Commons Sitting of 23 July 1896

LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
Copy presented,—of the Annual Returns for 1894–5, Part I. (Poor Rate Return and Valuation for the Poor Rates) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 309.]
CHAIRMEN OF DISTRICT COUNCILS BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
LIVERPOOL COURT OF PASSAGE BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OFFICES (APPROPRIATION OF SITES).
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed];
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 310.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Twelfth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETROLEUM.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed];
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 311.]

NEATH, PONTARDAWE, AND BRYNAMAN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ABENSUR'S NATURALISATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without Amendment; Bill to be read the Third time.
Bill read 1°, 10th July; 2°, 17th July.
Leave to the Committee to make a Special Report; Special Report brought up, and read.
"Mr. James William Lowther reported from the Committee on Abensnr's Naturalisation Bill [Lords] that they had agreed to the following Special Report:—
That the Bill seeks power to alter the general law by granting to Isaac Aaron Abensur the same rights, privileges, and capacities which he would or might have enjoyed if a certificate of naturalisation had been granted to him under the hand of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State in accordance with the provisions of the Naturalisation Act 1870 which prescribes a residence in the United Kingdom for a period of five years.
That it was proved to the Committee that the Petitioner's application for the Bill had been recommended by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the ground of public services rendered by the Petitioner and his family, and it was also proved that he had obtained a certificate from one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State respecting his conduct, and also that the consent of the Crown to his application had been signified by the Lord Chancellor previous to the Second Reading of the Bill being-allowed to take place in the House of Lords, as required by the Standing Orders of that House. Under these circumstances the Committee had passed the Bill without Amendment, but had determined to report the same specially to the House.
Mr. James William Lowther further reported from the Committee: That they had examined the allegations of the Bill, and found the same to be true, and had gone through the Bill and directed him to report the same without Amendment.
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANNARIES BILL [H.L.]
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 324.]
CEMETERIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
QUESTIONS.

  LOUGH CORRIB.
  MR. W. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed unanimously by the Guardians of the Oughterard Union, county Galway, in which they urge upon the Government in Ireland the necessity for bridging Lough Corrib at Knock Ferry; and whether he would recommend a free grant from the Treasury to the Congested Districts Board or to the Grand Jury of county Galway for the carrying out of this important and useful work?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I could not give an answer to this Question without making detailed inquiry respecting the projected work. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the matter was brought under the notice of my predecessor who did not see his way to recommend the Treasury to provide funds for the purpose.

  MATABELELAND.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements have been made to bring to the knowledge of the Native leaders in Matabeleland the promise that, if they surrender their arms before 10th August, they shall be treated with leniency; and whether Her Majesty's Government is now prepared to consider the suggestion that some agent or agents, not engaged in military operations against the Natives, shall be deputed to assure them that, if they submit themselves to the authority of the Crown, they will be equitably and humanely dealt with?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I gather from the

  455
  newspaper reports that the local authorities are taking the best practical means of making known the amnesty proclamation to the insurgents—that is to say, they are releasing prisoners of war and sending them hack to their friends with the information. I am perfectly satisfied with the steps taken, and do not intend to interfere with the discretion of Sir F. Carrington and Sir R. Martin.
  In reply to Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, (Sheffield, Ecclesall),
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid he had received no further information as to the actual fighting beyond what had been published. The information as to the rebellion was given immediately to the Press, including that relating to the fighting under Sir F. Carrington on Monday. He had received a telegram which contained an account of the fighting by a column sent off under Captain Lang, which appears to have resulted successfully for the column and to have led to the death of 90 of the rebels.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in regard to the prospective dangers of famine in Matabeleland and Mashonaland, and of the future of that country, he will issue orders to prevent any unnecessary destruction of food?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Tuesday last to similar questions put by him and by the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire; to that answer I have nothing to add.
  MR. LUTTRELL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that there is no danger?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have full confidence in my officers on the spot, and I do not intend to interfere with their discretion. [Cheers.]

  NEWCASTLE HARBOUR (COTTNTY DOWN).
  MR. M. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the construction of a new pier and harbour works at Newcastle,
  456
  in the County of Down, whether his attention has been called to a Resolution unanimously adopted by the County Down Grand Jury on the 11th instant, whereby they undertook to present for raising a sum not exceeding £8,000 from the county at large, to supplement the sum of £5,000 offered by the Treasury towards the work; whether the Treasury is satisfied with the Resolution; and, if every facility will be given for carrying out the work in accordance with the terms of the Resolution referred to?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With the permission of my hon. Friend, I will reply to this Question. The Resolution passed by the Grand Jury contains a proposal which differs in certain particulars from the offer made by the Treasury. The Irish Government is in communication with the Grand Jury on the subject, and I trust that a settlement will be arrived at which will enable the work to be proceeded with.

  IRISH TEACHERS' PENSION FUND.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(1) whether it is intended to secure the £10,000 a year promised to the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund by Act of Parliament; (2) whether the grant of £10,000 a year will render the Fund actuarially solvent, having regard alike to existing obligations and to future obligations to future teachers; and, if not, how the Treasury propose to make up the deficit; and, (3) whether it will he possible, out of the proposed grant to the Pension Fund, to make occasional compassionate allowances to the widows and children of teachers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): An answer cannot be given to the questions contained in the two first paragraphs of the Question until the inquiry now in progress has been completed, and the facts ascertained have been fully considered. So far as I am aware, the Teachers' Pension Fund is not, and will not be, liable for compassionate grants to widows or children. I may explain that the Government have recently offered to give some facilities to teachers who desire to effect life insurances on favourable terms
  MR. W. FIELD: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury—(1) whether the Pension Fund of the Irish National Teachers is under the control of the Treasury; (2) whether the second quinquennial revision, long overdue, is completed; and (3), when the audit and report may be expected?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBDHY,): The answer to the first paragraph is Yes. If the hon. Member will kindly refer to my answers to the hon. Member for Londonderry on the 8th June and 21st July, he will see that the second quinquennial valuation has been received and has been submitted to the Government Actuary, who has furnished a confidential Report upon it, and that a Committee; has been appointed to consider the steps necessary to establish the solvency of the Fund but has not yet reported. As soon as that Report has been received and 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: The proposed grant in aid of the Teachers Pension Fund cannot benefit the teachers of some 268 convent and monastery schools who have not adopted the principle of classification, and are paid accordingly by capitation allowance instead of by class salaries. The Inquiry in the second part of the Question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

  SUPPLEMENTARY FEE GRANTS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that the teachers in convent schools, who were deprived of a portion of their residual grant out of the Irish Fee, Grant
  458
  in the same way as other teachers, during the financial years ending March 1893, 1894, and 1895, will receive no benefit from the grant to the Pension Fund; and, whether, having regard to the fact that there is no difficulty in now apportioning the sum which they ought to have then received, he will propose to Parliament any scheme to repay to them that sum?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am aware that there are differences in many respects between the position of the regular national teachers in Ireland, and that of the teachers in convent schools. But the hon. Member's Question is based on the assumption that the teachers have a right to be paid more than the grant which has been already paid by Parliament for the years in question, and as I cannot admit that assumption, I am not prepared to make the proposal suggested.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what was the amount of the residual capitation grant under the Irish Fee Grant payable in the years ending March 1893, 1891, and 1895 respectively to convent schools and to teachers who have claims on the pension fund; and, whether there would be any difficulty in making up the deficit in the payment to convent schools by a distribution among those schools during the current year?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have called for a report on this Question, but not having yet received it, must ask the hon. and learned Member to repeat the Question to-morrow.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Irish and Scotch Supplementary Fee Grants will be available for distribution among those teachers in Ireland or school managers in Scotland who would have received the money if it had been voted during the last financial year?
  MR. HANBURY: The intention of the Treasury is shown in the footnotes to the Supplementary Estimates now before the House. These Estimates are for the additional sums required in order to increase the amount of the grants included in the Scotch and Irish Education Estimates for 1895–6 by 11–80ths and 9–80ths respectively of the Supplementary Vote for English Education in

  459
  1805–6. I understand, therefore, that the money will be available for distribution, but the actual distribution is a matter for the Scotch and Irish Offices, not the Treasury.

  GRANSHA ASYLUM (LONDONDERRY).
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he has received copies of resolutions passed by the Corporation of Londonderry relating to the proposed asylum at Gransha; (2) whether his attention has been called to recent reports of the medical officer of the existing asylum calling attention to the overcrowding in the asylum, which seriously lessens the chance of the recovery of patients; (3) whether he can say what is the number of patients from the city of Derry, and what is the number from the rest of the county; and (4) whether he will press forward the erection of an adequate asylum on a site easily accessible from all parts of the country?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to the resolutions referred to, and also to the recent report of the resident medical superintendent on the overcrowding of the existing asylum. The number of patients in the asylum from the city of Londonderry is 124, and from the county 314. As regards the last paragraph, the matter is still engaging the consideration of the Government.

  POST OFFICE APPOINTMENTS (IRELAND).
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the promises of successive Postmaster Generals, that in filling up vacancies in Ireland, special consideration should be paid to the claims of men on the Irish establishment, still regulate these appointments; and whether a second class assistant surveyor in England has recently been appointed to be a first class assistant surveyor in Ireland; and, if so, whether second class officers in Ireland may look for promotion to first class offices in England?
  MR. HANBURY: The claims of men on the Irish establishment to vacancies arising on that establishment are always specially considered by the Postmaster General as by his predecessors. A surveyor's clerk serving in an English district has recently—on promotion to the rank of assistant surveyor—been sent to the northern district of Ireland in the place of an assistant surveyor transferred to Scotland who was recently promoted to his present position from a surveyor's clerkship in Ireland. I must add, however, that there is only one surveying establishment for the three kingdoms, and any surveyor's clerk serving in any one of the three kingdoms is eligible for promotion to any vacancy in either of the other kingdoms, and in weighing the claims of these officers for promotion, the Postmaster General has regard to their respective claims from seniority, service and ability.

  COUNTY CARLOW INFIRMARY.
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that 5 Geo. III., c. 20, provides that no patient shall be treated in the County Carlow Infirmary but on the written recommendation of a Governor except in cases of sudden accident, and that all such written authorities shall be carefully preserved as vouchers that the patients were admitted in accordance with law, will he state how many patients were treated during the last five years, and how many of that number on the written authority or recommendation of a Governor, as ascertained by reference to these written documents?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member has already asked me a number of questions on this subject. I desire to make an appeal to the House, and to the hon. Member himself, whether it is not against the public interest, and also an abuse of the privileges of hon. Members, that questions in regard to minute details of the management of Carlow Infirmary should be constantly brought to the attention of Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I wish to say that the only reason why I continue to

  461
  ask the questions is because of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's replies.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already stated that the number of persons treated in the infirmary during the last five years was 4,647. Of these 1,043 were intern patients. I am informed that the provisions of the law as regards admission of patients by authority of a Governor are habitually complied with, though it appears that the orders of admission, where such are necessary, have not been carefully preserved in accordance with the terms of the Act quoted in the Question.
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the legal authority upon which the Governors of the County Carlow Infirmary receive into that institution, which is provided solely by law for the care and treatment of the poor and destitute, a large proportion of inmates who they acknowledge are not poor and destitute; and, will he further ascertain the amount paid to the credit of the general funds of the institution for each year during the last five years by those patients who are not poor and destitute?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already stated that 90 per cent. of the patients relieved in this infirmary belong to the poorer classes who are treated gratuitously, and that the remaining 10 per cent. comprise persons who pay for their maintenance. The circumstances under which it was deemed necessary to admit patients of the latter class are detailed in a Resolution passed by the Board of Governors in August 1894, with the terms of which the hon. Member, as one of the Governors, is doubtless acquainted. As to the second paragraph, I would refer the hon. Member to the Annual Reports of the Infirmary, which contain the information he desires.

  COUNTY CARLOW GRAND JURY.
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the cabin which was said to have been maliciously burned down on the lands
  462
  of Lieutenant-Colonel John James Eustace was situated at the junction of three townlands, Moyle, Kellistown, and Kyleballyhue; that the Grand Jury of county Carlow, in fixing the special area over which the amount of compensation and costs granted to Lieutenant-Colonel Eustace were to be levied, exempted the townlands of Moyle and Kellistown, and levied the entire amount on Kyle-ballyhue and Castletown, also that certain members of the Grand Jury have a large interest in the townlands of Moyle and Kellistown, while the townland of Castletown is some distance away, and the owner of that properly is not represented on the Grand Jury; and, if he will state, what law or precedent justifies the Grand Jury when fixing the area over which the compensation was to be levied in exempting two of the adjoining townlands, Moyle and Kellistown, and fixing the whole amount on Castletown and Kyleballyhue?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no information as to the position of the cottage that was maliciously destroyed, nor am I able to say that certain members of the Grand Jury have a large interest, or any interest, in the townlands exempted from the operation of the levy. The other two townlands adjoin one another, and the owner of Castletown is a lady who could not be. represented on the Grand Jury. The area of the levy is entirely discretionary with the Grand Jury, under Section 135 of the Act 6 & 7 William IV., cap. 116.
  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 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, (): These bonds were prepared and registered by Mr. Thorpe by the authority and at the request of the Grand Jury, who passed a presentment for such sum as, I presume, they considered he was entitled to receive for his services. I do not know, and do not intend to inquire, whether Mr. Thorpe charged the barony constables any sum for the preparation of their bonds; and I have again to point out to the hon. Member, as I have frequently done before, that the Executive have no control over, or responsibility for, the action of the Grand Jury in the administration of their fiscal affairs.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND).
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Lord Chancellor has yet arranged for the more frequent sittings of Irish County Courts; whether he is aware that for 13 years past this question has been under consideration; and, whether special facilities in this respect will be given to Irish towns as at present accorded in Great Britain?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: An Order in Council is now being prepared providing more frequent sittings for civil business by the Recorder of Dublin. This was the main topic pressed upon the attention of the Lord Chancellor by the important deputation he received, and, upon a close examination of the subject, it was not thought desirable at present to interfere with the general sittings of County Courts in Ireland, but the Lord Chancellor has his attention directed to the subject.

  BALLYMENA BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the case of a poor woman, the wife of a ploughman, who had been severely bitten by a mad dog near Ballymena, whether he is aware that the Ballymena Board of Guardians, upon application being made on the 7th December last, unanimously decided to send her for treatment to Mr. Patrick M'Govern, of Glangenlin,
  464
  county Cavan, by whom she was restored to health; that Mr. M'Govern, after having been successful in his treatment., was obliged to sue the, Guardians for payment of his bill; and that the Guardians took defence on the ground of illegality, or otherwise, and with what result; and, whether, considering the much higher per-centage of cures in the cases sent to Mr. M'Govern than in those sent to the Pasteur Institute in Paris, and considering the expense as well as the time and fatigue involved in sending such patients to Paris, he will make inquiry and arrange that the Boards of Guardians may pay Mr. M'Govern his bill when they send patients to him for treatment in such cases?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is a fact that the Ballymena Guardians decided to send the wife of a labourer, who had been bitten by a dog pronounced to be mad, to Mr. M'Govern for treatment; but they were informed by the Local Government Board that any expenditure so incurred would be liable to disallowance by the auditor; and, subsequently, on application being made for payment of M'Govorn's fee, it was pointed out to the Guardians that as M'Govern's was not a hospital within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act 25 & 26 Vict., cap. 83, the Guardians could not legally expend the rates in this manner, and that the Board had no power to sanction the payment as requested. M'Govern then sued the Guardians for recovery of the fee, but the case was dismissed at Quarter Sessions, on the ground that he was not a medical practitioner, and could not recover fees. The Local Government Board can only recognise as hospitals such institutions as are under the professional control and management of duly qualified medical practitioners, and in which the treatment is openly avowed and subject to proper investigation.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the remedy of Mr. M'Govern, which is alleged to have been successful on so many occasions, has really the efficacy which is claimed for it?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It would be impossible for me to promise an inquiry into the efficacy of a remedy which is secret.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether it is the fact that the M'Governs have for centuries cured hydrophobia?

  WRECK OF STEAMSHIP "MORESBY."
  MR. J. J. SHEE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimate of the local surveyor as to the probable cost of removing the wreck of the ship Moresby from the entrance to Dungarvan Harbour; whether the Dungarvan Harbour Commissioners have funds to, or is their credit sufficient to enable them to, undertake the task of removing the wreck; and, if not, what outlay are they at present in a position to incur; whether he is aware that the wreck constitutes a serious and increasing danger to life and property; and whether, in case the Dungarvan Harbour Commissioners have not sufficient funds to enable them to act, the Board of Trade will take steps in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Dungarvan Harbour Commissioners have been advised that the cost of removing the wreck in question would be considerable, but no reliable estimate has been made. I am not in a position to express an authoritative opinion as to the credit of the Commissioners. The wreck is probably to some extent a source of danger, but the Board of Trade have no funds or authority to remove it, and they are unable to do more than press that it should be properly lighted.

  ROYAL CANAL COMPANY (IRELAND).
  MR. J. TUITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury—(1) is he aware that, under Sections 33 to 35 of 58 Geo. III., c. 35, a sum of £15,000 was deposited with the Irish Government by the old Royal Canal Company for the purposes of the obligations of the Company; (2) can he state whether that fund is still available; and, if so, will the Irish Board of Works, to whom the powers of the Directors of Inland Navigation in Ireland were transferred by 1 & 2 Will. IV, c 33, now apply that sum, as authorised by Section 38 of the said Act of Geo. III., to
  466
  the carrying out of whatever works may be necessary to put the canal in a proper navigable condition, the present owners, the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland, as successors of the Royal Canal Company, having failed to do so, as proved by the Reports of the Inspectors of the Board of Trade; (3) can he state the purport of the quarterly Reports of the Midland Railway Company to the Lord Lieutenant as to the condition of the canal immediately before the inspections by Major General Hutchinson and Major Marindin; and (I) whether the representations of the Company were found to agree with the Reports of the Inspectors?
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph is Yes. The Act of 1818, to which the hon. Member refers, provided for the creation of the Board of Control and for setting aside a Reserve Fund of £15,000, applicable by the Board (with the consent of the Irish Government) towards works required for the maintenance and preservation of the canal, the Company being required to recoup any such expenditure. By an Act of 1845 the canal was transferred to the Midland Great Western Railway, subject to the existing control of the Board of Control and the Irish Government. By an Act of 1818 the fund, which had increased from £15,000 to £17,538, was mulcted of £12,000, which was transferred to the Railway Company for the purpose of making the railway; but the remaining £5,538 stock is still available. The Railway Company's Reports, I am informed, deal in considerable detail with ordinary maintenance and state the works done in the period to which they refer, but do not deal with the general state of the canal. The Reports of the Board of Trade Inspectors show that they were not satisfied with the sufficiency of the maintenance of the canal. I am informed that the Railway Company report that they are carrying out the Board of Trade recommendations, and have bought a steam dredger. Meanwhile, the Board of Control have arranged to make an inspection of the canal at an early date.

  PURDYSBURN ASYLUM (BELFAST).
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  467
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the condemned hair mattresses and the furniture supplied by a Belfast contractor to Purdysburn Asylum, Belfast, whether he will give the names of the five firms who were invited to tender for the contract; and if he will state who suggested the names of the firms so invited, and why a public invitation for tenders was not published in the Belfast daily papers; whether he is aware that some of the largest mattress manufacturers and dealers in Belfast were not given any opportunity of competing as to tenders; and if he will make inquiry into the matter and, in the public interest, take steps to secure open competition for asylum contracts by having advertisements for tenders published in the papers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The names of the five firms which were suggested by the Resident Medical Superintendent are the Bank Building Company, Hanna and Browne, Mayers, Robert Hanna, and Wright and Hunter. It was thought that, five firms of repute having been selected, satisfactory competition would be secured. The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums have no information as to the second paragraph. I may add that tenders have been invited by public advertisement in the case of contracts for furniture required at the asylum, and that I am inquiring into the Question generally.

  DAIRY HERDS (VICTORIA).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the diseased herds of Victoria and the dirty condition of many of the dairies there; whether he is aware that reports from the Dairymen's Association, the Perishable Products Committee, the Municipal Conference on Milk and Meat, and Dr. Springthorpe were some time ago submitted to the Premier of the Colony, and these reports all agree as to the disease among the herds, the want of ordinary cleanliness in many of the dairies, and the total want of inspection of the dairy herds of the Colony; and, whether, in the interest of the public health, he will make inquiry into the matter, with the view to take due precaution against the danger of receiving
  468
  into this country butter from dirty dairies in Victoria?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have been in communication with the Agent General for Victoria on the subject of this Question, and I have received from him a memorandum in which he states that there is no such thing as the "diseased herds of Victoria," and that no such reports as are referred to have been made. I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with a copy of this memorandum, and I propose to bring the subject under the notice of the Local Government Board with whom it rests to consider whether any further action in the interest of the public health is necessary and practicable.

  MOMBASA-UGANDA RAILWAY.
  MR. R. W. PERKS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what legal authority the Committee charged with the construction of the Mombasa-Uganda Railway possess of acquiring by compulsion the lands through which the proposed railway will pass, in the event of the present owners of the land required for the railway refusing to sell by agreement; (2) under what local ordnance or other legal instrument it is proposed to confer upon the Railway Committee the right to levy tolls and otherwise manage and control the railway; and (3) whether the British Government, through the Committee, will assume towards employees, sub-contractors, and others concerned in the construction of this line the obligations usually undertaken by a duly incorporated Railway Company?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The Indian Land Acquisition Act of 1894, has been brought into force by notification from Her Majesty's Commissioner and Consul General for British East Africa. The second question will be considered whenever any portion of the railway is approaching completion. The obligations of the British Government towards those employed in the construction of this line will be generally

  469
  similar to those assumed by the Government of India in relation to the execution of public works.
  MR. PERKSasked whether there was a power of applying the Indian Act to any conquered territory?
  MR. CURZONsaid the Indian Act was applied in accordance with a Zanzibar Order in Council to British subjects and British Indian subjects.
  MR. PERKSdesired to know whether the people along the route of the Uganda Railway were British subjects?
  MR. CURZONsaid the route of the railway was 650 miles long, and he did not know to what portion the hon. Gentleman referred. But if the hon. Member was drawing a distinction between the ten-miles strip which had previously been under the Sultan of Zanzibar, and the land in the interior, the answer to his question was that in regard to any subjects of the Sultan in the ten-miles strip powers of dealing with them had been obtained from the Zanzibar Government, so that whether the persons alluded to were subjects of the Sultan of Zanzibar or were the persons whom he had described, the cases were alike met.

