR. F. A. CHANNING: On what day does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the chief remaining Votes of Class II.?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Without giving an absolute pledge, I should desire to take Class II. on Friday, July 31.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Will the right hon. Gentleman find an opportunity to discuss the Commercial Department of the Foreign and the commercial action of the Colonial Offices?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think that I can give my hon. Friend a pledge to find a convenient hour for discussing them.
MR. W. REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that in the course of Debate the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs gave a promise that sure Government would afford time if a discussion with regard to Venezuela?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am not aware that my right hon. Friend gave that pledge, but I have already stated that I shall come to an arrangement with the Leader of the Opposition, which will enable the matter to be discussed if it is absolutely necessary.

MAHARAJAH OF JHALLAWAR, MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House—["oh, oh!"]—for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "The treatment by the Indian Government of the Maharajah of Jhallawar and the unsatisfactory character of the inquiry into his case."
MR. CLANCY: I rise to ask a question on a point of Order. The question
278
to which the hon. Member wishes to call the attention of the House is a year old, and the decision of the Government is three months old. Can this be called a definite matter of urgent public importance—[cheers]—and can any Motion be based on it?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have inquired into the facts, and I do not think that the hon. Member has quite accurately stated the dates; but, however that may be, I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of saying that this is not a matter of urgent public importance.
The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places. There being some doubt as to whether not fewer than 40 Members supported the Motion,
Mr. SPEAKER said: I must ask hon. Members to stand while being counted.
In the process of counting Mr. W. REDMOND called out "Obstructing the Land Bill," followed by cries of "Order!"
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is supported by more than 40 Members. [Opposition cheers.]
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS, who spoke amid Nationalist cries of "Divide!" and "Order!" moved "That this House do now adjourn." He said that the case was an important one, because the issue involved the principle upon which the whole constitutional question of the position of the Indian native Princes rested. He contended that when such a dispute as this occurred a native Prince ought to have some opportunity of stating his case and making a defence before an impartial tribunal. The case divided itself into four periods. The first period began in 1884 and ended in 1887. This native Prince attained his majority in 1884, and was instituted as ruler in that year. A condition affecting the Maharajah's rule was that until he gained more experience he was to consult the Political Agent on all important matters; and the second condition was that he was not to alter or reverse any measures that passed during his minority without the concurrence of the Political Agent. The whole point therefore was whether the Maharajah had knowingly violated any

279
of the conditions of his rule. Some friction arose during this period, and the then Political Agent brought two or three charges against him in 1887. One was that the Prince had put the Political Agent at his left hand instead of at his right hand at the durbar. The Prince replied that he had followed well-established precedent. In September 1887, he was deprived of his ruling powers. The next period began in 1887 and ended in 1892. In 1890 the Maharajah wrote to the Viceroy of India that he had not knowingly broken any of the conditions, and stated that the whole matter turned on the reading to be attached to the phrase "important matters." In 1892 Colonel Trevor recommended that the Prince be reinstated subject to three conditions—(1) control of the revenue in Agent's hands; (2) consultation on important matters with the Political Agent; (3) that measures authorised by previous Councils under Agent's administration be not altered. In 1892 the Maharajah was reinstated, and all went well for two years. In 1894 the Prince was reinstated with full powers, and there was no condition whatsoever——
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): Yes, there was.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: With one exception—as I was going to say, if the noble Lord will allow me. In September 1894, Colonel Trevor wrote to Calcutta, recommending that the Prince should have full powers, subject to one condition—
"that he will not nominate any new members of his Council without assent of the Agent to Governor General of Rajputana."
Major Irwin, then Political Agent at Jhallawar, pointed out that this was a condition which it would be impossible for the Prince to accept. Letter contained phrase—
"I don't suppose he will govern his State any worse than some chiefs with full powers."
A letter from the Government of India to Secretary of State, dated Simla, the 11th September 1894, stated:—
"With reference to Lord Kimberley's Dispatch, dated the 2nd March 1893, we have the honour to report, for the information of Her
280
Majesty's Government, that, acting on the recommendation of the Governor General's Agent in Rajputana, we have ordered the restoration of full administrative powers to His Highness Maharaj Rana Zalim Singh of Jhallawar."
Prince restored with full powers, subject—
"to keeping the Political Agent freely and fully informed as to all matters with which he ought to be acquainted."
Lord Elgin wrote:—
"I rely upon your Highness to keep the Political Agent freely and fully informed of all the matters with which he ought to be acquainted, and it is necessary that I should add a caution that, if, unhappily, the Government of India should hereafter be unable to approve of your Highness's conduct of the administration, the present decision will be liable to reconsideration."
The hon. Member contended that a careful perusal of Blue-book forces to conclusion that, as the presence and conduct of Major Wylie, as Political Agent, had led to the deprivation of the Prince's powers in 1887, so the arrival of Captain Evans Gordon led to his deposition in February 1896. The whole point which he desired to raise was that the House of Common should see that, when charges of this kind were raised against a native prince, he ought to have the right, like other mortals, to be heard before an impartial tribunal. [Cheers.] Anyone acquainted with the Oriental idea, or with India, must know how important this consideration was. The Prince, like many other princes, had the misfortune of being surrounded by unscrupulous advisers who made him their tool. In dealing with the last stage—namely, the period from 1894 to 1896—he should put the matter briefly. Captain Evans Gordon arrived as Political Agent in 1895. The correspondence between him and the Prince divided itself, naturally, into what was trifling and what was important. As to the former, he might quote a few sentences. Captain Gordon writes:—
"It has been reported to me that Bhawani Lal has been appointed munsarim of the stables in place of Khwajukhan. I must remind your Highness that this man was turned out of the State in 1891 by the Political Agent and Council, with the approval of the Agent to the Governor General, and that Col. Trevor only allowed him

281
to return temporarily to Jhalawar in 1892. Under these circumstances to give Bhawani Lal an appointment without consulting me constitutes a breach of the conditions laid down in His Excellency the Viceroy's kharita, under which full powers were restored to your Highness."
The Prince replied:—
"With reference to your letter of the 26th ultimo about Bhawani Lal's appointment, I have the pleasure to say that, when I had engaged him as kamdar to Moharaniji Rathorje, I believe I verbally mentioned the fact to Mr. Irwin, and as no objection was raised against the appointment, I thought in giving Bhawani Lal the stables post (in addition to his own) there would he no objection. Had I known that it there existed anything against his present appointment I would not have appointed him on the stables without your consultation. But, since the man has already been dismissed from his posts and the State, I hope you will kindly think the matter fit to be dropped now."
Then they read:—
"Captain Evans Gordon wrote to me yesterday and asked me to write to you about sweetmeats that have been collected at the place. These sweetmeats should be used as soon as possible, as they won't keep, and will very likely give rise to bowel complaints. If you have no objection I will go and see them if you appoint some one to show them to me, and advise as to their disposal."
The Prince replied:—
"Your letter of the 12th, No. 321, about sweetmeats that are said to have been collected at the palace In reply, I have the pleasure to say that no sweetmeats are allowed to go on accumulating. What are prepared within the two previous days are consumed on the third day, as a rule. I may say that no sweetmeats are remaining now, all having been used up already in the above-mentioned order."
He would come next to the more serious charges, and one of those was the charge of the withdrawal of four and a-half lakhs from the Treasury. By the arrangement of 1894 the Prince retained full control of the revenue. In December 1895 the Indian Government sent a very reliable official to investigate and report. This was Colonel Crosthwaite, who was met by Captain Gordon outside the camp, and there obtained a report as to the Prince's conduct. The Prince complained of this to Calcutta, that he had been subjected to insult and high-handed treatment by Captain Gordon. These were the main charges. Captain Gordon wrote:—
"Enclosed statements were voluntarily made to me. Three of the men gave me the informa-
282
on 4th January. The evidence proves that orders were issued to the troops to assemble, that hall ammunition was distributed, and that the rides were loaded. The place of assembly was the Fatch Pultan lines, near the grass stacks and close to the Agency and Agent to the Governor General's Camp. The movement of the troops and preparations were well-known in the town, and the matter was at once reported to me from half-a-dozen different quarters. We know that His Highness feared arrest, and it is my opinion that any supposed attempt upon him would have been resisted. It was merely a chance that some violence did not take place, for had we, who were in the tent, unwittingly done anything to harm him, His Highness would have given the signal and trouble would most likely have ensued. The Chief came to the interview with a revolver, and he was constantly looking out through the chikhs to see whether his men were there. Ahmed Shah Khan, Akram Khan's son, was seen behind the Agent to the Governor General's Camp, with some Vilayatis while the interview-was going on, by my own office people. If it is thought necessary more evidence can be obtained, but the officers and men are very much afraid of being left to the mercy of the Chief, and it is remarkable that any of them should dare to come forward. It is believed that all their names are in the possession of His Highness, and that be intends taking some measures to make them deny what they have said."
Then Colonel Crosthwaite wrote:—
"On the 31st I had a letter sent to His Highness asking him to come and see me. He at first declined to see me unless I paid him a ceremonial visit. He then said he would come if I assured him that at the interview he would not be arrested and deported to Benares. I replied that he would at the conclusion of the visit be allowed to leave in the usual manner, and that, if his Excellency the Viceroy were to order his arrest, the arrest would be made publicly and not by inviting him to visit me in my tent. I also told him that I had been directed to warn him of the serious nature of the ease against him, and to invite from him an expression of what he bad to say in explanation or extenuation. After receiving this letter His Highness came and saw me. He had a revolver in his belt. The Political Agent and Captain Impey, the First Assistant, were present at the interview. His Highness's attitude was unfriendly and uncompromising, and he appeared to be very angry. He refused to shake hands with Captain Evans Gordon. He steadily maintained that he was right in what he had done. The Viceroy had given him full powers and he had a full right to exercise those powers without interference. He had not, in his opinion, done anything contrary to the injunctions contained in his Excellency's kharita. With regard to his dealings with the Political Agent, he said that he was not to blame, he had been very good friends until Captain Gordon had shaken his fist in his (His Highness's) face, and told him to accept a certain official's resignation. I told His Highness that I considered his action in sending away his Diwan and some other

283
officials just before my visit was wrong; that His Highness was bound, in accordance with the Viceroy's instructions, to furnish all material information, and that sending away the Diwan so that he should not speak to me was a violation of those instructions. His Highness said that he had sent the Diwan off on State business, and had done nothing unusual or contrary to the Viceroy's orders. I must mention that on the 30th December I wrote to the Maharaj Rana, objecting to his sending away the Diwan, to whom I wished to speak on State matters, and requesting His Highness to recall that officer to Patan. To that he replied, 'I do not think I ought knowingly to allow him (the Diwan) to speak against me behind my back with the object of promoting his desires and to increase the present difficulties.' He concluded by requesting me to put in writing any questions I wanted to put to the Diwan, and he (His Highness) would get his written reply. No attention was paid to my request for the recall of the Diwan, and on the 31st of December I wrote to His Highness and told him that I should like to see the Diwan on the 1st of January. His Highness replied that he had sent the Diwan off to a place 60 miles away, and he could not return within the time required."
The Maharajah's reply to the charges was as follows:—
"In regard to the insults, hardships and highhanded treatment to which I have been and am still subjected, although I wanted to send full particulars in a separate kharita, giving full and proper proofs, but I was ill, and while not yet fully restored to health, preparations were made to send troops against me, under the orders of the Political Agent and the Agent to the Governor General without any cause. Cavalry from Agar and troops and sowars from Deoli were sent for without any cause, and I have further heard that more troops have been ordered from Deoli. In accordance with the desire of the Political Agent, the Bakhshi—namely, Paymaster and Commander-in-Chief of the troops, who was an old servant of the State, has been ordered to be dismissed without cause, and Bhawani Singhji, who is the son of a Jagirdar, and my mortal enemy, who declares falsely that he is the heir of the "Gadi," but in reality is not the heir, because if he or his family had been the heir, why should the late Maharajah Prithi Rajji have called me from Kathiawar and made me his heir, has been appointed "Bakhshi" of the army. Prom the date of his appointment, at the suggestion of the Political Agent, he has been fabricating false evidence about the distribution of cartridges, by tempting some of the men in the army, by holding out hopes to them of promotion of rank and increase of salary, and by threatening others with bad treatment and harm. He has got together about 10 to 11 men, who by his inducement, having sold their faith merely for the sake of their own welfare, or from fear of ill-treatment and harm, are giving such a false account of distribution of cartridges as cannot be even reasonably entertained or imagined. He causes it to be written down
284
and then attested at the Agency. Daily men, most of whom have been punished, are called to the Agency, and their statements are written down. No attention is paid to the statements of those men who, fearing God and having regard to their conscience, decline to make false statements about the distribution of cartridges, and object that this had no foundation at all; nor is their statement taken down. I beg to bring to your Excellency's notice the fraudulent and deceitful proceedings of this man, and request that your Excellency out of kindness and a sense of justice will not take into your consideration their fabricated evidence and artful proceedings. I hope that no attention will be paid to their ex parte and false proceedings, otherwise I shall be unjustly subjected to great oppression, and Government after becoming aware of the true circumstances, which I am ready to prove, will have cause for regret. As for myself, I beg to state that I have neither done anything wrong, nor intend to do so, and that I have done nothing but remain silent and carry out orders. The relatives of the Agency establishment have spread a report that the Dewan has been promised by the Political Agent that if he can get a Superintendency established, he (Political Agent) will become Agent there, and will make him Vice President of the Council. On this account the Dewan of the State, the Political Agent and Kunwar Bhawani Singh have induced most of the army and other officials of the State to bring about mismanagement of the affairs of the State. In short they have induced them to act in opposition to me, and have thus subjected me to severe oppression. They have given such exaggerated accounts (of my proceedings that I am in fear of my life. They have so disappointed those men, who do not wish to act against me, that they are ready to leave service and go away. Even the English knowing head clerk, who was in my service, was so much threatened that he resigned his appointment. Now I have nobody who knows English. I have therefore had to write this kharita in Urdu. As, in consideration of my good-will, I consider myself to be under the care and protection of Government, I have therefore given this brief account of my circumstances in the hope of obtaining justice. I trust that mercy will be speedily shown to me, so that my life may he saved, and all the high-handed treatment to which I have been subjected at the instance of the Political Agent under the advice of the Agent to the Governor General, and to which I may be subjected in future, may be put a stop to with the utmost promptitude."
There was another important point he had to make, and that was that the Prince had expressed a strong desire to have a Commission of Inquiry into Ms case. On February 12, 1896, he wrote to the Viceroy:—
"I request that a Commission may be appointed to make inquiries, and the members should be such as have no connection with the Rajputana Presidency."

