Commons Sitting of 28 July 1896

NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
Account [presented 27th July] to be printed.—[No. 318.]
BURIALS BILL.
Order for Second Heading this day read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 23) BILL.
On the Order for the Third Reading of this Bill,
SIR HOWARD VINCENT)said he desired to enter a protest against a Bill of this character,
806
which was opposed in many quarters, being brought forward at such a late period of the Session, and especially being sent up to the Upper House, when it was impossible for it to receive the consideration it deserved. The Bill was to enable the Walton Parish Council to establish a sewage farm at the extreme edge of their parish and the parish of Esher, where there was valuable property. If the Parish Council of Walton wanted to establish a sewage farm they ought to establish it in the centre of their own parish and not at the extreme boundary, where it would prove an injury to another parish. The President of the Local Government Board and the Secretary to the Board had acted with extreme courtesy to those who objected to the Bill, and he did not desire to oppose its Third Heading, but he hoped that objection might be taken in another place to a Bill of this character being sent up to them at such a period of the Session. Besides, there was in Walton parish itself an admirable site—the Field Common site—into which the Committee did not go. He hoped that the Standing Orders in another place would provide against an opposed Measure of this kind being passed.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said that the usual procedure had been adopted in regard to this Rill. An Inquiry had been held by the Local Government Board; the whole scheme had been submitted to a Committee, the finding of the Committee had been unanimous, and when he found that the hon. Member desired to object to the Bill he postponed the Third Reading until that day, in the hope of arriving at an agreement. Failing that agreement, the Bill would go to another place, where the hon. Member would have a full opportunity of raising his objections.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  RAILWAY SECTIONAL MAPS.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the Committee of the Railway Clearing House have decided no longer to issue for public use the sectional maps of railways, with distances marked thereon, formerly issued by Mr. Airey, and considering that, in the absence of such maps, traders will frequently have great difficulty in determining the legality of the rates charged by railway companies, the Board of Trade will consider the desirability of themselves issuing similar maps as official publications; whether he is aware that, in contravention of Section 14 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, the distances are in some cases omitted from the rate books required to be kept by railway companies for public inspection; and, if he can see his way to compel the railway companies to comply strictly with the obligation imposed upon them by this section, and also require them to publish the distance tables which he stated that, in compliance with their obligations, they have had already prepared?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CT. RITCHIE,): I am in communication with the Railway Association with reference to this matter, and it is engaging their attention at the present time. The statute to which my hon. Friend refers imposes a penalty for a contravention of Section 14, and it is of course open to any person aggrieved to institute proceedings. I cannot compel the companies to do more in the way of publication of distances than the law demands. The distance tables referred to are compiled by the companies for their own use, but they arc, no doubt, valuable in assisting the companies to compute the distances for insertion in their rate books.

  DULWICH COLLEGE TOLL GATE.
  COLONEL MELLOR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether He is aware that there still exists on au important thoroughfare in London a turn-
  808
  pike where toll is claimed and paid at Dulwich; whether inquiry could be made to discover whether this gate has any legal right to exist; and, whether, in such an event, it would be desirable to take stops for its abolition?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I am informed that the gate referred to is the property of the Dulwich College Estate, and that College Road, in which it is fixed, is a private road belonging to and repairable by the estate. I understand that the Vestry of Camberwell, as the highway authority, asked the London County Council last year to include this gate in a Parliamentary Bill for removal. It is not a matter in which the Local Government Board have any jurisdiction or authority to intervene.

  SOUDAN EXPEDITION
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it will be necessary to obtain a Vote in the present Session for British expenditure in connection with the Soudan expedition or dispatch of Indian troops to Suakim, or whether it is the intention of the Government to defer asking for such a Vote until next Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): No, I do not expect to be in a position to propose such a Vote this Session.

  PATTEEN POST.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1) whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists in trading circles owing to the fact that the minimum charge for a packet of patterns or samples is one penny, and that the circulation of patterns and samples is thereby rendered expensive; (2) whether he has observed that it costs an American or Japanese merchant no more to send a packet of patterns or samples to this country than it costs an Englishman to send a similar packet from Liverpool to Birkenhead or from Leeds to Bradford; and (3) whether he will confer a much-desired boon on British trading enterprise by assimilating the minimum

  809
  charge for patterns and samples to that prescribed to book-post matter, namely, one halfpenny for two ounces?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General is not aware of the accuracy of the statement in the first paragraph. As the Foreign Sample Rate is the same as the Inland Sample Rate, it costs no more to send a sample from America or Japan to this country than to send a sample from one part of England to another; but it also costs no more to send a sample from this country to America or Japan, so that the British merchant is not subjected to any disadvantage. The question of adopting the minimum rate of one halfpenny for samples has been fully considered; but such a rate would involve a considerable loss of revenue, and the Postmaster General cannot see his way to its adoption. The hon. Member, who apparently objects to the Foreign and Inland Sample Rate being identical, had a Question upon the Paper yesterday objecting to the Foreign and Inland postage for invoices being different.

  CASTLECOMER POST OFFICE.
  MR. THOMAS B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if serious complaints by Miss A. Kenny respecting the treatment of postal matter at Castlecomer have been acknowledged to be well founded by the Department; if he will explain how they arose, and what notice has been taken of the matter; and has anything been done to prevent a recurrence of such complaints?
  MR. HANBURY: The facts of the case referred to in the hon. Member's Question are as follows: In March 1895 Miss A. Kenny, of Castlecomer, wrote to the Secretary of the Post Office in Dublin complaining that a letter addressed to her had been tampered with. Inquiry was at once set on foot; but, by some unfortunate accident, the official papers on the subject, together with the envelope of the letter said to have been tampered with, were lost, and Miss Kenny's complaint remained unanswered. On Miss Kenny renewing her application, the Secretary of the Post Office in Dublin placed the matter in the hands of an experienced officer for special investigation,
  810
  but he could find no reason for supposing that the letter had been tampered with in the post. The officer who made the investigation saw Miss Kenny personally and explained the whole case, as he then supposed, to her satisfaction. The Postmaster General believes that there is no ground for thinking that postal packets are improperly treated at Castlecomer.

  STATISTICAL OFFICE, CUSTOMS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if an official written information was conveyed to the abstractors in the Statistical Office, Customs, on 8th May last, to the effect that the question of ordinary leave to be allowed them was being dealt with separately by the Treasury; and, if so, whether considering that the holiday season is now well advanced, he can state when the Treasury Minute dealing with the question may be expected?
  MR. HANBURY: A Treasury letter of the 22nd April referring to the Statistical Office Establishment stated that the question of the abstractors' leave and sick leave Would be dealt with in a separate communication. The reference was to a circular letter issued two days later very largely extending the sick-leave of abstractors—which thus became the same as that of second division clerks—and pointing out that the maximum amount of sick-leave and ordinary leave combined which an officer may have on full pay in any one year should be strictly limited to six months, but there was no intention of issuing any further minute dealing with the ordinary leave of abstractors, which is the same as that of second division clerks during the first five years of service.