  TOWNS IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1854 (NEWDRIDGE).
  MR. M. J. MINCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a written application, dated 23rd June, was sent to the Under Secretary by Mr. W. Grove White, solicitor, on behalf of the Grand Jury of the county Kildare, asking for a copy of a resolution of the inhabitants of Newbridge, adopting the provisions of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854; will he explain on what grounds the Under Secretary refused to supply a copy, but stated that it could be produced in any court on subpoena, and afterwards, on the 9th July, wrote to Mr. White refusing an inspection of the documents; and whether, considering that the learned Queen's Counsel who acts for the Grand Jury requires to peruse this resolution for the purpose of advising them as to their powers, in the interests of the inhabitants of Newbridge, he will make inquiry, and direct a copy of the resolution to be supplied or an inspection to be granted?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: It is the invariable practice of the Irish Executive not to furnish copies of official documents to private individuals, or to the officials of public bodies, or permit inspection of such documents by them, but to produce them in any court of justice under summons or subpoena, where this course can be followed without injury to the public service. Mr. White was informed that this practice would be followed in this particular case, and I see no reason to depart from it. It may, however, serve the purpose of the hon. Member to inform him that the resolution adopted all the sections of the Act, save those relating to the supply of water and to the borrowing of money.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL (PURCHASE CLAUSES.)
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if the provisions relating to land purchase of the Irish Land Bill now before Parliament will apply in the case of pending sales where agreements have been lodged with the Land Commission prior to the passing of this Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Clauses 18, 21, 22, and 23 are intended to apply in pending cases. The applicability of Clauses 25 to 29 is questionable, but it is intended to remove all doubts on the matter at a future stage of the Bill.

  SUPPLY OF SEAMEN.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he intends to take any action, as recommended by the Manning Committee, in relation to granting licences for supplying seamen through any qualified association and corporations whose members are individually entitled to engage seamen?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not had an opportunity of adequately studying the recommendation of the Manning Committee, but, as regards such of those recommendations as need legislation, I regret not to be in a position to hold out any hope of being able to deal with them at present.

  WADELAI.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether there is any foundation for the statement that French officers have recently visited Wadelai, or any part of the territory leased by Great Britain to the Sovereign of the Congo State, and not renounced by the latter at the time of his renunciation of the remainder of the leased sphere?
  MR. CURZON: We have no information in support of the statement; and it is conceivable that Wadelai may be a misprint for Waday.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (SUMMER CLOTHING).
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in consequence of the extreme heat of the weather, he will take into consideration the advisability of allowing the London police to wear temporarily a white cover to their helmets, and of issuing to them a serge frock or other light and cool dress, better adapted for the performance of their duties in an almost tropical temperature than their present heavy tunic, as is done in many boroughs in England and in New York and other cities in America?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I have already stated that this question of allowing the, London police to wear a cooler summer dress is engaging my attention, and though I cannot admit that the circumstances in the metropolis are altogether similar to those in the counties, by some of which the lighter clothing has been adopted, much less to those in the American cities to which the hon. Member alludes, I am making inquiries and considering whether it will be possible for me to do anything in the direction which the hon. Member and other Members of this House desire.

  DARWEN MOOR PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having
  472
  regard to the delay and expense of the procedure, and the obstacles caused by the absolute veto of the Lord of the Manor, which in the recent case of the Darwen Moor Provisional Order, and in other cases have been proved to exist under the existing law, the Government will next Session introduce a Bill to amend the law in order to facilitate the regulation of commons?
  MR LONG: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the difficulties which arose in the Darwen Moor case were successfully surmounted under the law as it stands; and in any case I am afraid it would not be possible for me at the present time to enter into any engagement with regard to legislation next Session on the subject to which he refers.

  ENLISTMENT.
  MR. G. KEMP: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether a soldier can be retained in the Service if he enlists when under the required age, and the authorities have been informed of the fact before he reaches the regulation age?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): A soldier who was enlisted as a result of a false statement of age cannot claim his discharge as a right until the term for which he enlisted has expired; but, in practice, a soldier so enlisted when under 17 years of age is discharged as a matter of course; and if between 17 and 18 years of age when enlisted, the General Officer Commanding can discharge him if he thinks it desirable.

  NAVAL RESERVE.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he would be willing to consider the advisability of further augmenting the reserve of sailors and marines for Her Majesty's Fleet by recruiting each year 5,000 men for five years' service in the Fleet and 15 years in the Reserve, as suggested by Lord Charles Beresford in a speech recently delivered to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce;

  473
  and, whether, in view of the large number of ships at present building, he will consider the necessity of adding these men to the number of long service men on the strength of the Navy.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that I am not prepared to proceed on the lines suggested in the first paragraph of the Question. With regard to reserves of soldiers and marine's, nothing has happened since I submitted the Navy Estimates in March to induce me to depart in either direction from that steady, continuous, proportionate increase in the number of men which is rendered necessary by the expansion of the Fleet. I asked the House for an increase of about 5,000 men when I submitted my last Estimate. I must decline to anticipate the statement which I shall have to mate next year as to the further increase which will be required.

  ARMY PENSIONS (THOMAS BRYSON).
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether further inquiries have been made by the Chelsea Commissioners into the case of Thomas Bryson, a pensioner, residing at Newtowngore, county Leitrim, who is bedridden owing to diseases which he contracted as an engineer on active service; and, whether it is intended to increase the small allowance of 1s. per day of which he is at present in receipt?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Thomas Bryson served for less than six years in the Army. He was discharged in 1883 on account of chronic rheumatism incurred during his active service. At the time of his discharge he was granted a pension of 7d. a day, which was all his service entitled him to; but subsequently, in consideration of his helpless condition, the pension was raised to a shilling a day. The Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, having carefully considered all the evidence produced, are unable to recommend any further increase of pension.

  DRAINAGE CHARGES (IRELAND).
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  474
  (1) whether he is aware that numerous seizures have been recently made on occupiers in the neighbourhood of the River Suck, in Roscommon and Galway, for drainage charges, from the expenditure of which they allege they received no benefit; and (2), whether, owing to the widespread complaints as to the wasteful proceedings of the Suck Drainage Board, he will direct a public inquiry into the entire matter, with a view to devising a remedy for these public grievances.
  MR. HANBURY: In all cases where decrees for non-payment of the rent charge payable under the award in the River Suck Drainage District have been obtained and the amount not paid, the decrees have been placed in the Sheriff's hands to realise, which he has succeeded in doing in a number of cases. The Board of Works are not aware of any such complaints against the present Drainage Board as are mentioned in the second paragraph, or of the necessity for any inquiry. If the present members of the Drainage Board, who have been elected by the proprietors and occupiers, do not give satisfaction to the majority of their constituents, these have the remedy in their own hands, as they can turn out the present Board and elect their own nominees in January next.

  CONSTABULARY REGULATIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that at the Petty Sessions held in Edenderry, King's County, on the 15th instant, charges were preferred against several persons by constables who were unable to attend in court to prosecute them; that in their absence the Head Constable of the district took upon himself the duty of acting as complainant, calling and examining witnesses; and, whether such a practice is sanctioned by the Constabulary Regulations; and, if not, what notice he intends taking in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am consulting the Law Officers in reference to this question, and will thank the hon. and learned Gentleman to defer it until to-morrow.

  OMAGH ASSIZES (CHARGE OF MURDER).
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, whether it has been brought to his notice that two youths, brothers, named Maguire, on trial for murder at the Omagh Assizes, have been twice daily escorted on foot, through the public streets, from the gaol to the courthouse, with large crowds of people collected on each side of the way to witness the procession; has it been the custom heretofore for the authorities at Omagh to convey prisoners charged with serious offences from the prison to the courthouse in a covered vehicle; and, what special reason, if any existed in this case, for a departure from that practice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: There is no foundation whatever for the statement that the prisoners referred to were marched through the streets to the gaol or courthouse. They were conveyed on each occasion in the prison van, a covered conveyance, in accordance with the usual practice.

  DUBLIN AND LONDON MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the strong feeling of dissatisfaction existing in Ireland respecting the proposed changes in the time table of the Dublin and London mail service; whether, considering that the Dublin Steam Packet Company have supplied boats that can easily save half an hour across channel on all four services, he will see that the London and North Western Railway Company will save, as it was understood they would, half an hour on the land part of the journey on all the services; whether he is aware that it would be a great convenience to passengers from either side, and no postal disadvantage, to make the hours of departure from Euston and Kingstown an hour later, with the exception of the 8.20 p.m. leaving Euston; whether he is aware that to bring passengers into Euston at 5.50 a.m. would be a grievance without any postal advantage; and, whether he will make inquiry, and consult the convenience of the people in
  476
  Dublin and the provinces before finally making arrangements?
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will give an undertaking that the proposed arrangement for the new postal service between Ireland and England will not be put in force without an opportunity being given for discussing the same in Parliament next Session.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to the proposed changes in the mail service between Dublin and London, whether he will insist on the saving of an hour on all the four services between Euston and Kingstown; whether he will arrange that the time so saved will be utilised by making the hour of leaving one hour later in all the mail services except the night train from Euston; and, whether he will embrace the opportunity for providing third class accommodation for passengers on the mail trains between Holyhead and Euston?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware that the proposed changes in the time table of the London and Dublin mail service do not meet with unanimous acceptance in Ireland. Whilst provision has been made in the new contract with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company that the sea passage between Holyhead and Kingstown shall be performed half an hour quicker than at present on all the four daily services, the acceleration of half an hour on land will be confined to the two services in connection with the night mail. Neither the Postmaster General nor his predecessors ever contemplated an acceleration of the day mail trains, which would be of no postal importance, and which would be attended with very considerable additional expense. It might be a convenience to passengers if the departure of three of the mail trains were made an hour later as suggested, but this could not be done without postal disadvantage in every case. In regard to the up-night mail, which is specially mentioned by the hon. Member for South Down, an arrival at Euston at 5.50 a.m. instead of at 6.15 a.m. would be a distinct advantage to the postal service in London, and a later running of the train throughout from Holyhead would

  477
  result in the failure of an important connection via. Chester and Warrington with the mail to the north by the 10 p.m. train from Euston. As stated on previous occasions, the railway company cannot see their way to provide third-class accommodation for passengers in the mail trains between London and Holyhead. It would not be possible to carry out the accelerated services between Ireland and England on 1st April next, if the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Kerry were adopted and the arrangements were to be left undecided till next Session. The time table framed for the service between London and Dublin, which has recently been made public, appears to the Postmaster General the only table compatible with all the conditions of the problem, and on the basis of this table, it is proposed to proceed with the necessary negotiations for carrying on the acceleration of the night mail into the Irish provinces.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (MINING INSTRUCTION).
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether candidates from mining districts may receive marks for certificates they hold in agriculture but not for those in mining at the Queen's Scholarship Examination; and, if so, whether, in order to promote the teaching of the principles of mining to the children in elementary schools, which would tend to lessen the number of accidents in mines, he would consider the propriety of giving the same credit to teachers for their knowledge of mining as of agriculture?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. The Committee of Council will consider the suggestions of the hon. Member; but they doubt the possibility of teaching the principles of mining as an elementary school subject.

  LISTOWEL UNION (COUNTY KERRY).
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether a
  478
  petition, signed by 258 ratepayers of the Union of Listowel, County Kerry, which was forwarded to the Local Goverment Board of Ireland on the 22nd of April 1896, praying for the appointment of paid guardians to that Union on the ground of the increase in the expenditure for outdoor relief which has risen from £8 in 1880 to £3,000 in 1895, has been received; and, what steps he intends to take in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The petition referred to has been received. There is no doubt the Listowel Guardians have been lavish in the administration of outdoor relief in recent years, though, speaking generally, they discharge their duties efficiently. The amount expended on outdoor relief has been somewhat reduced in the last two years, and a strong remonstrance was addressed to the Guardians at a recent audit which, it is hoped, will have the effect of still further curtailing this item of expense without suffering to the poor. The ratepayers will of course have a remedy in their own hands at the annual election of Guardians; but the matter will not be lost sight of by the Local Government Board, and the next report of their auditor will be carefully considered.

  JUDICIAL RENT SCHEDULE (IRELAND).
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if, before the Report stage of the Irish Land Bill, he will circulate, for the information of Members, copies of the Schedule (commonly known as the Pink Schedule) used by the Land Commission in fixing judicial rents?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The copy of the Pink Schedule as now used by the Land Commission will be found on page 675 of the Appendix to the Report from the Select Committee on the Lands Act (Ireland), 1894. Since the issue of the Report the Assistant Commissioners have been required to set out, opposite paragraph 14, the capital value of any improvements found to be the property of the tenant, and the annual deduction made in respect thereof. I have caused a number of copies of the Pink Schedule to be placed in the library for the convenience of hon Members.

  CORK ASSIZES (CHARGE OF PERJURY.)
  MR. E. CREAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Justice Holmes, in the ease of perjury against Annie Barrett at the recent Cork Assizes, when it appeared that Barrett, in order to get her children into an industrial school, consulted the Head Constable at Queenstown; whether he is aware that the Head Constable told her that the children would have to be caught begging and followed them out of the barrack and gave the children some coppers, and then brought her before the petty sessions for begging; that the judge characterised the whole thing as collusion and fraud on the Act of Parliament, and directed the jury to acquit the woman as it was not Annie Parrett but somebody else who was to blame; and, whether a constabulary inquiry has been or will be held into the conduct of the Head Constable?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts of this case appear to be stated with substantial accuracy. It is not proposed to hold a Constabulary Court of Inquiry, as the facts are not in dispute, bur, the conduct of the Head Constable is now engaging consideration.

  DESTRUCTION OF MAIL VAN (GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY, IRELAND.)
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General, has any Return yet been furnished of the number and value of the postal parcels destroyed by the late burning of a mail van on the Great Northern Railway, Ireland; how many claims have been made in regard to those destroyed parcels; what compensation has been allowed; and, has the cost been borne by the Post Office or by the Railway Company?
  MR. HANBURY: No return of the number and value of the postal packets destroyed has yet been furnished, and it will be some time before the full particulars are known. The number of claims which up to the present has been made in respect of the destroyed parcels is 45. The claims are being investigated,
  480
  and the amount of compensation which has already been paid is £5. The cost, so far, has been borne by the Post Office.

  MAJOR LOTHAIRE.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether an appeal is take place, and, if so, when, with reference to the trial of Major Lothaire for the murder of Mr. Stokes; whether such appeal will include an Inquiry as to the right to seize and confiscate Mr. Stokes' property; whether, in the event of an appeal, Her Majesty's Government will arrange to have adequate professional representation at the hearing; and, if no decision as to the course of action has been arrived at, when Her Majesty's Government expect to be able to give information?
  MR. CURZON: An appeal has been made, and the hearing has been fixed for the 3rd of August. As the Government of the Congo Free State is the appellant, the conduct of the appeal will be in the hands of its representatives before the Court. Her Majesty's Government must leave to that Government the entire responsibility for seeing that the investigation into the case and all material circumstances connected with it is complete. Her Majesty's Government have themselves no locus standi at the hearing of the appeal, any more than they had at the original trial at Boma. The question of Stokes' property did not come before the latter, and therefore is not involved in the appeal. Her Majesty's Government, of course, reserve to themselves the right of subsequently making any diplomatic representations to the Government of the Congo State, which the circumstances may seem to call for.

  WATER SUPPLY (ESSENDON, HERTS).
  MR. C. J. MONK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that, owing to the excessive drought, the wells in Essendon, in the county of Hertford, from which the inhabitants derive their sole supply of water, are becoming dry; and, whether he will take immediate steps to consider the Report of

  481
  Colonel Hasted, the Government Inspector, respecting the scheme for providing an adequate supply of pure water for the village of Essendon, which has been before the Board for several months past?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I do not find that any communication has been received as to the effect of the present drought on the wells in Essendon, but I have no doubt as to the necessity of an improved water supply for the place. The Report of Colonel Hasted, the Board's Inspector, after his Inquiry has been received within the last few days. The matter will receive the Board's immediate attention, and a communication will be addressed to the authority without delay. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the proposals of the authority have met with some opposition.

  ASSISTANT LAND COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether, in view of the additional work created by the new applications under the Irish Land Act, he would recommend the suspension of the 65 Rule in the case of Sub-Commissioners; and, is it the advice of the English Law Officers that the Treasury have taken as to the applicability of the 65 Rule to Sub-Commissioners?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Assistant Commissioners are permanent civil servants of the Crown, and I have no power to recommend in their favour the suspension of the Order in Council fixing an age for the compulsory retirement of all permanent civil servants. The second Question is obviously one that should be addressed to the Treasury

  WRECK OF STEAMSHIP "DRUMMOND CASTLE."
  MR. JAMES ROCHE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the great public interest that is taken both in this country and South Africa in the recent Board of Trade Inquiry into the loss of
  482
  the Drummond Castle, he will direct that the shorthand writer's notes, taken at the Inquiry and presented to the Court, be printed and circulated to the Members of this House?
  MR. RITCHIE: The shorthand writer's notes of evidence taken at the Inquiry into the loss of the Drummond Castle are very voluminous, and could not be printed and circulated except at considerable expense, which, as at present advised, I am not prepared to authorise.

  RAILWAY SPEED.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the verdict of the jury on the railway accident at Preston, attributing it to the excessive speed at which the train was travelling, and allowing that the drivers were not entirely at fault, because they had to travel over too great a distance in a given time: and, whether he will issue a circular to the railway companies warning them against the practice of racing?
  MR. RITCHIE: An Inspecting Officer of the Board of Trade has been engaged in holding an inquiry into the causes of the Preston accident, and when I receive his report I will determine what action, if any, should be taken. In coming to a conclusion, I shall, of course, have due regard to the finding of the coroner's jury.

  DOG MUZZLING.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the increase of rallies in London and the country, the Government, in the interest of and protection for the public will consider the advisability of adopting the system prevailing in France, Germany, and other continental countries of enforcing the muzzling order all the year round, more especially as a new humane muzzle has been invented which affords a dog the same freedom and comfort as though it were practically unmuzzled?
  MR. LONG: I am happy to say that the number of cases of rabies reported during the present year shows a distinct

  483
  improvement as compared with the corresponding period of 1895, but the disease is still at a much higher point than it has ever been since it was first brought within the scope of the Diseases of Animals Acts, and I am afraid that it will give us much cause for anxiety for some time to come. In these circumstances it must be very doubtful whether the existing system under which the imposition of muzzling regulations is practically left to the local authorities is at all a satisfactory one, and I shall be glad to keep the suggestion of my hon. Friend in view, and to give it full consideration when I receive the report of the Departmental Committee, which is now taking evidence as to the working of the dog laws generally.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS (WALES).
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that in the counties of Cardigan, Carmarthen, Glamorgan, Merioneth, Montgomery, Pembroke, and Radnor, no property qualification is required for Commissioners of Land Tax, whereas in the other Welsh counties and in England a qualification of £100 is requisite; and whether he will take the necessary steps to abolish the property qualification in the counties of Anglesey, Brecknock, Carnarvon, Denbigh, and Flint, and in the English counties?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am aware that in the counties first named by the hon. Member no property qualification is required for Commissioners of Land Tax. There seems to be no record of the reasons which led to an exception being made in these cases from the general rule that a qualification of £100 a year in land is required. I do not propose to alter that rule.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1893, (ANALYSES).
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, during the two years in which the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893, has been in operation in nine counties, only one analysis has been made, and in 29 counties there
  484
  have been no analyses; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the Act from being a dead letter in the counties referred to?
  MR. LONG: The facts are as stated in the Question. Since the passing of the Act we have addressed various circular letters to local authorities calling attention to its provisions, and making various suggestions with regard to its administration. We have also issued many thousand copies of a leaflet explanatory of the procedure to be adopted by buyers who wish to put the Act into force. I shall be happy to consider any further suggestions which may be made to me by which the Act can be made known, but it must rest with the buyers themselves to determine whether they will avail themselves of the machinery for sampling and analysis supplied by the Act.

  EAST LONDON WATER COMPANY.
  MR. W. R. BOUSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in some portions of the district served by the East London Water Company there was no water available for flushing closets at 9.30 in the morning yesterday (Wednesday) and that at the same time water was being freely used for watering the roads; and, whether he is in a position to state whether any, and, if so, what immediate steps can be taken to insure a sufficient water supply to houses in East London for sanitary purposes?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have learnt with much regret that the East London Waterworks Company have found it necessary to restrict the supply of water to six hours a day in consequence of the extreme drought, and I have no reason to doubt the statement that in some portions of the district served by the company there was no water supply available at 9.30 in the morning yesterday. With regard to the statement that water, notwithstanding, was being used for watering the roads, I may say that on Tuesday I communicated with the company and with the several local authorities within the limits of supply by the company, stating that the Local Government Board considered that as far as possible the supply of water for street watering

  485
  should be discontinued in the district of the company so long as the present drought continued, and expressing the Board's hope that the local authorities would concur in the adoption of this course. As I previously stated, I communicated with the East London Company and the New River Company, suggesting an arrangement by which assistance as regards the supply of water should be obtained from the latter company. Negotiations, I understand, are now proceeding, and I am inquiring what has been done in this matter. I am also urging upon the company the importance of at once fixing standpipes to such of the mains as are constantly charged with the view of diminishing the serious inconvenience arising from the direct supply to houses being limited to six hours a day. The company are pressing upon consumers the extreme importance of all waste being avoided, and that the use of water for gardens and other similar purposes should be discontinued, and from the information which I have received I am convinced of the necessity of husbanding the supply as far as possible.