285
Was not that a reasonable request to make? In reply to that request the Government of India wrote:—
"The demand for a commission made by the Maharaj Rana overlooks the true issue. The Government of India, as the paramount power, are hound in their dealings with native States to hold the scales equal, and, while they secure the Chief in the exercise of the powers that belong to him, to protect his subjects from misgovernment by their misuse. Where it is necessary for the Government of India to interfere to secure good government, they must act on their responsibility and by the advice of their accredited agents, and can delegate their functions to no other authority or tribunal."
He agreed with every word of that reply. The Government of India must "hold the scales equal" between the native rulers and the agents of Great Britain who reside with them.
MR. BHOWNAGGREE: That reply had reference to the relations between native Chiefs and their subjects, and not to the relations between native Chiefs and the officers of the Indian Government.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he was dealing with the principle contained in the demand of the Maharajah. It did not overlook the issue, because the scales could not be held equally between the parties to a dispute unless an opportunity of being heard was given to each party.
"The Government of India must act on their own responsibility, and not delegate their functions to other tribunals."
He quite agreed in that, but the Government were not asked to delegate their functions. They were only asked to hear both sides before coming to a decision. This principle was vital to the issue. Colonel Crosthwaite himself seemed to admit that, before the facts could be really understood and judged upon, a formal inquiry must be held. On this point he would direct the noble Lord's attention to a paragraph in a letter of Colonel Crosthwaite, in which the Prince was deposed, in which he said:—
"Without holding a formal inquiry it is impossible to say whether he speaks the truth."
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: What is Colonel Crosthwaite's own opinion?
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: He said, "I do not believe it;" but that
286
did not affect the point. The noble Lord said that the decision arrived at in February last was final, and could not be reopened. He hoped, however, that the result of this discussion would be to cause the noble Lord to reconsider the matter, and to give the Maharajah Rana some further and adequate opportunity of stating his case and defending his action. He did not desire to ask the House of Commons to pass judgment on either party. That was a matter for the Indian Government. But he did claim that, the Imperial Parliament had aright to lay down the principle on which the Indian Government should act, and to say that, when such serious charges were made by a, political agent against a native Prince, the latter should have an opportunity of defending himself before judgment was passed. Great interest was taken in this matter throughout India. The Indian Press without exception was loud in protesting against what had occurred. The English Press, without distinction of party, joined in demanding a fair hearing for the Rajah, and he believed that in pleading his cause he was but advocating a principle which was vital, in his opinion, to the continuance of those relations of goodwill and confidence between Great Britain and the Empire of India on which the welfare of the two countries depended.
SIR W. WEDDERBURNseconded the Motion. He said he wished to refer chiefly to two points, namely, the importance of this matter, and the necessity of giving the Rajah an impartial trial. It had been said by the political officers that these proceedings were being very closely watched all over Rajputana. But he went further, and said that the proceedings were being watched by every ruling Chief throughout India, not only with interest, but with anxiety, and alarm. How could that fail to be the case when they saw one of their number deprived of his throne and exiled from his dominions, not for any maladministration proved in public Inquiry, but upon the secret reports of the Political Agent who was on bad terms with the Prince himself. Our position in India depended very much on the goodwill of the native Chiefs. At the

287
time of the Mutiny they were our sheet-anchor, and those who took an interest in our Imperial fortunes should be especially careful to remove all causes of unrest and alarm among the native Chiefs of India. He did not say there were not cases in which the Government of India ought to interfere—cases in which maladministration and tyranny were proved. In such cases it was not only the right but the duty of the Indian Government to interfere. He agreed entirely with the view that it was to the paramount Power alone that the inhabitants of native States should look for protection against misgovernment and tyranny; but what he contended for was that in this case no tyranny and no oppression had been proved against the Chief in question. He maintained that this was a personal quarrel, and that the charges of maladministration were somewhat of an afterthought. It was the misfortune of our political system in India that in every native State there were two kings, the Rajah on the one hand, who gathered around him the supporters of the "ins;" and the Political Agent, on the other hand, who gathered around him every faction who might be termed the "outs." The only story the Government of India heard was the story told by the Political Agent, whose only source of information was the faction whose very object it was to discredit the Rajah. His proposition was that this Prince had not had an impartial trial, because all the information on which the Government of India had acted was onesided information, obtained from a tainted source. Such being the case, he was entitled to a fair and impartial hearing before the very serious step of deposing him was taken. The correspondence showed that there was no real popular discontent. All the signs of popular discontent were wanting. What were the charges of misgovernment? The only thing he saw charged in the nature of maladministration had reference to the revenue settlement, and the remarkable part of that accusation was, not that the Rajah had taken too much from his subjects, but the statement of the agent absolutely was that he did not take enough. He only wished that the people of British India could make that charge against their Government. Another complaint
288
was that the Rajah cut down expenses. Again, he could only wish that the Government of India would do the same thing, and so get rid of a great deal of objectionable taxation. The reports of the political officer did not lay any great stress on acts of maladministration. The Government of India practically gave away the whole case by saying that the question before them had been not so much specific acts of maladministration by the Rajah himself as his attitude towards the British Government. The whole case had arisen out of a quarrel between the political agency and the Rajah, and what was asked was that there should be an impartial inquiry. He had no special knowledge of this particular Chief but it was in the interests of all the Chiefs, and because he believed there was no more important thing for our rule in India than to cultivate and retain the goodwill and friendship of the native Chiefs that he seconded this Motion.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid that he could not question the right of the hon. Gentleman to make exceptional use of the forms of the House to call attention to this question; but he thought everyone in the House would admit that he had chosen a singularly inopportune time. These Papers had been in the hands of the House for some time past, and the matter might have been raised last week or the week before, next week or the week after, without in the least degree affecting the hon. Member's case. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member had deliberately selected a day specially apportioned to the discussion of an important Bill in which many hon. Gentlemen took a great interest. The question which the House wished to discuss was more or less limited by time, and if a Motion of this kind was made in order to obtain a great slice of the time of the House for one day it was more or less an indirect attempt to kill that Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought he could demolish the whole of the hon. Gentleman's case in half-a-dozen minutes. It was a matter of great surprise to him that two hon. Gentlemen should read the Blue-book with such blind eyes. Every little detail in favour of the Maharajah had been paraded before the House, but the main facts on which his deposition was based had altogether

289
escaped their notice. He was the adopted son of the ruler of a small State created by the Indian Government, and on the death of his adopted father he was sent to a college at Rajputana. During the time he was a minor his State was governed by a Native Council, under the superintendence of the Political Agent. The result of that was that the State greatly improved in prosperity, and the people became habituated to good government and administration. When he arrived at his majority the Indian Government only allowed him to undertake the functions of government on the condition that he did not attempt to upset the principles of government in force during his minority, and that in all cases of material importance he should consult the Political Agent. It was said that there was a personal quarrel between him and the Political Agent, but there had not been a single Government during the last 15 years who had not come into collision with him, or a solitary Political Agent who had not had occasion to report him. The first was Sir Edward Bradford, the present Chief Commissioner of Police, and all who knew him would say that he was a model Political Agent, combining firmness with a courtesy and charm of manner which was seldom to be found. The Maharajah had not been two years discharging the functions of his State before Sir Edward Bradford had to report him as almost hopeless. He did all he could to keep him straight, but the young man disregarded his advice, and the only alternative seemed to be to depose him. The Indian Government declined to adopt that step, but considerably reduced his powers and addressed to him a very severe warning. That was under Lord Dufferin. The succeeding Viceroy, Lord Lansdowne, had attention called to his conduct, and had to address to him a still stronger caution, pointing out that it might be necessary to remove him outside the State. This apparently had some effect upon him, and to a certain extent he became more amenable to advice, and shortly afterwards he was allowed to discharge some of the functions he had previously enjoyed. Later on, as he seemed more disposed to act on advice and to carry on his government on proper lines Colonel Irvine, the then Political
290
Agent, recommended that he might be given the full powers he originally had. The one mistake was clearly the granting of those powers, because the moment he had them he lapsed back into his old habits. Captain Evans Gordon then appeared on the scene, and finding malpractices going on in every branch of the administration, protested against it. The Maharajah then deliberately tried to bribe Captain Evans Gordon, and, the attempt being exposed, refrained from offering any apology to the Political Agent, who found himself boycotted, those who visited him punished, and his repesentations ignored. The state of things made it necessary for the Government of India to order the Governor General's Agent, Mr. Crosthwaite, to intervene. But when Mr. Crosthwaite proceeded to Jhallawar, he was received in a manner which raised the most serious questions as to the state of the Maharajah's mind. The Maharajah made no effort to comply with the Order of the Government of India and—so far from furnishing the explanation asked for—it was found he had sent his two chief officials, who could have given the necessary information, to distant places where they were inaccessible. And this was the action of the chief on whose behalf it was now contended that he had never had an opportunity of making his defence. Nor did the Government of India take action on Mr. Crosthwaite's Report till the Maharajah had submitted to them more than one representation as to his position. Undoubtedly it was necessary most scrupulously to guard the rights and privileges of Indian princes and he himself fully admitted it. ["Hear, hear!"] At the present moment he was glad to say the relations between those princes and the Indian Government were most cordial. Through the assistance and advice of the Political Agents, we had to discharge a most difficult duty. The administration of the native States was steadily improving, but, just as we had a duty towards the native princes, so had the Indian Government a duty towards the people who lived in the native States. We had taken from them the means of revolution, and we were, therefore, bound to prevent misgovernment. In the present instance, the Prince had refused to comply with the conditions on which

291
alone we could accept his authority, and as he had set the Indian Government at defiance his deposition could not be avoided.
MR. CLANCYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Mr. SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
DR. CLARKsaid the only charge of maladministration against this Prince was that be had attempted bribery, but it was clear from the Blue-book that that attempt had been made, not by the Maharajah of Jhallawar, but by a Bengali Baboo, who had been dismissed by the Resident and who had offered the new agent 15,000 rupees if he would refrain from further action against him. He protested against the Prince having been deposed without being heard in his own defence. Not a single fact showed, directly or indirectly, that the Maharajah was a party to bribery. He thought there was plenty of territory already under the Crown, and that those native estates should be kept for the development of native statesmanship.
Mr. H. J. WILSONsaid he was inclined to agree with the Secretary for India that this young man was a rather difficult person to deal with; and he thought it was hardly wise to invest a youth of 18, straight from college, with such powers. It seemed to him most important that the native princes should understand more clearly than they do the circumstances under which they were liable to be deposed. He had had the honour of being a member of the Royal Commission on Opium. A good deal of evidence was laid before it as to the rights the Government of India claimed to exercise over the native princes. He found——
Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman would not be in order in going into the general question of the relation between the Indian Government and the native princes. He must confine himself to the question of the deposition of the Maharajah.
Mr. H. J. WILSONsaid he was merely going to point out that it was stated to the Commission to be only on certain specified grounds of maladministration and otherwise that the native princes were interfered with. Neither
292
in the Papers presented to the House nor in the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary for India was there any evidence of maladministration, cruelty, or injustice against the Maharajah was, to a large extent, a question of jealousy, of good manners or bad manners, and of a personal quarrel between the Political Resident and this young man.
CAPTAIN NORTONrose to continue the Debate, when
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was about to withdraw his Motion?
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: Yes, Sir; in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved, "That three additional days be allotted to the business of Supply."
Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  [Progress, 20th July.]
  Clause 7,—

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

    LETTINGS BY PERSONS NOT ABSOLUTE OWNERS.
    The Land Law Acts shall apply and be deemed to have always applied in the case of tenancies created by a limited owner, or by a mortgagor or mortgagee in possession, where no fine or premium was received, and the tenancies shall not be or be deemed to have been determined (except in the case of fraud or collusion or a letting at a gross undervalue) by the cesser of the interest or possession of such limited owner, mortgagor, or mortgagee, and the person

    293
    entitled on such cesser to receive the rent of the holding shall stand in the relation of landlord to the tenant of the holding, and have the lights and he subject to the obligations of landlord accordingly.
    Another Amendment proposed (20th July) at the end of the clause to add the words—
    "(2) This section shall not apply to a tenancy in a holding which at the date of the letting was demesne land—where the application of the Land Law Acts to the tenancy would materially diminish the value as a residence of the mansion-house situate on and theretofore occupied with the demesne."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That those words he there added."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the proposed Amendment the words—
    "where the application of the Land Law Acts to the tenancy would materially diminish the value as a residence of the mansion house situate on and theretofore occupied with the demesne."—(Colonel Saunderson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'where' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    Debate resumed:—
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that on Clause 2 he moved an Amendment, to which the Amendment of the Chief Secretary bore more or less of a resemblance, except that his right hon. Friend at the end of his Amendment added an utterly unnecessary qualification. The question at issue was only of trilling importance, but at the same time he could not see why his right hon. Friend should refuse to omit the words he, by his Amendment, asked to have struck out. All he asked was that if a limited owner chose to let, his demesne to tenants, and thereby undemesned his residence, the remainderman—the son, or whoever else he might be—should not be bound by a transaction which was fraudulent in its character. Therefore, he proposed to leave out words in his right hon. Friend's Amendment which would force the remainderman after he had inherited the estate to go to considerable trouble and expense in establishing his right to resume possession of the land as demesne.
    MR. EDWARD CARSONsaid that when his hon. and gallant Friend moved his Amendment
    294
    on Clause 2, there was a general feeling that it should be accepted, and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary stated he took no exception to it, but that he did not think the words proposed were quite apt. The, Attorney General for Ireland also said that it was only justice that some such Amendment should be accepted. The Amendment was then withdrawn, but it was only withdrawn because it was felt that it would be more appropriately moved to Clause 7 than to Clause 2. Under those circumstances, he could not see why the Chief Secretary should have neutralised the object of the Amendment by the words which the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend proposed to omit. A good deal had happened since the first night the Bill was in Committee, but, he did not think anything had happened that would justify his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in going back on his acceptance of the principle of the Amendment moved by his hon. and gallant Friend. But he hardly thought his right hon. Friend knew the effect of his own Amendment. If it passed in its present form the Amendment would only apply at all to cases where the residence was let with the demesne. In other words, if the limited owner let the residence and the demesne this proposed exception would not apply at all, and the remainderman would be deprived, not only of his demesne, but of his residence. If the residence as well as the demesne was included in the letting no question could arise as to the value of the residence to the remainderman. But why should demesne land be taken away for ever from the remainderman unless the remainderman was able to show the value of the demesne to the residence? If the remainderman were well oil", he might wish to have his demesne, though it might have no effect on the value of the residence. The very fact that a residence had less land with it might, in a country like Ireland, make it more valuable. Was it not a hardship that, in every case where demesne was let away by the tenant for life, the only way by which the remainderman could get it back was by instituting a suit before the Land Commission? A case under this section, as it was framed, coming before the Land Commission, would, in all probability, be a letting by

    295
    a limited owner in the life of the limited owner. He was aware that there were cases which had been held to be demesne, and which were not in any sense properly demesne. But he was putting the case of land which was incontestably demesne at the time of letting, and which ought to be preserved to the remainderman.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he should be sorry to do anything contrary to any pledge which he had given, but this Amendment of the Government was put down as a result of the discussion on Clause 2. There had been no change in the drafting of the Amendment. He should be perfectly ready to accept the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman which was on the Paper, excluding the case where the mansion house was let with the demesne; but he did not think that it was necessary. If the mansion house were let with the land, the holding would be a residential holding, which could not come within the Acts. The Amendment of the Government secured that the limited owner should not deprive the remainderman of the amenities which he might expect to enjoy with the mansion house. The reason why he would rather not accept the present Amendment was that there might be a piece of demesne which was quite out-lying, and which it would be perfectly proper for the limited owner to let, because the amenities of the residence would not be curtailed.
    Question put:—The Committee divided:—Ayes, 310; Noes, 46.—(Division List, No. 341.)
    MR. CARSON MR. CARSON moved to insert in the proposed Amendment after the word "where" the words—
    "the mansion house is let with such demesne land or"
    He said he understood his right hon. Friend was prepared to accept the Amendment if he showed the necessity of it, and he thought he should be able to show that it was absolutely necessary. He thought his right hon. Friend would perceive that the Amendment as it at present stood only applied to demesne land apart from the residence. His right hon. Friend said it was unnecessary to make any reference to a case
    296
    where a mansion house was let with the demesne land because in that case it would be a residential holding. He thought his right hon. Friend was in error in that. The section dealt with a case where the holding was in the hands of a tenant. If it was a case of an absolute owner they would destroy the character of the demesne land. Therefore they came to deal with a question where, so far as any argument on the section could be based, the character of the demesne land would be gone, and they would have to consider the mansion house and the land as if it was an ordinary farm. In that case the whole question that would arise would be whether the land was of more value than the house, or the house of more value than the land.
    MR. T. M. HEALYwas understood to object to the Amendment, on the ground that undue advantage was being sought by it for demesne lands in the interests of the landlords. The Government had put down an Amendment which was really a concession to the landlords, and the only thanks they received for doing so was that the representatives of the landlords had plied Amendment upon Amendment on the concession.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken against the law of every sort of settlement, but he had not addressed a single observation to the Committee against the Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was the intention of the Government to accept the Amendment.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid the right hon. Gentleman ought to have said so before.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid he apprehended that the whole object of hon. Members who were arguing this matter from the landlords' point of view was to secure that the demesnes which the landlords wanted to live in should be preserved to them. With that he had much sympathy, but it was monstrous to allow Amendments to be moved for that object ostensibly, and then allow them to be applied to cases where evidently the lands had wholly lost the character of demesnes. The word "demesne" was differently understood in England and Ireland.