  CARRIAGE OF LETTERS (IRISH RAILWAYS).
  MR. J. H. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, when renewing the contracts with the Midland Railway of Ireland for the carrying of letters, he will include in it the carriage of letters addressed to Kilmessan, county Meath, and thereby prevent the delay in their delivery which exists at present, owing to their being sent by the Great Northern Railway round by Navan,

  811
  where they were kept for 24 hours before being sent on?
  MR. HANBURY: It is not the difficulty of making arrangements with the Midland Great Western Railway for the carriage of the bags that prevents the Postmaster General from complying with the requests which have been made for a day mail to Kilmessan. The difficulty lies in the small amount of correspondence to be benefited by a day mail, which is insufficient to warrant the cost of conveying the additional bags and effecting the delivery.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (TULLA UNION).
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board in Ireland sanctioned a considerable time ago the erection, on certain conditions, of 35 labourers' cottages in the Tulla Union, and the taking of 50 additional half-acres of land for existing cottages; and, have the Guardians, so far as it lay in their power, complied with the conditions, and, if so, has the Local Government Board now any objection to sanction the scheme?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Local Government Board are awaiting a further report from their auditor, which has been promised very soon, before considering the question of confirming the scheme.

  PROTERTY ESCHEATED TO CROWN.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a memorial has been received by the Lords of the Treasury from one Afred Charles Lott, relating to certain freehold, leasehold, and copyhold properties, situate in the county of Middlesex and elsewhere, of the estimated value of three millions sterling, in which it is alleged that one Henry Page executed a voluntary deed conveying the said estate to his solicitor; whether such a deed can be maintained against the Crown to escheat on failure of heir-at-law; whether, in face of the allegations in the said petition, he will cause steps to be taken to bring the facts before the Law Officers of the Crown, with a view
  812
  to the property being escheated; and whether, in the event of the property being so escheated, the said Alfred Charles Lott would be entitled, as petitioner, to a share?
  MR. HANBURY: A Memorial dated 20th July has been received by the Treasury from one Alfred Charles Lott, alleging that certain property mentioned therein has escheated to the Crown, and praying that a lease of such property may be granted to him. This Memorial is one, of many of a similar description which have been received from this person during the last 25 years, and the Treasury have, under legal advice, declined, and must still decline, to take any action in the matter on behalf of the Crown.

  ULVERSTON BURIAL BOARD.
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the assurance given by the Ulverston Burial Board in September 1894, that the Board's table of fees and charges would be altered to bring them into conformity with the provisions of Section 17 of the 20 and 21 Vic, c. 81, the Board has continued to include in its table fees payable to the minister in the unconsecrated ground identical in amount with those legally payable to the vicar in the consecrated part: whether he is aware that the Countesthorpe (Leicestershire) Parish Council, acting as a Burial Board, charges a fee for the erection of a headstone in both parts of the cemetery, but, while paying the fee to the incumbent in the consecrated part, carries the fee in the unconsecrated part to the account of the Board; and, whether steps will be taken, in the case of both cemeteries, to obtain such an alteration of the charges as will make them conform to the provisions of the above-quoted Act?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): As regards Ulverston, I am informed by the District Council that they have quite recently transferred to themselves, under, I presume, the powers conferred upon them by the Local Government Act, 1894, the duties of the Burial Board, and that a new table of

  813
  fees will shortly be framed and submitted for approval. The facts as regards Countesthorpe are correctly stated in the Question, and had already been brought to my notice. There appears to be a misconception on the part of the Parish Council as to the proper construction of the Burial Act of 1857, and I am in communication with them on the point.

  BRADFORD MOOR BARRACKS.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War—(1) whether he is now able to state what reparations have been effected to Bradford Moor Barracks during last year and this, and what sums of money have been expended thereupon; and (2), whether the War Office have taken steps to confirm their previous figures by inquiries and investigations made on the spot?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The sum expended in the last financial year was, as previouslystated, £1,125. The sum estimated for this year is £1,257. I have forwarded to my hon. Friend a detail of these services, which could not be given within the compass of the Question. The answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

  DEFENCE OF LONDON (SURREY FORTS.)
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War at what part of of the Army Estimates, either of the present or of previous years, are shown the fortified works now being proceeded with in the neighbourhood of the (Guild-ford, Dorking, and Reigate line of hills.
  MR. BRODRICK: the sums included in the Estimates for these works have been taken on Vote 10, Part I.

  LIQUOR LICENCE (BOMBAY).
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Abkari Department Bombay has granted a licence for a new liquor shop in Sleater Road (a part of Bombay where there had not previously been any such shop), notwithstanding that an influentially-signed protest had been forwarded from residents in that
  814
  neighbourhood; whether granting a licence under such circumstances is at variance with the declared policy of the Indian Government as expressed in the Dispatches of the Secretary of State, No. 28, of 19th April, 1888, and No. 31, of 14th March, 1889, and of the Government of India, No. 157, of 25th May, 1889, and No. 29, of 4th February, 1890; whether the police interested themselves in discouraging opposition on the part of the inhabitants; whether the licensee had rendered useful service to the police during the Bombay riots; and whether facilitating the grant of this license was in the nature of a reward for such services?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I have no official information as to the matters to which the hon. Member alludes; but it is the practice of the Department before new shops are opened to ascertain the wishes of the local residents.

  BOATSWAINS (ROYAL NAVY).
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty for what reasons boatswains of the Royal Navy are not permitted to qualify for a gunnery certificate on similar terms to those extended to gunners by Admiralty Circular of 12th March last?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): Boatswains are not called upon to perform the duties of gunners, and thus there are no reasons for allowing them to qualify in gunnery. Petty officers who are candidates for boatswains' warrants are allowed to change their election for promotion to gunners or torpedo gunners, if they are considered suitable.

  "MAGPIE" (H.M.S).
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the crew of H.M.S. Magpie, recently returned from the West Coast Station, will be granted a week's extra leave for services on the Gambia, as has been conceded to the relieved crews of other vessels engaged in this expedition?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: This leave has already been granted.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk, as a Charity Commissioner—(1) what is the total capital value of the endowments excepted from the operation of the scheme of 1890, which have recently been acquired by the governing body of Christ's Hospital for the purposes of the said scheme; (2) what proportion of such capital sum it is proposed to lay out upon the site purchased by the governing body near Horsham; (3) whether it is proposed to devote any and what amount of this capital sum to the establishment of day schools in London, in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of 1890; (4) what is the estimated cost of the new buildings proposed to be erected for Christ's Hospital Schools on the site near Horsham, and for what number of scholars is accommodation to be provided; (5) whether an adequate and unexceptionable water supply has now been found on the estate itself, and whether any and what analysis of the same has been made; and, if so, by whom, and what is the result of such analysis; (6) what proportion of the sum proposed to be laid out on the site near Horsham will be expended on under-draining the land on which it is proposed to build, and what amount will be spent in laying out and developing the adjacent land; (7) whether any and what arrangement has been concluded with the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company as to the number of trains per diem which will stop at the special station which is to be provided for the school; (8) what approximately will be the duration of the journey from London to the special station and from the special station to London respectively, and what arrangement has been made with the railway company as to the issue of cheap return tickets at reduced rates; and (9) will such tickets be available for use by all trains, or, if not, by how many and by what trains?
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEasked whether it was not the fact that for several weeks the people had been engaged in draining the land which was the subject of the question; and that the medical officer of health in West Sussex, who was an acknowledged authority, had reported;
  816
  most favourably on the situation and the water supply?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: Yes, Sir, I have had those facts brought to my attention. As to the Question on the Paper, the answer to the first Question is, about, £122,000. To the second and third, the governing body of Christ's Hospital are entitled to receive the income only of the accepted endowments, and have no power to deal with this capital. To the fourth, the estimate for the erection of the new buildings, in accordance with the plans as now modified, is about £253,000. These plans have not as yet been approved by the Charity Commissioners. It is proposed to provide at present for 500 to 600 boys and for 200 girls. The Charity Commissioners, while responsible for the approval of the site for the new hospital buildings and for the general sanction of capital expenditure upon that site, are not charged with the current administration either of the hospital generally or of the particular work of its removal to another site. The Commissioners are, therefore, unable to answer these questions further than to say that their approval was given to the acquisition of the site at Horsham upon professional evidence as to the abundance and excellence of the water supply there, and that they have sanctioned the expenditure by the governing body of a capital sum not exceeding £20,000 in draining, roads, levelling, and planting, in connection with the new buildings. It may be added that the Commissioners learn from a report issued by the governing body that the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company have agreed to build a station on the site and to give cheap fares and exceptional facilities for reaching it.