  ORDNANCE FACTORIES VOTE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the importance of the Ordnance Factories Vote, he will, for the convenience of the large number of Members interested, arrange to take it first upon the day which he has fixed, namely, 7th August.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I cannot give the hon. Member a promise that the Vote will be put first on August 7th, but I will endeavour as far as I can to arrange to take the Vote for the general convenience of Members.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked what the business for next week would be after the termination of the Committee on the Irish Land Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYrecognised the right of the right hon. Gentleman to ask the question, but he frankly told him the only doubt he had.
  486
  There was first the Scotch Rating Bill, but whether that should not be put off till Tuesday and whether they should not take the Uganda Railway Bill on Monday and some other smaller Bills was doubtful. If the right hon. Gentleman would put a question to-morrow he should give him a definite answer then.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid it was understood that the Coal Mines Bill would be taken on Monday. So many people were interested in it that he hoped there would be an opportnnity of discussing it.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that Bill should be taken on Monday in any case.
  In reply to Mr. GIBSON BOWLES,
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he wished he was able to fix a day for the Finance Bill, but he was not.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  [Progress 22nd July.]
  Clause 35,—

  APPEALS UNDER LAND PURCHASE ACT.
  Any person aggrieved by the order of a Land Commissioner acting alone in carrying the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act into effect, may, if such Commissioner was not a Judicial Commissioner and the question is one of law, require the case to be reheard by a Judicial Commissioner, and in any other case may require the question to be reconsidered by a Judicial Commissioner and two other Commissioners; provided that if the Judicial Commissioner thinks it desirable the case should he re-heard by those three Commissioners.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that, as the clause was quite unnecessary, it should be negatived. This, like other clauses in the Bill, had been drafted by gentlemen of the Land Commission who did not know what they were about.
  MR. JOHN DILLONalso condemned the clause as quite uncalled for, unless it was connected with Mr. Justice Ross.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,)explained the difference between the clause and the 29th section of the Act of 1891. The latter provided that the appeal, if on a question of law, should be to the Judicial Commission; and if on any other question, to three Commissioners, one of whom should be the Judicial Commissioner, one a Commissioner under the Land Purchase Act of 1885, and one a Commissioner under the Act of 1881. There was no such qualification in the present clause, which enacted that the tribunal should be the Judicial Commissioner and two other Commissioners.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that until the passing of the Land Purchase Act of 1891, the Land Commission consisted of two watertight compartments—the Purchase Department and the Pair Rent Department. In 1891 the Government abolished that distinction. The Irish Members protested, and a compromise was arrived at which provided that the appeal should not be to the Commissioners miscellaneously, but should be to a tribunal which should, at any rate, have some part of the Land Purchase element of the Commission upon it. This clause was an insidious attempt on the part of the Land Commission to go behind the compromise of 1891.
  MR. DILLONsaid that since the passing of the Act of 1891 there was a tendency at headquarters to amalgamate, rearrange, and even to rig the Land Commission.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said the clause was really consequential on Clause 17, under which rules might be made enabling the Land Judge to act as an additional Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission in any appeal or rehearing under the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act. If the question was to he raised at all, it had better be raised on the Report of Clause 17 itself.
  MR. DILLONprotested against the introduction of Mr. Justice Ross. It was distinctly stated that he was not to
  488
  occupy the position of an ordinary Land Commissioner, but was to be brought on in special circumstances, and if the object of the clause was to confer on Mr. Justice Ross the right so fully exercised by the present Land Commissioners to review the decision of the Purchase Commissioners, it was an extension of the law which ought to be strongly opposed. The two bodies of Commissioners had totally separate duties—one had to fix fair rents, the other had to see that the Treasury did not advance too much for the security offered. He protested against the introduction of Mr. Justice Ross for the purpose of interfering with this safeguard of the Treasury, and indirectly of the tenants, because it sometimes relieved them of the exorbitant prices which they agreed to pay. Mr. Justice Ross's duty would be to see that the Treasury did not advance too much money, but as a Land Judge his duty would he to see that his clients got the utmost price for their land.
  MR. T. M. HEALYcould not agree with the view taken by the last speaker with regard to the position of Mr. Justice Ross. He dubbed the clause the "Anti - Murrough O' Brien clause." Under the old Act it was essential, when there was an appeal, that the tribunal should include one Commissioner appointed under the Act of 1885. They could not always have Mr. Lynch, who was a strong landlord's advocate, and accordingly Mr. Murrough O' Brien, who was appointed by the Liberal Government, was bound sometimes to be called in. But under this clause there would be no need to call in Mr. Murrough O' Brien, because they could always call in Mr. Wrench, Mr. Fitzgerald, or Mr. Lynch. Thus they would have a packed jury. He had not the slightest objection to Mr. Justice Ross on a question of law. He did not see that it mattered whether the appeal, then, was to Mr. Justice Ross or to Confucius. But when the appeal was on the question, of value it was wholly different, and it was in this connection that the clause in the Act of 1891 was of value. If the object of this clause was to bring in Mr. Justice Ross, then he contended that that was already done under Clause 17, If Mr. Justice Ross were brought in to deal with questions of law he should have no objection to that, but if it was a

  489
  question of value, he protested that this exclusion of the Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1885 was a matter of which they must take notice.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR, interposing, said it would probably meet the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman if he consented to insert the words "to he determined by rota."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Who is to fix the rota? If the rota were to be decided by the Commissioners there would, perhaps, be no objection to that; but why was the bargain made in 1891 gone behind, and gone behind, apparently, without the knowledge of the Government? When a Parliamentary bargain was made it ought to be carried out, and the rota should be a rota in which the tenants had confidence.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he did not think that any attempt had been made, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to go behind the bargain of 1891; but, even though a Parliamentary bargain was made, it was open to suggest openly to the House that a change should be made. In this particular case, however, the Government had no desire to go behind the bargain come to in 1891, and therefore he would suggest that words be inserted providing that one of the Commissioners must be a Commissioner appointed under the Act of 1885.
  MR. DILLONsuggested that it would be better to leave the law as it now stood. If the object of including this clause was to enable Mr. Justice Ross to take part in appeals on value, that was, in his view, a great objection to the clause, and he would still press the Government to state for what purpose the clause was inserted.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the clause was necessary in order to enable the Land Judge to sit on appeals. Unless the clause was passed as a corollary to Clause 17, it would be impossible for him to do so. The Committee had already decided that the Land Judge should be enabled to sit as an additional Judicial Commissioner.
  MR. DILLONasked what was the good of this clause, if the Committee had already decided that? He thought the object of the clause, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, was a very unfortunate one.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that if the question of Mr. Justice Ross was to be raised, it ought to be raised hereafter on the Report stage of Clause 17. He thought his right hon. Friend had met hon. Gentlemen opposite very fairly by proposing words which would have the effect of causing the bargain of 1891 to be adhered to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYcontended that the clause was absolutely unnecessary if the right hon. Gentleman was willing that the law should stand as it was now. All that was necessary to bring about the object of the Government had already been done under Clause 17.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that the Act of 1891 abolished the distinction between Purchase Commissioners and Land Commissioners, and as the law stood at present under the Act of 1891 the Judicial Commissioner was the Commissioner named in that Act or his successor. Section 17 of this Bill enabled Mr. Justice Ross to do certain duties of the Judicial Commissioner, but it did not identify him with the Commissioner under the Act of 1891, and therefore this clause was necessary.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he accepted the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. He thought he had met them very fairly. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill, in order that the words he proposed might be inserted.
  MR. DILLONsaid he very strongly objected to the object of the clause as it had been stated by the Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYthought it would not be in order now to withdraw the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill, and therefore the House must come to a decision on the clause; but he would undertake that the Amendment should be made on Report.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL*MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.) moved to omit Sub section (4). The hon. and learned Gentleman said that, if the Board bought an estate with a number of small tenants upon it, the

  491
  latter would by this sub-section be deprived of their right to go into Court and have a fair rent fixed. Small tenants were the very class to whom the right should not be denied.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Congested Districts Board existed for philanthropic purposes. It purchased estates with the direct intention of benefiting the tenants on those estates, and, as the Land Act of 1881 was passed to prevent undue oppression of the tenants by the landlords, it seemed absurd to suppose that this philanthropic body should be suspected of placing upon the tenants a higher rent than they could afford to pay. If the Board was so little to be trusted with the interests of the tenant, it was hardiy worth while that it should exist at all.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid that, from what he knew of Irish tenants, he thought they would rather pay a small rent than trust to the philanthropy of any body, whether the Congested Districts Board or another. [Nationalist cheers.] Any Board might have the best intentions, but the tenants should have some guarantee beyond mere philanthropic intentions before they were deprived of their rights.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid this was a water-tight clause in the interests of the Treasury. The Congested Districts Board might purchase from a private owner a certain estate, but he could not prevent tenants coming into Court because Parliament in its wisdom said, "We will not allow you to have these contracts with your tenants. We will interfere and fix a fair rent, and give every man the right to have a fair rent." Why should not this apply to the State? [Nationalist cheers.] If it was right in the one, it was right in the other. He detected the finger of the Treasury in the clause. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not see why, when the State became the proprietor of land, its tenants should not have a fair rent fixed as well as the tenants of private owners.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid the right of the tenant to apply to the Court to fix a fair rent for him was a vested right conferred upon him by statute, and, because thousands of tenants in Ireland might not have exercised their right, that did not justify the Committee
  492
  by a stroke of the pen in depriving them of it. He considered it an appalling proposal. He reminded the Committee that philanthropic boards acted through their officers, and backed them up through thick and thin, and it would be in the power of these officers to deprive the tenants of the right that had been given them by Act of Parliament.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that, as time was precious, he would consent to the omission of the sub-section.
  MR. T. M. HEALYremarked that, if time were precious so were the rights of the tenants under the Congested Districts Board.
  On the Question, "That Clause 36, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. DILLONhoped that next Session the Government would introduce a Bill to increase the powers of the Congested Districts Board in regard to the development of fisheries and the enlargement of holdings in the West of Ireland. There was a growing feeling that these were the chief agencies by which the people in the western districts of Ireland could be lifted out of the slough of terrible poverty in which they existed.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 37,—

  SALES BY CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD OF SMALL HOLDINGS OTHERWISE THAN UNDER LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
  (1.) The Congested Districts Board may sell land to a tenant of a small holding for the price agreed upon, and credit the purchaser with the whole or any part of the purchase money, and such purchase money shall be secured to the satisfaction of the Board, and he payable by such annuity, payable half-yearly, and calculated at such rate of interest, as may be agreed on.
  (2.) For carrying such sale into effect the Trustees of the Congested Districts Board may convey the land to the purchaser charged with the said annuity; but the conveyance shall not operate to convert the interest of the purchaser in the holding into real estate.
  (3.) The particulars of any such conveyance may he communicated to the Land Commission, and thereafter they shall issue half-yearly applications for payment of the half-yearly instalments of the annuity charged on the holding, and shall credit or pay to the Congested Districts Board all sums received by the Commission in

  493
  respect thereof, and shall furnish to the Board particulars of all instalments for which they issue applications under this section, showing which have and which have not been paid.
  (4.) The Trustees of the Congested Districts Board shall have, for the recovery of any such instalments unpaid, the same remedies as the Land Commission have for the recovery of unpaid instalments of an annuity under the Land Purchase Acts.
  (5.) Holdings purchased under this section, while subject to any annuity for the payment of purchase money, shall not be subject to the provisions of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act. 1891, but shall be subject to all the provisions of the Land Punchase Acts respecting a. bidding subject to an annuity under those acts; and the power under those provisions to require a holding to be sold when subdivided by reason of the death of the proprietor, maybe exercised within twelve months after the subdivision becomes known to the Congested Districts Board, not withstanding that it is more than twelve months after the death.
  (6.) Whenever, upon the amalgamation of small holding's, part of the amalgamated holding is subject to an annuity under this section, and the amalgamated holding is not a small holding, the Congested Districts Board may agree with the occupier of such amalgamated holding for the purchase by him of that holding under the Land Purchase Acts, and the Land Commission may sanction the agreement and make an advance as if such occupier was in occupation of the whole of such holding under a contract of tenancy.
  (7.) On such last-mentioned advance being made by the Land Commission, the balance of the principal of the purchase money payable by the annuity under this section shall be treated as repaid to the Board out of the advance, and the holding shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the said annuity.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 38,—

  RULES FOR PART OF ACT.
  Rules for carrying into effect this part of this Act may he made by the Lord Lieutenant after communication with the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 39,—

  EVICTED TENANTS.—RE-ENACTMBNT, WITH MODIFICATIONS, OF 54 & 55 VICT. c. 48. s. 13.
  Section thirteen of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, is hereby re-enacted, and
  494
  shall have effect with the modifications following:—

  (a) Twelve month. of the commencement of this Act shall be substituted for six months of the passing of this Act;

  (b) The section shall not extend to a holding the tenancy of which has been determined since the fifth day of August one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one.

  MR. J. P. FARRELL MR. J. P. FARRELL (Cavan, W.) moved to omit Sub-section (b). He found that 5,000 tenants had been evicted since the date mentioned, and it would seriously affect the settlement of this difficult question if those tenants were excluded from the operation of the clause.
  MR. DILLONthought the landlords would be wise in their own interest to accept the Amendment.
  MR. EDWARD CARSON: We do not object to the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to offer an expression of thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 40,—

  APPLICATION TO LAND COMMISSION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF TENANT OR FOR PURCHASE OF HOLDING.
  (1.) Where the tenancy of a holding has been determined at any time between the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, and the sixth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, the landlord or the former tenant of the holding, or both jointly, may, within twelve months of the commencement of this Act, apply in the prescribed manner to the Land Commission to act as mediators with a view to the reinstatement of the tenant in the holding or with a view to the purchase of the holding by the tenant.
  (2.) Upon any such joint application with a view to reinstatement, the Land Commission may declare the terms and conditions as to rent, and the payment of arrears or otherwise upon which they consider that it would be reasonable that the former tenant should be reinstated in the holding, and, upon the parties consenting within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, may make an order reinstating the tenant in his holding upon the said terms and conditions.
  (3.) Upon any such joint application with a view to the sale of the holding, the Land Commission may declare the amount of the advance which they are prepared to sanction, and the conditions (if any) to be fulfilled previously to the making of such advance, and, upon the parties consenting within the proscribed time and in the prescribed manner, may order an advance, subject to the said conditions, in like manner as if an agreement had been made under Section 13 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, as re-enacted by this Act.
  (4.) Upon such application, whether for reinstatement or for a sale being made by either the landlord or the former tenant of the holding, the Land Commission may, if they think fit, after making such inquiry as they think advisable, serve upon the party not having made the application a notice calling upon him to state whether he consents to the application being treated as a joint application, and—

  (a) if he consents within the prescribed time, the Land Commission may proceed under this section in like manner as if the application was a joint application; but

  (b) if he does not so consent, no further proceedings shall be taken upon such application.

  (5.) Every order under this section shall be binding upon all persons, and be final and conclusive.
  (7.) An order under this section shall not be made in the case of a holding which, on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, was in the occupation of a tenant.
  (8.) For the purposes of this section, the expression "former tenant" shall include the personal representative of the former tenant.
  MR. JAMES ROCHE MR. JAMES ROCHE (Kerry, E.) moved in Sub-section (1) to omit the word "between", and to insert instead thereof the word "from," so that the sub-section should read, "at any time from the first day of May."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ROCHE MR. ROCHE moved to omit the words "the sixth day of August one thousand eight hundred and ninetyone."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL*MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.) moved, in Sub-section (1), after the words "one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, and," to insert the words—
  "if the party so served does not within the prescribed time after such service object in the prescribed manner, a joint application within the meaning of the section shall be deemed to
  496
  have been made for reinstatement or for a sale, as the case may be, and the Land Commission may thereupon proceed under this section accordingly."
  The object of the Amendment was to secure that when a tenant applied to the Land Commission to be reinstated, and notice of the application was served on the landlord, if the landlord did not come in and show cause why the tenant should not be reinstated, the application should have the same effect under the clause as if it were a joint application.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONobjected to the Amendment because the landlord, owing to circumstances over which he had no control—such as absence from the country—might have no knowledge of this application on the part of the tenant, and also because it brought in the element of compulsion. The landlords had no objection to tenants, who left their farms against their will, and, in obedience to a conspiracy with which they had no sympathy, getting back again; but he could not support this Amendment, because it proposed that the owner of the property should be compelled within a certain time to lodge his objection to the tenant's application.
  MR. DILLONsaid the supporters of the Amendment would have no objection to every precaution being provided that this transaction was not carried on behind the back of the landlord. He therefore hoped the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw his objection.
  MR. SMITH-BARRYthought the clause went far enough in accepting the principle of arbitration, and he objected to its being further extended.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that all the Amendment aimed at was to avoid putting on the landlord the necessity of formally assenting, or placing him in a position which his pride would not consent to. There was more than hard cash at the bottom of these unhappy disputes. He could quite understand a landlord in the position of the hon. Member for South Hunts refusing to write down a formal assent in these cases and resolving not to appear one way or the other. This was a point on which a concession by the landlords would do much to advance a settlement of these cases.
  SIR J. COLOMBdesired to do everything that could reasonably be done to promote voluntary arrangements, but in his opinion the Amendment really departed from the principles on which this part of the Measure was founded. In order to secure that every means should be availed of to bring the parties together, the Land Commission was brought in as an intermediary, but the Amendment appeared to be a departure from that principle.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONstated that if his objection could be met in some way he should be glad, because he had every wish to blot out an unhappy page in Irish history. [Nationalist Cheers.]
  MR. SMITH-BARRYpointed out that if the Amendment were accepted it would apply, not only to the plan-of-campaign tenants, but to all evicted tenants, even those evicted yesterday. He was afraid they were going a great deal too far.
  MR. CARSONsuggested that, both sides being in substantial agreement, it should be left to the Government to bring up words on Report.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURthought the words had better be settled now. The success of the clause depended on both parties proceeding in a friendly spirit; and, in his opinion, the Government would make a great mistake if they introduced into these voluntary arrangements anything to which the landlords took exception.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONthought it should be sufficient if the landlord or his agent wrote a letter saying that he objected—["Hear, hear!" from the Nationalist Member.]—and accordingly suggested that the words "in the prescribed manner" should be struck out of the Amendment.
  Words "in the prescribed manner" omitted from the proposed Amendment; Amendment, as thus altered, agreed to.
  Sub-heads (a) and (b) Sub-section (4) struck out.
  Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 41,—

  SUPPLEMENTAL.—DEFINITIONS.
  41.—(1.) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
  The expression "dwelling-house" includes any out-house, curtilage, and garden appurtenant thereto.
  The expressions "landlord" and "tenant" include respectively the predecessors in title of a landlord or tenant.
  The expression "limited owner" means a limited owner within the meaning of Section twenty-six of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and includes any person having the powers of a tenant for life under the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890.
  The expression "lease" includes an agreement for a lease.
  The expression "Land Law Acts" means the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, except Tart V. thereof, the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, except Part IL, and the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891, and does not include the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, except so far as the provisions of it are necessary for giving effect to the above-mentioned portion of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.
  The expression "Land Purchase Acts" means the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, the Land Purchase Acts as therein defined, and the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891.
  The expression "judicial rent" means a fair rent. whether fixed by the Court or by agreement or arbitration or by demand of the landlord accepted by the tenant, and any reference to an application to fix a fair rent shall include a reference to an agreement to fix a fair rent or to refer to arbitration the fixing of a fair rent, or to the demand of an increased rent by the landlord.
  The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made by the Land Commission, save that where the expression refers to financial matters, it shall mean prescribed by rules made by the Treasury, and where the expression relates to matters connected with the Land Judge, it shall mean prescribed by rules made under Part Two of this Act.
  The expression "Receiver Judge" means the judge assigned under Section nineteen of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, for the execution of the duties in that section mentioned.
  (2.) In the definition of "holding" contained in the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, "parcel of land" shall be deemed to include an undivided share of land, whether held alone, or held under the same contract of tenancy with land held in severalty.
  (3.) Any jurisdiction vested by this Act in the High Court in relation to the purchase money under the Land Purchase Acts, or otherwise in relation to those Acts, shall subject to rules of court, be exercised by the Land Judge.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 42,—

  APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF PARTS OF ACT.
  (1.) Part one of this Act shall, save as is by this Act expressly provided, apply to every proceeding pending at the commencement of this Act.
  (2.) An application to fix a fair rent for a holding shall not be refused on the ground of any previous decision with reference to the holding or any part thereof, whether between the same parties or otherwise, if such application can be sustained under this Act or any of the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act.
  (3.) Parts one and two of this Act shall be construed as one with the Land Law Acts, and together with those Acts may be cited as the Land Law Acts, and shall apply to all holdings to which the Land Law Acts, or any of thorn, as amended by this Act, apply, and Section twenty-two of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, shall apply as if the said Acts and Parts of this Act were part of the foregoing provisions of the said Act of 1881, within the meaning of the said Section.
  (4.) Parts two, three, and five of this Act shall be construed as one with the Land Purchase Acts as herein defined, and, together with those Acts may be cited as the Land Purchase Acts.
  (5.) Part four of this Act shall be construed as one with the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts, as defined in the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Act, 1894, and together with those Acts may be cited collectively as the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 43,—

  SHORT TITLE.
  This Act may be cited as the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 44,—

  REPEAL OF ACTS.
  The Acts specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSES.
Clause 4,—
MR. GERALD BALFOUR,brought up the following New Clause, in place of the one which had ceased to form part of the Bill:—

NEW CLAUSES.
  AMENDMENT AS TO IMPROVEMENTS.

    APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF PARTS OF ACT.
    (1) Where an application is made to the court to fix a fair rent for a holding, which is not subject to the Ulster tenant-right custom or any usage corresponding thereto, or the tenant of which does not claim the benefit of any such custom or usage, the court shall ascertain and record—

    (a) the annual sum which should be the fair rent of the holding on the assumption that all improvements thereon were made or acquired by the landlord;

    (b) the condition of the holding and the buildings thereon;

    (c) the improvements made by the tenant wholly or partly by or at his cost, and with respect to each such improvement—

    (i.) the nature, character, and present capital value thereof;

    (ii.) the date (so near as can he ascertained) at which the same was made; and

    (iii.) the deduction from the rent proper to he made on account thereof;

    (d) the extent (if any) to which the landlord has paid or compensated the tenant in respect of each such improvement;

    (e) the improvements made wholly or partly by or at the cost of, or acquired by, the landlord;

    (f) such other matters in relation to the holding as the court may think expedient; and

    (g) the fair rent of the holding; and the record shall he admissible in evidence on its mere production from the proper custody.