    297
    In Ireland the Courts had held that practically any good house held by a country gentleman with land about it was a demesne for the purposes of the Land Acts, and the Amendment, if adopted, would interfere with that decision.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he believed those Amendments were raised on the part of the landlords, not because they wanted the mansions to live in, but for exclusive purposes. If not, he would ask whether there would be any objection to insert at the end of the proposed Amendment the words—
    "And the Court is satisfied that the mansion house is bonâ fide required as a residence for the remainderman."
    There ought to he some evidence to show that the mansion house was really required for a residence, and he contended that the addition of the words he had suggested would meet any injustice against the remainderman. He should move the addition of the words presently, and in the circumstances he should expect that hon. Members opposite would support him.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    MR. CARSON MR. CARSON moved further to insert in the proposed Amendment, after the word "would," the words "injuriously affect the rights of the remainderman, or." He remarked that this Amendment raised the question of value. Surely, the question of value was not the proper mode to see whether or not the section ought to apply, but rather the question whether the rights of the remainderman were injuriously affected.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that the introduction of the proposed words would have the same effect as if the Government had accepted the words which were a short time ago suggested by his hon. and gallant Friend, and therefore they could not accept the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    MR. CARSONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would accept his next Amendment—namely, to leave out "diminish the value," and insert "interfere with
    298
    the enjoyment." He would move that Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALY, rising to a point of Order, asked if this Amendment was not the same as the last. They had negatived the words "injuriously affect the rights of the remainderman." He submitted that to interfere with the enjoyment must injuriously affect the right. The greater included the less.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSthought there was a distinction between the two sets of words, though it was a very fine one.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid there was one point which had escaped the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention, namely——
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would not object if the Government would accept his Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURobjected to the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be balanced by something else. His position was that it should be bonâ fide shown that all the objections to the fixing of a fair rent went, not to the question of rent, but to the question of the reasonable user of the mansion house. He was not at all opposed to any reasonable protection by landlords of their mansion houses. He should be sorry to think that because a landlord let for two or three years, he would be deprived of his mansion house, but a letting for temporary convenience had always been considered ample protection.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved to add to the words last inserted in the proposed Amendment:—
    "and the Court is satisfied that the mansion house is bonâ fide required as a residence for the remainderman."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURopposed the Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALYdid not wish to indulge in the hackneyed complaint of hon. Gentlemen opposite that no Amendments had been accepted, but simply desired to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College that, as a result of prolonged whines and complaints, he had succeeded in obtaining a most valuable

    299
    and substantial Amendment in the landlord's interest, while the Government had refused everything to counterbalance it.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney) moved to add at the end of Mr. Gerald Balfour's proposed Amendment:—
    "Provided that no decision that this section applies to any demesne land, made in the absence of the person entitled on such cesser as aforesaid, shall be binding on him, and that he shall he entitled within the prescribed time after such cesser and notice of the order containing such decision to apply to the Court to rescind such order."
    He said the simple object of the Amendment was to prevent a decision being arrived at against the remainderman without the remainderman being present. What he proposed was only the carrying out of the machinery which he was quite sure the Chief Secretary intended.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the Government were unable to accept the Amendment because it was too wide, and, if accepted, would practically nullify all the provisions of the 7th Clause, because it provided that no order made in the absence of the remainderman should be binding on him; because it also provided that the remainderman should be able to set aside an order that was not binding upon him at all—a most curious provision. It would destroy all finality, and leave the tenant in the position that he would never know when he might be turned out. But the Government were most anxious to secure the rights of the remainderman, and they would be prepared to insert words authorising Land Commissioners to make rules to meet the cases contemplated by the hon. Member.
    MR. T. M. HEALYwished to know how a tenant on the demesne was to become acquainted with the landlord's marriage settlements. He had seen settlements which were as voluminous as the family Bible. Half the land in Ireland was under settlement, and the tenants of every landlord who was a limited owner would be affected by this Amendment.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYwished to point out that it was already provided by Statute that the Court could direct
    300
    that any person having an interest in the property should be served with notice of the proceedings, and that such persons should have such rights with regard to appearances as if he were the party originally served. Surely it could be assumed that the Court would do its business.
    MR. VESEY KNOXasked whether the Attorney General intended that it should be incumbent on the Land Commission to make rules forcing the tenants to serve notice on every remainderman. In some cases there might be 80 or 40 remaindermen. He objected to this proposed importation of the luxury of Chancery practice. It was out of place. He could not imagine a provision more likely to cause expenditure in solicitors' fees, and it would meet with strenuous opposition. In cases where a tenant applied to have his rent fixed, and no obligation was taken by the landlord on the ground that he was a limited owner, did the right hon. Gentleman propose that these notices must be served? In cases of that kind the tenants might get his fair rent fixed without suspecting that the owner had a limited interest. If notices could be dispensed with in those cases, why should they not be dispensed with in those cases where the tenant had been informed that the owner was a limited owner? It should be left to the Land Commission to say that notice must be given in cases where injustice would result if it were not given.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsuggested that before discussing further the proposal of the Attorney General for Ireland, it would be well to dispose of the Amendment actually before the Committee.
    MR. CARSONcontended that some words ought to be introduced for the purpose of protecting a remainderman who had not had an opportunity of appearing at the hearing which deprived him of the mansion house and demesne. A remainderman who had not had notice should have a right to have the question investigated when he came into the property. It should be borne in mind that up to this time lettings by a tenant for life had not been binding on the remainderman, and therefore there had been no necessity for insisting upon his being protected in this way.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that when the Act of 1881 was passed it was intended that the Measure should apply to tenants for life. That construction was put upon the Bill by Lord Cairns, who thought it reasonable that the remainderman should be bound by a fixed fair rent. What he thought unreasonable was that the head landlord should be saddled with the acts of the middleman. Lord Cairns moved an Amendment carrying out his views, and the House of Lords agreed to it, but when the Bill returned to the House of Commons, the Government determined to keep Section 15 of the Bill as it originally stood, on the ground that in that form it covered both the case of the tenant for life, and the case of the middleman, and no man except an Irish Judge would think that it did not.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that his object was that no arrangement binding a remainderman should be made behind his back. However, after what the Attorney General had said, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CARSON MR. CARSON moved to add to the proposed Amendment, after the words last inserted:—
    "Provided always that when the landlord is a Limited owner, or mortgagor, or mortgagee in poseession, no order shall he made without notice to the person entitled on such cesser."
    MR. J. J. CLANCYsaid that the assumption underlying both this Amendment and its predecessor, seemed to be that the present race of Irish landlords were such a parcel of rogues that, the remainderman must be protected against their acts.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYexpressed the opinion that this Amendment would make it impossible to administer the Act in a great many cases. Let them consider the case of a marriage settlement, under which a remainder was given to a man's eldest son. A long time might elapse before that son came into existence, and the effect of this Amendment would be that the tenants of the tenant for life would be kept out of Court until after the birth of the son.
    MR. CARSONmaintained that under the rules of Court no difficulty ought to arise in administering the Act. When
    302
    settled property was being dealt with, if the remainder-man could not be found, the Court, would appoint somebody to represent him. The Land Commissioners were to have power to make rules to carry out the Amendment which he proposed. Hon. Members opposite seemed to think that with regard to the Land Court the only matter to be considered was how to transfer the landlord's whole interest to the tenant in the easiest possible terms; but as long as any rights of property were left to the landlords they ought to be protected in the ordinary way.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that he was inclined to accept the Amendment if the right hon. Member would consent to the insertion after "order" of the words "to fix a fair rent for the first time." It was not desirable to fix a fair rent on a man's land in his absence, and it was desirable that an order should be final and binding on all parties. Therefore, when an application was to be made, persons representing those entitled in remainder ought to have notice. This Amendment provided for such notice. It would be the bounden duty of the Court, when they found a provision of this character dealing with demesne lands, and lands in possession of a mortgagee or mortgagor, to ascertain for themselves whether the man was the absolute or only the limited owner before they made another order.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he could hardly believe the Government were serious or were acting bonâ fide in this matter. They were accepting an Amendment which absolutely rendered nugatory the entire clause. The words "demesne lands" had been very skilfully brought in, but the Amendment did not touch merely demesne lands. The tenant in County Mayo or Donegal, who did not perhaps know a word of English, and had never heard of a settlement, when he served a notice to fix a fair rent was not to get his fair rent unless he had an investigation of the title—he must inquire into the title of his landlord, and find out whether the lands were in settlement or not. The Amendment did not provide for the trustees of the settlement being served, and it would affect half the tenants in Ireland. Of the 600,000 Irish agricultural tenants this Amendment

    303
    hit 300,000, because half the land of Ireland was under settlement. Furthermore, this was being done without there being any suggestion of a grievance. The law had been carried on for 15 years, and where was the remainderman who had been hit? There was only one such case, and he would only have to read to them the comic history of the settlement made by the landlord in that case to show them that there was no grievance. This Amendment was drawn so as to do the tenant most damage. He protested against the Amendment, which he believed had been accepted unthinkingly, and he hoped the Government would, on consideration, see their way to withdraw their assent to it.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURthought the hon. and learned Member was mistaken as to the number of tenants who would be affected by this provision. Surely it was a very exaggerated statement that half the tenants in Ireland would be deprived of their tenancy on such terms that when the life of a limited owner came to an end their right to have a fair rent fixed would also come to an end.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I did not say that. I said that half the lands in Ireland were under settlement.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid his object was to show that the hon. and learned Member was entirely wrong in imagining that such a very large number of tenants would be affected. As regarded the practical difficulties, not being a lawyer he could not appreciate them, but he was advised that there would not be the enormous difficulty that was suggested.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid a more insidious Amendment had never been proposed. The late Mr. Wentworth, the Secretary to the Land Commission, had said that every tenant who happened through his own misfortune, or accident, to be the tenant of land under settlement, was surrounded by a ring fence of legal objections to get his legal rights. In Ireland disputed titles were very common, and it was a cruel thing that when a man went to the Court to get a fair rent fixed, he should have to take steps to settle the landlord's right.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDwas understood to say
    304
    that, under the Bill, the Land Commission would have power to nominate someone to represent the necessary interests.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYthought it must be clear that, if he might say so without disrespect, the Government had slipped into the acceptance of this Amendment without a very full acquaintance with its effect. This clause was, in substance, the same clause that was in the Bill of last year, and he felt that the acceptance of this Amendment would defeat the whole object with which the clause was conceived last year, and, he supposed, the object of the present clause also. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his assent to the Amendment, for the time at all events.
    MR. CARSONsaid that at a very early stage of the discussion upon this Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had intimated that he was going to accept it. After all, what did the Amendment come to. It merely proposed that in the case of tenants for life and other limited owners the tenants of holdings under them should not be entitled to go into the Land Court and have judicial rents fixed unless notice were given to the remaindermen. It would not be just that, in the case of large demesnes of 300 and 400 acres, the tenants for life should be entitled to undemesne the property by cutting it up into holdings and allowing judicial rents to be fixed for those holdings without notice to those who were entitled to the property in remainder. He hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would accept the Amendment, which proposed to prevent such injustice being done to the remaindermen.
    MR. KNOXsaid that if the Amendment were accepted the Land Commissioners would have to make inquiries into the title of every holding with regard to which they were asked to fix a fair rent, with the result that every owner would have to disclose his title to his property to the Court and to the public. It would be very hard upon the landowner that he should have to make that disclosure, but it would be still harder upon the tenant who was seeking to have a fair rent fixed if he was compelled to wait for the rent to be fixed

    305
    until the title of his landlord to his property had been investigated. ["Hear, hear!"] He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland not to accept the Amendment then, but to reconsider the whole question, and bring up a fresh Amendment on another occasion. ["Hear, hear!"]
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that the number of tenants who would be affected by the Amendment was not very large, although, undoubtedly, they were not unimportant. Unless the Amendment were adopted the remaindermen would be placed at the mercy of the limited owners. In his view the Amendment would not deprive the tenant of any privilege which he already possessed, and would not occasion any delay or expense to him. There were still some 200,000 tenants in Ireland who had not gone into the Court, and a proportion of those tenants knew that, under the existing law, if they did go into Court they would do so under the possibility of having the penalty hanging over their heads of having the proceedings set aside on the ground that their landlord was only a limited owner. The clause as proposed to be amended would confer upon such tenants the right to go into Court and have a fair rent fixed, subject to their giving notice to the remaindermen. In his opinion, this would confer a new boon upon the tenants, although, no doubt, it would throw an extra responsibility upon the Land Commissioners. Unless the Amendment were adopted, permanent injury might be done to the remaindermen. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLconfessed that the proviso which had now been accepted by the Government appeared to neutralise the value of the clause. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman quite underestimated the number of tenants who might be affected by it. There were an enormous number of present tenants who had never come into the Land Court at all, but had kept out of it for one reason or another; and he made that assertion from tolerable experience and knowledge of the country, and of the working of the Act. As was well known, the majority of Irish properties were in strict settlement, and of the remainder
    306
    the vast majority were mortgaged. Under the Act of 1881 there was no distinction made between tenants under limited owners and under mortgagors, and others not capable of creating a legal estate; but the judges, who had to deal with these cases from a very technical standpoint, had in one or two cases decided that, if the tenancy was created by a tenant for life or mortgagor in possession, such tenant was deprived of the benefit of the Act. The very object of the clause was to obviate that, and that was the object with which a similar clause was introduced in the Bill which was read a Second time last year. The clause as it stood up to this was a perfectly fair and reasonable one. It enabled the Court to get rid of the technical rule he had described, and against which the Act had always shown an inclination to struggle. It enabled the Court to get rid of that rule when they found that no damage was really done to the landlord by reason merely of the fact of the estate being in settlement. This proviso took away the whole of that benefit. The moment the unfortunate tenant came before the Court, the Commissioners would ask the landlord or the representative of the landlord: Are you a limited owner, or are you a mortgagor? The answer would be: "I am"—one or either. What was the consequence? The consequence would be that the hands of the court would be tied. With this proviso they might as well expunge Section 7 from the Bill altogether.
    MR. T. M. HEALY, having cited the case of "Jones v. Aylward," said that, according to what the First Lord proposed, Parliament would be sacrificing the interest of the tenant for life in order to help the remainderman, because, if there was one principle of English law more deeply rooted than another it was that a man was entitled not to show his title and have it tattered and torn before his eyes. Here, in order to benefit the remainderman, the tenant would have to ask his landlord in his originating notice: "Are you a tenant for life?" and the landlord, who had hitherto had the credit of being the owner in fee simple, would have to expose to the world the fact that he was only a limited owner. He called that sacrificing the interest of the man in possession for the interest of a man who had yet to come into the estate.

    307
    And suppose the landlord stated what was false in order to puzzle and bewilder the tenant, was there to be a system of fines and penalties to meet such perjury? He did not blame the Government, but the fact was they were plunged in a serbonian bog. It would be better to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. PARKER SMITHthought that in accepting this Amendment the Government were taking out the meaning of the clause which, as it stood, appeared to be perfectly reasonable. In dealing with the law of settlement in this country they had endeavoured to give more and more power to the tenant for life, and to assume that his bonâ fide actions were in the interest of the estate, and that it was for the public good to allow him a reasonably free hand in dealing with the affairs of the estate. The Amendment was in no way limited to the question of demesne land, but it covered all lands in the hands of limited owners where a fair rent was not already fixed.
    MR. DILLONsaid that where the Court under this proviso was in ignorance of the fact that it was dealing with the estate of a limited owner and made an order, the tenant might have his fair-rent tenure broken, and that he had no fair rent at all. The Attorney General for Ireland should make it quite clear that this proviso would not in some respects make the law worse than it was before.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that after what had passed everyone had come to a general agreement as to the principles on which they ought to work. They were all agreed that the interests of the remainderman should be protected; they were all agreed that the tenant should not be put to the expense or trouble, and that they should not throw on ignorant peasants a laborious investigation of title. They were all agreed, also, that the responsibility and cost should be borne by the Court; and, lastly, they were agreed that if an error be made by the Court as between the parties, the loss should not fall on the tenant. If the Amendment of his right hon. Friend did not carry out that object there would be no difficulty in introducing words.
    MR. T. HARRINGTONsuggested that public notice or advertisement should be given to those interested in the land.
    MR. CARSONdemurred to the interpretation made by the Leader of the House. His right hon. Friend stated that, if the Court made a mistake in not giving notice to the remainderman, the remainderman was to suffer.
    MR. DILLON: We understood him to say that the tenant was not to suffer.
    MR. CARSONsaid that the court might or might not give notice. If it did give notice the remainderman was bound, and if it did not give notice he was also to be bound. He did not accept this view, put forward by the Leader of the House, as a just one.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to disclaim his acceptance of the interpretation of the Amendment put upon it by the right hon. Gentleman, and to say that he did not accept it in the sense which had been indicated.
    MR. CARSONwanted to know whether his light hon. Friend was going back on his acceptance of the Amendment. The discussion showed that, if one only talked long enough on any Amendment, and kept the thing going for a sufficient time, everything would be given up by the Government. He would really like to know whether his right hon. Friend really meant when he said that he accepted the Amendment—which had been on the Paper for three weeks, and had neither been withdrawn nor altered in the time—providing that no order was to be made without notice; still if the order was made without notice it was to be binding. It would be much better if the right hon. Gentleman said that he was sorry he had ever accepted the Amendment; but to say that he accepted it, believing it to mean nothing, was really almost trifling with the House, and leading to lengthened discussions which, if the present view of the Chief Secretary had been stated before, might have been obviated.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that he could not help regretting the line which his right hon. Friend had taken in this matter. ["Hear, hear!"] Whether the interpretation of the Chief Secretary was a reasonable one

    309
    or not he would not now dispute, but he was sure that when his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary stated that, his view of any question was such as had been indicated, no one would be disposed to cast doubt upon it. When the right hon. Gentleman said that, in consequence of a misunderstanding, or in consequence of the views taken of the Amendment, it had lost its value, he was surely going beyond anything which the facts of the case warranted. [Cheers.] Whether or not it might be good for the owners of land in Ireland that the Amendment should be accepted he could not judge, but that the clause as it was amended in the sense he had described gave a security to the remainderman which, without the Amendment, the remainderman would not have, seemed to be obvious on the face of the words; and he could not understand the right hon. Gentleman taking the view he had taken and expressing it with the trenchant hostility which characterised his remarks.
    MR. KNOXsaid that, in order to carry out the intention of the Government, he would move to insert that—
    "No order to fix a fair rent for the first time shall be made without the Land Commission giving the prescribed notice."
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The Amendment of the hon. Member would not be in order. The Amendment has already been amended beyond the point at which the hon. Member seeks to amend it. We have got down to the words "no order to fix a fair rent for the first time," therefore, any Amendment must come in after those words.
    MR. KNOX: I shall move it in a different form—namely, after the words "no order to fix a fair rent for the first time," to insert the words "shall be made without the Land Commission giving the prescribed notice."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.
    Amendment, as amended by the addition of these words, agreed to.
    MR. CARSON MR. CARSON moved, after the word "accordingly," at the end of the Clause, to add:—
    "Provided always, that when the landlord is a limited owner or mortgagor or mortgagee in
    310
    possession, no order shall be made without notic to the person entitled on such cesser."
    Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 8,—