  SALTAIRE RAILWAY STATION.
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the official complaints of the Shipley District Council as to the alleged dangerous state of the platforms at the Saltaire railway station; whether he is aware that the station is frequently very crowded with traffic; and, if he will communicate with the Midland Railway Company

  817
  with a view to every possible step being taken to increase the safety and convenience of the Saltaire station?
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention had not been called to this matter until the hon. Member's Question appeared on the Paper—no complaints having reached the Department on the subject. The Board of Trade are now in communication with the Midland Railway Company respecting it.

  SALTAIRE RAILWAY STATION.

    LEVEL CROSSING (WATERFORD AND LIMERICK RAILWAY).
    MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the local crossing on the Waterford and Limerick Railway within half a mile of Miltown station, whether he is aware that there is on the entrance a self-closing gate which closes with much force, and that the gate is so dangerous that a child named John Godfrey lately got caught between the gate and the post, and that children going to school have often to return home, being unable to open the gate; whether he is aware that in a recent case at Petty Sessions, Miltown, the magistrate-s declared that the state of this crossing rendered it dangerous to travel on this line of railway; and, whether he will make inquiry and see that portion of the award of the recent arbitration relating to level crossing and gate lodge is carried out in respect of this crossing?
    MR. RITCHIE: I have little to add to my reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 26th August 1895, which presumably related to this crossing. The Company inform me that the level crossing gate is an ordinary one, and that they have no knowledge of the case of Godfrey or of children being unable to open the gate. They have, however, knowledge of prosecutions instituted and fines inflicted on persons for omitting to shut the gate and allowing cattle to trespass on the line. The Company can give me no information as to the case at Miltown Sessions. If the hon. Member will give me all the facts at his disposal I will cause them to be examined, but the Board have no power to make any order as to ordinary accommodation crossings.

    ATHLONE TOWN CLERKSHIP.
    MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that there are rival claimants for the position of town clerk in Athlone, and that the question is now the subject of litigation in the superior courts; and whether, as was done when a similar difficulty arose some years ago in the township of Boyle, he will direct that the police authorities will not bring summonses in the name of either of the alleged town clerks pending the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The police are not aware that the validity of the appointment of the gentleman now acting as town clerk of Athlone forms the subject of litigation in the superior courts. In the Boyle case referred to, there was prolonged litigation between the dismissed town clerk and the Boyle Commissioners, and the police adopted the course of proceeding in the Potty Sessions Court for all offences committed in the town under the Summary Jurisdiction and other Acts. Should the recent proceedings of the Athlone Commissioners in reference to the clerkship of that town be questioned, the desirability of taking action similar to that adopted at Boyle will be considered.

    LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that, under the Land Bill as it stands, though purchasers' insurance money is no longer to be payable in the case of advances made after the Bill passes, it remains payable in the case of prior advances, even though made so recently that not a single instalment of the purchase annuity has yet become payable; and whether he will consent to amend the Bill so as to make purchasers' insurance money no longer payable once the Bill passes?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There would be considerable difficulty in relieving purchasers whose annuities had been already settled from paying purchasers' insurance money, as it would involve a recalculation of the annuity

    819
    an alteration of the conveyancing order, and considerable trouble. But under Clause 17 (5) every purchaser will, at the end of the first decade, get the benefit of what he has paid for purchasers' insurance money by having it treated as a reduction of the capital debt, and therefore in reduction of his purchase annuity.

    SCHOOLMISTRESSES (IRELAND).
    MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that, under the alternative scheme of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, work mistresses in the schools are obliged to give the whole school day to their duties, at an animal salary of £12, he will try to have these Salaries augmented?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Proposals have been submitted to the Irish Government by the Commissioners in relation to the remuneration of work mistresses, and these proposals will receive due consideration.

    GOLD COAST (LAND COMMISSION).
    MR. D. E. GODDARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in a recent speech at Liverpool, Sir William E. Maxwell, K.C.M.G., Governor of the Gold Coast, stated that it would be proposed to make it impossible for the native chiefs to make any concession of land without the concurrence of the Governor; whether the native chiefs will be consulted before such a proposal becomes law; and whether the Colonial Office has sanctioned this policy?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Yes, Sir: I have sanctioned this policy, and there are good reasons for it. ["Hear, hear!"] The land laws and land customs of West Africa are different from the law of land tenure in England, while the concessions are framed in the language of English conveyancing, and purport to convey the fee simple or to grant a lease with the conditions which are incident to such transaction here, but are probably unintelligible to the native signing the instruments. It is uncertain how far native chiefs possess the right of making
    820
    alienations of this character for their own benefit, and in some instances concessions have been brought to the local Government for approval which have proved to be signed by men who had no title in the land. In the interest of all the native tribes and chiefs, as well as of British investors, it is essential that the local Government should be able to see that such transactions are made in good faith and on reasonable terms, and that the conditions are thoroughly understood by the natives. ["Hear, hear!"]

    WATER SUPPLY (LONDON).
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the frequent cases in which the London water companies increase their charges for the supply of water, because the increase of the rates has necessitated an increase of rateable assessment, without giving any increase of supply, and to the allegation that the profits of the water companies have been thus greatly increased; and if, in dealing with the water question in the metropolis, he will take care that steps are taken to relieve consumers from this additional burden, and to regulate payment for water by its supply, as in the case of gas and electric light, provision, if necessary, being made for the use of a minimum quantity for sanitary purposes?
    MR. CHAPLIN: The charges which the companies are authorised to make for the supply of water for domestic purposes are regulated by the local Acts of the companies and the Water Rate Definition Act, 1885. They depend to a great extent on the rateable value of the premises supplied. It would no doubt happen that if the rateable value of a house was increased without any circumstances requiring an additional water supply for domestic purposes, the company would benefit by the change. On the other hand, where a house becomes diminished in value, as, for instance, in consequence of a change in the character of the neighbourhood, and the rateable value is reduced, the company lose by the alteration. I have no means of forming an accurate opinion as to the extent to which the different London water companies are affected by

    821
    such changes. The present system of charge is generally in force throughout the country, not only where the water is supplied by companies, but also where it is supplied by corporations and other local authorities. I may point out that, if the charges for water supplied for domestic purposes were regulated, as suggested, by the amount of water consumed, the effect would be to increase the charges for water supplied to the poorer and more crowded dwellings, whilst it would reduce the charges on the larger houses. I do not feel myself able to give the pledge which my hon. Friend desires.

    CRETAN ASSEMBLY.
    MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has yet received any official information as to the opening proceeding of the Convocation at Canea on the 13th instant; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay in respect to Dispatches concerning the meetings of this assembly?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): As stated in the answer given to the hon. Member yesterday, no official Dispatches have as yet been received respecting proceedings at the opening of the Assembly at Canea on the 13th instant. Any delay may not improbably be accounted for by the great pressure of work entailed on Her Majesty's Consul by events in Crete.