    (2) No rent shall be allowed or made payable in respect of an improvement made by the tenant on a holding by reason only of the work constituting such improvement not being suitable to the holding.
    (3) For the purpose of an application to fix a fair rent, a tenant shall be deemed to have been fully paid or compensated for every improvement made by him in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration.
    (4) For the purpose of an application to fix a fair rent, a tenant shall not be deemed to have been paid or compensated for any improvement not made in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, except to the extent to which the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, are of opinion that valuable consideration has been given by the landlord in respect of the improvement.
    (5) A contract by a tenant not to claim, on quitting his holding, compensation for any improvement made by him, shall not authorise the allowance of any rent in respect of any improvement, except to the extent to which the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, are of opinion that valuable consideration has been given by the landlord in respect of the entering into that contract.
    (6) Section four of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, shall not authorise the allowance of any rent in respect of an improvement, provided that the rent may be allowed in respect of an improvement made by the tenant, if made twenty years before the passing of the said Act, and not being a permanent building or reclamation of waste land.
    (7) For the purpose of this section valuable consideration shall not be held to have been given by reason of the mere letting of the land on lease or otherwise or the mere enjoyment by the tenant of any improvement where the rent of the holding was not fixed, reduced, abated or, after the improvement was made, allowed to remain unaltered with the intention expressed or implied of recouping the tenant for his expenditure of capital and labour in making the improvement; and in the case of an improvement made in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, such intention shall be implied where not expressed.
    (8) Sub-sections two and four of section five of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, shall not have effect in the case of applications to fix a fair rent.
    (9) Nothing in this section shall affect any right enjoyed under the Ulster tenant right custom or any usage corresponding thereto.
    Clause read a First time.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURin moving "that the Clause be read a Second time", said the Government had been freely charged with continually changing the Bill backwards and forwards. It was true that they had dropped the procedure clause, much to his regret, and that was a sacrifice they had been compelled to make owing to the limitation of time at their disposal. Although the form of Clause 4 had been very considerably altered, he did not think that any material change had been made in the substance. As the clause was first introduced it was no doubt open to the charge of obscurity, and they had endeavoured, as far as they could do so, in the changes made to remove that obscurity. He thought it would be found in connection with the sub-sections dealing with compensation that the practical effect of the clause in its amended form was really the same as the clause in its original form; it was
    502
    much more clear and less ambiguous. It would be said that the Government had dropped altogether one important sub-section of the clause—namely, Subsection 3. It was true that the Government had dropped that sub-section, but from the outset that sub-section was simply an endeavour to state the law as they believed it now stood. The Government had made a few endeavours to state the law. The first was objected to; a second was tried and it was also objected to; and, therefore, the Government took the course, not altogether unnatural in the circumstances, of saving that they had made two attempts to apply the law as it stood, and neither of them being received with favour, the best thing to do was to drop the subsection altogether and leave it to the Courts to decide any matter that might be in dispute. The right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs, speaking the other day on the Motion to omit Clause 4, stated that this sub-section and the question with which it dealt were in reality the most important touched upon in the Bill. He altogether demurred to that view. The Government were trying to apply the law, but beyond that Mr. Justice Bewley and other witnesses examined before the Select Committee stated that, in their opinion, the question raised in that clause was practically an academical one; and if they were right he could not see how it could be said that the omission or non-omission of the sub-section was of such extreme importance as the right hon. Gentleman represented it to be. He understood that the Sub-Commissioners were now all carrying out the administration of the Acts on the principles declared by Lord Justice Fitzgibbon before the Select Committee to be the principles laid down in this respect by the decision in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath." Therefore, if the question was academic at the time that Mr. Justice Bewley gave his evidence before the Committee, it had become even of less importance now, because, as he understood, the law as laid down by Lord Justice Fitzgibbon was being carried out in practice. It appeared to him, therefore, that the Committee would, on the whole, be wasting valuable time if they were to occupy themselves merely with discussing whether a particular attempt at definition in the Bill

    503
    was or was not in accordance with the opinion of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon and in accordance with the decision in "Adams v. Dunseath." No doubt there was an important question raised by Amendments which were to be moved as to whether the altered definition of "improvements" included within the word "improvement" the whole of the benefit which accrued to the holding from the work carried out by the tenant; but that question was not raised as he introduced the Bill originally, the mere omission of the subsection in the original Bill or the Amendment he subsequently put down to the sub-section were of no serious importance. A word ought to be said as to the first sub-section in the new clause. The Committee would see that the new version of the clause very considerably extended and amplified the details which were required to be ascertained by the Court in the first draft of the Bill. He did not conceive that in doing this the Government would be met with any opposition on either side, because greater detail was one of the matters insisted on by the Committee, and he was given to understand that the landlords on the other side also desired greater detail. But there was a question in connection with a sub-section which required careful consideration. It would be observed that in the new clause the Government had excepted from the operation of the schedule holdings which were subject to the Ulster tenant-right custom. These words had been put in because the Government were most anxious to make it clear that they had no intention in the Bill to in any way prejudice rights or privileges which might be enjoyed by the tenants under the Ulster custom. It would be clear to the Committee that in excepting Ulster in that way it would be necessary afterwards either to provide a special schedule for the case of Ulster or else leave it out. In drafting the new clause the Government left a gap purposely because they wished to inquire carefully whether there was anything in connection with the Ulster custom which made it difficult or impossible to apply the schedule. In dealing with the matter in this way the Government had an open mind; but if there was anything in the schedule inconsistent with the Ulster custom or interfering with the privileges
    504
    of the tenants a proviso could be inserted to the effect that the Land Commission should in these circumstances omit such conditions in this schedule as they might consider inconsistent with that custom. The question, however, could be decided in Committee after discussion. On the whole, although the form of the clause had been considerably changed, it had been a change merely in the interests of greater clearness, and no principle had been substantially altered.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid he still maintained that by the omission of the third sub-section this vital clause dealing with the question of improvements had been seriously damaged—to put the charge no higher. When the right hon. gentleman introduced the Bill he dwelt on the importance of this particular subject, namely, the apportionment of the enhanced letting value after allowance had been made in respect of the tenants' outlay; and the right hon. Gentleman was then, though he was apparently no longer, aware of the great importance from a practical point of view of putting an end to the doubts raised by the judgment in "Adams v. Dunseath." If the right hon. Gentleman had gone through a portion of the evidence dealing with this matter he must see that it was a subject urgently requiring to be dealt with. The evidence given before the Committee was that the practice of the Sub-Commissioners and even of the Commissioners themselves varied. This clause touched a momentous question, and their contention was that it should not be left to the individual discretion of the Sub-Commissioners, but should be settled by legislation. They contended that there should be laid down once for all a principle which should guide the Sub-Commissioners in deciding as to the letting value. He had listened carefully to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman and he did not find in them an explanation of this point. He did not by any means agree that the difficulty was insurmountable, or that words could not be framed which would guide the Sub-Commissioners. He considered that a very heavy blow had been dealt at the Bill by the retreat from the position taken up by the Government on the Second Beading. According to the change in the words they were not going

    505
    to allow the Sub-Commissioners to take into consideration the very important matter of the occupation right. ["No, no!"] That was as he was advised. He did not question the full integrity of the Sub-Commissioners' intentions, but he could not leave out of sight the enormous pressure which was sometimes put upon them in another place. He had to remember the pressure of 1881–82 which was applied by the Donoughmore Commission. He thought that the directions as originally proposed to be given to the Sub-Commissioners were more favourable than those proposed under the new clause. Those words would have enabled the Sub-Commissioners in fixing a fair rent to make a difference between a sitting tenant and his landlord and a new comer.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that it was clear that occupation rights were included.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid he was advised that the change in the words would prevent the Sub-Commissioners from taking into consideration the important matter of the occupation right.
    MR. DILLONsaid the Government did not propose to do anything to improve the law as laid down in "Adams and Dunseath." The tenants were not satisfied with the law as laid down in that decision, and now the Government in this clause failed to grapple with that critical question. He thought the Chief Secretary had taken up two separate positions which were absolutely inconsistent. This was not a small subject, for obviously there was no security for the tenant unless he was protected in respect of any increase in the value of his holding due to his own capital and labour. He therefore thought the statement of the Chief Secretary that the Government never even dreamed of improving the law in that regard would create widespread dissatisfaction and anger throughout the whole of Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALYthought it only just to acknowledge that the course which the Government had taken in postponing this clause and bringing it up now was a wise one. It entirely negatived the statement made by some very important persons in a letter to the North of
    506
    Ireland Farmers' Club that the intention of the Government was to entirely abandon the clause; and, furthermore, as the clause had now first to be read a Second time and then discussed in detail, Irish members would have two shots at it. In regard to the Ulster custom, he thought the course taken by the Government was the best one. The question was an extremely doubtful and difficult one. They had had in connection with this clause an illustration of the way in which public opinion was misled in Ireland. The clause repealed certain provisions of the Act of 1870, under which, according to a decision of the Court of Appeal, a tenant whose lease prevented him from contracting himself out of that Act might be rented on his improvements. This Bill repealed that provision, and he found that a motion passed by the Irish Agriculturists Association repudiating the Bill was seconded in a strong speech by Mr. O'Neill, who was the subject of this very abominable decision. His view of the Bill, the hon. and learned Member concluded, was that it was an extremely small and moderate Measure. The Government were proceeding tentatively in the matter, as one would expect from a Conservative Government. Those who on that account would not endeavour to give the Bill a shove along and to push it into the House of Lords in something like a reasonable and creditable shape were not only deceiving the House; they were deceiving their country and were its worst enemies.
    Clause read a Second time.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved in Sub-section (1) to omit the words "Where an application is made to." His reason he said was this. Supposing a preliminary objection was taken to any fair rent being fixed, it would be unreasonable to require that all these particulars should be first made out.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment proposed to omit the word "fix" and to insert the word "fixes."
    Amendment agreed to.
    COLONEL WARING COLONEL WARING moved in Subsection (1) to omit the words—
    "which is not subject to the Ulster tenant-right custom or any usage corresponding thereto, or the tenant of which does not claim the benefit of any such custom or usage."
    He moved the Amendment, he explained, on the ground that it was importing into the Ulster tenant-right custom an element which had never had a place in it. The Ulster tenant-right custom was confined entirely to the value of the improvements of the holding at its transfer from one tenant to another, and it was entirely a new departure to import into it the implication, as this clause did, that it dealt in any way with the question of fair rent. They only asked that they should have the same facts recorded and the same basis to go upon in any future proceedings in regard to the holding which landlords and tenants had in other parts of the country. Nobody placed a higher value on the Ulster custom than he did. He had always recognised it to the full in his own case; and if he thought the inclusion of the Ulster farmers in this schedule would in any way interfere or detract from the fullest exercise of the Ulster custom he would be the last person to propose this Amendment.
    MR. J. PINKERTONsaid that every Member of the Committee must know that the buildings on a farm formed a very large and important part of the improvements; yet in almost every case the buildings had been excluded, simply because the landlord's solicitor came forward and stated that the landlord was prepared to admit that they were the property of the tenant. God never made a Sub-Commissioner who could value a farm without the buildings upon it. By leaving out the buildings the Government were robbing the tenant of at least three-fourths of his improvements. He had some acquaintance with the work of the Sub-Commissioners, as he had acted in several cases as valuer for the tenant, and in every one of these cases by the adroit manipulation of the landlord's agent, the tenants received no allowance in respect of the buildings. It was absolutely necessary that the tenant should be secured in this matter, and that full allowance should be made for the buildings. Agricultural land without the buildings was perfectly valueless.
    508
    If the buildings were left out of account, in the vast majority of cases the land would not have more than a prairie value.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid there was one portion of the first sub-section which he would like to see the Ulster tenant get the benefit of, and that was the portion which provided that where improvements were recorded, the record should be evidence of the making of the improvements. That was a very valuable provision, and he thought the Ulster farmers ought to get the benefit of it. When Mr. Gladstone was passing his Act of 1870, he recognised the importance of this question, and dealt with it in a special clause providing a procedure by which the tenant, the moment he made an improvement, could go into Court and record it; but the clause had proved absolutely valueless, because it involved expenditure by the tenant which he could not incur.
    MR. R. M. DANEsaid he should oppose the Amendment because he understood that the entire clause was governed by the first subsection, which excepted the Ulster custom from the clause.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that in his opinion Subsection (9) governed the whole clause and not Sub-section (1).
    MR. DANEsaid that if that was so, and the Amendment covered only what was in Sub-section 1, he should waive his objection.
    MR. DILLONsaid that if the Government had adhered to their original draft, this question would never have arisen. Sub-section 9 only applied, as he understood it, to the rights already enjoyed.
    MR. CARSONthought it was incorrect to mix up the general question of the Ulster custom with this clause. It was perfectly apparent that this clause applied to the whole of Ireland, and he would suggest that the words referring to the Ulster custom should be struck out of the clause and a general clause afterwards inserted reserving to Ulster all that Ulster now had.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that provision must be made for maintaining the Ulster custom, and it was admitted that there was no object in doing anything in Sub-section 1 which would prevent the Ulster tenant getting

    509
    the advantage of the clause. He would therefore suggest that the Amendment should be accepted, and when they got to Sub-section 9, they should consider whether or not it was sufficient to safeguard the interests of the Ulster tenants.
    MR. J. JORDANsaid he should certainly oppose anything that would abridge in any shape or form the privilege of the Ulster tenants.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the proposal of the Government was to accept this Amendment, undertaking to make it perfectly clear, either by Subsection 9 or by a new clause, that any privileges or advantages enjoyed by the Ulster tenants should be absolutely protected.
    MR. PINKERTONinsisted that some security should be given to the Ulster tenants that in future the buildings would be taken into consideration.
    MR. J. A. RENTOULremarked that the striking out of these words did not seem to him to make any difference whatever.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that the hon. Member for Galway would perhaps be relieved if he would allow him to read a statement by Mr. Bailey, which described how the Ulster tenants were dealt with. Mr. Bailey said all improvements are presumed to be the property of the tenants, no matter when made. It is not necessary to prove the making of such improvements as buildings and fences. They are evident, and the tenant is entitled to them without limitation of time, where they add to the value of the holding.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid that, as representing an Ulster constituency, he knew the tenant-farmers in his constituency were anxious and fearful lest anything should be done to alter their existing position.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid words would be brought up so specific, precise, and all-inclusive, that Ulster tenant-right would be more absolutely and completely preserved.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR J. COLOMB*SIR J. COLOMB moved in Sub-section (1) after the word "record" to insert the words "in the form of a Schedule."
    MR. MAURICE HEALYprotested against stereotyping in the form of an Act of Parliament procedure which the Land Commission would direct whenever necessary, but which they might wish to vary from time to time. There was a mass of things which it was desirable the Sub-Commissioners should do, but they could not put them all in an Act of Parliament. Let the Committee give the Land Commissioners credit for some common sense, and not multiply needless statutory directions to the Sub-Commissioners.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR J. COLOMB*SIR J. COLOMB moved to leave out Paragraph (a), and to insert:—
    "the several classes of land found on the holding, marking same on a map, and showing in respect of each such class the estimated area thereof, and the sum which should he the fair rent thereof (per acre or per class) on this assumption that all improvements thereon were made or acquired by the landlord."
    The hon. Member said it was desirable the proceedings of the Land Court, and all matters connected with it should be on a basis that everyone could fairly understand. Where different classes of land were dealt with they could only arrive at a fair rent by aggregating the total value of each class of land, or the value per acre. So it was in the interests of common sense and the avoidance of disputes and difficulties to lay down rules as to the information to be provided in the Schedule.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Amendment would not serve any useful purpose, and asked the hon. Member not to press it.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. DILLON MR. DILLON moved in paragraph (1) Sub-section (c.), to leave out the words "the present capital value thereof," and to insert instead thereof the words "the increasing letting value due thereto." He asked upon what basis was a man to act in ascertaining the present capital value of an improvement? Was he to consider the cost of the improvement to the tenant or the increased value to the holding of the work? If not, on what principle was he to ascertain the value? It had been stated in evidence

    511
    before the Committee on the Working of the Land Acts that if a tenant spent say £100 on his holding, and, owing to the poor quality of the soil, or some other circumstance, only increased the value of the holding by £2 per annum, the Sub-Commissioners only gave him credit for that £2. But if the tenant had the good luck to increase the value of the farm by £10 per year, he did not get credit for the £10, but was allowed some indefinite interest, for there would seem to be no principle to guide the Sub-Commissioners in the matter. In other words, the Sub-Commissioners said to the tenant: "If you venture your money and fail you will be the sufferer, but if you win you will get none of the rewards of success." He contended that such a system was fatal to the expenditure of capital, and of enterprise and of industry on the part of the Irish farmers.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he thought there was no difference between the words in the Bill and the words the hon. Gentleman proposed to insert. The present capital value of the improvements meant, of course, their present capital value qua improvements, and the increased letting value due to them. The advantage of the words in the Bill was that they carried on the language already used in the Schedule.
    MR. CARSONsaid the matter was not of vital importance, but he thought it would be of advantage to the landlord and the tenant if in the assessments of the Land Court, both "the present capital value, "and" the increased letting value" of the improvements on a holding were recorded. He therefore suggested that both terms should be used in the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Words "and the increased letting value due thereto "inserted after the words" present capital value thereof."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND*THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND moved to omit the words "proper to be" from Paragraph (iii) in Sub-section (1)—"The deduction from the rent proper to be made on account thereof."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MICHAEL McCARTAN MR. MICHAEL McCARTAN (Down, S.), moved to omit the words "or compensated" from Paragraph (d.)—"the extent (if any) to which the landlord has paid or compensated the tenant in respect of each such improvement." He thought the landlord was sufficiently protected by the word "paid" which had the advantage of being simple and easily understood.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the phrase "paid or compensated" the tenant was used regularly throughout the Acts.
    MR. J. C. FLYNNsaid the words "or compensated" had led to a great deal of confusion and complication in the decisions of Sub-Commissioners in respect to tenants' improvements.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. DILLON MR. DILLON moved in Paragraph (g) after the word "holding" to insert the words "due regard being had to the occupation interest of the tenant." He said this was a point on which Mr. Justice Bewley was very emphatic, but it was one which all the Sub-Commissioners did not take into account.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURobjected to the addition of the proposed words. The occupation interest was already taken into account, and if the words were put in it would be assumed that, over and above the interest now taken into consideration by the Courts, there was something else which it would appear had been neglected—namely, the occupation interest. He should certainly oppose the Amendment.
    MR. DILLONsaid the Amendment would simply be a direction to the Sub-Commissioners to administer the law in accordance with the view of the Court which was presided over by Mr. Justice Bewley. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would further consider the point between now and Report, and in that case he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.
    MR. T. M. HEALYremarked that when they had a statement from the Chief Secretary on his responsibility that it was the duty of the Sub-Commissioners to take the occupation interest into account, that that was only incorporating what was already the law, he was

    513
    quite sure the Sub-Commissioners would recognise what their duty was in the matter.
    MR. CARSONdemurred to any attempt being made by anything which had fallen from the Chief Secretary or any other person to interfere with the construction of an Act of Parliament. The Chief Secretary was perfectly right, the occupation interest was taken into consideration now. What was occupation interest? It was this, that the sitting tenant had the right to go before the Commissioners and get his rent fixed at a figure under the market or competition value. There was no other occupation interest whatsoever, and never was, and that the tenant got under the Act.
    MR. FLYNNquoted from the Report of the Select Committee presided over by Mr. John Morley, to show that, the occupation interest was not always taken into account at present. That, he said, was clear from the evidence of experts who were conversant with the decisions and practices of the Sub-Commissioners. What had protected the occupation right was in the north the Ulster custom, and in the south a wholesome dread and fear of popular combination, such as the Land League agitation. Surely it would be a healthier state of things if the law now formally recognised the tenant's undoubted right.
    MR. CARSON, as his statement had been challenged, quoted what Mr. Sub-Commissioner Bailey said in the Committee, as follows:—"I would say that the fair rent of a holding was about roughly two-thirds of the competition rent." That was what the tenant got by being in occupation of the holding.
    MR. VESEY KNOXsaid the statement, of the right hon. Gentleman was an entire fallacy, because it ignored the improvements which in Ireland were in most cases made by the tenants. On the average of holdings in Ulster, 30 per cent. was a very poor allowance for a tenant's improvements, without anything whatever for occupation right.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURpointed out that occupation right was a very difficult thing for a witness to deal with, and he was persuaded that no one had deemed that occupation interest was included under the present law.
    MR. DILLONobserved that Mr. Justice Bewley had said: "I think that occupation interest does exist and should be respected and taken into consideration in fixing a fair rent." He would not press the matter further at the present stage, but would raise the question again at the Report stage.
    MR. McCARTANcontended that the Chief Secretary ought to give some undertaking that the question would be dealt with at a subsequent stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DENIS KILBRIDE MR. DENIS KILBRIDE (Galway, N.) moved at the end of Sub-section (1), after the word "custody", to insert:—
    "for the purpose of an application to fix a fair rent, the word 'improvement' shall, notwithstanding anything in the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, be construed to mean any increased letting value due to or arising out of any expenditure of labour or capital on or in respect of the holding."
    He explained that in the Land Act of 1881 it was provided that no rent should be payable on a tenant's improvements, but that, unfortunately, the expression "improvements" was not defined in the Act, and that to interpret the word it was found necessary to refer to the definition in the Act of 1870. Under that Act it was required that an improvement should be a work, and the tenant was only entitled to a certain amount of interest on the capital expended by him on the improvement. The tenants' own view was that they were entitled to the increased letting value accruing to the holding, in consequence of their labour and the expenditure of their capital. In Adams v. Dunseath, however, it was held by the Court of Appeal, that all that the tenant was entitled to was a certain percentage on the capital expended upon an improvement. The object of his Amendment was to put beyond dispute what the value of an improvement was to be held to be. If a tenant should expend £100 in the improvement of his holding, and the value of the holding were thereby increased by £5. or £10 a year, the tenants ought to receive the entire benefit of that £5 or £10. At present, under the interpretation of the courts of law, instead of getting that, he would only get

    515
    a certain indefinite percentage. In the Committee upstairs the official witnesses all refused to determine what that percentage was. His object was to do away with the interpretation put upon the Act of 1881 in Adams v. Dunseath, and to establish beyond the possibility of cavil a question that the value of a tenant's improvements meant the whole increased letting value of the holding due to the expenditure of his capital and labour. Tourists in Ireland who saw unreclaimed land were apt to think that the state of the land was due to the want of enterprise and indolence of the peasantry. That was an error. The existence of unreclaimed land was due to the fact that formerly the tenants knew that if they made improvements they were liable to be robbed of them, and that in recent years all they could claim with success was an undefined percentage on their expenditure. Let the tenant have the full benefit of his labour and work. He wished the tenant to be stimulated to reclaim the land upon his holding, and wanted to do away with the miserable hair-splitting in the courts of law on the question of the percentage which a tenant should receive in respect of his outlay. As a rule, money spent in reclamation brought in a very small return. He knew cases where capital expended in various reclaiming operations did not yield more than 2½ or 3 per cent. It was very rarely that the tenant got more than 8 or 4 per cent. on the capital sunk in the improvement of his holding. Surely that interest ought not to be divided with somebody else. They would probably hear a good deal from the representatives of the landlords about the "inherent capacity of the soil," which they averred was the property of the landlord. But what was the money value of this inherent capacity of the soil as long as it was allowed to remain dormant? It had no money value as long as it was in a condition of inactivity. He hoped they would have the support of Members from Ulster who represented the tenant farmers, because if this was a burning question in the south and west of Ireland, it was a still more burning question in Ulster, and with the Presbyterian farmers. He had received within the last six months Resolution after Resolution from mass meetings of tenant farmers, of Presbyterians and
    516
    Unionists in Ulster claiming that the whole of the increased letting value resulting from the improvements of the; soil was the property of the tenant. All these Acts of Parliament dealing with the land question were due to the fact that when they first dealt with Irish land they did not accurately define what they meant by the word "improvement." They left that to be defined by the Land Judges and the Court of Appeal in Ireland, and their decisions had put them in the present difficulties with regard to Irish land legislation. If the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland wished to finally settle this question they ought to accept the definition of "improvement" in the Amendment, which was, he thought, incapable of misconstruction. All who took an interest in the British taxpayer ought also to support it, for it affected the whole question of land purchase, and all the security for the advancement of the £30,000,000 under the Land Purchase Act of 1891. This Bill would take away all fictitious and unnecessary safeguards for that security, and the only security would be the land in Ireland. It was to the interest of the British taxpayer that these transactions should be carried out on commercial principles He begged to move the Amendment.
    MR. DILLONsaid there could not be a shadow of a doubt that it was the intention of the Act of 1881 that no rent should be made payable in respect of any improvement executed by the tenant on his holding. It had simply been the interpretation put by the Courts in Ireland upon these Acts which maimed and mutilated them, which had kept Parliament busy for the last 15 years trying to patch them up. He had put upon the Paper the following Amendment, which would have the same effect as that of the hon. Member, but which was framed in the language which had been used by the Chief Secretary himself:—
    "For the purpose of removing certain doubts which have arisen as to the interest of the tenant in the increased letting value of a holding arising from expenditure of labour or capital by the tenant on or in respect of such holding, be it enacted that in fixing the fair rent of a holding no rent shall be allowed or made payable in respect of such increased letting value."