    TENANCY NOT INVALIDATED BY REASON OF SUBLETTING BY LANDLOED.
    A contract of tenancy entered into, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, by a landlord in violation, either of the Act of the seventh year of the reign of King George the Fourth, chapter twenty-nine, intituled "An Act to amend the law of Ireland" respecting the assignment and subletting of lands and tenements," or of an agreement against subletting in his lease, shall not as between him and the tenant holding under such contract be, or be deemed to have been, void or voidable, and a superior landlord shall be deemed to have expressed a sufficient consent, in the manner in which the consent is required by law to be expressed to a subletting made in violation of such Act or agreement, unless within a reasonable time after the subletting came to the knowledge of himself, or his agent, he served on the lessee or sub-tenant notice of his dissent from the subletting, or instituted a proceeding against the lessee founded upon the said violation.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 9,—

    DETERMINATION OF ESTATE OF IMMEDIATE LANDLORD.
    (1.) Where a superior landlord recovers against an immediate landlord a judgment in ejectment for nonpayment of the rent of a holding, or of lands including a holding, the estate of the immediate landlord shall be deemed to be determined within the meaning of section fifteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, without prejudice to his right to redeem his interest.
    (2.) Where the nonpayment was not due to the nonpayment of rent by the tenant of the holding, such judgment shall not be executed against the tenant, and the tenancy of the holding shall not be affected, except that the superior landlord shall stand in the relation of immediate landlord to the tenant, and may proceed accordingly for the recovery of all rent due from the tenant to the immediate landlord, but (except in the case of fraud or collusion or a letting at a gross under value) not for the recovery of the rent due to the superior from the immediate landlord. If the amount recovered by the superior landlord from the tenant equals or exceeds the amount due to him from the immediate landlord, the interest of the immediate landlord shall not be deemed to have been redeemed, but the superior landlord shall pay the excess to the immediate landlord, after deducting any amount due for costs.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University—to omit Subsection (1)—I do not think is properly in order, because if the 1st Sub-section of this clause were to be omitted, the 2nd Sub-section as it stands would not read. His objection is to the clause as a whole, and the proper way to raise it is when the Question is put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CARSON MR. CARSON moved at the end of Sub-section (1) after the word "interest," to insert the words:—
    "as if a decree or a writ of habeas facias possessionem had been executed."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDintimated that the Government would accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. CARSON MR. CARSON moved in Sub-section (2) to omit the words "where the nonpayment was not due to the non-payment of rent by the tenant of the holding," and to insert instead thereof the words:—
    "The payment by the tenant of the holding of the amount due to the landlord under such judgment shall not operate to redeem the interest of the immediate landlord, and upon such payment, but subject to such right of rederption as aforesaid."
    This Amendment, he remarked, practically brought the whole question of Clause 9 under discussion, and, so far as he was concerned, it was not only the only Amendment which he should move as regarded Clause 9, with a view to explaining what the clause meant, but—except as regarded the postponed Clause 4—it would be the only Amendment he should have to move which in any way seriously affected the Bill. The present Amendment raised the question whether in the case of ejectment for non-payment of rent in Ireland where there were subtenants, the process of ejectment for non-payment of rent was to be abolished; because that was practically what the sub-section came to. He remembered last year, when this very clause was proposed in the Bill of the right hon. Member for Montrose, he (Mr. Carson) was put up to reply for the Chief Secretary, when he stated that he considered the
    312
    clause one of the revolutionary clauses of the Bill. He noticed that the Chief Secretary, in copying this clause from the Bill of the late Chief Secretary, said that this was a matter upon which both sides were entirely agreed. He did not know why the Chief Secretary had given the go-by to what was stated by him (Mr. Carson) a year ago on behalf of the Government, except, perhaps, that one's ideas of property probably altered according as one found one's self on one side of the House or the other. He thought the provisions of this clause were vastly more important as regarded the whole relation of landlord and tenant, than those of any other clause in the Bill. The question of improvements was insignificant as compared with the question of the administration of the Act. He thought he was not going too far when he stated that the one method which the landlord had under the law of enforcing a contract with a tenant was ejectment for non-payment of rent. He did not suppose that in 99 cases out of 100 the landlords intended to obtain personal judgment, which was always futile, because they would find, if they came to realise, that the stock had been removed and that it was impossible for the Sheriff to levy any execution. The one remedy, therefore, which the landlord had had during many years of disturbance in Ireland, was this remedy of ejectment for non-payment of rent, and if that was to be taken away and infringed upon, he could not see that it would be possible for the landlord in future, in the cases to which this section applied, in the event of any unpleasantness arising with his tenant, to insist upon the carrying out of the obligations of the contract between landlord and tenant at all. The section proposed that where there were sub-tenants the landlord, if he got a decree in ejectment proceedings, should not be able to execute his judgment so as to get possession of the land as against the sub-tenants. Now what would it come to? It came to this. Supposing a tenant who had been a sub-tenant said "I won't pay" the landlord must wait for a year before he could bring his action for ejectment for non-payment, but this section said "having got your judgment you cannot exercise it." In other words the landlord might get rid of the middleman but

    313
    he could not get his land: he could get neither his land nor his money. Was that what the Goverment meant by this section? He at once conceded that there were matters to which the tenant had a right. Where there was a middleman he thought that it was a hard case that the sub-tenant, who was willing to hold on in the event of the middleman being displaced, should not be able to do so without again setting up the interest of the middleman. He urged that the immediate relations should be with the landlord and not with the middleman, and in the event of the latter being dispossessed the sub-tenants should become the tenants of the superior landlord. But that was not what the section proposed. The section said in plain terms that the superior landlord, even if there was a year's rent due, was not to have either his rent or his land as an alternative. He knew there were provisions made and that the superior landlord might proceed to recover any arrears of rent due by the sub-tenant to the middleman, but it would be throwing good money after bad if the landlord were to proceed to search out from the sub-tenants what was the amount of rent they owed to the middleman and then proceed against either of them. Was that the position in which the Irish landlord should be left? How could they confront such a combination as the Plan of Campaign if this section were enforced. What he had said in Opposition he repeated now, that this was a revolutionary proposal and destructive of the interest of the landlord. He was not going into various other matters, but the sole object of his Amendment was to prevent what would be a glaring injustice. This Amendment raised the whole question of ejectment for non-payment of rent, and he thought the Government ought to hesitate before they passed the section as it stood.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not profess to understand the exact effect of the Amendment, but he was bound to say that he had thought that the clause was non-contentious. ["Hear, hear!"] Surely these sub-tenants were in no way to blame for the default of the middleman. Were they to proceed against these sub-tenants for a debt due to the landlord, not by them, but by
    314
    some one else? He thought that the Committee would agreed with him that the Government, in the Bill, had adopted nothing abnormal or extraordinary in regard to this clause. ["Hear, hear!"]
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONput this case before the Committee. He had a farm, and he let it to a tenant under the condition that he paid his rent. This tenant, without his knowledge, sub-let the land to other tenants. The landlord of course, had his remedy of ejecting his tenant for running against the law as to sub-letting. But what what would happen if he took that course? The whole Radical Party would be in arms. They would send deputations to Ireland, and right hon. Gentlemen would come down to that House and weep tears over the awful sight of evictions taking place in Ireland owing to the merciless action of the landlords turning out these inoffensive persons. Therefore, in numberless cases landlords in Ireland had not proceeded to the extreme course of eviction. But now what was to happen to him as the landlord? First of all he would be fined one year's rent, why he did not know, but that was the clause so far as he understood it. Then he should find himself confronted by a number of sub-tenants. He could not get rent from the middleman because he had levanted under this clause, if it passed into law; the new tenants who came upon the landlord without his leave, had paid him no rent, and he could not recover from them. They asked for a fair rent to be fixed. He had got to wait until that process had taken place, and then, when the fair rent was fixed, if they refused to pay him, what was he to do? He would probably have a couple of years to wait, and probably have to engage in a number of lawsuits. If the middleman disappeared, and if the sub-tenants were to become tenants of his, under a fair rent, it would be only in conformity with the most elementary principles of justice that his rent should be paid. He could not conceive why the Government should object to put in their Bill, if these new tenants were to remain on the land and were to come in at a fair rent, the proposal of his right hon. Friend. He hoped the Government would consider the matter again, and not put them in the difficulty of asking the House to divide.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the Government were unable to accept the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, for the reason that it would defeat altogether the policy which was embodied first in the 15th section of the Act of 1881. [Irish Nationalist cheers.] His hon. and gallant Friend objected to two things in this clause. First, he objected to tenants being thrust upon him; and next, he objected to that being done at what might be a pecuniary loss to himself. As to the first point, he would remind his hon. and gallant Friend that this clause was analogous to Clause 15 of the Act of 1881, which provided that, no matter whether a middleman had broken his lease or not, no matter whether he had discharged any of the duties of his tenancy or not, and no matter whether he had paid any rent or not, if his title expired either by fluxion of time or by notice to quit, the sub-tenants were thrust upon the landlord, who was not to be heard to say that he had suffered any pecuniary loss from the conduct of the middleman. His hon. and gallant Friend said that the sub-tenants might inflict pecuniary loss upon him. Possibly that might be so—[cheers from below the Ministerial Gangway]—just as he would whenever he allowed a tenant to run into arrear and and he had to evict him. But he would have a much greater chance of getting his rent from the sub-tenant than he would have if there was no one in possession at all but the middleman. He would have the sub-tenant to look to, who would be obliged to pay him anything he owed to the middleman. He dared say it was possible that under the operation of this clause some pecuniary loss might be inflicted upon his hon. and gallant Friend. But he would put a case of even greater hardship and greater injustice. That was a case where the sub-tenants had paid up to the middleman every shilling they owed, and yet, because the middleman had fallen into arrear, under the law, as it stood at present, the head landlord could bring an ejectment, determine all their tenancies, and turn both them and the middleman out. That was a great injustice and hardship, and they wished to guard against it. [Nationalist cheers.] This clause gave the landlord the right to sue
    316
    for any money that was due from the sub-tenants to the middleman and recover it.
    MR. CARSON: How is the head landlord to find it out?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid he should have no difficulty in finding that out. While the middleman was running into arrear the head landlord could, if he liked, serve notice on the sub-tenants to pay their rent. Nothing was easier in the world than to do that before he took his ejectment, and to ascertain whether, in point of fact, they had paid rent to the middleman or not. He did not say that would enable him to bring ejectment against the sub-tenants. He thought it would be very wrong if it did; but it provided, as far as possible, against pecuniary loss falling upon the landlord. [Nationalist cheers.]
    SIR JOHN COLOMBwould like to submit a concrete case to the Attorney General for Ireland. Suppose there was a middleman and a number of sub-tenants. The sub-tenants, say, had paid up to the 1st of November. On the 1st of May the middleman was ejected. The superior landlord then came in as the immediate landlord of those tenants. They owed six months' rent then, and he would ask the Attorney General whether it would or would not be the case that nearly two years must elapse before the immediate landlord could get the rent?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that, as he understood, the head landlord came in on the 1st of May, and there was then due from the sub-tenants half a year's rent. He could sue for that the next day, but he could not bring an ejectment for non-payment of rent until the May following. He must wait until a year's rent was due to himself.
    SIR J. COLOMBasked whether he was to understand that assuming that a half-year's rent was due on the 1st of May 1896, the landlord could do nothing whatever until May 1897, as far as ejectment was concerned.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Yes.
    SIR J. COLOMBsaid that the rent due on the 1st of May 1897, was never paid till November 1897, so that there

    317
    was really two years—from November 1895 to November 1897—before the landlord could eject.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the landlord could proceed in the ordinary way by civil bill, but he could not eject until 12 months' rent was owing to himself as landlord from the tenant.
    Amendment negatived.
    A further Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. CARSON, and the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS called upon the hon. and learned Gentleman, when——
    MR. CARSONsaid he did not intend to move the next or any other Amendment. It was quite apparent that no Amendments of any importance would be accepted, but if they were accepted the Government went back upon them. Consequently, he should not move any further Amendments. [The hon. Gentleman then left the House amidst Nationalist laughter.]
    Mr. SERJEANT HEMPHILL*Mr. SERJEANT HEMPHILL moved to omit the words—
    ("except in the case of fraud or collusion or of letting at a gross under-value.")
    The words he proposed to omit were, he thought, quite unnecessary, and, moreover, would prove unreasonable to the under tenants. The words did not occur in the Bill brought in and read a Second time last year, and on reflection he thought the Chief Secretary would see that they would operate unjustly and unreasonably, because they would give an altogether new right to the superior landlord against the occupying tenant which he did not now enjoy at common law. The whole of the clause was levelled against the middleman who had always proved a fruitful source of trouble and misfortune in Ireland. At no stage of the law had the superior landlord any personal remedy against the occupying tenant under the middleman. The words he wished to omit would create a right which did not previously exist, and their retention would lead to long and expensive litigation, because, the Court would have to go into the question whether there was fraud or collusion, or a letting at a gross under-value between the middleman and the under tenant. If any of these
    318
    things existed the superior landlord would be entitled to proceed against the under tenant to recover the rent, thus giving him a right which he did not now possess at common law. This was intended to be a remedial Bill in the interest of the tenants, but he thought it would be unreasonable to keep in words which would involve the unfortunate occupying tenant in litigation.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDopposed the Amendment. It would, he said, be undesirable to take away the right given by the Bill. The objection taken by his hon. and learned friend was really unnecessary, as no one would be found to suffer by the retention of the words.
    Amendment negatived.
    On the Motion "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill,"
    MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Carson), had not another Amendment on the Paper when he left the House. They had now passed the tenure clauses of the Bill, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone out of the House, having done his work, and having done it effectively.
    SIR J. COLOMBsaid it was very undesirable that the tenant should be allowed to get into arrears, and that the immediate landlord in this case should be comparatively powerless in the matter. Would the light hon. Gentleman consider the question between now and Report, with the view, if possible, of amending the Bill in the way he had previously suggested?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURpromised to give the matter his consideration.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 10,—

    AMENDMENT OF 54 & 55 VICT. C. 57, AS TO LONG LEASES AND FEE FARM GRANTS.
    The Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891, shall be amended ay follows:—

    (a.) The provisions of the Land Law Acts and this Act with respect to improvements shall apply, notwithstanding that

    319
    the lessee or grantee would not, on quitting his holding, he entitled by reason of his being such lessee or grantee to claim compensation for improvements under the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act 1870.