    ABDULLAH PASHA IN CRETE.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recall of Abdullah Pasha has been determined upon by the Porto; and, if so, whether the representatives of the Powers will urge upon the Porte the extreme desirability of taking this step without further delay?
    MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have not heard that the recall of Abdullah Pasha has been determined upon by the Porte. A recommendation has been addressed by the foreign representatives at Constantinople to the Porte that the command of the troops in
    822
    Crete should be given to an officer of lower rank than Abdullah Pasha. The Porte replied that the number of troops now in Crete required a commander of high rank. We have also been informed that the appointment of Abdullah Pasha is only a temporary one, and that instructions have been sent to him to act in concert with the Vali, and not to interfere in the civil administration.

    EDUCATION FEE GRANT (SCOTLAND).
    MR. J. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if he could state to the House how much Scotland has been short paid of the fee grant in each of the three financial years preceding the financial year 1895–6 on the footing that Scotland ought to have received eleven-eightieths of the fee grant paid to England during these years respectively?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I have to refer the hon. Member to the Return granted on the 13th May 1896, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry, relating to the education fee grants (England, Scotland and Ireland), which contains the particulars he desires to know.
    MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether the attention of the Scotch Office has been called to the fact that the fee grant on the Estimates for the current year for England is set down at £2,241,000, eleven-eightieths of which, being Scotland's proportion is £308,137, whilst on the Estimate for Scotland the Scotch fee grant is only set down at £303,609, being 10s. per head of the estimated number of children in average attendance in Scotland; whether he is aware that the Treasury in 1891 refused to allocate the fee grant payable to Scotland on the basis of Scotland's average attendance, and whether the fee grant would then and on that basis have amounted to more than eleven-eightieths of England; at whose suggestion was the change made; in the Estimates for the current year; and whether the Scotch Office have made or intend making any representation to the Treasury for the continuance of the grant on the principle originally fixed?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am aware that the amount of the fee grant in the English and Scottish Estimates respectively is as stated in the Question of the hon. Member, and also that eleven-eightieths of the English grant would amount to the sum He names. I am also aware that in the earlier years, when the grant was allocated upon the eleven-eightieths basis a grant upon the basis of average attendance in Scotland would have been larger. The Scotch Education Department has always contended that average attendance was the proper basis of calculation, and, in view of the complicated questions which arose, the Treasury this year decided that the grant should hereafter be paid on that basis. I am not aware whether, when this decision was arrived at, the actual result was known. But in any case, the Scotch Education Department do not think that the fact of the result being adverse in a particular year renders it either expedient in principle or advantageous to Scotland to alter what is believed to be the sound basis of calculation.

    NILE EXPEDITION.
    GENERAL McCALMONT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the officers who were specially selected last April to join the Nile Expeditionary Force are paid from British or Egyptian Army funds; and if from the latter, why these officers have not been seconded?
    MR. BRODRICK: With two exceptions, these officers were seconded in the Gazette of the 21st instant, their seconding dating from two months after they went out to Egypt. The other two officers will be seconded in the next Gazette. As seconded officers they will be paid by the Egyptian Government.

    OPEN QUARRIES.
    MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can state how many open quarries employing more than 100 men have adopted the code of special rules drawn up by the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the working of
    824
    open quarries, and how many have refused or neglected to adopt the code?
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I cannot give the hon. Member these numbers, but I may say that the special rules have already been established in 738 quarries, and that this figure includes all, or nearly all, the large quarries in several districts. In other of the districts, arrangements for the adoption of the rules by the owners of the larger quarries are now far advanced, and I have good reason to hope that by the efforts of the Inspectors, whose attention I recently called to the matter, the model code of special rules may shortly be established in all quarries in the country where the operations are on a large scale, or where the conditions of work are dangerous.

    ROAD CONTRACTORS (COUNTY MONAGHAN).
    MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what steps it is intended to take against the secretary to the Grand Jury of county Monaghan for making an illegal charge of 8d. per tender form to road contractors in the baronies of Farney and Cremorne, and to prevent an occurrence of this kind in the future?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have referred the papers in this case to the Local Government Board, whose auditor will inquire fully into the matter at his next audit of the accounts of the Grand Jury of Monaghan.

    POSTAL DELIVERY (MANCHESTER).
    MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that on the 21st July the first delivery of letters in the London Road district of Manchester did not take place until shortly before 10 a.m., thus causing considerable inconvenience in that central and industrial quarter of the city; and, whether the explanation of the delay was that the letters had been delivered by an ex-Army pensioner postman, inexperienced in the duties of a postman?
    MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that the first delivery of letters in the London Road district of Manchester on the 21st instant was not completed until shortly before 10 a.m. The delay was due to an Army Reserve postman, new to the walk, having been unavoidably placed on the delivery in the absence on leave of the regular postman. The delivery is now being completed by 8.30 a.m. I suppose that an Army pensioner, of course, requires time to learn his duties just as the ordinary civilian does.

    CHARGE OF BURGLARY (ST. HELENS).
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the fact that a man named Hugh Beattie, who is in custody at St. Helens accused of a series of burglaries, has made a confession to the effect that 12 months ago He committed a burglary at Rain-hill, for which a man named Brady was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment with hard labour; and, whether, he has ordered any inquiry to be made into Beattie's confession?
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No such confession has as yet reached the Home Office, nor has any representation of his innocence been made to me by Brady himself. A newspaper report, however, has been forwarded to me this morning, from which it would appear that certain articles found in Beattie's possession have been identified as part of the proceeds of the robbery of which Brady was convicted, and I am instituting inquiries accordingly into the matter.

    BRITISH BECHUANALAND.
    MR. A. GRIEFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether all the territories north of British Bechuanaland declared by Proclamation of the Crown or by Order in Council to be made under the protection of the British Crown, although not annexed by Proclamation or Order in Council or Act of the Imperial or Colonial Legislature, are included in and form part of the dominions of the Crown?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Question asked has been argued at the Bar of the Queen's Bench during the last few days, and as I do not know whether the Court has yet pronounced its opinion on the point, I must ask leave to refrain from expressing any opinion of my own.

    OLD HEAD OF KINSALE POST OFFICE.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, when the late postmaster at the Old Head of Kinsale died, and how long the post office was carried on in his house after his death; and, when the post office was removed, and what the cause of the removal was?
    MR. HANBURY: The late sub-postmaster, who was employed at Garrylucas, not at Old Head, died on 12th March last. The office was temporarily carried on by his daughter until the 22nd May, when it was removed to Old Head. The object of the removal was the convenience of the majority of the inhabitants, the bulk of the correspondence being for persons living beyond Garrylucas.

    SHIPWRIGHTS (ROYAL NAVY).
    MR. EDWARD MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Admiralty find a difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of naval shipwrights to join the Service; and, whether he is aware that no answer has yet been sent in reply to the petition of the shipwright apprentices, sent in on the last regular occasion for so doing, asking for better conditions on entering the Royal Navy!
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No difficulty is experienced in obtaining the requisite number of naval shipwrights for the Service. The Dockyards were informed last month that the Admiralty were unable to make any concessions beyond those specified, and this answer applied equally to the shipwright apprentices, whose petitions were included in those from the workmen of the yards.