    517
    He was convinced that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Galway was as much in the interest of the landlord as of the tenant, as it would increase his security by promoting and stimulating the enterprise of the tenant. It was preposterous to talk of some latent capacity of the soil that might be called into play at any moment, as the landlords had declared over and over again that they would not make any more improvements. If the Amendment were accepted it would result in an enormous simplification of the law. He waited with great curiosity to hear what argument would be advanced against this Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman. The Irish landlords, as they had said themselves, were now reduced to the position of rent-chargers, and the position of a rent-charger was a much more secure and comfortable position than that of a man who was trying to extract gold from land let at a rack rent. By the admission of everybody the landlord would never obtain the latent capacity of the land except by the consent of the tenant, who might or might not make any improvements. It was a very extraordinary position to take up, to say that the whole question was an academic one, but if it was their proposal ought to be accepted, as it was infinitely simpler, and easier to administer. The Government, in this discussion, ought to be bound to take up their stand upon one platform or another with regard to this subject. In the vast majority of cases the tenant in Ireland who expended labour or capital upon his holding did not get more than three per cent. for his investment, while in a large number of cases in Mayo he did not get more than one or two per cent. upon it. Of course there were a few lucky men who obtained 10 or 20 per cent. interest upon their investment, but such cases were very rare. It had often been alleged that the reason the tenants in Ireland did not obtain a larger return for their capital was because they were bad farmers, and because the country was in a backward condition. But the country was naturally in a backward condition because the farmers had no protection for their capital. It was a universal error on the part of Irish landlords that they would lay out no money in the improvement of their property, and that in
    518
    such cases where the tenants improved, the value of their improvements might be seized upon at any moment by their landlords. He appealed to the Committee to accept the Amendment, which was one of considerable importance in the eyes of the tenant farmer. The Amendment, if accepted, would tend to induce the tenants to put their labour and their capital into the soil, and therefore he appealed to the Irish Members opposite who were landlords to accept it. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that no doubt it was the desire of the Government to pass a Measure of a practical character, which would induce the tenants of Ireland to invest their labour and capital in the land. There might be good reason on that consideration for the State to lend money to the tenants for that purpose at a low rate of interest, or of giving them a bonus for any improvement which they might effect. He, however, could not see that there was any reason for confiscating the property of the landlords for the encouragement of the tenants. That, however, was the meaning of the Amendment. It had been contended that unless the Amendment was adopted the intentions of Parliament, as declared in previous Acts, would be frustrated. They had, however, the best interpretation of the framers of the Act of 1881 in the language of Mr. Gladstone, who took an entirely different view of the matter from that taken by hon. Members opposite. When Mr. Parnell brought forward his Bill in 1883, Mr. Gladstone protested against the proposal to confiscate the landlords' property by making every improvement that had ever been made upon an estate the property of the tenant for the time being. If they were to determine that all improvements upon the land in Ireland which had been effected since the beginning of time were the property of the tenant, they would most undoubtedly be confiscating the landlords' property, and they would be reducing the landlords' interest in the land simply to the prairie value.
    MR. DILLONsaid that Commissioner Doyle had declared that if they were to reduce the landlords' interest in the land to a prairie value they would have to increase it very much indeed. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that if the Amendment were to be adopted, its effect would be to confiscate the property of the landlords. In these circumstances he could not accept the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. MICHAEL DAVITTsaid that in his opinion the reply of the right hon. Gentleman would be profoundly disappointing to Irish Nationalist Members, because by refusing to accept the Amendment he had rendered the Bill practically worthless to the tenant-farmers in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had said that to accept the Amendment would be to confiscate the property of the landlords, and he had quoted an opinion of Mr. Gladstone in support of that assertion. He, however, could quote an equally eminent authortiy, that of Mr. John Bright, in the opposite direction. He believed that nine-tenths of the improvements that had been effected upon the farm lands of Ireland had been made by the tenants, and not at the expense of the landlords. The law as it stood was a deliberate confiscation of the tenants' property, and this worthless Bill would stereotype that law.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid that some time ago the Leader of the House took part in a discussion on the views of Mr. Henry George; and the right hon. Gentleman then maintained the proposition that most rent in England and Scotland was not rent in the true sense, but was, in fact, interest on the landlord's capital. The right hon. Gentleman gave as an illustration the case of a farm of 400 acres. He specified three heads of outlay by the landlord, amounting in all to £8,000. The gross rent of the farm was £700; but there were outgoings, which reduced it to £630 net, which was 8 per cent. on the £8,000. A deduction of 3 per cent. was made for rates, tithe, etc., leaving as a net return a 5 per cent. return on the outlay. The right hon. Gentleman wound up by saying that not one farthing of that was due to the "inherent properties of the soil," as Mr. Henry George called them. He denied that they were any true foundation for rent. If that was the right hon. Gentleman's contention, he could not see the excessive enormity which seemed to attach to prairie value in his eyes.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that he did not dissent from the substantial accuracy of the version of what he had said. He did lay down the proposition, which he believed to be perfectly true, that at this moment, in a highly developed farming country, such as the lowlands of Scotland, and possibly the north of England, where there had been an immense expenditure on farm buildings, drainage, etc., the fall of agricultural prices had left to the landlord only a bare commercial interest—if that—on his original outlay. But he did not see that that had any relation to the present dispute. What the landlord had lost was the whole purchase money of his estate. A farm bought two generations ago, say, had had all this money spent upon it; and if the fall in prices could have been foreseen, that expenditure would not have been undertaken. He could not see how the right hon. Gentleman passed from these premises to the conclusion to which he wished to force him. While he believed that the argument about the "inherent properties of the soil" had no application, he would admit that if Mr. Henry George's arguments were worth anything they were applicable in the case of Irish land. In Ireland the landlord did not make the improvements; in England he did. But, as he held, and as the House held, that property in land, as apart from improvements, was a perfectly legitimate form of property, and, as every Irish tenant held that view as strongly as himself—[cheers]—Mr. Henry George's views should be as readily repudiated in Ireland as they were in England. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. J. J. CLANCYsaid that the landlord had already made allowance in the rent for the inherent capacities of the soil. Why, otherwise, was land let at different values—some at 1s. an acre and some at 10s. an acre? What even might be said as to the past, with regard to the future it could not be denied that, when a fair rent was fixed, the land was let with all its inherent capabilities. It was a foolish policy on the part of the landlord to resist this claim of the tenants, which was merely that they should not be rented on their improvements. The Crofters Commission had rejected the

    521
    principle laid down in "Adams v. Dunseath," although there was no provision in the Crofters Act corresponding to the Improvements Clause in the Irish Land Acts. [Mr. T. M. HEALY here whispered something to the hon. Member.] He was informed that he was wrong in that particular; but, of course, if he was wrong, his case was all the stronger. [Laughter.] The provision for which the Irish Members were asking being in the Scotch Law, he thought it would be indefensible on the part of Parliament to refuse to place the two sets of tenants on an equality.
    MR. RENTOULargued that the tenant's improvements were in the nature of a gambling transaction. In one case he would lay out a large amount of money with no certainty that it would be returned; in another ease the improvements made on another part of the farm would yield twofold and threefold. The result was that the tenant had to place one set of improvements against the other. There was hardly a tenant who made extensive improvements on his farm who did not fail in some of them. The argument, however, was that the tenant should be rented on those improvements which turned out well, though no compensation was offered to him as a set-off to the improvements which had been attempted, but which had failed. Within his own experience and to his own loss improvements were attempted in subsoiling land in Ireland, and it was thought that this land after the outlay of a large amount of money would produce crops. Before the subsoiling it was worth a penny an acre; but since the subsoiling, costing an enormous amount of money, it had not been worth more than 1s. 6d. an acre. Inherent capabilities of the soil sometimes existed and sometimes they did not; and the tenant had to take his chance; and those who supported this Amendment contended that the tenant who showed pluck, energy, knowledge and capacity should not be rented on the improvements which he had made by his own labour and expenditure of money.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLthought that this was a vital point in the Bill, and said it was vain for the Chief Secretary to imagine that unless such an Amendment as this was inserted the
    522
    Bill would give any satisfaction in Ireland. [Cheers.] He had no hesitation in saying that if the Government left this clause in its present shape and rejected this Amendment the tenantry of Ireland would be in almost exactly the same position as they were in at the present moment. A remarkable case came before him in the North of Ireland. It was a farm of 10 acres which had been taken by the tenant's grandfather 40 or 50 years ago. The case came on for adjudication before the Land Court, and it was conceded that the tenant, his father and grandfather, had improved 38 acres of the farm. Two acres remained in the condition in which they were at the time the farm was originally taken. The farm therefore showed the state of the original farm, and the effect of the tenant's improvements, which were all made by the tenant. It was proved by witnesses that the unimproved two acres were valued at 2s. to 3s. 6d. per acre, and the improved portion was at least worth 12s. an acre. On what principle of common honesty could it be said that the difference between 3s. and 12s. should go into the landlord's pocket? It was a fallacy to say that the Amendment would involve going back to prairie value; it embodied, indeed, the fair principle of the Act of 1881, Section 8. In every part of the country the occupation right or interest of the sitting tenant in the holding had always been recognised, at least by good landlords. In the South of Ireland it never entered into a just landlord's head to put a tenant out by the sheriff without giving him compensation. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted that his right hon. Friend the Attorney General would not send the Irish Members back to Ireland with such a Bill as this so far as improvements were concerned. Every morning they were receiving representations from meetings all over the country, declaring that if the clause passed as it is, so far from being a boon, the Bill would leave Ireland in precisely the same excruciating condition that it was at present. ["Hear, hear!"]
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR I RELANDquoted from the judgment in Adams v. Dunseath, to the effect that improvements which brought out the latent capabilities of the soil, the increased value did not necessarily belong to the tenant.

    523
    After the usual interval the Chair was taken by Mr. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam).
    MR. PINKERTON, in supporting the Amendment, said that in Ireland with an enormous expenditure on the part of the tenants in improvements, rents were higher than in any part of England or Scotland. The Ulster tenants were anxious that this Amendment should pass, because so far as the state of agriculture was concerned at present, the removal of legal technicalities and the glaring blunders of existing Acts would confer no immediate good upon them. What they wanted at the present moment was a substantial reduction of rent, and inasmuch as the Government had declined to shorten the judicial period for which fair rents were fixed and give them an opportunity of going into court, they should at least take due precautions that when the tenants did enter the courts they could not possibly be rented on their own improvements. What would be thought of a mine owner in England who put the price of the finished article upon the raw material? What the Irish landlords were claiming at the present moment was that the raw material in Ireland when it had been turned into the highly finished article should be credited to them (the landlords) at the full letting price. The Chief Secretary said he objected to further reducing the rents on the strength of the tenants' improvements. But the right hon. Gentleman shut his eyes to the fact that it was only because of these improvements the Irish tenants were enabled to pay at the present time what were practically rack rents. All the improvements in the case of Irish land had been the work of the tenants. This Amendment did not interfere with the landlord's property in the soil in the remotest degree. It gave him the full letting value of its inherent capacity. But that inherent capacity might lie locked in the land till the crack of doom so far as the landlord had any concern in it. It was the tenant who unlocked it and by refusing this Amendment they would be depriving him of that key which could unlock the latent capacity of the land, handicapping him in the international race, and refusing that which might put him to a certain extent on a level with
    524
    the tenants in England and Scotland. He hoped hon. Members from Ireland would give the people of this country another object lesson, and that they would take united action to secure to the tenants this measure of protection and thereby end the struggle that had been carried on for centuries.
    MR. JORDANsaid that if the Government refused the Amendment, they would be sowing the seeds of a new agitation in Ireland, which would extend even to loyal Ulster. A settlement of this question was necessary in the interest of the landlord as well as of the tenants, and it would be better for the peace of the Government, who hoped to be in power for some years, that they should settle it at once. The tenants of Ireland thought that those who made the improvements ought to get all the benefit of them. If the landlords made the improvements, as they do in England, by all means let them get the benefit of them if they made the land more valuable; but surely if the landlord refused to make improvements and the tenant made them, by all the rules of right and justice the tenant ought to get the full benefit of them. He could not see how the Government could resist such a proposition as that; but the Chief Secretary and the landlords seemed to think that the tenant should make all the improvements and that the landlord should take the benefit of them. That was really what their contention amounted to. In order to deprive the tenant of the benefit of his improvements, new phrases were concocted, such as "the inherent capacity of the soil." He would like to know what other capacity the soil had but an inherent capacity. [Laughter.] Did the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General, with his great legal experience, or the Member for Dublin University, ever hear of an external or exherent capacity of the soil. [Laughter.] If the soil was deprived of its inherent capacity what was there left? A Sahara. Was there anything left that the agriculturist could operate upon? The inherent capacity of the soil was what the landlord had already let to the tenant and what the tenant was already paying rent for. He paid rent for little else, and when the tenant spent his labour and capital upon it he was developing

    525
    the inherent capacity of the soil. After paying quite enough for the raw material he was asked to pay something more for the manufactured article. Although the landlord was getting the full value of the inherent capacity of the soil in rent, he wanted to turn round and in the name of that inherent capacity, rob the tenant of the improvements he had grafted on that inherent capacity. These were beautiful phrases by which to mislead the public and to appropriate the tenant's improvements. Of course, the Chief Secretary was doing the best he could for the landlords, and it was quite evident that he was not an Irish farmer. [Laughter.] He wished the right hon. Gentleman had to cultivate a little patch on the mountain side for a few years. They would hear very little of his academic arguments after that.
    MR. GEORGE MURNAGHAN, thought it was only proper and fair that the representatives of the tenant farmers of Ireland should let the Government understand exactly where they stood. The position was that if their very reasonable Amendment was rejected the Bill would be a useless Bill for the tenant farmers of Ireland. The Irish Members wished it to be understood that if the tenant was not secured in his improvements, the Bill of 1890 would be a useless Bill and would bring no comfort or relief to the tenant farmers. His position as the representative of, perhaps, the largest agricultural constituency in Ireland, was his defence for standing up at that moment. He knew that every moment of time was valuable, and he had hitherto not occupied one minute of the time of the Committee; but at a critical moment like this it was only right and proper that he should express to the Committee the feelings that lay in the breasts of the farmers in his constituency. A critical moment had arrived and if the Government refused the Amendment they would destroy the usefulness of the Bill. What was the Amendment? It seemed to him so reasonable and fair that he could not understand how the Government could refuse to accept it. What did it propose ! It simply proposed that any increased letting value due to any expenditure of labour or capital on the part of the tenant should not be rented on.
    526
    The Government ought to hesitate before they adopted such a woeful step as the rejection of this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to make his Government in Ireland a success, if he desired to secure peace and contentment, and if he desired to carry out the pledges which his supporters gave throughout Ulster, he would accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for South Tyrone shook his head. He unhesitatingly said that the tenant-farmers of the North of Ireland understood they were not to be charged on any improvement and that the inherent qualities of the soil should not act as a detriment to them. If the Government intended to carry out the pledges made by their supporters in Ireland they would accept the Amendment, and they would not do such an injury to the tenant-farmers as would be involved in its rejection.
    MR. JASPER TULLYsaid he wished to support this Amendment, which desired to give, to the tenants the full benefit of whatever improvements they might make in the soil. The principal objection he had to the Government proposal as it stood was that it hit the improving tenant. It did not hit the lazy and the worthless tenant. The man who laid out his money and labour in improving his land would be rented on his improvements, whereas the man who allowed his land to go to waste or only kept it in ordinary condition would have no additional tax put upon him for not improving what was called the inherent capacity of the soil. They should not hit the improving tenant. They should not make the enterprise and industry of the tenant the reason for allowing the landlord to levy additional rent. If they were to have peace and contentment in Ireland among the tenant-farmers it should be the policy of the Government to ensure to them, and to the improving tenants, respectively, that every spade they put into the land, that every improvement they made, that every bit of labour they expended on the improvement of the land, should be the same as putting money in the savings bank. He would press as strongly as he could upon the Government the acceptance of this reasonable and just Amendment. If this Amendment were rejected the Bill

    527
    would be regarded in Ireland as worthless and useless, and as one that would benefit nobody but the enterprising attorneys.
    MR. McCARTANsaid the Amendment carried out the intention of subsection (9) of Section 8 of the Land Act of 1881. Mr. Gladstone, in a speech which he made on the 9th of August 1881, said, "It is much better, I think, that those who make improvements should have the full benefit of the improvements." Was there a man in that House animated by a spirit of justice or honesty, who would deny that a person was entitled to the fruit of his toil? The 8th Section of the Act of 1881 said that no rent should be allowed or made payable in respect of any improvements made by the tenant or his predecessor in title. In Ireland it was absolutely necessary, not only in the interests of the landlord and of the tenant, but of the whole country, that there should be improvements made, and that the tenant should be encouraged to make them. The landlord never, or hardly ever, made improvements or contributed to them. Nearly all the improvements made in the soil had been made by the tenant, and surely he should be entitled to the benefit of those improvements. He had been present at some meetings in the North of Ireland since this Bill was produced, and there was at them a general consensus of opinion that, unless the question of improvements was safeguarded, or some provision made entitling the tenants to the enjoyment of those improvements without the landlord charging rent upon them, the Bill would be a rotten or a sham one. There was one unfortunate word dropped by the Chief Secretary in his speech. He said this would be confiscating the property of the landlord. He remembered Mr. Isaac Butt saying that in the course of a long experience he had never yet investigated a title which had not its origin in confiscation. All the property which was enjoyed at the present time by the landlords in Ireland rested on confiscation. He would appeal to the Chief Secretary, if he desired to make an honest effort to secure peace in Ireland and to do that which would in some degree satisfy the tenant, to accept the reasonable Amendment of his hon. Friend.
    MR. DANEexpressed his deep regret that the Chief Secretary had not found it possible to solve the conundrum created by the decision in "Adams v. Dunseath." though he readily admitted that he believed the right hon. Gentleman had made a vigorous effort to do so. During the whole 14 years preceding the evidence given before the Select Committee last year by Lord Justice Fitzgibbon all the Judges, except in one instance in the case of Lord Chancellor Law, based their judgments in this matter affecting tenants' improvements on the precedent set by Adams v. Dunseath, and in the whole of that time there was not a single case of appeal. But the evidence of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon went in the teeth of the law as laid down in Adams v. Dunseath. The law on this subject had, therefore, been rendered most uncertain and unsatisfactory, and the question for the Committee at present was whether the Chief Secretary could now, or even on the Report stage, insert in the Bill a declaration of the law on the question. He had made inquiries, and had not found that any case had arisen in which the Commissioners had given a decision since Lord Justice Fitzgibbon gave his evidence There was nothing therefore to guide them, for the Bill was silent on the point as to how this important question was to be dealt with. ["Hear, hear!"] The matter was a small one—he said so advisedly—so far as the landlords of Ireland were concerned, but it was a very large and important one to the tenants, and especially to those tenants who held under what he might call rapacious landlords. ["Hear, hear?"] He regretted to say that there were many such cases, and, therefore, he repeated his regret that the Chief Secretary had been unable to do anything in the Bill to solve the difficulty, He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it would give great satisfaction to the tenants of Ireland, who were undoubtedly looking forward to this Land Bill as a long step in the way of the settlement of the vexatious Land Question, if he could, in some way or other in the Bill, point out to the Sub-Commissioners what was to be their line of duty when a case of the kind referred to cropped up before them. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. JAMES DALYsaid there could be no doubt that the issue of this Amendment was of vital importance to the tenants of Ireland. If it were not accepted or agreed to the tenants would still labour under a very bitter injustice, and the whole country would be disappointed and aggrieved if it was rejected. With regard to the use of the word "confiscation" by the Chief Secretary, he could only say that no person who knew anything of the country would make use of such a remark in so far as it affected the tenants of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would concede this reasonable Amendment. He was reared in Ireland and he had seen tenants re-claim bogs, and then had their rents increased. The cruelty tenant-farmers in Ireland had suffered was quite unknown to Members of this House.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he was the last person who would attempt to minimise the importance of the Amendment, the discussion of which had now been going on for two or two and-a-half hours. On the contrary, he recognised it was one in which Irish representatives were perfectly justified in taking an important part, but at the same time he appealed to them to come to a decision. He thought he was not wrong in saying that the arguments on both sides had now been used, and perhaps he would not exaggerate if he said they had been used more than once. ["Hear, hear."] Under these circumstances, and considering that there were still important points to be raised on the clause, that there were new clauses to be discussed, and, further, that unless the Bill passed through Committee to-night its passage would be embarrassed, if not imperilled, he thought he was not going beyond his duty in appealing to the Committee to bring the matter to the decision of a Division as soon as possible.
    MR. DILLONsaid that after the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule they were at liberty to sit up to any hour, and he would prefer to sit up until 6 o'clock rather than there should be a bar to the discussion of this Amendment. He wished the Bill to go through to-night, but did not think two hours and a half was too long a time to spend
    530
    upon an Amendment in which the whole of Ireland was deeply interested. The Amendment was one which was supported by the practically unanimous voice of the farmers of Ireland without distinction of political opinion. He could not but think that the speech delivered earlier in the discussion by the Leader of the House himself would create a very strong and marked impression in Ireland, for, in answer to the challenge thrown out to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that in his judgment agricultural rent on all the best lands in England and Scotland had entirely disappeared, and that which was at present paid was simply an interest, and a very moderate interest, on the outlay of the landlord. The Irish landlords had made no outlay, and the rent they were taking now was largely an interest on the outlay of the tenants. He had met landlords who said that they were getting nothing out of their English estates and were living upon what they got out of their Irish property. They were, in fact, receiving interest upon the outlay in capital and labour of their Irish tenants. The Amendment aimed at what was a wholesale system of confiscation. The doctrine of the inherent qualities of the soil was an absurd invention devised for the purpose of justifying the plunder and confiscation of the tenant's outlay. The dormant in herent quality of the land was worthless until it was vivified by the labour and capital of the tenant. That the result of the tenant's industry and expenditure should be confiscated by the landlord was monstrous. The Irish tenant, as was proved by the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, was rented infinitely more highly in proportion to the value of the land than the English tenant. The Government were not redeeming their pledges to the Irish people, for through the mouths of the hon. Member for South Tyrone and other Members they had promised the Unionist farmers of Ulster that the improvements of the tenants would be completely protected by the law. [Cheers.] If this Amendment were rejected the tenant's improvements would be left at the mercy of the Sub-commissioners. The allowance to be made to a tenant in respect of his improvements would be a matter for the