    (b.) A person shall he a lessee or a grantee under a fee farm grant within the meaning of the said Acts notwithstanding that the instrument under which he holds though purporting to create the relation of landlord and tenant, is dated before the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and by reason of its date does not create the relation of landlord and tenant between him and the person to whom money is payable thereunder in respect of the holding, and that person shall he a lessor or grantor in like manner as if the instrument were executed on or after the above-mentioned day.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 11,—

    AMENDMENT OF 50 & 51 VICT. C. 33. S. 1, AS TO TIME FOR APPLICATIONS BY LEASEHOLDERS.
    Applications under section one of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, may be made at any time.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    After the usual interval, Mr. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam) took the Chair.
    Clause 12,—

    EJECTMENTS FOR NONPAYMENT OF RENT IN CASE OF HOLDINGS UNDER LAND LAW ACTS.
    Where an ejectment is brought for the nonpayment of the rent of a holding to which the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act apply, and the rent in arrear exceeds two years' rent, the tenant may pay, tender, deposit, or lodge, under sections sixty to seventy-one of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland) 18G0, the sum of two years' rent instead of the sums therein respectively required to be paid, tendered, deposited, or lodged, and upon such tender, payment, deposit, or lodgment the tenant shall be in the same position under those sections as if two years' rent were the sum claimed: and the balance of the rent then due shall remain a debt due by the tenant to the landlord, but shall not be recovered by ejectment for nonpayment of rent or distress.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to leave out the words "Where an," and to
    320
    insert instead thereof the words "in the case of any."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in the same line, to leave out the word "is."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to leave out the word "and" before the words "the rent in arrear," and to insert instead thereof the word "where."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. JORDAN MR. J. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.) moved to leave out all the words after the words "the sum claimed." He said that his object was to make the payment of a two-years' rent a final discharge of the landlord's claim up to that date. He thought two years' payment was a good payment in the landlord's interest on two grounds—(1) that the tenants in arrear were generally too highly rented, and he held that two years' payment of a high rent was equal to three years' payment of a fair rent, and probably a great deal more; and (2) because the landlord would get the bulk sum of two years' high or rack rent in his hands at once, instead of in driblets of half-yearly payments. He contended that it would be cruelty to a tenant to weight him still further by hanging this millstone of the balance of debt round his neck.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he had to suggest to the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment that he should withdraw it for the present, in order that the principle it involved might be more conveniently discussed on a subsequent Amendment. If the present Amendment were adopted, the landlord, after receiving the two years' arrears of rent, would be still able to bring a civil action against the tenant for the purpose of recovering the balance of the arrears of rent.
    MR. DILLONsaid that he hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment on the ground put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. JORDANsaid that, after the appeal that had been made to him by

    321
    the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and by his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HAYDEN MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.): moved an Amendment which would have the effect of relieving the tenant in arrear from all liability on payment of two years' rent.
    MR DILLONsaid that the object of the clause was to deal with the evil, that it was admitted existed in Ireland, which arose out of the landlords allowing large arrears of rent to accumulate and hang over the heads of their tenants. The fact was that the landlords never expected the rents they nominally exacted to he paid. In good seasons they compelled the tenants to pay the rack rents, but in had seasons they allowed the rents to fall into arrear, and they kept these arrears hanging over the heads of the tenants so as to keep them completely in their power. If this clause had any object at all which he somewhat doubted, it was to free the tenants from this millstone round their necks. He wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the clause as it stood would have no effect whatever in favour of the tenants, in fact it would prove a trap to the smaller tenants. He himself knew cases in which the landlord had allowed 13 years' rent in arrear to accumulate.
    COLONEL WARING: No, no.
    MR. DILLONsaid that he held the proof in his hands. The object of the clause was to enable the tenant to free himself from the load of debt that hung over him cm his paying two years' rack rent, which was equivalent to three years' fair rent. It would be most unfair to the tenant to allow the land lord to receive two years' arrears of rent and then to take civil proceedings that would enable him to adopt the cruel and unjust course of selling up the tenant's interest in the holding. ["Hear, hear!"] The landlords constantly resorted to that method of recovering the arrears of rent. [Cries of "No."]
    COLONEL WARING: It is not the landlord who sells the tenant's interest in his holding, it is the tradesman.
    MR. DILLONsaid that the course was pursued much more frequently by the landlords than by the tradesmen. The tradesman lived among the people and by the people, and therefore it was most unlikely that he would sell out the tenant's interest in his holding. If the clause remained as it stood, the landlord, after having received two years' arrears of rent, might take civil proceedings against the unhappy tenant, and sell out his interest in his holding. [cries of "No."] He did not know what was done in the north of Ireland, but he knew what was done in the south. The course which the landlords took in the south of Ireland was more cruel even than bringing actions of ejectment against their tenants for the non-payment of rent.
    COLONEL WARINGsaid the hon. Member's knowledge of Ireland was confined to one part of the country. He confessed that he did not know what happened in the North, but he himself knew that there the landlords did not resort to the measures he had spoken of.
    MR. DILLON: I know a great deal more about Ireland generally than the hon. and gallant Gentleman does.
    COLONEL WARING: By your own admission you do not know much about the North.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It is a small country, anyhow.
    MR. DILLONsaid no more cruel or oppressive method of recovering rent could be adopted than that of civil bill process or a writ for ejectment. But it was nothing less than a mockery to put into the Bill a clause dealing with the evil of arrears when relief was simply given from recovery by civil bill process and not from the process of recovery by writ or decree for the amount due.
    MR. T. HARRINGTONsubmitted that the Amendment was in the interests of landlord and tenant alike. Nothing was more calculated to bring odium upon his class than for the landlord to sue for a long series of arrears. These arrears also caused soreness to fester between the landlords and their tenants. By the adoption of the Amendment all landlords would get ample notice that two years' arrears only would be recoverable, and a service would be done to the indolent, negligent, and spendthrift, who would not be allowed to be more than

    323
    two years in arrear. The sale of the tenant's interest was quite common in three provinces of Ireland, and prevailed largely in the fourth. The six months for equity of redemption was done away with, the landlord went into court as an ordinary creditor, and sued for the amount of rent due as an ordinary debt, he put the farm up for sale, and it was sold for the amount of rent due and perhaps a little more.
    SIR J. COLOMBreminded the Committee that under the law as it now stood, if the landlord sued for ejectment and more than two years' rent was due, the County Court Judge could say to the landlord—"You should not have allowed this to accumulate. It is too hard on the tenant that he should pay this lump sum altogether. I can enable you to recover only by instalments." Payment by instalments was a great advantage to the tenant. He agreed in preventing as far as possible that over-credit which was the curse and ruin of Ireland, but he was not in favour of dealing with only one class of debts. What was proposed to be applied to landlords' debts should be applied all round.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid they could not import into the Bill of the kind affecting rent a question affecting creditors as a whole, who had a remedy that the landlords had not. That, he contended, was a complete answer to the hon. and gallant Member as regarded the ordinary tenant. The Amendment would do the landlord no injustice, and go a long way towards quieting the position of the tenant. It would leave the landlord in possession of all his arrears intact for all purposes except when the similar remedy of ejectment was attempted. The hon. Member for North Down had said that it was not the practice of landlords in Ulster to proceed against their tenants by civil bill decree. Protestant tenants under Protestant landlords got more fair play than Catholic tenants under Protestant landlords, and therefore he accepted the hon. and gallant Gentleman's protest that it was not the practice of his class to proceed against their Protestant tenants as Protestant landlords proceeded against Catholic tenants. But the Amendment was really of a very attenuated character, and might be accepted by the Government
    324
    without doing any injustice to the landlord.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURagreed that the practice of allowing arrears of rents to grow was a misfortune to both landlord and tenant. But, at the same time it would be a serious thing if Parliament were to take a wet sponge and wipe out debts that were legally due. He therefore adopted an intermediary procedure, and proposed in the clause that while a landlord might recover two years' arrears of rent by an ejectment for non-payment of rent, if he attempted to recover arrears beyond two years he must resort to the methods that were open to the ordinary creditor. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo thought the clause would be a trap for the tenant—that the tenant would be placed by the clause in a worse position than his position at present. He did not think that would be the case, and the hon. and learned Member for Louth, if he understood the hon. and learned Member aright, seemed to be of the same opinion.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Hear, hear.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: But if it is the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the position of the tenant would not be improved by the clause, I will withdraw it.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: No, no. I did not say that.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member did not say so, but I understood the hon. Member for Mayo to say so.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Everyone acknowledges that the clause would be a valuable one.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the hon. Member for Mayo's description of the clause as "a trap for the tenant" could only mean that the clause would put the tenant into a worse position. Under the clause, if the tenant at any time paid two years' arrears he could not be proceeded against for any other arrears by the process open to landlords only, and it would not be possible for the landlords to carry the arrears continually forward. The arrears beyond two years would, under this clause, merely be a debt which was recoverable in the same way as any ordinary debt. The Government were not prepared to accept any Amendment

    325
    which would place the landlord, with regard to those arrears, in a superior or in an inferior position to other creditors.
    MR. DILLONcontended that the words "where an ejectment is brought" governed the whole clause. Unless an ejectment was brought, the provisions of the clause did not apply. It simply provided that if the landlord proceeded for the whole debt by ejectment, the tenant could escape by paying two years' arrears. But the landlord had power immediately afterwards, even if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon were accepted, to recover the remainder of the debt by the ordinary law. He did not say (hat he would not rather have the clause: but he believed that it would be a trap to many small tenants. They would pay two years' arrears to escape ejectment, and then find themselves face to face with fresh proceedings.
    MR. J. A. RENTOULthought that the construction placed on the clause by the hon. Member for East Mayo was perfectly correct. The very day after the tenant had paid two years' arrears to stay ejectment, the landlord might proceed for the rest by County Court summons.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYhad thought that this was a point on which even the representatives of the landlords might have urged a compromise. A tenant recently came to him and produced a receipt for a half-year's rent which he had just paid. The receipt had been given for the half-year's rent due March 1884. All that time the tenant had been paying rent and had simply kept this old debt alive. The position was absolutely hopeless. This question of arrears ought to have been dealt with as in the Scottish Crofters Act. The Crofters Commission, when they fixed a fair rent, inquired what arrears were due, and decided how much should be extinguished. He did not think the clause would act as a trap to the tenant, because there was no bait attractive enough to bring him into the trap. The hon. Member had spoken of his experience in the North of Ireland. In the South his own experience was that latterly the process of ejectment for non-payment of rent had largely gone into disuse; this was in consequence of an excellent clause in the Act of 1887
    326
    of the Tory Government, by which the costs receivable by the landlord were cut down to the costs which he would get if he proceeded in the ordinary way. He feared that the clause as it was would be of very limited operation, and that it would not confer on the tenants the advantages which he believed the Chief Secretary himself desired.
    COLONEL WARINGsaid he had been entirely misrepresented by the hon. Member. In the first place he had not the slightest idea of supporting any process by which any unfair exaction of rent should be taken from the tenant. So far as he could recollect, he had only two tenants at present who were two years in arrears, and the clause would not affect him in the least. When he spoke previously he had in his mind other landlords who appeared to be unfairly-treated by the proposals which were made. He believed most landlords would be only too proud to get two years down.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLquite agreed that the landlords would be very well off if they were secured in two years arrears of rent, and, in fact, the acceptance of the Amendment would, in his opinion, be a boon not only to the tenant, but to the landlord. It was a very common practice to carry on from one half-year to another old arrears. When ejectments were brought for non-payment of rent, it was a common practice to endorse the ejectment summons with all the arrears due, which might be 12 years in the case of a lease, and six years in the case of an ordinary tenancy. The Court had no jurisdiction to cut down the arrears, and decree for possession must be given. The effect of that heavy burden on the tenant was that the benefit which the law always contemplated—and even before the Statute a Court of Equity always gave the tenant in ejectment for non-payment the right to redeem by paying up arrears and costs—was completely frustrated, because no tenant could possibly pay up 12, 6, or even four years' arrears of rent. Now, the object of the section was to obviate that, and to say that an ejectment should only be brought in respect of two years' arrears, and the tenant could redeem by the payment of two years' rent. Some wise sages of the law in Ireland had often stated that the best landlord was

    327
    the landlord who did not allow any heavy arrears of rent to become due; because it hung like a millstone round the tenant's neck. If this Amendment were accepted, that mischief would be obviated, and the tenant would start with a tabula rasa—a clean bill between himself and the landlord, than which nothing could conduce more to the happiness and good feeling between the parties.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that there was another objection to the Amendment in addition to that which had been previously stated. It was that if the Amendment was accepted the landlord would be tempted to do exactly what the hon. and learned Gentleman said he would be prevented from doing by the Amendment—namely, seek to recover the rent by an act of ejectment on title. It would not be desirable to give that amount of encouragement to a procedure of that kind; and he was, therefore afraid that while the particular objection to the Amendment was not so strong as he previously believed it to be when he spoke, yet there was an objection equally strong against its acceptance.
    MR. T. M. HEALYargued that in this matter Ireland was entitled to the same treatment as Scotland. He quoted Section 6 of the Crofters Act, and contended that in a limited sense the same change of remedy and incidence of harshness of the existing law should be applied to Ireland.
    SIR J. COLOMBsaid that there was no analogy between the Crofters Act and the present Bill. The Crofters Act was limited in its operation to a very small area of Scotland, and only to a limited and poor class of the community. This Bill, on the other hand, applied to the whole of Ireland, and to all sections of the community paying and able to pay high rents.
    MR. M. McCARTANasked for a promise that at a future stage of the Bill a provision would be inserted making two years' rent irrecoverable. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give some consideration to the suggestion that words should be inserted in the clause which should deal with the matter. He thought he might appeal to the Member for North Down. Before sitting down he thought it only fair to say that knowing something of
    328
    the business there was no question of cruelty or harshness on the part of the rich landlords. [Cheers.] It was not of that class of landlords that they complained.
    MR. T. HARRINGTONdisclaimed any idea of preventing landlords asserting their rights, but he wished to call attention to the special cruelty of such a case as this: If a tenant owed a year's rent, say £50, the landlord could come in and seize property worth £500. The tenant in that case was completely at the mercy of the landlord. He contended that they were in this clause leaving open the door to the imposition of great cruelty. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to remedy this defect in the Bill.
    MR. RENTOULthought the Amendment might be accepted. If the proposal would not affect good landlords, why not apply it to those who would not do their duty? There seemed to be a general agreement on both sides of the House.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURcould not accept the Amendment. He believed it would be injurious to the tenant.
    MR. HAYDENappealed to the right hon. Gentleman, from a long experience to accept the Amendment. Only recently he had known of the case of the imprisonment of a whole family. He knew of cases where the arrears accumulated since the famine years, but where the landlord accepted one year's rent there was no trouble afterwards. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the matter his favourable consideration.
    MR. DILLON, who was received with protests, said this was an important matter, and he agreed with the Member for North Roscommon. The effect of the Amendment would be to deprive future tenants of all their rights under the Land Act. He therefore joined in the appeal to the Chief Secretary.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the privilege the landlord had had hitherto of using ejectment for any number of years' rent would be destroyed by the clause. That was a large concession to the tenants. The point raised would be carefully considered, but he could not promise that it should be dealt with on Report.
    MR. HAYDENsaid he was satisfied with this statement, and would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYproposed to omit the words "shall remain a debt due by the tenant to the landlord, but," so as to provide that when the tenant had paid two years' rent in respect of arrears the balance of the rent then due should not be recovered by ejectment for non-payment of rent or distress. The hon. Member said this would give the landlord a personal action for rent against a person against whom he had no action before.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDagreed to accept the Amendment.
    MR. SMITH BARRYintimated that he would not proceed with his intention to move the addition to the clause of the following words:—
    "This section shall not apply to any rent due before the passing of this Act until the expiration of two years from such passing."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to add to the clause the following words:—
    "Nor shall the holding be sold or affected by or under any judgment, execution, or proceeding taken in respect of such balance of rent."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURremarked that the Government had already considered the general question, and if the right hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, it should be considered at the same time.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13,—

    PROCEDURE.

      AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FIXING JUDICIAL RENT AND FOR RE-HEARING.
      (1.) The Land Commission upon an application to them to fix the fair rent for a holding, shall cause the holding to he inspected, in the
      330
      presence of the parties if they wish to be present, by one assistant commissioner or two assistant commissioners, who on the inspection shall inquire respecting all improvements on the holding and report to the Land Commission—

      (a) the fair letting value of the holding as between the parties inclusive of the value of all improvements thereon;

      (b) the improvements made wholly or partly by or at the cost of the tenant required by this Act to be recorded, in respect of which rent cannot be allowed or made payable, the capital value of those improvements, and the deduction from the rent made in respect of the same;

      (c) the annual sum which should he the fail rent of the holding;

      (d) the improvements made wholly or partly by or at the cost of the landlord required by this Act to be recorded; and

      (e) such other matters in relation to the building as may be prescribed.