    PARACHUTE ACCIDENT (CARDIFF).
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to the fatal

    827
    accident that occurred to a girl described as a lady parachutist, who was hired to perform at Cardiff last week; whether he is aware that the lady parachutist was a child of 14 who had had no previous experience as a balloonist; and, whether he has any control over these exhibitions; and, if not, whether he will introduce legislation to prevent such reckless trading with the lives of children?
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have at present only seen the reports that have appeared in the newspapers, and am not sufficiently acquainted with the facts to be able to say whether the case is one to which the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act applies. I have directed that inquiries shall be made at once with the view of seeing whether any action can be taken by me in the matter.

    SIR JACOBUS DE WET.
    SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether Sir Jacobus de Wet has been offered a pension of £300 a year; and (2) whether Sir Jacobus' long and valuable services, especially in connection with the annexation of Amatongaland, entitle him to more liberal consideration?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second paragraph, I have to say that Sir Jacobus de Wet has been only six years in the service of the Imperial Government, that he took no part in bringing Amatongaland under British rule, and that he is not entitled under any law or regulation to any pension at all. The sum of £300 a year has been offered to him as an exceptional act of grace and favour, and is based on double the ordinary Civil Service scale.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if it was a fact that Sir Jacobus de Wet had refused this pension?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I have not heard that. [Laughter.]

    RHODESIA RISING.
    SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the
    828
    serious character of the news from Rhodesia, Her Majesty's Government propose to send more troops to South Africa?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to this Question, I may be permitted to read the following telegrams. On June 22 I telegraphed to Lieutenant-General Goodenough:—
    "Having regard to further news from Mashonaland, will it be necessary to send from home any more troops? What is your opinion, after consulting with Colonel Sir E. Carrington?"
    On June 26 I received a reply from General Goodenough in these terms:—
    "Referring to your telegram of 22nd June, No. 1, Carrington does not consider it necessary to send more troops from home at present, as we still have over 200 waiting for orders at Mafeking, and similar number mounted infantry at Cape Town, but suggests that mounted infantry or cavalry should be held in readiness. I concur. Arab sailed to-day for Beira with 14 officers, 238 men, two 7-poundor guns, two Maxims, and 145 horses, under the command of Alderson. Will pick up balance of horses at Durban. Due at Beira about 3rd July."
    Again, on June 29 I telegraphed to General Goodenough:—
    "Presume that you clearly understand that Her Majesty's Government will send any forces which you think required by military exigencies of situation. In any case, we propose, on Imperial grounds, to fill up Cape Garrison from time to time as it may be depleted for service in Rhodesia."
    On July 7 I further telegraphed:—
    "Three hundred and fifty mounted infantry are being held in readiness at Aldershot for service in South Africa; are you likely to want any of them? If not, Secretary of State for War would like to distribute them among the regiments to which they belong."
    A reply was received from General Goodenough on July 18, as follows:—
    "Referring to your telegram of 7th July, No. 3, Carrington does not anticipate necessity of further reinforcements from home. I concur."
    On July 24 I cabled again to General Goodenough on this subject as follows:—
    "Carrington's telegrams reporting recent military operations point to the conclusion that the work of stamping out rebellion may be tedious. Consider again in consultation with him whether still of opinion that forces sufficient, or whether further reinforcements are desirable, and report by telegram."

    829
    I received yesterday evening the following reply:—
    "27th July.—Your telegram of the 24th July referred to Carrington, who reports that he is no doubt hampered by want of more men for rapid and effectual crushing rebellion, but if more were sent up he could not feed them under existing difficulties as to transport, I myself do not anticipate any lightening of these difficulties. All efforts are now directed to getting up food stuffs before the rains, which come on in three or four months' time, offering increased impediments to movement. At the present time I have over 1,000 Imperial troops in Rhodesia, Macloutsie and Mafeking, and should keep them efficient at that number. Hitherto, happily, the waste has been small."
    I think, under these circumstances, it would be wrong in Her Majesty's Government to force on the military commander in Rhodesia troops for whom they are not able to provide.

    BOTTLING BEER (FACTORY REGULATIONS).
    MR. WILLIAM ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State fur the Home Department, whether he intends to make an order extending Section 53 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, to the women employed in bottling beer; and, if so, why it is now found necessary to allow overtime in a trade which has been carried on without overtime for 18 years?
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir, I propose to make such an order; but it is not the case that this trade has been carried on hitherto without overtime. On the contrary, until quite recently the Factory Acts were not enforced at all in beer-bottling warehouses. Now that it is found that the Factory Acts are applicable, I propose to make an order which will allow overtime—but only on 30 days in the year, and under the other statutory restrictions.

    CUSTOMS OFFICES, DUBLIN.
    MR. J. L. CAREW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he has received from the Council of the Chamber of Commerce in Dublin a very influentially signed memorial by the merchants and traders of the city protesting against the
    830
    proposal of the Board of Works to remove the Customs Offices from the Long Room in the Custom House to less convenient premises; and, whether he will instruct the Treasury Department to refuse to sanction any expenditure by the Board of Works in carrying out their scheme till the fullest consideration is given to the views of the parties who will be affected by the change?
    MR. HANBURY: The Memorial has been received and referred to the Board of Works, who state that the Board of Inland Revenue, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Works, especially the first, all require additional accommodation. It is impossible to place additional buildings upon the site of the Custom House, and it has therefore become necessary to utilise any rooms not fully occupied. The Long Room is only occupied by some 14 clerks, and only half of them need necessarily to be placed there. The ground floor and the first floor on the quay side of the Customs part of the buildings are used solely by the Customs office keeper and watchmen. The Long Room therefore (it is proposed) and the offices immediately adjoining it, will be given up, and accommodation be provided in the parts now used as residences. The plans have been approved by the Board of Customs. Their collector was willing, more than two years ago, to give up half the Long Room for use by other departments, but the structure of the room is such as to make a division of it difficult, while it is admirably adapted for the Legacy and Succession Duty branch of the Inland Revenue, to which it is proposed to allot it. Every attention will be given to representations on the subject from persons interested.

    INCIDENCE OF TAXATION INQUIRY.
    MR C. HARRISON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if the terms of the reference of the proposed Inquiry' into the incidence of taxation will be made sufficiently wide to take into consideration the pending Bill in this House, entitled Land Values (Taxation by Local Authorities)?
    MR. CHAPLIN: The terms of reference would enable the Commissioners to consider whether any class of property, real or personal, contributes

    831
    equitably to taxation for the purposes referred to. I apprehend that they would not require the Commissioners to examine the proposals contained in any particular Bill, but I have no doubt that they are wide enough to enable them to do so in this case if they should deem it to be desirable.

    JUDICIAL TRUSTEES BILL.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the proposal to extend the Judicial Trustees Bill to Ireland, which is to be made in the House of Lords, is being made on the part of the Government; whether he is aware that when this Bill was before the House of Commons its promoters deliberately abstained from applying it to Ireland, knowing that otherwise it would be opposed by Irish Members, there being no necessity or demand for such a Bill in Ireland; and, whether the Government will, under the circumstances, persist in the proposal to extend the Bill to Ireland?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,said he had not had time to consult the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the subject of extending the Judicial Trustees Bill to Ireland, nor, perhaps, would it be proper for him to give an opinion with regard to a Bill now before the House of Lords. It would be sufficient, however, if he reminded the hon. Member of the undertaking he had already given that any Bill seriously objected to outside the relatively small category he had enumerated would not be proceeded with.