    531
    Sub-Commissioners' discretion, and it should be remembered that the Government were packing the Commission with the friends of the landlords. ["Hear, hear!"] When it became known in Ireland that the Government repudiated the pledges which they had given there would be intense and widespread disappointment. ["Hear, hear!"]
    THE SECRETARY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said that the hon. Member for East Mayo had challenged any Ulster Member in that House to oppose this Amendment. The hon. Member, he felt sure, would do him the justice of admitting that he had opposed the principle of this Amendment from the day when he first concerned himself with the Irish Land question. ["Hear, hear!"] In his opinion this was not as large a question as hon. Members opposite appeared to suppose. It was, in fact, one of the smallest questions in the whole business. Not only Mr. Justice Bewley, but every witness examined upon the point before the Select Committee on the Land Acts, stated distinctly that this was not a real but a purely academic question—["Hear, hear!"]—and that it only arose in connection with a very small number of cases, meaning thereby that the number of cases where the percentage allowed by the Commissioners did not cover the value of the improvements was very small indeed. He thought most people, tenant-farmers included, would be very well satisfied with 4, 5, or 6 per cent. return on their money. He was sure hon. gentlemen would admit that he, at all events, could not be accused of speaking in any spirit of hostility to the interests of the tenant-farmers. He would point out, in the second place, why he thought the position taken up by the Government upon this question was a sound position, and one which ought to be adhered to. Every land reformer—all the old land reformers, including Mr. Isaac Butt—never wavered from this position, that, whilst the tenant was entitled to the most absolute protection for his outlay and his improvements, the capabilities of the soil belonged to the landlord. When the Commissioners went to a farm to fix a fair rent they fixed the rent upon the land in the condition in which they found it. They did not ask
    532
    what the land would produce if capital, skill, and science were brought to bear upon it; they did not take these things into account, but fixed the rent upon the land in the state in which they found it. But what happened when the rent was to be revised, if another farmer had come in and, with capital and skill, and had greatly improved the land? When the rent was first fixed the capabilities of the soil were not taken into account. [Cries of "Oh!"] It was admitted by everybody that the Land Commission fixed the rent on the land as they found it. In the case that he was supposing the second tenant developed the latent capabilities of the land, and yet, he was told, the landlord was not to get anything for these capabilities, which everyone admitted primarily belonged to him, and that the tenant was to get the whole. The law as it stood at present, as it was explained by Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, in his opinion was perfectly fair and just. He admitted that for fourteen years, in the very small number of cases in which this residue had occurred by a mistake on the part of the Land Commission, it went to the landlord. But Lord Justice Fitzgibbon most distinctly stated before the Commission that that was not the law, nor was it the judgment in Adams v. Dunseath. The law now was that when the percentage had been allowed, 4, 5, or 6 per cent., and a residue arose, the Commissioners were to sit judicially upon it; they might give the whole to the landlord, or to the tenant, or distribute it as they thought just and right, taking all the circumstances of the case into account. It was his deliberate opinion, and he had said so in Ireland, that the law was just and fair to both parties, and he thought the Government were right in absolutely sticking to the present law on the subject.
    Mr. T. SHAWdid not think any Member of the House, in view of the position occupied by the hon. Member, could regard with any other feelings than those of admiration the appearance which he had just made. They knew perfectly well the situation in which the hon. Member found himself. [Ironical Nationalist cheers.] He did not speak in any carping spirit, and he did not wish to import anything of a personal nature

    533
    into the discussion. This question was one of principle, and should be determined on broad and general considerations of justice and equity, and not with mere regard to the number of cases which would be affected. His view was that an improvement in this case was whatever improved the land, and that an attempt to analyse the word would defeat its own object. It was the theory of the law and the policy of the State that wherever industry had been exercised in the execution of an improvement the fruit of that industry should be made secure to the industrious person. [Nationalist cheers.] The great question which lay at the bottom of the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland was that in times past the tenants of Ireland had for generations so exercised their labour and expended their capital as to turn bog or forest land into arable land or good pasture. [Nationalist cheers.] And now at the end of the day they had a Government which was brought in by a large majority for the purpose of doing justice in the matter of the relations which subsisted between the two parties connected with Irish land tenure; and yet in the Measure which that Government had introduced for the purpose of carrying out their undertakings was a definition of the word "improvements" which entirely eviscerated all that rendered it valuable to the Irish tenant farmer. If the question involved were as small as the hon. Member for South Tyrone represented it to be, why did not the Government concede the point? If the Amendment would only affect a very small number of cases throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, why not accept the interpretation contained in the Amendment as to the signification of the word "improvements"? Under the last Government a Bill had been brought in which was based upon the principle that confiscation of the tenants' property in the land by law should cease. He asked the House, and he asked the Government, whether, even at this eleventh hour, they would concede this point to the Irish Party. The proposal made was a just one in all its aspects, for as the Bill stood there was a broad distinction between the principle on which the late Government had acted and that on which the present
    534
    Government were acting. The present Government if they refused to accept his suggestion would be making it known that they were proposing to declare that confiscation of the tenants' property by law should not cease, but should continue. He hoped that he was not too late in asking the Government to reconsider their position in reference to this point. ["Hear, hear!"] After one of their own Members had stated that the question involved was a very small one, why did the Government allow the message to go to Ireland to-morrow that they had refused to accede to his appeal because they declined to admit that there was in the signification of the term "improvement," that which was the essence of the whole, namely, that the increased letting value of the land should go to the man whose industry, capital, ability and power had created that increased letting value? ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. MICHAEL FLAVIN, in supporting the Amendment, said he might be met on the other side by the argument that rents had been reduced in Ireland. But had the rents been reduced to a degree corresponding with the fall in the price of agricultural produce. He would ask the hon. Member for Yarmouth what was his opinion upon that point. He found from authoritative statistics that the average reduction in the price of agricultural produce in Ireland since 1871, had been 28½ per cent., while the wages of the labourers whom the farmers employed had increased in the meantime by 33 per cent. Surely when the tenant farmer was pressed on both sides in this way he was entitled to a reduction of rent corresponding to the loss he sustained.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANScalled the right hon. Gentleman to order on the ground that he was going beyond the Amendment under consideration.
    MR. FLAVINsaid that surely in the circumstances he was entitled to show to the Committee the loss that the tenant had sustained and the title he consequently had to a corresponding reduction of rent.
    MR. T. J. CONDONsaid if the Committee rejected the

    535
    Amendment he warned the Government that their Land Bill would be worthless in the eyes of the Irish people.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 180.—(Division List, No. 345).
    The announcement of the numbers was received with Nationalist cheers.
    MR. SMITH - BARRY*MR. SMITH - BARRY moved to insert at the end of Sub section (1) after the word "custody,"—
    "provided there shall not he taken into account, as part of the improvements made by the tenant, what is justly duo to the inherent capabilities of the soil."
    Those words were put down by the Chief Secretary himself a fortnight ago, but were recently withdrawn. They were used in the English Agricultural Holdings Act, and their application to landed property in Ireland was supported by a land reformer like Isaac Butt.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment, for a very simple reason. The Committee had just declined to declare the law in one direction—in favour of the tenant; and it would not be fair to declare it in the other direction—in favour of the landlord.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid the Chief Secretary was in favour of the principle of the Amendment, as he had shown by putting a similar Amendment on the Paper; and the Leader of the House, speaking on the Second Reading of the Land Bill introduced by his right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose last Session, declared that the inherent capabilities of the soil ought to be taken into account when considering the value of the tenants' improvements. They had the Chief Secretary, with all his vast knowledge of Ireland—[a laugh]—and also the Leader of the House, who also had had long and happy experience of that country [laughter]—in favour of the Amendment. Yet for some reason or other, though they believed it to be perfectly just, they did not feel inclined somehow to insert it in their Bill. [Laughter.] He did not see that any Government ought to be afraid to
    536
    do justice to any class if they thought justice was required. [Ironical cheers.] Ireland always wanted a grievance; at present the country was perfectly peaceful and at rest, and therefore a grievance must be got up, and the new grievance for Ireland was the inherent capabilities of the soil. [Laughter.] The eloquent and revolutionary Scotchman who had spoken in the Debate appeared to be a sympathiser with Jack Cade. ["Oh."] He believed Jack Cade was a respectable land reformer, whose views would compare favourably with those of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Laughter.] But the theory of this eloquent and revolutionary Scotchman was this—that if a man worked a farm, naturally he ought to pay no rent for the land he worked. There was a simplicity about the theory which settled the land question at once. But what did an owner of land really possess? He generally got 14s. an acre for his land; and suppose he let some of it for that figure. If he insisted on the man paying him 14s. an acre every year for the next five years, was he a robber? [Cheers.] He held it was as much a bargain as if he let the man a horse. Suppose he hired out a horse for a year and at the end of the year the man brought back the horse and said, "Yes, I agreed to pay you £20 for the horse, but now I will pay you £5, for I have greatly increased his inherent capacity." [Laughter.] His own view of the inherent capabilities of the soil was this—if he had let land which if properly worked ought to bear a fair rent, and if the land was properly worked for a certain time, he said the tenant of that land got repaid for his work and ought to pay him a moderate rent. [Cheers.] At the end of the term the improved condition consequent on the inherent capacity of the land also belonged to him. [Nationalist cries of. "No!"] Hon. Members said "No," because they did not believe that any land ought to belong to him. [Laughter.] That was where they were at issue. All he and his hon. Friends could do was to state what they believed to be their right. They believed the land to be theirs—[cries of "Oh!"]—and he hoped the House of Commons would leave it to be theirs, under the peculiar conditions, of course, on which it belonged

    537
    to them. They owned it in a different way from that in which the land was owned in England; but they did own it, because if no rent was paid the land fell back into their hands. He regretted that the Government had not seen their way to insert in the Bill what they themselves had openly stated to be in their view only in accordance with common justice. [Cheers.]
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that on those melancholy occasions, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman assisted at the wake of landlordism, it was always a satisfaction to find that his wit never failed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would never spoil a wake. [Cheers and laughter.] If he had to die, he marched to death with military glee; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman was always an Irishman. ["Hear, hear!" from COLONEL SAUNDERSON.] His wit and his eloquence alike charmed the House and engaged even those of his countrymen who were most opposed to him. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. and gallant Gentleman had cited several parallels. But in 1886 the Scotch were especially careful not to import into the Crofters Act the terms of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883; and the Act which had been passed for Scotland gave the whole of the improvements to the tenant. He had had the painful duty of reading the Debates on the Act of 1870, and one thing Mr. Gladstone laid down most distinctly—that whereas previously the improvements had belonged to the landlord, the intention of Parliament was by that Act to reverse the principle, and give the improvements to the tenant. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had given an amusing illustration of his argument. He would give; others. Did the papermaker, when his paper was made into bank-notes, get the inherent capacity of the rags? Did the man who sold pig-iron, when it was turned into watch-springs, get the inherent capacity of the pig-iron? [Cheers.] If the inherent capacity of the soil were followed out on the principles of the hon. and gallant Gentleman it would include the bread which was made from the wheat. These lettings were nominally made for 15 years, but in reality for ever. That was the tenants' contention. Irish landlords must remember that they were in an entirely different position from English
    538
    landlords. The latter had spent millions on the soil; they were native proprietors; they belonged to the people, and were of the same blood and religion. But the Irish landlords came across from England and with a high hand took the land from the Irish chieftains who owned it and who had lived with the people and spent themselves in their service. And those wretched serfs had made the country what it was. [Cheers.] It was their country and their soil, and they had again and again challenged the landlords to show where they had made any improvements. The landlords had been condemned by Liberal Unionists like Lord Cowper, who stood to his guns even when attacked by the Duke of Argyll. Irishmen had established again and again, from the days of the Devon Commission until now, that the tenants of Ireland had made the improvements. The tenants spent weary days dragging manure and even the very soil on their backs up mountain sides to create holdings; they waded into the sea for seaweed to make manure for their holdings, and when facts like these were borne in mind it was idle to contend that those improvements were not due to the sweat and toil of these miserable serfs, but rather to the inherent capacity of those and rocks. [Cheers.] He looked upon this clause as the low-water mark of acceptance, and he looked upon this Amendment as one which would make it impossible for the Irish Members to accept the Bill. [Cheers.] When the landlord let the soil, and it was easily drained, did hon. Gentlemen opposite contend that he did not take that fact into account when letting the land? If there was a lake, or a small cutting draining into a river, the fact that either existed in proximity to the holding was carefully taken into account. Those Gentlemen who had their interests attended to by agents and bog bailiffs, those Gentlemen who knew everything that was connected with the soil, and who, as Victor Hugo said, almost charged the tenants for the flies that the dogs ate—[laughter]—could not seriously tell him and his hon. Friends that they did not let the land with its inherent capacity. To the Irish landlords he said that though they had been at enmity for many years with their fellow-countrymen—["No,"]—yet whoever went over to

    539
    Ireland and breathed its air and mixed with its people, felt the pulse of Ireland burning in him. [Cheers.] In this business let the landlords agree with their fellow-countrymen, and for the sake of a few pounds give up their purple and fine linen, in order that their tenants and their wives might not walk in such mean rags. In discussing a question like this let Gentlemen who boasted of their high distinction in letting estates, remember that they were here arguing a question before Englishmen who had dealt liberally and even generously with their own estates. The question was a small one of a few pounds here and there, and he invited the landlords to seek for their reward not in percentages or in swollen rents, but in the consideration and feeling of the people among whom they lived. [Cheers.]
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that those who were disposed to rake up the history of the past in Ireland, or even if they examined the present condition of agriculture in some districts of that country, would find many causes which he would not say justified, but might account for, the eloquent speech of the hon. Member who had just spoken. It was unhappily true that the history of Ireland had been signalised generation after generation by successive confiscations. It was unhappily true that there were causes of difference—for which he did not believe that the present generation or any recent generation of Irish landlords were responsible—whether the practice in Ireland had been for the tenants rather than the landlords to make the improvements—fruitful of evil in the sister island. While it was easy for the hon. Member, who he knew felt strongly on the subject, and dealt with it in a manner which made his observations deeply impressive, to dwell on those aspects of Irish agriculture and Irish history, he would most earnestly impress on the Committee the absolute necessity in the interests of the Bill and in the interests of the classes, whether tenants or landlords—who, he believed, had much to gain from the Bill—of rejecting the Amendment now before the Committee, as it had rejected the Amendment which immediately preceded it. The Amendment which the Committee had been debating and had just
    540
    divided upon was an Amendment which had for its object to give to the tenant the whole of the inherent capabilities of the soil. The object of the present Amendment was to give to the landlord the whole of the inherent capabilities of the soil—["No, no!"]—to give to the landlord, in the words of the Amendment, "what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil." They had attempted, as the Chief Secretary had told the Committee, to formulate in language the division between the two classes interested in agriculture in Ireland and the proper method on which the division of profits on any improvement should be made. They had not succeeded, and they felt they must leave the law to the judgment of the Courts, guided as they had been by such evidence as had been given by Lord Justice Fitzgibbon and others. They had opposed, in the interests of the landlords, the Amendment on which they had just divided; and they opposed this Amendment, if not in the special interests of the tenants, in the interest of the Bill, refusing to commit themselves to the apparently hopeless task of formulating such a scheme to the Court. They believed that if they made such an attempt they would be foredoomed to disaster. They believed that if Gentlemen on that side of the House attempted to embark on the task, they would inflict upon the landlord class an immense injury. Whether the task were possible or not he was sure it ought not to be attempted in that Bill, and he earnestly urged that the Amendment should not be pressed, as he believed the interests of the landlords would not be served by it
    MR. CARSONsaid he did not rise to advise his friends to persist in going on with the Amendment. He only rose to say that it occurred to him that it was an extraordinary thing that in one year all their views were changed because they had removed from one side of the House to the other. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] When the Member for Montrose brought in his Bill last year he opposed it, and he was glad to say he had no greater supporter than the Leader of the House. [Laughter and cheers]. But they moved rapidly in these matters. In 1870, Mr. Isaac Butt said that no one would think of alleging

    541
    that the inherent capabilities of the soil were the property of the tenant. In 1883, on the Agricultural Holdings Bill, Mr. Shaw Lefevre said that no one would contend they were other than the property of the landlord. Again, Lord Herschell said practically the same thing. How were they to account for these transitions?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: What transition?
    MR. CARSON: I call it a transition when an hon. Member at one time professes certain principles as those that ought to be embodied in the Bill; and, when he is on the other side of the House, thinks it is not necessary that they should be put in the Bill of his own Government. [Cheers.] At the present moment, the right hon. and learned Member proceeded, the law was absolutely undefined, and when they asked the House to define it, they were told that it was impossible of definition, and that it is much better to leave the land as it stood. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear."] All he was attempting to do was to draw the attention of the Committee to what even Nationalist Members would admit—namely, that they were advancing at a pretty steady rate to the time which apparently would come when there would be no acknowledgment whatever of the landlord's rights to those things which had hitherto been admitted to be his absolute property. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid the right hon. and learned Gentleman had recalled some of the episodes of only 12 months ago. He was only too glad that the Leader of the House, and Gentlemen who sat beside him, including the Solicitor General for Ireland, and he was afraid he must add the hon. Member for South Tyrone, had been reminded of their attitude towards the Bill which he introduced last year. They had forgotten the arguments they then used against that Bill. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Not a bit."] He understood that the hon. Member for South Tyrone had advanced a doctrine upon the subject of increased letting value which he had never understood the hon. Member to hold.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: My right hon. Friend forgets that this was one of the points on which I had a perfectly
    542
    clear record, both in Ireland and here; I have never been able to hold any opinions other than that to which I have to-night given expression.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid he had always understood his hon. Friend to have gone to his constituents and protested that he would be no party to any legislation which did not give the fullest protection to the improvements of the tenants.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: That is exactly my position. I am now, and have always been, sincerely desirous of giving the tenant everything that is his. I have resolutely refused in my own constituency and here to give him anything that is not his.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid that, remembering the services which his hon. Friend had rendered on the Land Acts Committee and afterwards, he was most unwilling to impugn him personally. But he could not forget that the hon. Member, after the Bill of 1895 was produced, went to his constituents and advised them to support that Bill. That Bill, he was glad to say, contained the doctrine which the Chief Secretary had first, in a sort of way, inserted in this Bill and then had dropped. The Leader of the House could not take any very strong ground in his reply to the right hon. Member for Trinity College, for in the first draft clause the very proposal embodied in the Amendment was advanced. Of course he was entirely with the Government now, and rejoiced that they had dropped the doctrine of "inherent capability." [Mr. G. BALFOUR: They have not dropped it.] Was it not in the draft clause and have they not now abandoned it? ["Hear, hear!"] He did not himself care for pressing these personal and Party points. [Laughter.] But the Liberal Government suffered from them last year. They were taunted with "prairie value." Now it was the turn of Gentlemen opposite. They had abandoned their old doctrine and had taken that of their opponents. He did not care to press the point; he knew what Irish politics were. [Laughter] He had not forgotten 1885, and this was the same story to-day. Right hon. Gentlemen last year took up a certain line, but now, when they were in Government, they found themselves confronted with difficulties just as their opponents did. New

    543
    aspects of the Irish land question forced themselves upon the Government, who had most honourably come round to the views of the Opposition, and they had better admit it. [Hear, hear!"] There were good historic and economic reasons why an Irish landlord should not do all the things that the landlord did on an English estate. The holdings in Ireland were very small, and if the landlord had done for each that which the English landlord had done he would have been obliged to have been a millionaire. ["Hear, hear"!] That excluded the Irish landlord from any moral criminality for not making the improvements—he could not have done them. The fact remained that he had not made the improvements. He did not agree that the Irish landlord was a mere rent-charger; he was much more; but they would never get to the root of the difficulty until they recognised to the full the identity between the position of the Irish tenant and the copyhold tenant under the old English tenure. ["Hear, hear!"] The misfortune of the present moment was that the Government, having the opportunity of going to the root of this question, had shirked it and had left out all reference to these burning issues. ["Hear, hear!"] It was as sure as anything possibly could be that within two or three years from now they would have another Irish Land Bill, and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, and the right hon. Member for Dublin University knew quite well that even if the present Government were in office they would have one more slice taken off the Irish landlords. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman might well listen to what had been said by the hon. Member for North Louth—namely, that the landlords would have got far better terms with their own countrymen if they would only have met them upon equal conditions than they would get out of that House, which, he might say without offence, was very ignorant of all details of the Irish land question. [An HON. MEMBER: "So are you"; and cries of "Order!"] Some Gentleman said so was he. But he was a most admirable example. There was he, an English Member—or rather, a Scotch Member now [laughter]; at any rate, a British, and not an Irish, Member.
    544
    He devoted 36 or 37 days to sitting on a Committee endeavouring to master the intricacies of this question. He had been responsible for Irish administration, and yet some Gentleman said, and said only too truly, that he was no master of the Irish land question. But if he was not master of it, how much less were Gentlemen opposite? [Cheers.] He admitted it, but, if he knew little of it, the hon. Gentleman who interrupted him probably knew nothing. [Cheers.] The Government had at last come round to the view which the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government held and ex pressed last year, and he was glad at the conversion. ["Hear, hear!"] At the same time, he had some sympathy with Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway at the way in which they had been handled. [Cheers.]
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASUBY, who was received with cheers, said, I do not think it worth while, and I am certainly not willing, to reply at length to the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but I confess that when I have to deal with a speech like that delivered by my right hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway, the case is different, My right hon. and learned Friend and I have been political colleagues, we have fought side by side in times of stress, I have regarded him in times past with feelings of absolute; confidence, I have felt that on his judgment I could rely; but when he turns round and, on the subject of this Bill, makes an attack upon one who is certainly an old colleague and who I hope he will still consider an old Friend, I admit I cannot allow his observations to pass without some remarks. [Cheers.] He accuses me and the Government of which I form a part of having changed our opinions in the last year, and of having, as he would generously imply, for the sweets of office, given up opinions which we once held and once defended from this side of the House. ["No" and cheers.] Then, indeed, I feel that some explanation is due, if not to him, at all events to others who supported both him and me in those times and in times still more difficult. [Cheers.] Now, what are the facts of the case? The right hon. Gentleman opposite has claimed us as converts to his Bill, as having accepted the principles embodied

    545
    in his Bill, and he endorses the view of my right hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway that we have come round to opinions we combated last year and that we are converts to doctrines we repudiated twelve months ago. There is not a word of truth in that. [Cheers.] If we had become converts to the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite we should have accepted the Amendment we have just rejected. [Cheers.] What is our position? We have not committed ourselves to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends or to any other doctrine in this matter. We have not embodied any doctrine in this measure. Are we to he accused of having repudiated our former opinions because we do not formulate a doctrine on this subject in this Bill. [Cheers.] We have refused, either on the invitation of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on that side of the House or on this side of the House, to be tempted into the impossible task of dealing with a definition of this difficnlt question, but we have not adopted the doctrine advocated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends last year, and we have committed ourselves to no opinions, so far as I am aware, which we repudiated when the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was before the House. [Cheers.] I am perfectly certain that, though I may have in debate repudiated, as I shall be prepared to repudiate now, the doctrine that the tenants are to obtain every advantage which they might obtain from expenditure on the soil, no matter how far those advantages may be in excess of any rational or reasonable profit from the capital or labour expended by the tenant, I maintain now, as a practical politician, as one having something to do with the conduct of a great Measure before Parliament, as one knowing what Parliament can do and what Parliament cannot do, as one knowing what will help this Bill to pass and what will not help it to pass, as one knowing what will overload the Bill and what will not—I say we should be perfectly insane to embark on this problem, and therefore I refuse to be dragged into a declaration of opinion which requires us to formulate Amendments to this clause which I firmly believe will ruin the Bill. [Cheers.] Is there in that any political dishonour or anything that
    546
    deserves the accusation of my right hon. and learned friend? [Cheers.] I do not ask the House now in voting against this Amendment to express its dissent from the principles embodied in the Amendment, any more than I ask a dissent from the opinion expressed on the last Amendment. I ask the House to refuse an opinion, one way or the other on a question which I say ought not to be dealt with in this Bill if it is to have any chance of passing into law. That is the doctrine I lay before the House. It is the doctrine I stand by. It is a straightforward doctrine. It is honourable. It is consistent with everything I have said or done, and I trust that every follower of the Government will support the Government in this clause in the course they are going to pursue. [Cheers.]
    Amendment negatived amid loud cheers.
    MR. DALY MR. DALY moved to omit Sub-section (3).
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment. If the view of the hon. Member were carried out, it would certainly lead to litigation in every case where there was a contract. Where the tenant actually made an improvement in pursuance of a contract, it must be held that the improvement was made by arrangement with the landlord, and that the tenant should be deemed to have been compensated.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that if this sub-section stood alone, he would have considerable objection to it, not in every case, but as affecting some cases. But if it were qualified by Subsection (7), then he would take a different view of it. This was a sub-section purporting to deal with improvements effected in pursuance of a contract entered into by a tenant for valuable consideration, and he quite conceded that in the majority of cases, if a tenant had entered into a contract for valuable consideration, and had received that valuable consideration, he was equitably paid and compensated for the improvements, and was not entitled to, and ought not to get, credit for them. But it all turned on the question, what was valuable consideration? In an earlier part of the Bill the Government defined