      (2.) A conditional order shall be made, as of course, fixing as the fair rent of the holding the annual sum so reported and unless cause to the contrary is shown as hereinafter mentioned, shall he made absolute by the Land Commission.
      (3.) The landlord and tenant respectively may, within the prescribed time after the service of the conditional order, show cause against it, and the Land Commission either may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make absolute the order, with or without modification, or dismiss the application, or may remit the case for hearing to a sub-commission, of which any assistant commissioner who reported shall not be a member.
      (4.) An order making the conditional order absolute shall not be subject to rehearing as respects the question of value.
      (5.) Where a case is so remitted to a sub-commission and a person aggrieved by the order of the sub-commission requires the ease to be re-heard by the Land Commission, the prescribed assistant commissioner shall certify whether or not any question of law or of mixed law and fact arose in the proceeding, and shall set forth in the certificate the prescribed particulars respecting the case.
      (6.) If the certificate states that a question of law or mixed law and fact arose, that question may he heard and determined by the Judicial Commissioner sitting either alone or with one other commissioner, and after such determination, or, if the certificate states that no question of law or mixed law and fact arose, then at any time, the Land Commission may, if they think lit, without hearing the parties, make absolute the order of the sub-commission, with or without modification, or may re-hear the case; but if either the landlord or the tenant requires the case to be re-heard, and lodges the prescribed sum for the costs of the re-hearing-, the Land Commission shall re-hear the case.
      Under the Older of the House of this date, Clause 13 ceased to be part of the Bill.
      Clause 14,—

    FIXING OF FAIR RENT FOR THIRTY YEARS VARIABLE WITH REFERENCE TO VARIATION OF PRICES.
    (1.) The landlord and tenant of a holding may jointly apply to the Court for an order applying this section to the holding, and (except during the first four years of a statutory term) may so apply whether there is or is not a statutory term current in respect of the holding.
    (2.) On such application the Court may by order apply this section to the holding, and fix all or any of the matters following:—

    (a) the customary products of the holding as defined in this section;

    (b) if there are more products than one, the relative value of each product as defined in this section; and

    (c) if an application to fix a fair rent can he made, the fair rent of the holding;

    and the court may fix any matters appearing to them to he incidental to or consequential on the fixing of the matters above mentioned, or otherwise to he necessary for the purpose of that fixing; and the Court shall by their order constitute the fair rent so fixed, or where, by reason of a statutory term being current, an application to fix a fair rent cannot be made, the then existing judicial rent to be a variable fair rent, and in the latter case may fix such variation of the then existing judicial rent as is authorised under this section at the end of a quinquennial period.
    (3.) All or any of the above matters may, cither before or after the application, and before the order is made, be fixed by agreement in writing between the landlord and tenant, or by arbitration in pursuance of such agreement, and, if so fixed, shall be adopted by the order of the Court, and, for the purposes of this section, the fair rent may be so fixed by agreement or arbitration, even though, by reason of a statutory term being current, no application for fixing a fair rent can be made to the Court.
    (4.) The provisions of this Act with respect to the fixing by the Land Commission of a fair rent shall, with such necessary modifications as may be prescribed, apply to fixing the matters in this section mentioned other than a variation of any existing judicial rent, and the provisions of this section with respect to varying a variable fair rent at the end of the quinquennial period shall apply to the fixing of such variation.
    (5.) Where an order applying this section is made, the statutory term for the tenancy shall be thirty years, and such term and the variable fair rent shall begin from the same gale day from which it would have begun if the application had been an application to fix a fair rent, or whore the application is made in the fifth year of an ordinary statutory term, from any later day at which the said fifth year expires, and on the beginning of such statutory term of thirty years any previously-existing statutory term shall be deemed to have expired.
    (6.) During the last twelve months of each quinquennial period of a statutory term under
    332
    this section, either the landlord or the tenant may apply in the prescribed form to the Land Commission to vary the variable fair rent, and thereupon the Land Commission shall determine what variation (if any) ought equitably to be made in the variable rent, having regard—

    (a) to the gazetted prices hereinafter mentioned of the customary products of the holding, and their relative value, as compared with the gazetted prices for the calendar year in which the judicial rent was fixed; and

    (b) to the extent to which any variation in such prices may be reasonably held to have affected the fairness of the rent of the holding;

    and the rent if varied shall as varied be payable for the residue of the term, reckoning from the end of the quinquennial period, unless and until it is varied upon a like application under this sub-section.
    (7.) An order applying this section may, if it is so provided by the application for the order or by any subsequent agreement between the landlord and tenant, direct that at the end of each quinquennial period the variable fair rent shall, without any order of the Land Commission, vary, whether by way of increase or decrease, in proportion to the gazetted price herein after mentioned of the customary product of the holding when compared with the gazetted price of such product for the year in which the judicial rent of the holding was fixed, or in such other proportion dependent upon that price as may be fixed by the order; and where there is more than one such customary product, the variation shall depend on the net results of the gazetted prices of all such products, in the proportions of their relative value as fixed by the order, after setting off an increase in the price of one product against any decrease in the price of another.
    (8.) A like direction may be given by an order made at the end of any quinquennial period in pursuance of any agreement made between the landlord and the tenant.
    (9.) During the last twelve months of each quinquennial period the customary products of a holding and their relative value may be varied prospectively by agreement made between the landlord and the tenant, and recorded with the Land Commission.
    (10.) During the last twelve months of a statutory term under this section, an application may be made by the landlord and the tenant jointly to continue under this section, or by either of them to fix a new fair rent for the ordinary statutory term under the Land Law Acts. If no such application is made, this section and the provisions for varying the rent at the end of every quinquennial period which applied to the holding during the statutory term, shall continue to apply to the holding until the end of a quinquennial period during the last twelve months of which such an application has been made to the court as above provided in this Sub-section, and such an application may be made during the last twelve months of any quinquennial period, but at no other time.
    (11.) For the purposes of this section the expression "the customary products of a holding," means the agricultural and pastoral products which are usually produced on the holding, or such of them as are to be considered for the purposes of fixing or varying the rent; and "the relative value of a product" means the approximate proportion of value which each product may he considered to contribute to the total value of the customary products of the holding.
    (12.) For the purpose of this section the Land Commission shall ascertain, with respect to each province or such other area as they think most suitable, the following prices of what they consider to be the agricultural and pastoral products of that provice or area, namely—

    (a) in respect of the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two the average prices of the preceding year, and in respect of the, year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three the average prices of the two preceding year's, and in respect of the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four the average prices of the three preceding years, and in respect of the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five the average prices of the four preceding years; and

    (b) in respect of each subsequent calendar year the average prices of the five years last preceding that year;

    and the Land Commission shall publish the prices so ascertained in respect of each year in the Dublin Gazette at such times as they think most convenient for giving information to all persons interested, and the prices so ascertained and published in respect of each year shall be the gazetted prices for that year.
    (13.) The Land Commission may also, whenever a holding is inspected by an Assistant Commissioner or other officer of the Commission, obtain in the prescribed manner information with respect to the customary products of holdings, and their relative value.
    (14.) An application under this section shall be deemed to be a joint application, where the Land Commission are satisfied, that either the landlord or tenant has served upon the other the prescribed notice requesting him to join in the application, and the person upon whom the notice was served has not within the prescribed time after such service given notice of his refusal to join therein.
    Under the Order of the House of this date, Clause 14 ceased to be part of the Bill.
    Clause 15,—

    COUNTY COURT JURISDICTION.
    (1.) After the commencement of this Act a County Court shall not have any jurisdiction, either to dispose of an application to fix a fair rent, or in relation to any proceeding under the Land Law Acts, or this part of this Act, and
    334
    the Land Commission shall alone be deemed to be the Court within the meaning of those Acts and this part of this Act; and any such application or proceeding which is pending at the said commencement in any County Court shall be transferred to the Land Commission, and all records and papers relating to any application or proceeding under the Land Law Acts, whether so pending or not, shall be transferred to the Land Commission, by such persons, and in such manner, and in accordance with such regulations, as the Land Commission may direct and make.
    (2.) Where an ejectment is brought in any County Court for the nonpayment of the rent of a, bidding and an application to fix a fair rent, whether made before or after the ejectment was brought, is pending, the Court shall, unless they consider that the application is not bonâ fide, stay the proceedings in such ejectment until the application has been disposed of.
    Under the Order of the House of this date, Clause 15 ceased to he part, of the Bill.
    Clause 16,—

    AMENDMENTS OF PROCEDURE AS TO LIMITED REPRESENTATION OF DECEASED PERSON.
    On any application under the Land Law Acts, as amended by this Act, an order may, subject to the prescribed regulations, be made by the Court, appointing some person limited administrator of a deceased person for the purpose of such application, and such order may be made whether such deceased person did or did not die before the application, or make a will which was not proved.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 17,—

    LAND COMMISSION AND LAND JUDGE.—REGULATIONS AS TO INTERCHANGE OF DUTIES OF THE LAND JUDGE AND THE JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
    (1.) The Lord Chancellor, the Land Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court, and the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission, or any two of them (of whom the Lord Chancellor shall be one) may make rules for the following purposes, namely:—

    (a.) To enable the Land Judge to act as an additional Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission—

    (i) in any matter arising under the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act; or

    (ii) in any appeal or rehearing under the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act;

    335

    (b.) To enable the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission to exercise any jurisdiction, powers, and duties, so far as existing at the commencement of this Act—

    (i) of the High Court or any judge thereof, either as successors of the Landed Estates Court and the judges thereof, or under the Record of Title (Ireland) Act, 1865, or the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891; and

    (ii) of the Land Judge and of the Receiver Judge under any enactment conferring any jurisdiction upon either of such Judges as such;

    (c.) To enable the High Court to distribute the proceeds of any sale under the Land Purchase Acts, and to enable the Land Commission to carry into effect any sale under those Acts ordered by the High Court.

    (2.) For carrying into effect any such rules, and exercising the jurisdiction, powers, and duties arising thereunder, the Land Judge shall be deemed to be an additional Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission, and the Judicial Commissioner shall be deemed to be an additional Land Judge.
    (3.) The Land Judge as respects officers of the Supreme Court who are attached to such Judge, or otherwise employed in or about the execution of any such jurisdiction, powers, and duties as may under this section be exercised by the Judicial Commissioner, and the Judicial Commissioner, so far as respects the officers of the Land Commission, may direct those officers to perform such duties as he thinks fit under the Land Commission or under the Land Judge, as the case may be, and those officers shall perform those duties.
    (4.) The Land Judge and the Judicial Land Commissioner may also make regulations for carrying into effect any rules made in pursuance of this section, and for the mutual relations between the Land Judge and the officers of the Supreme Court on the one side, and the Land Commission and their officers on the other, and in particular for the payment into the High Court of money to he distributed among the parties entitled thereto, and for the Land Commission carrying into effect any sales under the Land Purchase Acts ordered by the High Court.
    (5.) Subsections two and three of section fifty of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, shall apply to rules made under this section.
    (6.) The first rules under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act.
    MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN moved in Sub-section (1) to omit the words "the Land Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court." He considered that it was unsatisfactory there should be this interchange of duties between the Land Judge and the Judicial Commissioner in the administration of the Land Act.
    336
    It would be better if the Lord Chancellor and the Judicial Commissioner and the President of the Incorporated Land Society of Ireland, or some other official, should form the body who had to draft the rules indicated in the clause, without bringing in the Land Judge. The whole question of the clause was open to doubt.
    MR. T. M. HEALYthought it was hardly desirable to press an Amendment of this kind. He did not wish to speak too lavishly of a gentleman who had only been in the position of a Judge for a few months and whom he had often opposed in that House, but he considered the appointment of Mr. Rossas Land Judge had been a most satisfactory one, and it was not advisable to take away from him the power of having a say in the making of these rules.
    MR. DILLONsaid that as he understood the Amendment it was not so much directed against the power of Mr. Justice Ross to make these rules as against the character of the rules he and the other gentlemen were empowered to make. The clause said that they—
    "may make rules for the following purpose namely (a) To enable the Land Judge to act: an additional Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission—(i) in any matter arising under the Land Purchase Act as amended by this Act, or (ii) in any appeal or re-hearing under the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act."
    He strongly objected to both these subsections, and it was impossible to consider the question of making rules without taking into purview at the same time the far-reaching character of the matters over which the section empowered these gentlemen to make rules. What he would be inclined to suggest to the hon. Member for North Cork would be not so much to press his present Amendment as the subsequent one, in which he proposed to omit Subsection (a).
    MR. FLYNNsaid that, after the remarks of the hon. Member for North Louth and the hon. Member for East Mayo, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL*MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL moved in Sub-section (1), after the words "High Court," to leave out the word "and." He said the object of the Amendment was to join the President of the Incorporated Society of Ireland as one of the rule-making authorities. There was a very strong feeling on the part of the Incorporated Society that the President should be associated with the learned Judges mentioned in the section for the purpose of making the necessary rules. In the Judicature Act of 1894 for England, the President of the Incorporated Society of England was associated with the learned Judges for the purpose of making rules. The majority of the practitioners in these Courts were solicitors, and he thought the head of the profession should have a voice in making the rules and regulations.
    MR. RENTOULsaid that, having regard to the fact that the President of the Incorporated Law Society was changed every year, he thought it would be rather unfortunate to agree to this Amendment. If the President were a permanent officer the Amendment would be a proper one.
    MR. MACNEILLreminded the hon. and learned Member that the Lord Chancellor was changed with every Government. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted, because he thought it would be very proper that the head of the profession which practised most in these Courts should have a voice in the making of the rules in reference to the practice of the Courts.
    Mr. R. M. DANEalso hoped the Amendment would be accepted. This matter had excited a considerable amount of interest in Ireland amongst the solicitor profession, and he would appeal to the Chief Secretary to allow the President of the Incorporated Society to be associated with the Judges for the purposes mentioned in the section.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURtrusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not insist on the Amendment. He thought that anyone who read the clause and appreciated the purpose of it, would see that the introduction of the President of the Incorporated Society was wholly out of place. The object of the clause was to make regulations as to the
    338
    interchange of duties of the Land Judge and the Judicial Commissioner of the Irish Land Commission. Would it not be really absurd to introduce a gentleman from a body outside, however competent, that had really nothing whatever to do with the mutual relations between the Courts?
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid he had no objection to withdraw the Amendment. It was in conformity with the strongly-expressed wishes of the Incorporated Society that he tabled the Amendment, but of course, if it was against the pleasure of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he would not press it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN moved to leave out Sub-section (a). There was a very strong feeling in Ireland in regard to the constitution of the Land Commission. It was felt very strongly that the members were appointed entirely from one class of the population—the landlord class, and that, as a rule, they took a not unfavourable view of the landlords' interests. Nothing more true or cogent had been said in the course of the Debate than the remark made by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, that the nature and character of the clauses of the Land Act were not more important than its administration—that, in fact, the great and essential point in the successful working of the Land Acts in Ireland were the character of their administration and their administrators. It was not in human nature to expect that the average Irish tenant would feel any confidence in the administration of an Act, especially a Land Act, when he knew that his class had no voice or influence whatever in the appointment of the administrators. ["Hear, hear!"] They were face to face with an amending Act, and with the opening of a fresh statutory term, and if there was to be peace and contentment in Ireland the people must have confidence in the law and in its fair administration between all parties, especially in regard to cases of appeal. This feeling of want of confidence in the Land Commission existed in all parts of Ireland, and he ventured to say it prevailed as much in Ulster as in any other

    339
    province. All the time they had spent on this Bill in the effort to better the relations between landlord and tenant would be wasted if those who were to administer it—and above all the Land Commissioner, who exercised the higher functions of appeal—were to be exclusively drawn from one class of the population closely connected with the landlords, for the tenantry would not have confidence in the administration. That lack of confidence existed now in regard to the Land Commission, and for the reasons he had given, he moved the Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he supported the proposal of his hon. Friend, though he confessed he should have been satisfied with a more moderate Amendment, in the form, for instance, of excluding Mr. Justice Ross from all power of interfering with the Land Commission in the matter of fixing fair rents. If the Government insisted on the intrusion of Mr. Justice Ross in the fair rent Department of the Land Commission, to which work he was entirely foreign, and with which he had no connection at all, they would be open to an unfavourable imputation. The history of the Land Department was rather peculiar. Mr. Justice Monroe was long stricken down by a serious illness, but he did not resign until the Tories came into office, in order to throw the gift of a Land Judge into the hands of the Tory Party. It was well known that Judge Monroe stood as a candidate against him, and therefore must be regarded as a partisan, but he was bound to say that a more pleasant judge to practice before in Court he had never known. Judge Monroe, however, was stricken down by an absolutely incapacitating illness in the month of March 1895. He went away to Egypt, but he withheld his resignation, knowing that a General Election was pending. The moment the party of law and order came into office he handed in his resignation. Mr. Justice Ross was appointed in Mr. Justice Monroe's stead, and at the very moment that that learned Judge was inducted to his office there was made the proposal to make him an additional Pair Rent Commissioner. The Government suddenly discovered, on coming into office, that there was such a thing as the 65 Rule, and Mr. Rice was, under that rule, struck off. He thought the Government
    340
    would act wisely if they would limit the proposal in the Bill. He would give Mr. Justice Ross full power over the department he managed so well, and which was germane to his present position—namely, the sale and purchase of land; but he could not see why, when there were already five Fair Rent Commissioners, another should be appointed. Under Clause 18, the Lord Chancellor might nominate any Judge of the High Court, with his consent, to act for the time specified by the Lord Chancellor as an additional Land Judge. In other words, Mr. Justice Ross was to be taken from his proper and appropriate duties and appointed an additional Land Judge. While, too, Mr. Justice Ross was to he taken from his proper duties the Government declined to fill up the existing vacancy in Ireland caused by the death of Mr. Justice Harrison. The question of fair rents ought to be left to the existing Judges, especially when the Government were using the age rule to remove officials who were trusted by the tenants.
    MR. DANEsaid that nobody would be better pleased than Mr. Justice Ross himself if this Amendment were accepted, because no more invidious duty could he thrown upon a Judge than the duty of fixing fair rents. He regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Louth should have made an ungracious attack upon an able and upright Judge, who had been compelled to retire through ill-health. The allegations of the hon. and learned Member had no foundation in fact. The hon. Member said that the learned Judge, who was struck down by illness in March 1895, retained his office with the view of resigning it when the present Government came into Office. That was not the case. The learned Judge obtained leave of absence in the hope that he might regain his health, and when that leave expired in March last, nine months after the present Administration came into power, he sent in his resignation. He was sure the hon. and learned Member would regret having made an attack upon an eminent Judge, who enjoyed the confidence and respect of all classes in Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that if it was the case that in March 1895, when the Liberals were in Office, Mr. Justice