    IRISH AGRARIAN AND TREASON- FELONY PRISONERS.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether He is prepared to recommend that the approaching celebration of the reign of Her Majesty the Queen as the longest in English history should be signalised by the granting of amnesty to all the prisoners confined in prisons in Ireland for agrarian and treason-felony offences arising out of the agrarian troubles in that country during the last fifteen years?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I answered a similar question I think the day before yesterday, and, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman will not require me to supplement the answer I then gave.

    QUARTER SESSIONS (LONDON).
    Bill to make provisions relating to the offices of Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Boulnois; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed.—[Bill 328.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central) moved to insert, after Clause 12, the following Clause:—

  AMENDMENT AS TO MORTGAGE OR SETTLEMENT OF HOLDINGS.
  "The alienation to one person only of a holding by way of mortgage, or otherwise than for consideration in money or money's worth, shall he subject to the provisions of Sub-section 6 of Section 1 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, but shall not in other respects be deemed a sale within the meaning either of that section or of the 6th Sub-section of Section 8 of that Act."
  He explained that this clause was the outcome of the consideration which he promised to give to the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Cork. The proposal made was that the mortgage of a holding, or an assignment of it where no consideration passed, should not be a sale under the terms of Section 1 of the Land Act of 1881; in other words, the Government proposed in this case that the landlord was not to have the right of pre-emption. On the other hand, they proposed to retain

  833
  to the landlord his right to veto a transference. Of course that veto must be exercised reasonably, and the reasonableness would be subject to the review of the Court. He hoped that this proposal would meet substantially the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cork, and He thought it would relieve the tenant of whatever hardship existed in the case of family settlement or mortgage to which the hon. Gentleman had referred.
  Clause read a First time.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought up the clause, but he regretted to say that, as drawn, it would not apply in one case in a thousand of the cases which he had in his mind and to which he drew attention. His desire when he raised the question was to place a case of family settlement inter vivos in practically the same position as if it were being made by the will of a deceased person. When the owner of a farm was making his will he had power under the Land Act to leave the farm to one person, and then he went on to provide for the other members of his family, generally by a charge on the farm. The defect of the clause was the use of the words "money or money's worth." What the tenant did was to make over his farm to his eldest son; it was all the means he had, and he was bound to do something for the other members of his family. He provided for them, and the son's wife brought in a dowry which was handed over to the tenant. In 999 cases out of a thousand of those marriage assignments there was always money passing in connection with the transaction; but it was not a sale in the ordinary sense, nor did the money represent the value of the farm, it represented the dowry brought in by the wife on marriage. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, if he could not adopt his clause, to strike out the words "for consideration in money or money's worth."
  Clause read a Second time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,)834
  said that he thought the object of the hon. Member for Cork would be met by the insertion after the word "mortgage" of the words "or family settlements, or where marriage forms a portion of the consideration." He moved the insertion of those words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  MR. VESEY KNOX MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry) moved the following clause:—

  INVESTMENTS OF GUARANTEE DEPOSITS.
  "The Land Commission may invest guarantee deposits in stock or annuities issued by any municipal corporation in Ireland, which annuities, or the interest or dividend upon which stock, are secured upon rates or taxes levied by such municipal corporation under the authority of any Act of Parliament."
  He explained that the object of the Amendment was to remedy partially an injustice under which small towns suffered. English and Irish trustees under the existing law could only invest in the stock of towns of over 50,000 inhabitants, but Scotch trustees could invest in the stock of any town in Great Britain, no matter how small. No trustee, however, could invest in the stock of Irish towns of under 50,000 inhabitants. That restriction, he thought, might well be done away with now.
  MR. SPEAKER: According to my recollection, there is nothing in the Bill about the powers of investment of trustees. This Amendment would appear to be more pertinent to a Trustee Investment Bill.
  MR. VESEY KNOXpointed out that there was a good deal in the Bill about guarantee deposits, and that this Amendment only referred to the investment of such deposits.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that the Acts which this Act amended dealt with the investment of guarantee deposits in trustee stock.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that if the Acts were to be read together as one Act the clause would be in order.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURhesitated to accept this Amendment, because it would alter essentially the present legal arrangements affecting the investment of trust funds, and because he did not like to make a special exception in favour of this guarantee stock. If they were to accept tins Amendment they would be dealing piecemeal with a large and important question. He might point out to the hon. Member that under this Bill guarantee deposits would practically cease in future.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYinvited the Chief Secretary to express his opinion upon the following clause standing in his (Mr. Healy's) name:—
  "In the case of any holding to which the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, did not as um-amended apply, but to which the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act apply, a tenancy subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act shall he deemed to be a present tenancy if the tenant was in occupation of the holding at the date of the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he had resisted the principle of this Amendment throughout, and he did not think that he could consistently accept it in this particular form.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that he did not move the clause, but would raise the question later on. The hon. Member moved the following new clause:—

  AMENDMENT OF 50 & 51 VIC., C. 33, S. 19.
  "The powers conferred on judges of the Chancery Division of the High Court by the nineteenth section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, in oases where an absolute order for the sale of land has been made by any such judge, and a receiver has been appointed, shall apply to any case in which a receiver has been appointed over land by any of the said judges, and notwithstanding that a sale has been ordered by some judge of the Chancery Division other than the Land Judge."
  The object of the clause was to amend a beneficial provision of the Act of 1887. That provision, though general in its terms, had hitherto been restricted in its application to cases where a receiver had been appointed by a Judge of the Landed Estates Court. The provision, he was told, had been held not to apply to cases
  836
  where the proceedings for sale were initiated in the Court of Chancery.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that in his judgment nothing could be clearer than the words of the section of the Act of 1887 referred to in the clause of the hon. Member. According to his construction of the section, this Amendment was not necessary.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved the following clause:—

  AMENDMENT OF 51 & 52 VIC., C. 49, S. 2.
  "In computing the amount advanced to any one purchaser under the provisions of the second section of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888, an advance made to such purchaser as a trustee for another, or as personal representative of a deceased person, shall not be included, and for the purposes of the said section the advance in such eases shall be deemed to have been made to the person or persons personally interested in such advance."
  He explained that his proposal was that an advance made to a person in a representative capacity should not be deemed to have been made to himself, and so operate to exclude him from getting any advance on Ins own account.
  Clause read a First time.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURwas willing to accept the clause with a slight alteration. He should propose to insert, after the words "shall not," the words "if in Ireland at the time that he was so acting."
  Clause read a Second time.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to the following words:—
  "If as regards advances made after the passing of this Act, he shall declare at the time that he was so acting."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir. I think those words will meet the case.
  Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved the following now clause:—
  "On the conveyance or transfer on sale by the proprietor thereof of a holding which has been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts, the balance of the advance due to the Land Commission shall not be deemed to be part of the consideration in respect whereof the conveyance is chargeable with ad valorem duty "under the Stamp Act, 1891."
  He would give the right hon. Gentleman an example of how the law as it at present stood worked. He had lately in his professional capacity been engaged in carrying out a sale to a tenant-purchaser under the Purchase Bill. The consideration for that purchase was £200, upon which the stamp duty would have been £1 if the man had been purchasing an ordinary holding; but because it was what he might call a land-purchase holding, the annuity payable to the Land Commission was added to the £200, bringing it up to £1,000, and he had to pay £5 stamp duty, although this annuity was only substituted for the rent he had to pay before he purchased. This worked great hardships and imposed a tremendous tax upon these sales. It, in effect, quadrupled, or more than quadrupled, the stamp duty payable on the sale of a holding, simply because that holding was purchased under the Land Purchase Act.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)said the stamp duty on a conveyance was payable on the total value of the property conveyed. When a property subject to a mortgage was purchased, the mortgage was considered as included in the value of the property. The hon. Member thought that an exception should be made in the case of properties sold under the Land Purchase Act to a third person. If an exception were made in this case it would also have to be made in the case of property subject to an ordinary mortgage. The tenant bought the freehold title subject to the payment of certain instalments to the Land Commission, and if he had only to pay stamp duty on the purchase money he would obviously escape the payment of stamp duty on the freehold. He could not agree to the clause.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.) moved the following clause;—