    547
    it as money or money's worth, and if he thought those words were synonymous with money or money's worth, he should not say anything more on the Amendment. In Sub-section 7, in the majority of cases, valuably consideration was practically defined to mean money or money's worth; but in the last three lines of it there were words used which practically said that for the purpose of the present sub-section valuable consideration was not to mean money or money's worth. He would like to have some information from the right hon. Gentleman as to how this sub-section was affected by Subsection 7.
    MR. J. MORLEYsuggested that the substitution of the words "adequate consideration" for "valuable consideration" would meet the difficulty.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid he did not think that the alteration was necessary.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid it appeared to him that there was a great deal in the Amendment. The Attorney General was perfectly aware that, if a party entered into a contract to give a lease of a farm, the giving of the lease to the tenant might be held to be "a valuable consideration." If that were so, what protection was there for the tenant in his improvements? There was something in the minds of the framers of the Bill which he could not quite understand, because originally the words were, "money or money's worth." Why had they now substituted the ambiguous words, "valuable consideration"? The stipulation as to valuable consideration would be satisfied by £1, even though the improvements represented a sum of £500. In his opinion the provisions of Sub-section (7) of the clause would leave the tenants unprotected, and he therefore urged the Committee to be very cautious before they refused to adopt this very reasonable Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDpointed out that leases that were silent about improvements would not come within Sub-section (3). The operation of the sub-section was and must be confined to cases where in the body of the contract it was stipulated that the tenant should make the improvements.
    MR. T. M. HEALYthought that when words like those of the Amendment
    548
    had already been abandoned by the Government, it was a hopeless action to propose them anew. By valuable consideration, however, he trusted more was intended than some merely nominal consideration. The words "valuable consideration" were of the most rigid and inelastic character. No one who had witnessed, he was going to say the tragic, but at any rate the dramatic scene they had passed through could fail to be aware of the extreme struggles which were made and the conflicting opinions which the Ministry and those responsible for the Bill were endeavouring to accommodate. He did not think it was in any sense a discreditable circumstance. They had seen these mutations alike in Irishmen and Englishmen, in Liberals and Conservatives, in the search for proper words. He had suggested the words "adequate consideration," and thought that this would be a more equitable phrase. He urged the Government not to bind themselves in any hard-and-fast sense to the term "valuable consideration." He wished to express his thanks honestly and earnestly to the First Lord of the Treasury for the speech which he had delivered. Speaking for himself, and recognising as he had the difficulties of his position, that speech had made upon his mind a very deep impression, and he fully believed that it marked an epoch for the Government of this country to detach itself, to some extent at all events, from the extreme territorial position in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved in Subsection (4) to omit the word "valuable," and to insert instead thereof the word "adequate."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURcould not accept the Amendment, because it would involve the introduction into the Bill of a new legal expression. The expression "valuable consideration" had a well-known legal meaning, which it would be unwise to set aside by the adoption of any other expression.
    MR T. M. HEALYsaid that he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment for the time, but should raise the question at a subsequent period.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DILLON, who had an Amendment upon the Paper to substitute in Sub-section (4) the words "money or money's worth" in place of the words "valuable consideration," said that after what had fallen from the light hon. Gentleman he felt that it would be useless to press the Amendment, and therefore he would not move it. He would, however, move his next Amendment, which was to omit from Sub-section (6) the words:—
    "Provided that the rent may be allowed in respect of an improvement made by the tenant it made twenty years before the passing of the said Act, and not being a permanent building or reclamation of waste land."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that permanent buildings and waste lands were provided for already. However far back they were erected or reclaimed, the tenant could claim for them. In regard to other improvements, the tenant was to have the advantage of them if made subsequent to 1850. It would be clear that that would include almost all improvements which in 1896 were of present value. The Government had gone as far as could reasonably be expected of them in extending the period to 1850.
    MR. FLYNNcontended the sub-committee would hold that it should he utterly waste land before; the tenant could got any benefit whatever. If it was not utterly waste laud, but at any time liable to the interpretation that 50 years ago it had been reclaimed to some extent, then these tenants, who to his knowledge had reclaimed the whole mountain-side, would be excluded, and they would be liable to have a rent fixed. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if it was not possible to find some other definition of waste land.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he was afraid it would be an extremely thorny subject to embark upon.
    MR. McCARTANsupported the Amendment, which he said would affect no part of Ireland more than Ulster.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved, in the same sub-section, after the word "permanent," to insert the word "work." The Amendment, he said, was purely verbal,
    550
    and was designed to meet the case of embankments or sea walls which had been erected in so many parts of the country, and such works as the scouring and deepening of mines, on which large sums of money had been expended, and which could hardly be called a building.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURthought it quite reasonable that a solid embankment or sea wall should be considered a building, and he could meet him by proposing in the definition clause that a building should include any embankment or sea wall.
    MR. T. M. HEALYoffered to substitute for "work," any "permanent structure."
    MR. CARSONsaid he had known cases in Ireland where great difficulty had arisen in construing a "building," and so far as he was concerned he had not the least objection to "structure."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURexpressed his willingness to insert in the definition clause "structure or sea wall."
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. DILLON MR. DILLON moved, in Sub-section (7), to leave out all the words after the words "tenant of any improvement." The words he proposed to leave out were, he considered, dangerously wide. There was a case in Waterford of an unfortunate tenant who took a holding at 6d. an acre, and so improved it that the rent was raised to 5s. an acre, and it was held that the tenant had been compensated by enjoying the land for 6d. an acre. In all such cases the tenant laid out an enormous amount of labour in reclaiming mountain-land. Their doctrine of "enjoyment" had robbed many tenants in Ireland of the allowance to which they were entitled for their improvements.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that according to this sub-section mere enjoyment was not a kind of compensation. If a tenant had enjoyed for a great number of years land at 6d. an acre, and at the end it was worth 5s. or 8s. an acre, it would be difficult for any Court not to hold that he had by that enjoyment, coupled with the low rent, been compensated more or less for his improvement.
    MR. DILLONsaid the question arose, "what was the original condition of the

    551
    land and the amount of money spent on it by the tenant?" His experience was that in most reclamation holdings the tenant never got adequate interest for the outlay of his labour and capital. In no case would any of those holdings pay a man to reclaim them as capitalist undertakings. He believed that the doctrine of enjoyment had acted very unfairly and unjustly.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. M. HEALY MR. M. HEALY moved to omit the following words from Sub-section (7):—
    "and in the case of an improvement made in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, such intention shall be implied where not expressed."
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLhoped the Government would yield on this point. He had formed the opinion, after careful study, that this clause would give rise to more litigation and more heartburning between landlord and tenant than almost any other part of the Bill. All a landlord would have to do, unless this Amendment was accepted, would be to produce a lease, such as the leases on the Kingston Estate, referred to by an hon. Member, and the moment that was done the function of the Com missioner ceased and he must at once imply that there was an intention which would amount to a contract debarring a tenant from the benefit of the Act.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid no such difficulty as that just suggested would arise. The object of the clause was to enact that whenever a tenant made an agreement in connection with improvements he should be bound by that agreement. It only became necessary to introduce the words expressed or implied in order to guard against any reduction or abatement being regarded as compensation, unless the reduction or abatement was made for the purpose of compensating the tenant for the improvement he had made. Otherwise it would be perfectly possible for a landlord to fall back on any reduction he might make owing to agricultural depression as compensation for a tenant's improvement.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. SMITH-BARRY*MR. SMITH-BARRY moved, in subsection (7), to leave out the words "entered into for valuable consideration." The hon. Member expressed the opinion that under the clause as drafted hardship might arise to the landlord. He instanced the case of a holding upon which a house had been erected, and upon which the tenant had to pay rent. By the wording of the section he would now be able to claim that the building was erected in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, which, though not expressed was implied, and although up to the present he had been charged rent upon it, he would, by the clause as it stood, be no longer liable to pay such rent. He was sure that was not the intention of the Government, but, as that might be the effect of the section in its actual operation, some amendment was necessary to obviate what might be an injustice to the landlord.
    MR. CARSONsaid, that so far as he could see, the object of the Amendment was only to make clear the meaning of the clause. There was no difference between the intention of the Government and the intention of the Mover of the Amendment. So far as he could see, it would be impossible almost to construe the sub-section unless some alteration in this direction was made.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that no attempt had been made to define the words "valuable consideration." It was simply stated that in certain circumstances valuable consideration should not be held to have been given. He was afraid that if the words were left out great confusion might arise.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the words "money or money's worth" were omitted from the Bill on the suggestion of Mr. Justice Bewley, who was really responsible for all the Government Amendments.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid it was new to him from a constitutional point of view that any judge of the High Court could be consulted on a question of haute politique such as this, and he thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Louth must have been misinformed.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was not misinformed. He asserted that Mr. Justice Bewley, in concert with the

    553
    Government, went over the original draft of this Bill, sent over Amendments, and that the Amendments had been accepted, and that the omission of "money and money's worth" was due to Mr. Justice Bewley, and the insertion of the words "valuable consideration" was also due to him.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, in justice to Mr. Justice Bewley he ought to contradict that statement. "Valuable consideration" was put in on his initiative, and those words, with all their faults, were entirely due to the humble individual who was now addressing the Committee.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that, with great deference to the right hon. Gentleman, and with a full acceptance of what he said, he should very much like to see the copy of the Bill as marked by Mr. Justice Bewley and the Amendments he sent over to the Government.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND moved, in Sub-section (7), to leave out the word "intention" and to insert instead thereof the word "object."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland) moved, in Sub-section (8), after the words "sub-sections" to insert the word "one," in order to provide that Sub-section (1), as well as Sub sections (2) and (4), of Section (5) of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, should not have effect in the case of applications to fix a fair rent. As he understood it, the effect of the acceptance of the Amendment would be simply to extend to estates bought under the Landed Estates Court the same law as was now applied to estates that had remained in the hands of the old landlords. As the clause stood without this section, the gombeen man, the speculative buyer who had gone through the Landed Estates Court and bought property, would be placed in a far better position than any other landlord in the country, because, in the case of the ordinary landlord, the presumption would be in favour of the, tenant, while in the case of the landlord who had bought in the Estates Court or by private contract the presumption
    554
    would be in favour of the landlord. He was entirely unable to see the grounds for that distinction in favour of perhaps the worst class of landlord.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsupported the Amendment and pointed out that, in the original draft of the Act of 1870, not one single one of these exceptions down to six existed in Clause 5. They were inserted in consequence of the Debate on the Second Reading, when the landlords took the point that the presumption in the case of tenancies where they had been purchased in the Landed Estates Court ought to be different to that in other cases. Why, he would ask, should anyone seek to secure for the gombeen man, who purchased under the Landed Estates Act, a presumption which no Irish gentleman could secure for himself? He could understand the landlords fighting for their old historical position, but he would urge the landlord Party in that House not to insist on putting themselves lower down in the scale of humanity than the gombeen man.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment. The reason why the presumption that all improvements were made by the tenant was not extended to cases in which the owners were purchasers of the Landed Estates Court was that every right which the tenant had was supposed to have been set out in the agreement. It was well known that every right which every such tenant had was supposed to be thus set out, and that it was supposed he had no other right. To give him now benefit of the presumption that all improvements were made by him would be to throw on the purchaser a burden he would be unable to bear, as he had no materials to prove what took place before his purchase.
    MR. DILLONasked what right, if this were refused, the tenants under the Landed Estates Court could have to the claim to have fair rents fixed?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the tenant would have that right under the general law of the land.
    MR. DILLONsaid, why not confer the right now? They were going to perpetuate a decision in favour of land-jobbers and, as they were called in Ireland, land sharks.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLdid not think the Committee understood the effect of the clause as it stood. If Subsection 8 were left in its present form it would be inferred by the Courts that Sub-sections 1, 3, 5 and 6, Section 5, of the Act of 1870 applied to improvements under this Bill, the well-known maxim of law, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Suppose the case of an estate sold ten years ago; the improvements made by the tenants on the estate previously to such sale would be shut out.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that they had spoken hitherto of estates that had changed hands in the Landed Estates Court, but, unless the Amendment were accepted, estates would be excluded which had passed simply by private contract from one man to another. The result would be that any man in Ireland who had bought an estate would be freed from the presumption with regard to improvements to which other landlords who held land that had been in their families for generations would be subject. He did not see why the distinction in favour of these landlords should be maintained. Parliament had the right a fortiori to take away from these landlords this small and entirely unjust privilege of having a presumption in their favour when it was against the interests of others.
    MR. KNOXsaid it would have been absolutely impossible for the tenant to get anything about his improvement one way or the other on his rent. As a matter of fact, when Lord Waterford was selling his estate—in Derry, he believed—the tenants there tried to get what they considered to be their rights under the Ulster custom on the rental and went to the Court of Appeal, but it was held by the Court not to be the sort of thing that was to go with the rent. If the tenant had gone to the Landed Estates Court and tried to get his rent amended by the insertion of his improvements, he would have been told that the statement was entirely irrelevant, and that the improvements, whoever made them, belonged to the landlord. This was a matter which the tenant could not have got from the Landed Estates Court, and, therefore, the purchaser would not in any way be prejudiced.
    MR. T. M. HEALYwished to ask whether the old Irish landlords opposite really desired to identify themselves with the land jobber who had bought bankrupt estates in the Irish Landed Estates Court for the purpose of exacting unfair rents from the tenants. It was this class of man who had brought the land laws about the heads of the Irish landlords, and who had brought the Land League into existence. Where did such men as Scully get their land from? Why did not the old landlords cut themselves apart from these State gombeen men? ["Hear, hear!"]
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that personally he had no objection to the Amendment. [Nationalist cheers.] There might be a case in which a man might have purchased land at a fair price in the Landed Estates Court, and have spent money upon the property and made it more valuable, and it would be hard upon him that he should be deprived of his property. He, however, admitted that, as a general rule, the improvements on Irish land were effected by the tenants and not by the landlords. [Nationalist cheers.] As he had already said, he had no objection to the Amendment. [Nationalist cheers.]
    SIR ROBERT PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid that he entirely agreed with what had been said by his hon. and gallant Friend near him. [Nationalist cheers.] The tenants upon the estates which had been purchased in the Landed Estates Court were in a worse position than those upon the old estates. [Nationalist cheers.] He might take that opportunity of telling the hon. Member for Louth that there were some Irish landlords who did not date their estates from the Cromwellian settlement. ["Hear, hear!"]
    SIR J. COLOMBsaid that, if the Amendment were carried, they would be breaking Parliamentary titles and the conditions under which titles were conveyed.
    MR. SMITH-BARRYagreed with the hon. Member for Louth that land-jobbers had brought much mischief on the landlords, but that the proposals before the Committee required further consideration.
    MR. DANEappealed to the Attorney General whether this would not be

    557
    breaking Parliamentary title at all, but only doing an act of the simplest justice?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that, in all the circumstances, he would accept the Amendment. [Nationalist cheers.]
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved, in the same line, after the word "two," to insert the word "three." He said the section which he sought to maintain should not be applied was the section which provided that the improvements which were made upwards of 20 years before the passing of the Act should be excluded from consideration. He should be quite satisfied if the Government recognised that buildings stood in a wholly different position from any other class of improvements, and limited it to buildings.
    MR. GERALD BALFOTRsaid it was not correct to describe this as a 20-years' limit. It was a 46-years' limit. The presumption, according to the Bill, was to hold in favour of the tenants in respect of tenants' improvements made subsequent to 1850. It was only in the case of improvements made before that date that there; was no presumption in favour of the tenants. But they had to consider not only the desirability of the improvements, and the difficulty of proving who made them, but also whether, since they were made, the tenancy had not changed in such a way that the subsequent tenant could not properly be held to be the predecessor in title.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYpointed out that the Amendment would not operate where there was a change of tenancy.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURadmitted that that was so, but he contended that in these matters it was necessary to have some sort of limit behind which it should not go, and it did not appear to him that 46 years was an unreasonable limit.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY, in supporting the Amendment, moved by Mr. T. M. Healy, that Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, should not have effect in the case of applications to fix a fair rent, pointed out that the buildings were often more than 46 years old, and the older they were the more difficult it was for the tenant to prove his case.
    MR. DILLONspoke in a similar sense, and said that while, where buildings were erected or reclamations made before 1850, the tenant was put upon his proof, it was almost impossible for the tenant to produce it The sub-section was one of the most unreasonable restrictions in the Bill, and he hoped the Government would give way.
    MR. T. M. HEALY, while insisting on the importance of the Amendment and reserving his right to raise the question in a different form, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR MR. T. P. O'CONNOR moved to insert, as a proviso:—
    "In the province of Ulster, a holding shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be subject to the Ulster tenant-right custom."
    He stated that an Amendment to the same effect stood in the name of two of the Government's staunchest supporters, and he was certain also that the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. T. W. Russell), if he were free from the trammels and imitations of office, would give the Amendment his strongest and most earnest support. This support from the Government's own side showed that tenant opinion in Ireland was unanimous in its favour, altogether irrespective of political party. It should be remembered that to a large extent the Ulster custom which was intended to be conferred had been destroyed by legislation. The object of the Amendment was to meet an evil admitted by everyone and to throw on the landlords the burden of responsibility in respect of proof.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he had explained in introducing the Bill why it was impossible for the Government to accept a proviso of this kind. The Ulster custom was not a uniform custom, and the acceptance of any proviso of this description would involve an attempt to define the Ulster custom. A good many Land Acts had been passed during the last few years, but in none of them had an attempt been made to define that custom. To insert the Amendment would, he believed, act to the detriment of the tenants of Ulster rather than to their benefit. Where

    559
    the custom existed safeguard it by all means, but this was not a reason for assuming that it existed where it had not been proved to exist.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he had a strong impression that the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself not only to safeguard it but to enlarge its rights and privileges.
    MR. RENTOULshowed that in the Law Courts there was practically no definition of "fraud" and "cruelty," and in view of the fact that there were many important subjects capable of being dealt with without definition, it would be impossible in each individual case to ascertain the existence of the Ulster custom.
    MR. PINKERTONwas sorry that the Member for South Tyrone was not allowed to speak again. [Laughter.] By passing the Amendment they would simply legalise the Ulster custom on the small estates. On the large estates, of course, there was no difficulty. The onus of proof would be thrown on the landlord.
    MR. KNOXagreed that with large estates there was no difficulty. Now, when every tenant had a right of free sale, and when even Ulster custom tenants habitually sold out not under their Ulster custom right, but under their statutory right of free sale, it had become increasingly difficult to prove in the case of smaller estates that the Ulster custom existed. The difficulty therefore was a practical one, and just such a difficulty as ought to be met by an Amendment like that of his hon. Friend which created a presumption. Unless something of this sort was done, the tenants in all the westerly counties of Ulster would lose advantages they had hitherto possessed owing to the difficulty in obtaining proof.
    MR. JORDANsaid the Leader of the House had given a promise that he would safeguard the interests of the Ulster tenants. Was he going to run away from his pledge?
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the undertaking of the First Lord of the Treasury was to introduce a clause protecting tenants holding under the Ulster custom from being in any way prejudiced by the provisions of the Bill. He did not undertake to vary the law as to the Ulster custom.
    560
    The clause carrying out his right hon. Friend's promise, which would be moved at the proper time, was as follows:—
    "Nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect any right or benefit exercised or enjoyed in or by virtue of any of the usages legalised in the first and second sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870."
    As to the Amendment now before the Committee, he pointed out that it had been found impossible to define the Ulster tenant-right custom, because, as Sir Edward Sullivan pointed out in his judgments in several cases, it varied very much on estates which were only a few miles distant from each other. Everybody would be anxious to provide that the Ulster custom should apply to all holdings. It was impossible, however, to effect such a result, as they could not define it, inasmuch as it was not uniform.
    MR. McCARTANhoped his hon. Friend would press the Amendment to a Division, because the clause which had been read out by the Attorney General for Ireland did not even refer to the Ulster custom at all, but referred to that unfortunate word which had done so much harm in Ulster, namely the word "usages." If the Ulster custom had been particularised in the Act of 1870 they would hear no more of "usages" now. That word had been legalised so that every kind of infringement might be committed on the Ulster custom. As to the contention of the Attorney General that it was impossible to define the Ulster custom, he had to say that that custom was well-known throughout the whole province of Ulster, and would be dearly fought for if it was attempted to be varied in any way. It always included fair rents, tenant-right, and free sale, so that there was no necessity for any definition of it. So far as he knew, the Ulster custom was admitted in every Land Court in the province, and why should it not be presumed that the custom existed until the contrary was proved?
    MR. DANEsaid that this was a most important matter to the tenants of Ulster. They stood on a different footing to tenants in the rest of Ireland. It was of the greatest possible importance to them that the Amendments should be accepted having regard to the 4th Clause which would apply all over Ireland in-

    561
    cluding Ulster. There was no opposition to this Amendment from the representatives of the landlords below the Gangway.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I object to it very strongly.
    MR. DANE: said that that was the first note of objection from that quarter.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The custom has never existed on my estate.
    MR. DANE: That made it all the more important that the Amendment should be accepted. Every tenant on the hon. and gallant Gentleman's estate would be met with the objection that the custom never existed. He contended that in Ulster the onus ought not to be on the tenant to show that the custom existed, but with the landlord to show that it did not exist. He had hoped that there would be no opposition from the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends and he still hoped they would not oppose the Amendment. He quite admitted that it was absolutely impossible to define the custom, but no definition was necessary. All they asked here was that in the province of Ulster some usage should be deemed to exist.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he did not deny the existence of the Ulster custom, but he would point out that in a very considerable part of Ulster it did not prevail. He thought it would be very unfair if they extended the Ulster custom and bound it by a geographical limit. Why did not they propose to extend it all over Ireland. His objection to the Amendment was the impossibility of defining what the custom was.
    MR. DILLONsaid the Attorney General professed his inability to define the expression custom, and yet this section opened with the expression, "Where an application is made to the Court to fix a fair rent for a holding which is not subject to the Ulster tenant-right custom or any usage corresponding thereto."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDstated that all the usages prevalent in the province of Ulster were, in the first section of the Act of 1870, designated under the one general word "Ulster custom." Those usages varied from case to case, but they were all covered by the one general term.
    MR. DILLONsaid if that were so then every tenant would have to prove
    562
    in all their details the usages that were prevalent. All that was asked for by the Amendment was that the presumption should be in favour of the tenant, and its object was to remove what would be an enormous difficulty to the tenant in proving the existence of the Ulster custom on his holding. The landlord, who was in possession of records and other documents, was in a far better position in this respect than the tenant, and, therefore, it would be inflicting no injustice on him to require him to prove that the custom did not exist on his estate if the contrary was assumed. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid the Chief Secretary seemed to imagine that none of his predecessors had attempted to grapple with this question, but he would remind him that in the 7th section of the Bill of last year were words precisely similar to those in the Amendment before the Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought there need be no difficulty in framing a definition of the custom; it might be taken from the interpretation of it which Lord Chancellor Law had given. He appealed to the hon. member for South Tyrone to support the Amendment, for he must know as well as any member representing an Ulster constituency that this was a condition which the tenant farmers of Ulster were particularly bent on procuring. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid they were all familiar with the fact of the insertion of the 7th Clause in the Bill of last year, but the late Chief Secretary never succeeded in getting that Bill into Committee The proposal was therefore, never discussed in detail, and he ventured to say that if it had been the late Chief Secretary would have found himself face to face with the same difficulty which had prevented the Government from introducing a similar clause into the present Bill. The Government could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that the Government would find that Ulster would bitterly resent their action on this question.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 66; Noes, 119.—(Division List, No. 346.)
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON COLONEL SAUNDERSON moved to omit Sub-section (9).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that under the Act of 1870 the tenant rights enjoyed in the province of Ulster were legalised and covered by the expression "the Ulster custom," and it was a matter of indifference which phrase was to be used.
    Mr. McCARTAN, Mr. JORDAN and Mr. T. M. HEALY thought the expression "Ulster custom" should be used.
    Amendment agreed to.
    On the Motion "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
    SIR THOMAS LEAsaid he looked with very considerable doubt on the clause, and he was afraid before many years they would have to have an Amending Bill in consequence of its working.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND*THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND moved the following new clause:—

    LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT, 1870.
    "Nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect any right or benefit exercised or enjoyed in or by virtue of any of the usages legalised in the first and second sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870."
    MR. T. M. HEALYproposed to insert after the word "benefit" the words "or presumption."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    MR. DILLON (for Mr. ROCHE)MR. DILLON (for Mr. ROCHE) moved the following new clause:—

    PROVISIONS AS TO RE-INSTATEMENT OF EVICTED TENANTS AND SALE OF HOLDING.
    (1.) In case upon any joint application with a view to reinstatement of an evicted tenant or to the sale of the holding the Land Commission declares as a condition that any sum is reasonably payable in respect of arrears or costs, they may, if they think fit, grant one-half of such sum out of the moneys at their disposal for the purposes of this Act.
    (2.) If owing to the destruction or dilapidation of the houses or farm buildings or to other waste on the holding it seems expedient to the Land Commission that a free grant should be made to assist in rebuilding or repairing, they may grant to the applicant for that purpose a sum not exceeding one hundred pounds out of the moneys at their disposal for the purposes of this Act.
    (3.) For the purposes of this section of this Act the sum of two hundred thousand pounds shall be charged on the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, and placed at the disposal of the Land Commission.
    (4.) The Land Commission may pay out of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund sums not exceeding in the aggregate the sum above mentioned, and may, with the consent of the Treasury, borrow the whole or any part of such sum on the security of the said fund.
    (5.) Sections 59 and 64 of the Irish Church Act, 1869, as amended by the Irish Church Act Amendment Act, 1881, shall apply in like manner as if the provisions of this Act were the provisions referred to in those sections, and the advances may be guaranteed by the Treasury, and the sums required to meet the guarantee shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund accordingly.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the last sub-section of the clause was out of order.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that for reasons fully stated early in the Session the Government could not accept the clause. It would show favour to the evicted tenants beyond that shown to the tenants who had not been evicted, but had continued, often under great difficulties to pay their rents.
    MR. DILLONsubmitted that no argument could justify the giving of the relief proposed out of the Church Funds to the Irish landlords.
    MR. HARRINGTONbrought up the following clause:—

    PRE-EMPTION REPEAL.
    "So much of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, as gives to a landlord a right of pre-emption on the sale of a holding by the tenant shall be and the same is hereby repealed."
    The acceptance of this clause would tend to remove a very grievous blot in the Land Act of 1881. It would secure that, in certain estates in Ireland, where some friction existed between landlord and tenant, the tenant would be able to go into the market and sell, as he used to do on all well-managed estates. It would compel a few unreasonable men, who

    565
    having some small difference with their tenants would not give them the right to sell, to do what the great majority of landlords did.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he was afraid they could not accept this new clause. It was perfectly true that the right of pre-emption by the landlord was not used in a very large number of cases, but he thought it was also true, to some extent, that the existence of this right, which was very reasonable in itself, somewhat checked the excessively high prices which were now given for tenant right. So long as the right of free sale existed unchecked, there would always be a danger that although the power of the landlord to exact full competition rent was abolished, the evil would reproduce itself whenever a sale took place, inasmuch as the incoming tenant would pay a full competition rent for the tenant right. It was generally acknowledged that this right of preemption did exercise a check, perhaps not to a very large extent, upon these very high prices paid for tenant right, and as such they thought these reasonable rights should be maintained.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the Government, by way of compromise, at all events to limit the landlord's right of pre-emption to bonâ fide sales of farms.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid it would be calamitous if this Amendment were not accepted.
    MR. J. J. SHEEmentioned one extraordinary anomaly in connection with this right of the landlord. In the case of a marriage settlement it had been decided that a transfer from father or mother to son or daughter on the occasion of marriage required the usual notice to the landlord, and that the landlord had the right to buy and prevent the transfer under the marriage settlement. That had been availed of in some cases by the landlord to grab the farm of a tenant who merely desired to make a settlement in the interest of son or daughter.
    MR. T. M. HEALYurged that the right of pre-emption had not worked in the way originally intended, particularly in regard to family settlements.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURagreed that it was unreasonable that this right of pre-emption should exist in the case of marriage settlements. The Government
    566
    were prepared to consider the matter and to bring up a clause on Report excluding cases of the kind.
    MR. DOOGANcited the case of a tenant in Ulster, who, on selling his farm, gave the necessary notice to the landlord. The landlord then went into Court and succeeded in his contention to have "true value" fixed. He broke up the sale which had taken place, paid the vendor the Court price, which was about half what he had already sold at, and then resold to the original purchaser at the same price which he had agreed to pay the outgoing tenant. So that, under this provision of "pre-emption," he was enabled to set aside the Ulster custom of free sale and confiscate a large amount of the tenant's own improvements.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYmade an appeal to the Committee to come to a decision. They had to deal with the Irish Estimates to-morrow.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CLANCY (for MR. HAYDEN)MR. CLANCY (for MR. HAYDEN) moved the following clause:—

    AMENDMENT OF SECTION 57 OF THE LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881.
    "Where a tenant of a holding to which, but for the eviction of such tenant or of his predecessor in title from such holding, the law applicable to present tenancies as amended by this Act would apply has been or shall be reinstated, or where a tenant of a holding, or his predecessor in title, who was in occupation of such holding as tenant before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty three, and whose tenancy was before that date or has since been determined otherwise than by eviction, continues in occupation of his holding, then in each of such cases the tenant shall be deemed to be a present tenant notwithstanding anything contained in Section 57 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, and the said section shall be and the same is here by modified accordingly."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he could not accept this clause. A landlord might reinstate a tenant on the express understanding that he was to be a future tenant, and it would obviously be a hardship that the law should step in and say that he was to be a present tenant. There was a danger, if they enacted that a tenant was always to be reinstated as a present tenant, that the landlord might say that in these

    567
    circumstances he would not reinstate at all. It was a reasonable thing that a landlord should have power to make a future tenant into a present tenant, whether he had previously occupied the holding or not, and the Government were prepared to accept a new clause to that effect.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid there was one case of hardship which had nothing to do with eviction. It was the case of the tenant whose lease dropped before the 22nd of August 1881, and whose landlord delayed in making him a further lease until the period under which he could be made a present tenant—January 1st 1883—had elapsed. The case was brought forward in 1887 and a section to provide for it was put in, but under the pressure of the landlord party, the present Judge Gibson, who was then Attorney General, took these words, which made the clause nugatory:—
    "Provided that the Court, having regard to all the facts of the case, is of opinion that the making of such lease was deferred with the object of defeating the provisions of the Land Act of 1881."
    Although they knew, as a matter of fact that the intention was to defeat the Act, it was found impossible to dive into the sanctuary of any man's mind, and they had, therefore, been unable to bring the necessary proof that this was the object of the delay. He would suggest that as Judge O'Hagan decided that the delay or defeat should be something active and not passive, in the Repeal Section, the Government might put in a proviso repealing the last few lines of the section of the Act of 1887 which he had quoted.
    MR. TULLYobserved that it would be a serious blot if this Bill became law without something being done for the future tenants. The Chief Secretary had said that the number of such tenants had been exaggerated, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman, from his experience in his own constituency of South Leitrim that there was no exaggeration about the matter, hundreds of families having been turned into future tenants and deprived absolutely of any benefits under the Land Acts. This had been especially the case where the people happened to live in backward districts, and were ignorant of the rights conferred upon them by the Land Act of 1881. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to adopt, at any rate, some Amendment
    568
    which would give these people the right to go into Court and have a fair rent fixed.
    MR. FLAVINstated that a large number of these future tenancies existed in county Kerry, and he urged that some Amendment should be adopted with a view of admitting them to the benefits of the Land Acts.
    Clause negatived.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLhad the following new clause on the Paper:—

    FUTURE AND PRESENT TENANCIES.
    "(1) Where a tenancy in a holding begun not less than five years next before the tenant thereof applies to have a fair rent fixed for the holding, and the tenant so applying either has at any time, whether before or after the passing of this Act, been a present tenant of that holding or of the substantial part thereof or was before the twenty-third day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, a tenant of that holding or of the substantial part thereof, the tenancy shall be a present tenancy within the meaning of the Land Law Acts, and the application shall be deemed to have been made by the present tenant.
    (2) If at any time the landlord and tenant so agree, a future tenancy shall become a present tenancy within the meaning of the Land Acts."
    He observed that as the first part of the clause referred to what might be called future tenants, and as the Chief Secretary had already intimated that he could not accept any clause in that direction, he should not move that part of it. Indeed, after such a prolonged sitting—the House had been sitting twelve and a half hours—he hardly felt competent to argue or debate it. He apprehended, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the second sub-section. He would only move Sub-section (2) of the clause.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he had no objection to accepting the principle of the Amendment, but there was a clause on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, which he thought would meet the case better than that proposed by the Right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid in that case he would withdraw the clause.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WALTER MORRISON*MR. WALTER MORRISON (York, W. R., Skipton) moved the following clause:—

    FAIR RENT APPLICATIONS.
    "When upon the hearing of an application to fix a fair rent, the court is of opinion that the tenant of a holding has wilfully or through neglect caused the said holding to become deteriorated, the court shall thereupon dismiss the said application."
    He said it was known that when an Irish tenant was thinking of applying for a fair rent, he was apt to allow his holding to go into a bad condition to induce the valuer to value low. That was anticipated by Mr. Lalor at the time of the passing of the Act of 1881, who, in proposing a different method to that proposed under that Bill, said that one effect of the Bill as it stood would be that if the tenant did make improvements, he would allow the improvements to run out in order that the land should be in as bad a state as possible when a valuation came to be made. He proposed that where the Land Court was satisfied that there had been wilful deterioration and waste on the part of the tenant, he should be excluded from the right to apply for a reduction of his rent.
    COLONEL WARINGcalled attention to the constant interruption proceeding from the Benches opposite.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! I request the hon. Member for Mid Cork to keep order.
    MR. MORRISONsaid he would not detain the Committee, but would move the clause standing in his name.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it appeared to him that this matter was already sufficiently dealt with under the existing law. He had no doubt whatever that, if the Committee arrived at the decision that the tenant had wilfully caused the holding to be deteriorated with the view of having the rent fixed at a lower figure than it would otherwise have been fixed, it would come under Section 9 of the Act of 1881, as being unreasonable conduct, and the Court would do exactly what his hon. Friend wished. If, on the other hand, it merely arrose from neglect or bad farming, without any wilfully bad intention, he thought it would be too severe a penalty to deprive him of his rent.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the clause was really unnecessary, and he hoped, under the circumstances, the hon. Member would withdraw it. ["Hear, hear!"]
    Clause negatived.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved the following new clause, [which in the Bill, as reprinted is Clause 39]:—

    PROVISION FOR AGREEMENTS BY LANDLORDS AND TENANTS IN CERTAIN CASES.
    (1.) The landlord and tenant of any holding may at any time (whether a statutory term is current in respect of the holding or not) agree in the prescribed manner in regard to all or any of the matters following:—

    (a) the consolidation of the holding with any other holding or portion of a holding or the making of any addition to the holding;

    (b) the assignment or surrender of portion of the holding;

    (c) the creation of a present tenancy in any holding;

    (d) the abridgement of any statutory term in the holding; and

    (e) the fair rent of the holding and the date at which the statutory term is to commence and the duration thereof.

    (2.) Where any such agreement is made the tenancy in the holding shall (in the absence of a provision to the contrary) as and from the date of the agreement, be a present tenancy.
    (3.) Any such agreement on being filed in the prescribed manner with the Land Commission shall have the same effect and consequents in all respects as if the matters agreed to therein had been determined by the Land Commission.
    Clause read a First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.) moved the following clause, which he said he hoped the Government would accept:—

    GLEBE PURCHASE.
    For the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts and of this Act, so far as same deals with land purchase, any ecclesiastical person who, in connection with or by virtue of his ecclesiastical office or duties, holds and occupies any glebe or residence either with or without land in connection with and forming part of such holding, at and subject to a yearly rent payable by such ecclesiastical person to the governing body recognised by law of the community to which he belongs, shall be deemed and taken to be an occupier of a holding to which such Land Purchase Acts and this Act for that purpose applies, as fully and effectually as if such glebe or residence were an agricultural holding; and such ecclesiastical person shall be at liberty to apply

    571
    to the Land Commission Court for the purchase of such holding; and such Land Commission is hereby authorised and empowered to advance such sum or sums of money as may be necessary to enable such ecclesiastical person so in occupation as aforesaid to purchase such holding: Provided always, that such purchase, when made, shall he and enure to the use and benefit of the governing body recognised by law of the community to which such purchaser shall at the time of such purchase belong, on such terms and conditions as such governing body of such community may by rules or orders for that purpose prescribe, and which rules or orders such governing bodies are hereby respectively authorised and empowered to make within three calendar months after this Act shall come into operation: and provided also, that no such ecclesiastical person so purchasing such a glebe or residence, or ecclesiastical holding as aforesaid, shall in respect of such glebe or residence, or ecclesiastical holding as aforesaid, be entitled to make any claim for compensation under any of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act 1870, or under any of the provisions of any Land Act since passed, or under this Act.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Government could not accept the new clause, and hoped the hon. Member would not press it.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved the following clause:—

    TOWN PARKS.
    In the construction of sub-section two of the fifty-eighth section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1881, the word "town" shall be construed to moan a town having a population according to the last census of at least three thousand.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he felt compelled to oppose the clause.
    Clause negatived.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved the following clause:—

    TOWN PARKS.
    In the construction of the seventh section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1887, the word "agricultural" shall be construed to mean agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral.
    Clause read a First and Second time and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    COLONEL McCALMONTmoved the following clause:—

    JUDICIAL RENT MAY BE FIXED WHERE CONTRACT PROVIDES FOR RESUMPTION OF HOLDING BY THE LANDLORD.
    "Where any holding is held under a contract of tenancy, empowering the landlord to resume the whole or any part thsreof for the purpose of building or planting, a judicial rent may be fixed in respect thereof, without prejudice to the right of the landlord to resume possession at any time for the bonâ fide purposes aforesaid,
    572
    upon the terms contained in the said contract of tenancy, or, if no terms are contained therein, upon such terms as a landlord can be authorised to resume a holding, or any part thereof, under Section 5 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.
    He explained that the object of the clause was to enable a certain number of bonâ fide agricultural tenants to enjoy the benefits of the Land Acts from which they had hitherto been excluded through the action of the Judges. He referred to the case of the tenants in the neighbourhood of Ballycastle, and said he did not think it right that these men should be excluded from the benefits of the Act. He did not think the clause affected the landlords in any way, and he appealed to the Government to accept it as a measure of justice. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Government adopted the course he proposed they would put an end to a great deal of the friction that now went on.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he hoped, after what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, the Government would accept the Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid he should like to have time for the further consideration of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposal.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he could only repeat his hope that the Government would give way on this point. He referred to a number of other cases besides that of Ballycastle in support of his contention. The clause provided that where any holding was held under a contract of tenancy empowering the landlord to resume the whole or any part thereof for the purpose of building or planting, a judicial rent might be fixed in respect thereof without prejudice to the right of the landlord to resume possession at any time for the bonâ fide purposes named upon the terms contained in the contract of tenancy, or if no terms were contained therein, upon such terms as a landlord could be authorised to resume a holding or any part thereof under the 5th section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1881. Seeing that the Government had already accepted an Amendment which was based upon the same principle as the present Amendment, he thought they were rather inconsistent in refusing to accept the latter. The clause prejudiced

    573
    no landlord, and those it was intended to benefit were Unionist to a man.
    MR. SMITH-BARRYobjected to a special clause for such a small number of people, while he was sorry for them.
    MR. PINKERTONsupported the clause. The hon. and gallant Member was his own representative in the House. He had never asked anything for his constituents before, and he hoped the first time he opened his mouth he would not be refused. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"]
    MR. DANEsaid he would suggest to the Chief Secretary that he should accept this Amendment, varied by the words "the landlord should be entitled to resume a portion of it upon such terms as may seem just to the Court." This was a hard case. The exclusion of these people was due not so much to the Act of 1881 as to Judge-made law. [Nationalist cheers.]
    MR. GERALD BALFOURwas afraid that, without further consideration, he could not accept the clause. It would require careful thinking out. If the clause passed in its present form, and there were no terms contained in the contract, then the landlord would resume upon such terms as he was authorised to resume the holding on under Section 5 of the Landlord Act of 1881.
    MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring up a clause on Report?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will consider it. I cannot say more than that.
    Clause negatived.
    MR. FLYNNoffered the following clause:—

    APPLICATION OF CLAUSE 10 OF THE ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1890, TO ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS.
    It is hereby provided that, for the purposes of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts and of this Act, Clause ten of the Order in Council, dated the fifteenth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety, shall not apply to such assistant Commissioners as have been appointed at any time prior to the date of the passing of this Act.
    THE FIRST LORD Of THE TREASURY: On a point of order, I desire to ask you, Sir, whether the age of the Sub-Commissioners is relevant to a Bill of this kind. Is it not altogether outside the scope of the Bill? It is an interference
    574
    with the rule of 65, which is generally applied to all civil servants.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: This Bill does take in a great number of provisions, but I do not think this can fairly come within the scope of the Bill.
    MR. DILLON: On the point of order, I would ask, is this Bill not exactly analogous in all its other provisions to the Act of 1891, in which the status of the Land Commission is settled? I would also direct your attention to Clause 17, by which the composition of the Land Commission is altered.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not think this clause ought to come within the scope of the Bill. It seems to be getting too far from the subject-matter of the Bill.
    MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary if he could take the matter into consideration and see if anything could be done in the direction indicated in his clause.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved the following new clause:—

    GROUND OF APPEAL TO BE STATED.
    "Rules under Section fifty of the Land Law (Ireland) Act may provide that, subject to the qualifications (if any) contained in those rules, every notice of appeal shall state the grounds of appeal, and on the hearing of the appeal no grounds of appeal shall be entered into except those so stated. For the purpose of this section 'appeal' includes 'rehearing.' "
    Clause read a First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved the following new clause:—

    TENANCY TO BE PRESENT TENANCY WHERE LANDLORD HAS SO CONSENTED.
    "Where, prior to the commencement of this Act, the landlord of a holding has consented that the tenancy in the holding should be a present tenancy, or that the tenant should have the same rights as a present tenant, the tenancy shall be deemed to be a present tenancy accordingly."
    Clause read a First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    MR. KNOXbrought up the following new clause:—

    POWERS OF MORTGAGEE.
    "A mortgagee with power of sale shall for all the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts be deemed to be a landlord."
    Clause read a First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  SCHEDULE.
  ACTS REPEALED.

  Session and Chapter.

  Short Title.

  Extent of Repeal.

  33 & 34 Vict. c. 46.

  Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.

  Sections thirty-five, thirty-seven, and thirty-nine.

  44 & 45 Vict. c. 46.

  Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.

  In section eight, sub-section two, from "as from the period" down to "decision of the court," and subsection three, from "from the rent day" down to "has been given"; and from "with this modification" to "by him for such purpose," being the end of the sub-section.

  Section twenty-four, from "as follows" to "fair rent of the holding," being the end of sub-section one.

  In section twenty-six from "the Land Commission may advance" down to "payable by the tenant," being sub-section four.

  Section twenty-eight from the beginning down to "purchaser therein mentioned," being sub-sections one and two.

  In section thirty, sub-section three, from "on the terms" down to "1870."

  Section thirty-three.

  Section thirty-seven.

  In section thirty-eight, sub-section one, down to "civil bill court, and"; sub-section six and sub-section seven.

  In section forty-four, the words "except the power of hearing appeals"; and from "with this qualification" to the end of the section.

  Section forty-seven.

  In section fifty, sub-section one, paragraph (c), paragraph (f), paragraph (h).

  In section fifty-eight, sub-sections two, three, and four.

  48 & 49 Vict, c. 73.

  Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885

  In section two, from "it shall not be lawful" to the end of the section, being paragraph (c).

  In section three, from "the Land Commission shall pay" down to "per annum."

  In section four, the words "such value to be" calculated according to the table in the Schedule to this Act."

  Section eight.

  Section nine.

  In section ten, from "sections sixty-four" down to "Landed Estates Court Act."

  In section fourteen, from "the Land Commission shall register" down to "local registration."

  In section seventeen, from "the additional members" down to "any less mumber of the Land Commission."

  Section twenty-four.

  MR. SMITH-BARRY*MR. SMITH-BARRY moved in line 30 (as printed on preceding page) to omit the word "three" from the paragraph, "In Section fifty-eight, Subsections two, three, and four"—(Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881).
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR MR. JAMES O'CONNOR moved, after the words "Section six"—(Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887)—to insert the words "Section seven."
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion "That the Bill, as amended, be reported,"
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that Motion ought not to be passed without some voice being raised to express the sense which he personally felt of the great skill, industry, knowledge, and patience of the Chief Secretary in the conduct of this Bill. [Loud cheers.]
  MR. CLANCYdesired to associate himself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and also to add his tribute to the Attorney General for Ireland. [Renewed cheers.]
  Motion agreed to, amid loud cheers.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We propose to take the Report stage on Tuesday next. [Cheers.]
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 323.]

  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS (EXCISE DUTY).
  Committee thereupon deferred till Monday next.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.
  COLLECTING SOCIETIES (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the Third time, and passed.
  UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [26th June] further adjourned till Tomorrow.
  LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Further proceeding on consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee) deferred till Monday next.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [19th May] on consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), further adjourned till Tuesday next.
  TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [15th May] further adjourned till Monday next.
  MILITARY WORKS (MONEY).
  Committee thereupon deferred till Monday next.
  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 20th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes before Five o'clock in the morning.