    341
    Munroe obtained leave of absence, he should be ready to withdraw what he had said.
    MR. DANEsaid that he believed that it was an absolute fact that Mr. Justice Munroe obtained six months' leave, expiring last October, and that he then obtained a six months' extension of leave, and when that further extension expired he resigned his office.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he would assume that what the hon. and learned Member said was correct. If in the observations he had addressed to the House there appeared to be any personal reflections upon Mr. Munroe, he disclaimed them, and would be glad that they should pass out of the recollection of the Committee.
    Mr. DANEremarked that the on. Member, as a Member of the Bar, had acted as he (Mr. Dane) anticipated he would when he heard the facts of the case.
    MR. DILLONthought the Amendment a very important one. He was against the proposal to add Mr. Justice Ross to the Land Commission for the purpose of fixing fair rents, and he had an almost equally strong objection to his being added to the Land Commission for any purpose whatever, and particularly for the administration of the Land Purchase Clauses. Putting aside altogether the question of Mr. Justice Ross's political career, there was no doubt that the nature of his duties as a Judge of the Land Court, and the nature of his duties if he were made a Commissioner charged with functions in connection with the sale and purchase of holdings, would be diametrically opposed to each other. A Land Judge's duty was to get the highest possible price for the land sold in his court, whilst it was often the duty of a Land Commissioner to decide whether landlords and tenants had not agreed to set too high a price upon land. In fact, it was his business to protect the Treasury. The duties of the Land Judge and Land Commissioner were, therefore, inconsistent, and it would be monstrous to transfer Mr. Justice Ross to the Land Commissioners' Court, either as a Land Purchase Commissioner or Fair Rent Commissioner, even if there was no special reason connected with the personality of the learned Judge why this should not be done. This clause
    342
    was one which would undoubtedly arouse the greatest alarm and distrust in Ireland. It was recognised by men entirely outside of Party that the Land Commission as at present constituted was by a large majority in favour of the landlords. The Government proposed by this subsection to add an additional Land Commissioner, who, by his associations and political prepossessions must be considered as unfavourable to the tenants' case. It was preposterous that this addition could be looked upon in any other light than as hostile to the tenants' interests. Supposing Mr. Justice Munroe had resigned before the late General Election, and that the right hon. Member for Montrose had appointed the Judge to the Land Commission, would this clause have been introduced into the Bill? The Government would never have introduced this proposal under such circumstances. He thought that this would be a most unfortunate thing to do. The interpretation which would in Ireland be placed upon this sub-section, combined with the decision of the Treasury in regard to the 65 Rule, would be that the Government were determined to pack the Irish Land Commission from top to bottom in the interests of the landlords.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he had heard with very deep regret the remarks of the hon. Member for East Mayo. The appointment of Mr. Justice Ross to the Judicial Bench was a perfectly proper one, and there was no reason why, under any circumstances, he should exercise partiality.
    MR. DILLONsaid that what he complained of was the importation of this gentleman into the Land Commission.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Land Commission had to exercise judicial functions, and he failed, therefore, to see the pertinence of the interruption. The hon. Member seemed also to think that if the appointment had been in the hands of the right hon. Member for Montrose it would have been a partisan appointment. In making judicial appointments they always had regard to the fitness of the gentlemen who were appointed—[ironical Nationalist cheers]—and, speaking for himself, he should have perfect confidence in the appointments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. This clause had regard to

    343
    the desirability of amalgamating, or partly amalgamating, two Departments. For his part he should he extremely sorry if the Amendment were carried. In future the work of the Commission would he considerably increased, and the staff would consequently have to be correspondingly strengthened. The Government had adopted the arrangement proposed to he carried out in this clause because it could he embodied in a single clause, whereas any other arrangement would have necessitated the consideration of some six or eight clauses. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had proposed to completely reorganise the staff of the Commission, he should have cordially agreed in his recommendation, but the fact was that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed only partially to reorganise it, and his proposal possessed none of the merits of the larger proposal that had been foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The Land Commission at the present time was composed of men who had taken no active part in the politics of Ireland, and now for the first time it was proposed to appoint a political partisan upon it. He could not but regard such a proposal as being a most unfortunate one.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the appointments to the Land Commission had been made with strict impartiality. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid that it had so happened that during the three years that the late Government were in office no vacancy had occurred on the Commission, but that the moment they were out of office two vacancies occurred. He did not desire to make any remarks upon the way in which those appointments were filled up further than to say that Mr. Justice Monroe was one of the most upright of men. ["Hear, hear!"] There was undoubtedly a great deal to be said in favour of reorganising the whole system of the land administration of Ireland. The present position of the Land Judges Court appeared to be one of the most striking among the many anomalies of Irish administration. The Chief Secretary pointed out that under Clause 34 of this Bill the Landed
    344
    Estates Court would have certain transactions in common, as it were, with the Land Commission; that was to say, that the Judge of the Landed Estates Court would have to act in a kind of judicial capacity in reference to the awards made by the Land Commission. If it was intended that the Land Judge should take any part as a Land Commissioner in these transactions great difficulties would undoubtedly arise. Whether that was so or not, he thought it was a very unfortunate thing to approach this great work of amalgamation with a Judge who had been identified with party politics. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman dealt in an inadequate way with a most important question, and he should support the Amendment.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that if the Government brought forward a complete scheme dealing with any branch of administration, they were told it was so large that they could not pass it within the time at their disposal. If they tried to modify that scheme so as to deal with the exigencies and limits of Parliamentary time, then they were told that the scheme was so imperfect that they had better wait until the opportunity occurred for bringing forward a complete scheme. He did not follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. It seemed that he would not mind a complete scheme of reform in which Mr. Justice Ross was included as one of the active parties, but because the scheme was not a complete one, then the fact that Mr. Justice Boss happened to have been a Member of the House, sitting on the Unionist side, and so far a partisan, was conclusive against the scheme. Surely, if the fact that Mr. Justice Ross was at one time a Member of the Unionist Party in the House was an argument against his being included in a partial scheme, it was equally conclusive against his being included in a complete scheme; and let it be observed that if it was a complete scheme it must include Mr. Justice Ross. He had never pretended to be a partisan of the land legislation of 1881. One of the inherent and inevitable results of that legislation was that the appointment to judicial functions must be made by the party in power, and so it was always open to the opponents of the party in power to

    345
    charge them with partisanship. But they had to accept that, and must make the best of it. He asked the Committee to consider the scheme of the Government quite apart from the individual who would administer it for the moment. The plan advanced by his right hon. Friend was to ask the assistance of the Judge of the Landed Estates Court both in cases of land purchase and of fair rent. The hon. Member for Louth was prepared to accept that arrangement in the case of land purchase, but not in the case of fixing of fair rents. The, Government admitted that land purchase was the more important of the two branches, but they were given to understand that, unless the judical element in the fair-rent part of the Land Court was strengthened, a large arrears of business must gradually accumulate. That element might be strengthened by the employment of a Judge of the Land Court, which was the more obvious course, or by the appointment of a new Judge. But, if the latter course were followed, the same people who appointed Mr. Justice Ross would appoint the new Judge, and the exercise of their patronage in that event would be open to precisely the same charge as the exercise of their patronage in the case of Mr. Justice Boss.
    MR. J. MORLEYwas understood to say that it would be possible to appoint a Judge not so open to the charge of prejudice.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYhoped that Mr. Justice Boss was not open to a charge of prejudice. But, so far as he knew Ireland, every human being in it decidedly belonged to either one party or the other—[laughter]—and there was no way that human ingenuity could devise of selecting officials from a middle party, for a middle party could not be discovered by the most microscopic investigation. Therefore every Judge was open to attacks from opponents. One of the first judicial Commissioners appointed by the party opposite to deal with fair rents was Mr. Lytton. That gentleman was for many years in the House as an ardent and consistent supporter of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it was never said that he was thereby unfit for his position. He was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would at least agree that the Government were not animated in making their
    346
    proposal by any partisan view; that their sole wish was to oil the machinery of the Land Court, and he hoped, therefore, the sense of the Committee would be taken upon that proposal without further delay.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he felt in his bones that this clause was wrong—[laughter]—though he might not adequately express his feelings. The point was not that Mr. Justice Ross was a partisan, but that this clause had been drafted at a particular moment to suit the gentlemen at one end of the scale while the Government were operating at the other end of the scale under this Rule 65.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I only heard of the application of this Rule 65 this very morning. Certainly it never entered into my calculations.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he did not think that confession helped matters. If the right hon. Gentleman had added that he did not intend to approve of the application of the rule——
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It does not rest with me.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I suppose it is our old friend the Treasury—[laughter]—the dominant partner in everything. Why should not this matter be settled on a basis of compromise? If Irishmen were reasonably sensitive on a certain point, the Government ought to go some way to meet them. It would be a fair compromise if the right hon. Gentleman would say that for the present Mr. Justice Ross should be confined to the duties of a Purchase Commissioner.
    MR. DILLONremarked that what the right hon. Gentleman proposed was that Mr. Ross, as Land Judge, should request Mr. Ross, as Land Commissioner, to get the estate inspected, and that then the matter should come back to Mr. Ross, as Land Judge, to pronounce on the conduct of Mr. Ross, as Land Commissioner. He did not say that the Land Commission might not so arrange their business as to avoid that, but he submitted it was a possible transaction under the clause as it stood. He did not see how the acceptance of this Amendment would in the least degree interfere with Clause 34. He knew perfectly well there were great difficulties surrounding the whole question of appointing Land Commissioners for land

    347
    purchase in Ireland. While admitting that it was a difficult and delicate task to select men in Ireland of proper qualifications and with antecedents that would convince the people that they would act judicially and impartially in the administration of these laws, he thought that the Government was hound to take some pains to make that selection. He did not think that this was a wise or prudent occasion on which to select as an additional Land Commissioner a gentleman who quite recently had been a militant Unionist in the House, and in the closest political relations with some of the leaders of the landlord party in Parliament. He did not complain of the character of Mr. Justice Ross, but hon. Members should remember that he had only been recently removed from the arena of political strife. What would hon. Gentlemen say if he, a Nationalist, were to retire for a year, and a Liberal Government appointed him a Commissioner of the Land Court? Would hon. Gentlemen think it a fair and reasonable appointment, or would the Irish landlords consider it to be such? It was absurd to ask the Irish people to accept Mr. Justice Ross as a fit and proper person to sit on the Judicial Bench in Ireland and to pretend that he could hold the balance evenly and fairly between landlords and tenants.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYpointed out that every reform which had ever been suggested of the Land Courts consisted more or less in these particular relations, and it did so happen that Mr. Justice Ross was a Judge of the Landed Estates Court. But the predecessor of Mr. Justice Ross was in the Land Court, and this clause was adopted in its main lines before it was known or suspected that Mr. Ross would be the Judge. All he said was let him be judged fairly. He did not see how they could deal with the judicial functions now.
    MR. J. MORLEYwished to say one word about Mr. Justice Ross. The right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with the point which he had ventured to raise. He had acknowledged that if it was intended that the Land Judge should take any part as a Land Commissioner in these transactions great difficulties would arise, and apparently now the
    348
    Land Judge was to be to all intents and purposes a Land Commissioner.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, that is not so. The Land Judge will have to exercise different functions from the Land Commissioner.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid in that case Clause 34 would have to be modified. It was very important to know how the matter stood. He had already said that under Clause 34 of this Bill the Landed Estates Court would have certain transactions in common, as it were, with the Land Commission; that was to say, the Judge of the Landed Estates Court would have to act in a kind of judicial capacity in reference to the awards made by the Land Commission. They had not had any answer to that.
    MR. RENTOULsaid that every man of mark in Ireland had been prominently identified with politics. Therefore, if the argument of the Nationalist Members were to carry weight, a difficulty would arise whoever was appointed as a Judge. For himself he had no sort of doubt that they would be impartial. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew four or five other gentlemen whose names might be submitted from his side of the House, but he knew that the hon. Member for East Mayo would make exactly the same objection to them; and probably, if other gentlemen were submitted from the other side of the House, the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh would take the same objection. The hon. Member for East Mayo, while admitting that someone must be put in here, had only attacked the man it was proposed to put in, and had not suggested any alternative. If he would suggest an alternative, no doubt the Government would consider it.
    MR. DILLONsaid he would suggest, by way of alternative, that the hon. Gentleman should himself be appointed a Land Commissioner. He rose, however, to point out that the Chief Secretary said a few moments ago that the chief object of importing Mr. Justice Ross into the Land Court was to facilitate the operation of Clause 34; but, in the last speech he made, he said that so far as Clause 34 was concerned Mr. Justice Ross would not act at all with the Land Commission. He wished to know which view was the right one?
    MR. HARRINGTONthought that such a proposal as that in the clause was very necessary for the proper working of the Acts in Ireland. He remembered a case in which a number of tenants were extremely anxious to get the opportunity of purchasing their farms, and they could not do so because the Land Court, which had to deal with their cases, had not the power to lend money for the purpose. So far as Mr. Justice Ross was concerned, he appealed to the Irish Members to say whether the same attacks that had been made on that Judge were not made on Mr. Justice O'Hagan. It made very litte difference to the Irish Members what party the Judge belonged to, if he had a sense of fair play.
    MR. MACNEILLobserved that he had no unkindly feeling towards Mr. Justice Ross. Though he and that gentleman had differed for many years in politics, they had been on terms of intimate personal friendship. There was no one in whose appointment he more rejoiced than that of Mr. Justice Ross as Land Judge. There were frequent complaints in reference to the Irish Bench being over manned, but it would be within the knowledge of everyone that the Land Judges' Court was an exception, and had plenty to do. Its President had the work of two Judges. Only a few years ago there were two Land Judges, but on the Courts being amalgamated only one Judge remained. Why should Mr. Justice Ross's duties be increased, or what was the object of increasing his duties? Personally, in any matter affecting himself, he should have the utmost confidence in Mr. Justice Ross, but would his appointment, coupled with the 65 years rule, and having regard to his antecedents, not be regarded as an endeavour to pack with partisans the Land Commission in the interests of the landlords? He believed that the reasons which had been alleged for making this gentleman a Judge of the Land Commission were not the real and vital reasons which had actuated the Government in this matter. Mr. Justice Ross was not only a vehement partisan, but his appointment was due to landlord influence.
    MR. FLYNNsaid he wished to point out that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any hon. Gentleman from the
    350
    other side of the House had met the point that the Land Judge—whether he be Judge Ross or not he did not care—was called upon to discharge two positions which were mutually inconsistent and, to any fair-minded man, naturally destructive. As a Land Purchase Judge, he was supposed to act as a protector of the taxpayer; to see that no unreasonable sum was advanced, and that the credit of the State was not pledged beyond what it ought to be. Rut in the capacity of Land Judge, he was a kind of dry nurse to certain estates in Ireland. This was an inconsistent and even false position in which to place a Judge. He thought he had shown that the subsection was a dangerous one, and he hoped that every fair-minded man, who wished to see the administration of the Act carried out fairly and honestly, would support the Amendment.
    Question put:—
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 79.—(Division List, No. 342.)
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to omit Sub-section (b). He had no desire to contest the proposal of the Government, but wished to ask why the subsection which purported to confer additional powers on the Judical Commissioner had been introduced in the Bill. It appeared to him that the subsection would rather limit the Judicial Commissioner's powers, because by Section 41 of the Act of 1881 a Judicial Commissioner was made a Judge of the Supreme Court, and given powers accordingly.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the point raised by the hon. Member was a highly technical one, and that he would like to have time in which to consider it.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the Land Judge or the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission would have precedence, and whether they would have correlative rights in respect of the distribution of patronage.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that hon. Members opposite seemed to be under a misapprehension as to the meaning of the clause. What the section did was to enable the Lord Chancellor, the Land Judges, and the Judicial Commissioner to frame rules, and to frame rules in such a way

    351
    that there would be no conflict of jurisdiction as had been suggested.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Then the whole scheme of the sub-section is to enable gentlemen to make rules?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Certainly, consistently with the provisions of the clause.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYpointed out that the sub-section expressly provided that the object of the rule was to enable the Judicial Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid he had a perfect right to exercise jurisdiction already, and this clause enabled him to make the rules.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the question "That Clause 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
    MR. MAURICE HEALYcalled attention to what seemed to him an absurdity, namely, that while the clause enabled the Land Judge to exercise the powers of the Judicial Commissioner for the purpose of hearing an appeal, it did not give him power to hear a motion to substitute service, or any other motion of that sort.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the, object of the clause was to prevent the arrear of business which might accrue.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following sub-section:—
    "Such rules which apply to the Court of the Land Commission in Dublin shall be held at the Four Courts in Dublin and not elsewhere."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MICHAEL DAVITT MR. MICHAEL DAVITT (Mayo, S.) moved to omit Clause 17. He approached this Bill not as a friend but as an enemy. He believed the Bill to be from the beginning to the end an amalgam of fraud and hypocrisy, and he hoped that it would never find its way into the Statute Book of the Imperial Parliament. Mr. Justice Ross was one of the most notorious partisans of landlords in Ireland, and therefore, he was one of the worst persons that the Unionist Party could have put upon the Land Commission. This clause would affect some 30 millions' worth per annum
    352
    of landlords' property in Ireland. Various attempts had been made during the last 20 or 30 years to dispose of that property in the open market, and the average price offered for it had been about 12 years' purchase. That often had not been accepted because the landlords did not think the price sufficient. Now under the operation of this clause, the property would be disposed of at from 17 to 20 years' purchase, with the result that the tenants who purchased their holdings would be defrauded of from five to eight years' purchase.
    Amendment negatived; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 18,—

    POWER TO NOMINATE JUDGE TO ACT AS ADDITIONAL LAND JUDGE FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.
    The Lord Chancellor may nominate any Judge of the High Court with his consent to act for the time specified by the Lord Chancellor as an additional Land Judge for the purposes of the Record of Title (Ireland) Act, 1865, and the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the Judge so nominated shall have during that time the jurisdiction of the Land Judge for those purposes.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 19,—

    ALTERATION OF MODE OF CALCULATING PURCHASE ANNUITY.
    (1.) In the case of every advance made after the commencement of this Act the purchase annuity shall be calculated and payable—

    (a) during the first decade of the annuity, upon the total advance; and

    (b) during the second and third decades, upon the portion of the advance which is ascertained, as provided by this section, to be unpaid at the end of the previous decade; and

    (c) after the end of the third decade, upon the portion of the advance which is ascertained, as provided by this section, to be then unpaid

    and shall continue to be paid until the whole advance is ascertained as provided by this section to have been unpaid.
    (2.) The Land Commission shall, in accordance with such rules as the Treasury may make—

    (a) at the end of each of the said decades ascertain how much of the advance has been repaid by means of the accumulation during the decade of that portion of the purchase annuity which represents repayment of capital, and the residue of the advance shall be the unpaid

    353
    amount upon which the subsequent annuity is to be calculated and paid; and

    (b) ascertain when the whole advance has been repaid by means of the accumulation of that portion of the purchase annuity which represents repayment of capital.