  PRE-EMPTION BY LANDLORD.
  "On any application to fix the fair rent of a holding, not subject to the Ulster Custom or any usage corresponding thereto, the court shall ascertain and record whether the landlord desires to acquire the holding in case of a sale; and, if the landlord does not so desire, then sub-section three of section one of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, shall not apply to such holding in case of a sale."
  MR. EDWARD CARSONsaid he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Oh, I withdraw it, Sir. That shows the spirit in which the landlords act.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved the following; new 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 mean a town having a population according to the last oensus of at least two thousand."
  He said it was quite true that the Bill in its present shape was exactly that in which the Government originally introduced the towns park section, and perhaps rather better; but they still left the question of what was a city or a town undefined. He trusted the Government would see their way to say that a city or town within the section must be of a reasonable size.
  Clause road the First time.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the proposed limit was inserted in the Act of 1887, but he did not think that was a reasonable thing to do. It seemed to him that towns under 2,000 would very likely be those which would chiefly negative protection. Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, in his evidence before the Committee last Session, said it was impossible to arrive at a conclusion merely by looking at the number of inhabitants.
  MR. KNOXcontended that the only way in which things could be set right

  839
  was by putting in some sort of population limit. He himself had an Amendment further down in which he proposed that no town should be deemed to be a town within the meaning of the 58th section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1881, or of the seventh section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1887, unless the town was within the district of an urban sanitary authority under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts. In some form or another the word "town" ought to be defined by the Bill.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt some limit with regard to the population of a town, because there was great doubt as to what a town really was as distinguished from a village. The present want of definition led to a great deal of litigation, and the Irish tenants would be much dissatisfied if something were not done to define the meaning of the words "town park." The word "town" was a most elastic one, and if a definition of it were required anywhere it was in Ireland. A population of 2,000 appeared to him to be a sufficient limitation, and would not materially affect the landlords' right.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid that perhaps he might be allowed to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the use of the phrase "populous places" instead of "towns." He thought that the substitution of those words for the word "town" in the Bill would be a great improvement.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that if the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite were to be adopted, some inconveniences and absurdities might be expected to arise. For instance, if 2,000 population was fixed upon as the limit, a place having 1,999 inhabitants, which would not be a town, might find itself raised to the rank of a town because a lady in it happened to give birth to twins. ["Hear, hear!" and "Question!"] That showed the absurdity of the proposition of the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid that the conclusion that had been arrived at was that the population was the test of a place being a town. The law upon the point ought to be so clear that every man would know what his
  840
  right was. A definition of a town should be given in a Bill so as to form a guide to the Judges, and that could be easily done by taking a population limit. There was nothing to prevent the landlord from regaining possession of a town park holding if the property was required for development. The theory on which the opposition to the clause was based was that the landlord should have the right by the eviction of those town park tenants to take the property of one man and hand it over to another. The supporters of the clause did not want to deprive the landlord of anything that equitably belonged to him. All they wanted to secure was that the property of town park tenants should not be taken away from them. Of all the land of Ireland, town parks were farmed the best; and on no land was there such a lavish expenditure of money, care, and nursing as on the town parks. It was, therefore most unjust to deny the protection of the Land Acts to those tenants.
  THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,), said he rose not to discuss the vexed question of town parks, but, as a practical politician anxious for the smooth passage of the Bill, to appeal to the House not to plunge itself into the unfathomable bog of the town parks' controversy, but to accept the decision come to in the Committee stage that they should leave the question untouched.
  Clause negatived.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB*SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth) moved, after Clause 27, to insert the following clause:—

  RESERVATIONS AS TO MINES, FISHERY, AND SPORTING RIGHTS TO THE STATE.
  "No advance under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, shall be made to a tenant for the purpose of enabling him to purchase mines, fishery or sporting rights where such rights have been reserved to the landlord by order of the court when fixing a fair rent, bat any such tenant shall have the right to have conveyed to him in the vesting order the fishery and sporting rights on payment of such amount to the court as the court may determine to be the fair value of such rights, and if not so purchased by such tenant the fishery and sporting rights of the holding shall vest in the Land Commission to be held or disposed of in such

  841
  manner as the court may determine. AH mines and mineral rights shall vest in the Land Commission.
  Provided that all moneys received by the Land Commission on account of the sale or letting of mines, fishing or sporting rights shall he placed to the credit of the Guarantee Fund."
  It would be admitted that mines, fisheries and game were amongst the elements of wealth of a country; and it was because those elements of wealth were becoming extinct in Ireland as land purchase developed, and were likely to be extinguished altogether, if something were not done to save them, that he moved his Amendment. The clause only dealt with rights which were absolutely excluded from the tenant by law when he had a fair rent fixed. They were reserved to the landlord. But when a purchase transaction was completed, those rights of mines, sporting and fishing were made over to the tenant. The result was that the sporting rights of an estate which were valuable when held by the landlord in the concrete or the whole, disappeared when the estate was divided amongst several tenant purchasers. The tenants were unable themselves to preserve those rights. In one case the tenants begged him to take over the sporting rights for nothing, but he could not do it because there was no power, and the result was that game was disappearing against the tenants' own wishes. He did not consider that the tenant should have handed over to him when he made a purchase valuable mining rights. He thought those rights should be retained by the State, so that when prosperity smiled on Ireland, and there was a demand for quarries and mines, the State would be possessed of a valuable property. Then, in regard to fishing rights, it happened that when an estate, through which a river flowed, was sold, the Land Commission vested in each tenant his own portion of the river. That river might be worth thousands of pounds if preserved, but the tenants could not preserve it, and the result was that a national property disappeared which, if preserved as a whole, would command a good round sum, would give employment, and would bring money into the district. He knew a river on an estate which might go into the Encumbered Estates Court. At the mouth of the river were two different
  842
  tenants, one at each side. Forced sale would thus destroy the "several" fishery. With regard to sporting rights, there were gentlemen taking part in demonstrations and meetings to promote the attraction of capital to Ireland, and, above all, to draw attention to the great advantages offered by the natural capabilities of Ireland in regard to sport. But what was the use of all that if, on the other hand, they were killing all possibility of it? This was a matter which ought to have received more attention than it had. He admitted that they could not have sport without the co-operation, and the willing co-operation, of the tenants. Unless some such clause as he proposed were put in, every operation of purchase was doing an injury to Ireland, and was injuring the elements of wealth that exist.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsympathised with what he conceived to be the object of his hon. Friend, but he did not think the proposals he had made were either practicable or consistent with provisions already in the Bill. He saw great difficulties in connection with the whole question of sporting rights, and in any case He did not think it was the proper way of dealing with them to vest those rights in the Land Commission, and depriving the landlord of any power of obtaining them for himself, and leaving the Land Commission to be the body which should be intrusted to let sporting rights all over Ireland.
  MR. P. J. POWERexpressed satisfaction that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made use of one expression, namely, that you could not have sport in Ireland or any other country without the co-operation of the occupiers. ["Hear, hear!"] He regretted to say that was not a view always shared in in his part of Ireland, because he remembered very well it was not observed by the old Marquess of Waterford, for he had seen the Curraghmore Hunt followed by six or eight cartloads of police. The Irish were a sport-loving people, and if the landlords treated them with moderation the people would co-operate with them in promoting sport in that country.
  MR. MICHAEL FLAVINsuggested to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Great Yarmouth, that