    (3.) If the proprietor of a holding charged with an annuity applies to the Land Commission within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, prior to the end of each of the said decades, that the annuity during the next decade shall not be reduced under this section, no alteration of the annuity shall then be made.
    (4.) The amount of the annuity, when recalculated as provided by this section, shall be certified by the Land Commission, and that certificate shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall be sent by them to the registration authority under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act. 1891.
    (5.) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply in the case of an annuity for any advance made under the Land Purchase Acts before the commencement of this Act, subject as fallows:—

    (a) where more than ten years have elapsed since an annuity far the repayment of the advance began, the amount of the advance remaining unpaid shall be ascertained as at the end of the last complete decade since that beginning, and the reduction of the annuity in the current decade shall date from the gale day next, after the commencement of this Act.

    (b) In a case where a purchaser's insurance money has been paid, the amount so paid, and not set off against arrears, shall be taken into account at the end of the first decade as if it were a portion of the purchase annuity which represents repayment of capital: and the provisions with respect to setting off against arrears purchaser's insurance money so paid shall not apply after the end of such decade.

    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "advance," to insert the words "under the Land Purchase Acts."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (1), after "payable" to insert the words "at the rate of £3 10s. per cent."
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: As I understand the meaning of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, it is out of order. The Amendment proposes to make a charge upon the Treasury. Supposing the rate of interest is reduced, and failure was made in paying the annuity, the Treasury would lose
    354
    by the difference between the two rates if that is so, the fund would be diminished to that extent, and the State would be liable to make good the difference.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsubmitted that the Amendment would not affect the Treasury, or impose a greater burden on the subject, and that if it lessened the amount of interest, it would extend the period of payment. From both points of view he submitted that the Amendment was in order.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that when, recently, the hon. Member for Lynn Regis called the attention of the Speaker to a Bill as requiring a Committee on the ground that it was a financial Bill, the Speaker ruled that, as the fund had already been provided for, and the Bill only dealt with the allocation of the fund, a Committee, was not necessary.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSrepeated that the State would be liable to make good the difference between the two rates.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid he did not propose that there should be any extra liability on the State. If it was proposed that the annuity should be reduced, the point of the Chairman would be a good one; but he was simply proposing to extend the periods of the annuity. That would throw no additional burden on the State, but simply give the tenant the privilege of a longer time to discharge his burden.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: But supposing the Amendment formed part of the Bill and payment were made at a lesser rate, and the annuity ceased to be paid, the State would supply the difference between the £3 10s. and the £4 per cent. which would be the proper sum for the tenant to pay.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYreplied that that would be the consequence not of his Amendment, but the general failure of the tenants to pay. That was a loss which would fall on the Treasury at any time by the default of the tenant. It would not arise from his Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I must rule that the Amendment is out of order.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDErose to move to leave out the word "decade," and to insert instead thereof the words "period of five years."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsubmitted to the Chairman that after the ruling he, had just given this Amendment would be out of order on the same grounds. The Amendment proposed to alter the conditions of the security.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I think so. I must also rule this Amendment out of order on the same ground.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE SIR THOMAS ESMONDE moved to leave out the word "decades," and to insert instead thereof "periods of five years, and during each subsequent period of five years."
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On a point of order, does not this Amendment also alter the conditions of the security?
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The objection does not arise in this case, so far as I understand the Amendment. The 49 years during which the repayments of the purchase money are to be made are divided by the Bill into decades, and the hon. Member proposes to divide them instead into periods of five years.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the effect of the Amendment would be to upset the actuarial calculations upon which the proposals of the clause were founded, and therefore, it would affect the security.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Then we are in this position, that we cannot change the proposed arrangement.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We may change it, but only against the tenant.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: If it is a fact that the Amendment would throw the liability on the Treasury, it cannot, of course, be accepted without the consent of the Crown. I therefore rule it out of order.
    MR. FINCH HATTON MR. FINCH HATTON (Notts, Newark) moved to add at the end of the clause:—
    "Provided that the purchase annuities of tenants who have acquired or who may acquire their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts, shall he subject to revision in like manner as rents now are under the revision clauses of the Land Acts of 1881 and 1887."
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The same ruling applies to this Amendment. The interest might be reduced under such an arrangement, and the Treasury would be the loser.
    SIR T. ESMONDE SIR T. ESMONDE moved to add at the end of the clause:—
    "And the provisions of this section shall apply in the cases of simple mortgages under section twenty-three of the Purchase Act of 1885, power being hereby given to the Land Commission to convert any such mortgages into instalment mortgages on the application of the persons liable, provided they agree to pay the same rate of interest on their mortgages as is payable by purchasers under this Act."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would be sorry to give an answer offhand, but he would consider the matter.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to insert in Sub-section (4), after the word "them," the words "for registration."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved an Amendment so as to give the tenant the reduction of the annuity in the current decade dating from "and including" the gale day next after the commencement of the Act. Unless those words were included the tenant would not receive the relief properly intended, and it might make a difference of a six months' term to him.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not see that there could be any material advantage in one day.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYpointed out that it was not one day, but one gale.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid this was a very technical point, but he saw that it might make a difference of six months. By inserting the Amendment that would obviate every possible objection. He did not think it could possibly do any harm.
    SIR J. COLOMBsuggested whether, as they had now been considering the Bill for nine and a half hours, and this seemed to be a very difficult question, it would not be advisable to report Progress. [Nationalist cries of "No!"]
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he did not wish to press the House to an impossible or intolerable length, but he thought they might finish this clause. He did not think he was wrong in saying that there was really nothing in the next two or three clauses. If the House would give them to the end of Clause 8 he would then report Progress.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSasked the hon. Member if he pressed his Motion to report Progress.
    SIR J. COLOMBsaid he did not make any Motion. He merely made a suggestion.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he thought the hon. Member for Cork City was very likely right, and before Report he would consider the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. P. J. POWERsaid he had a sub-section on the Paper which he wished to move, and by which the period for the payment of instalments would not be increased beyond the terms of the Bill. He would like to know whether he would be in order in moving it.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that his ruling applied to the sub-section and it would not he in order.
    MR. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to consider the state of the people on whose behalf he endeavoured to move the Amendment. Immediate relief was absolutely necessary in many parts of Munster.
    MR. DILLONsaid that every Member on his side of the House had been in receipt of numerous requests, begging them to move such Amendments as would give a greater percentage of relief to purchasers under the Purchase Acts than this Bill afforded. It was perfectly notorious that in many parts of Ireland there were bodies of tenants who had contracted to buy their holdings under threats of eviction. They had consented, under coercion to place themselves under obligations to the State which they could not discharge, and while he thanked the Government for the relief proposed in this section, he desired to impress upon them the fact that this relief was not sufficient, and that there was urgent necessity for some further measure of relief. He trusted that in future the Judge who was responsible for the administration of the Land Purchase Acts would keep a closer eye on these transactions, with a view to seeing that the tenants were not coerced into compulsory obligations they could not discharge. In speaking on the purchase question, he differed in this respect from the hon. Member for South Mayo. He had always been a supporter of the policy of purchase, but he had found it necessary on numerous occasions to raise his
    358
    voice in warning to the Government as to the necessity of taking greater precautions than were now taken to secure that the tenants were not coerced into an engagement to pay too large a price. One of the reasons why he was so anxious about the passage of the Improvement Clauses before they got to the Purchase Clauses was that unquestionably what had occurred in a number of the cases of the tenants who were crying out for relief in the shape of reduction of their purchase annuities, was that the tenants had been compelled to purchase from their landlords the whole of their own improvements. That was the cause of the present difficulty. If the policy of purchase was to have a fair chance in Ireland and was to be a success, it was absolutely essential that the administration of the Purchase Commissioners should be very considerably improved in the direction he had indicated.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEremarked, as this was the first clause of the purchase part of the Bill, he wished to give expression to the opinion entertained by an increasing number of Members on his side of the House, that the whole purchase policy was a mistake, and would meet with an increasing amount of opposition from year to year in this country. The clauses of this particular Bill, however, were, comparatively speaking, clauses of detail, and did not, he thought, offer the policy to them in that shape which would make it desirable or wise that they should divide against the clauses, or in such a form as would enable the whole subject to be easily or conveniently discussed. A great many of them in and outside of the House wished to offer a word of protest with regard to the continuation of the purchase policy, and that was the proper occasion to do it, as that was the first of those clauses presented to them.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEthought the Government should consider whether they could not better their purchase proposals. What they should do was to extend the period of repayment in the case of the purchasers and to revise their instalments. Now that the Government had an opportunity of doing something to settle the Irish Land Question, he thought it would be a pity if they did not take advantage of it. If they did not better their purchase proposals, this Bill would not become effective.
    MR. SMITH-BARRYthought many English Members who were not conversant with the working of the Purchase Acts might be influenced by the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo that tenants had agreements forced upon them on such terms that it was perfectly impossible for them to pay the instalments. He doubted whether any pressure had been put upon tenants to pay larger sums of money for their farms than they ought to have done, while he would also point out that the State was absolutely and entirely guaranteed, and that these agreements between landlords and tenants were subjected to the valuation of the Purchase Commissioners, who sent down and inspected the farms, and who, in the interests of the Treasury, would see most carefully that the amounts applied for were not excessive. They inspected not only the value of the land and the improvements upon it, but they also considered the condition of the tenant himself, whether he was idle or thrifty, and whether, consequently, they could advance him the money. The State took the utmost care to see that the amount advanced was such that the instalments were absolutely safe. He thought the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo should not be allowed to pass without a word of remonstrance.
    MR. CLANCY, dealing with the question of the rate of interest under this Bill, and under previous Acts of Parliament, contended that the Treasury was actually making a profit out of these transactions. He believed he was absolutely correct in stating that the percentage charged for interest and Sinking Fund was 4 per cent., precisely the same interest as was charged under the first Purchase Act of 1885. Everyone knew that money could be borrowed by the Government at at least 1 per cent. less than in 1885. If that was the case it was as plain as a pikestaff that the Government must be making a profit out of these transactions of at least 1 per cent. The only answer to this to which he could point was that this percentage might be applied towards the recouping of the loss the Treasury had sustained on the advances made under the Acts. But the loss to the Treasury under the repayment of the loans had been practically nil, and consequently the Treasury had not, had to expend any of the
    360
    profit which he contended they had been making under the Acts, and which they would continue to make under the present Bill. He regretted that the Rules of Parliament did not permit the Irish Members to move Amendments on the subject, but he would appeal to the Government that, having regard to the struggles of the Irish farmer, who had hard work very often to meet his purchase instalments, they might devote some of the profit made to their relief in the way of reducing the rate of interest. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. KNOXsaid the objection he had to this clause was that in its present form it was impossible for anyone to tell how many years the annuity in future was to run. The Treasury, up to the present, had gone on the principle of laying down a certain amount for interest, allowing a certain sum for the Sinking Fund, and allowing the annuity to run for 40 years. The Government had adopted the plan of lengthening the term for repayment. To that he did not object, but at the same time they had, under the Bill, left it practically to the Treasury to say what the length of time of repayment should be, and under a later clause the Treasury had power to assign as much as they liked of the aunnual payment to the Sinking Fund. They could lay down, also, the rate of interest, and there was no sort of implication in the Bill as to what was to guide them in laying down that rate. He deprecated this enormous power being placed in the hands of a Government Department, and especially as that Department was the Treasury, which was less popular with the mass of Irishmen than any other Department of the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] The Treasury had shown itself in this matter quite incompetent to forecast the future. In connection with the Bill of 1891 they were absolutely wrong in their calculations, and therefore were not-entitled to that respect which would be given to the actuaries of an ordinary building society.
    MR. POWERsaid the Government were able to borrow money at a very cheap rate of interest, and they ought to give purchasers the advantage of that rate. He hoped that between this and Report the right hon. Gentleman, whose skill they all admired, would frame some Resolution which would safeguard the

    361
    interests of the Treasury, and at the same time confer some advantage on the people who purchased. No doubt instalments had been paid punctually, but in order that the payments might be made, farms had been depleted and tenants placed in a position of great difficulty.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYhoped that, in order to facilitate purchase, somewhat better terms would be given to the tenants.
    MR. MICHAEL FLAVINread a Resolution from the Ashbourne tenants to the effect that an Amendment should be introduced whereby the interest on instalments should be reduced from four to three per cent. He believed a great number of these tenants were on the verge of bankruptey.
    Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 20,—

    APPLICATION OF PART OF ACT TO ANNUITIES UNDER 32 AND 33 VICT. C. 42.
    The foregoing provisions with respect to the calculation of a purchase annuity may he applied by the Land Commissioners with the necessary modifications, to the calculation of the instalments of an annuity by means of which any mortgage debt is payable under section 52 of the Irish Church Act, 1869.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, at the end of the clause to add the words "and the Acts amending the same."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 21,—

    ABOLITION OF COUNTY PERCENTAGE.
    The amount which, under the Purchase of band (Ireland) Act 1891, is required to be applied as county percentage shall when received in respect of an instalment of the annuity falling due after the commencement of this Act, cease to be so applied and shall be paid to the National Debt Commissioners and applied as a portion of the purchase annuity which represents repayment of capital.
    DR. CLARKsuggested that progress should be reported, on the ground that this was an attempt to fritter away all the securities given in the Land Purchase Acts.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the clause did not destroy the security.
    DR. CLARKEsaid that a large part of the Bill had been got through that night, and therefore he thought that, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House might consent to the discussion being adjourned.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYhoped that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion for reporting progress, because, as soon as the clauses relating to this branch of the subject were got through, he himself would move that progress be reported.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 21,—

    ABOLITION OF COUNTY PERCENTAGE.
    The amount which under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, is required to be applied as county percentage shall, when received in respect of an instalment of the annuity falling due after the commencement of this Act, cease to be so applied and shall be paid to the National Debt Commissioners and applied as a portion of the purchase annuity which represents repayment of capital.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 22,—

    ABOLITION OF PURCHASER'S INSURANCE MONEY.
    In the ease of any advance after the commencement of this Act for the purchase of a holding, purchaser's insurance money shall not be payable.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 23,—

    AS TO GUARANTEE DEPOSIT.
    (1.) The band Commission on making an advance may dispense with the whole or any part of the guarantee deposit being made or retained if they think the security for the repayment of the advance is sufficient without it.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, after the word "advance," to insert the words, "the Land Purchase Act." He submitted that the Treasury proposed to vary the terms upon which the guarantee deposit was made. Its retention was being provided for longer than was originally intended. That being so, the fair thing to do would be to put all guarantee deposits on the same basis, and give the Land Commission the general discretion given by Sub-section 2 of the clause.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURintimated that he could not accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Consideration, as amended (by Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.
COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee) deferred till Thursday.
  MILITARY WORKS [MONEY].
  Committee thereupon deferred till Tomorrow.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Thursday.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS' AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  TRUCK BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till To-morrow.
  COLLECTING SOCIETIES (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
  Considered in Committee (having been re-committed), and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the Third time, and passed.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [19th May] on Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), further adjourned till Thursday.
  ELECTION PETITIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Tomorrow.
LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; Bill read the Third time, and passed.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [15th May] further adjourned till Thursday.
LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.

RAILWAYS (IRELAND) ADVANCES.
Considered in Committee.
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to make Advances, not exceeding £000,000 at any one time, under any Act of the present Session to facilitate the construction of Railways in Ireland, and for that purpose to borrow from the National Debt Commissioners the sums that may he required, such sums to be repaid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund.—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 20th day of July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at a Quarter before Three o'clock.