  843
  he and his friends should offer inducements to the tenants to take part in sport, and give them a reasonable chance of showing they took an interest in it.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY MR. J. J. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.) moved the following new clause:—

  TENURE IN SEVERALTY.
  "Where the estate of the immediate land lord for the time being is determined during the continuance of any tenancy from year to year, and two or more persons are entitled in severalty as superior landlords, each of such persons shall he deemed to he the immediate landlord to the tenant of the tenancy within the meaning of Section fifteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, in respect of the portion of the land to which he is entitled, and to have the rights and to be subject to the obligations of an immediate landlord as provided by said section; and the Land Commission shall, on application being made to them by any person interested, apportion the rent previously paid by the tenant between the different persons thenceforward entitled to the landlord's interest according to the value of the laud held from each; and the tenancy shall thereupon he divided into two or more tenancies according to the portions of land to which each of such landlords is entitled: Provided that each of such tenancies shall continue to be subject to the same conditions in all respects (save as regards the amount of rent to be paid) as the previously existing tenancy was subject to under the immediate landlord prior to the determination of his estate."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDthought the Amendment might be accepted if the word "may" were substituted for "shall" in the passage "and the Land Commission shall," etc.; and if, after the words "persons interested" "other than the tenant" were inserted.
  MR. CARSONthought it very inconvenient that when a new clause was proposed they should not be told what the effect was. As far as he could see, this section was a great innovation on the law as it at present stands. If "any person interested" meant a person other than the tenant, who could that be but the landlord? The clause was quite unnecessary, because two different landlords owning different portions of the same property had already the right to apply for a separation of their interests.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that the clause was for the convenience of the landlords.
  Clause read a Second time.
  MR. CLANCY MR. CLANCY moved to omit the word "shall" and insert the word "may" in the phrase "the Land Commission shall."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CLANCY MR. CLANCY moved to insert, after the words "person interested," the words "other than the tenant."
  Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, added to the Rill.
  GENERAL HUGH McCALMONT GENERAL HUGH McCALMONT (Antrim, N.) moved the following new 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 thereof 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, 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 said that this clause would do an act of justice to a large body of deserving tenants who had been excluded from the Act by what was almost an accident.
  Clause read a First time.
  MR. T. M. HEALYhoped that the Government would not reject this Amendment, moved from their own Benches, after they had accepted so many from the right hon. Member for Dublin University to the detriment of the tenants. The clause would simply be removing a doubt in the law as to the position of the tenants concerned.
  SIR THOMAS LEAsaid that there was a strong feeling in his constituency that the tenants concerned had been hardly used by being excluded almost accidentally.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the particular case in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the clause was a hard one; but the clause would have a general application.

  845
  However, as there had been no objection to the clause, the Government would accept it with some modification. If there was an express provision in the contract between the landlord and tenant that the landlord might resume, he did not think that in the resumption they should leave those terms to be decided under Section 5 of the Land Act of 1881. He proposed, therefore, to omit all the words after "therein" and to insert the words "on the terms that the rent of the holding be proportionately abated."
  Clause read a Second time; Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  MR. DILLON MR. DILLON moved the following clause:—

  SHORTENING JUDICIAL TERM.
  (1) Any statutory term beginning after the passing of tills Act in a present tenancy shall he ten years, and in Sections four and eight of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, "ten" shall, as respects any such term, he substituted for "fifteen."
  (2) Where a statutory term in the tenancy of a holding is current at the passing of this Act, an agreement or application to fix a fair rent for the holding may be made at any time after the expiration of the ninth year of that term, and the new judicial rent fixed by the court, and the further statutory term shall, notwithstanding that the statutory term current at the passing of this Act has not expired, begin on the gale day on which the tenth year of the current statutory term expires, or the gale day next after the application, whichever is latest.
  He said that the Bill as it stood would not meet the cases of the great majority of the Irish tenantry. There was throughout Ireland a just demand for some instant relief and abatement of judicial rents. The conditions of agriculture had been disastrous for several years past to a large number of industrious tenants, who were unable to meet their present rents. The Chief Secretary had stated that there were many large estates in Ulster where considerable abatements had been given on the judicial rents, but the Nationalist Members had reason to believe that the full rent had been demanded and pressed for, and that the tenants for two years had been paying those rents to a large extent either out of their capital or out
  846
  of borrowed money. This state of things could not last. A calculation had been made showing that the average price of 1883, compared with the price at present, represented a fall of 33 per cent. While that fall had affected all farm produce, labour had steadily increased in price between 30 and 40 per cent., and thus the unfortunate farmer was being squeezed between the upper and nether millstone. The Irish Members contended that the Land Commission, taken as a whole, was not staffed in favour of the tenants. On the contrary, as a whole it was favourable to the landlords, by tradition, association, and connection. In spite of that fact, however, judicial rents had been reduced on an average by about 30 per cent., and in a good many cases the reductions on the judicial rents fixed on the first occasion had reached over 50 per cent. This showed that the tenants had been compelled, under State-imposed conditions, for a considerable time to pay double the fair rent of their farms. The Chief Secretary said that if they threatened the judicial terms a flood of applications would ensue, choking the Courts, causing the number of Sub-Commissioners to be increased, and a lengthened period wherein to deal with the cases. But that was not a sufficient answer to their claim. If the tenants were suffering an injustice which was the result of mistakes made by Parliament and the administration of the law in Ireland, though the relief asked might cause the expenditure of a great deal of money, and an increase of staff in the Land Commission, the Government were bound to face the problem. If all rents fixed under the Act of 1881 were to remain as they were until the termination of the 15 years for which they were fixed, it would then be too late in many cases to afford the tenants any relief. The time when legislation could have benefited them would have passed away. To nine-tenths or four-fifths of the tenantry this Bill would give no relief. The argument that statutory contracts could not be broken could no longer be urged with any force, because the present Government had distinctly abandoned the principle of the inviolability of contract of the Bill of 1887.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that this subject had been threshed out in previous discussions, and that the hon. Member had not used a single now argument in support of his clause. As he had already said in Committee, he could not accept this proposal for a 10 years' term, believing that the change would be likely to increase the friction between the parties and to involve both them and the State in great expenditure. Even if this clause were adopted he doubted whether they would really get over the difficulty which formed the excuse for the second part of the hon. Member's proposal. One reason why the Government refused to adopt this suggestion was that they objected on principle, unless a case of absolute necessity could be proved, to interfere with contracts entered into under Parliamentary sanction. The hon. Member always spoke as if contracts were of no importance whatever in Ireland. It was perhaps not surprising that the hon. Member and his Friends should take that view after the legislative interferences of recent years, but in his judgment the fact that they did take that view was rather a reason for seeking to restore the state of things which it was a misfortune to have imperilled by the legislation of the past. He should, in any circumstances, be exceedingly reluctant to adopt a course which would have the effect of destroying the tenant's belief that when he entered into an agreement under Parliamentary sanction he would have to keep it. The hon. Member contended that, if the tenants whoso rents had been paid under the Act of 1881 could come into Court again, they would obtain considerable reductions. But the risk of a fall in prices was a risk which had to be run, and the essential condition of the 15 years' term was that, whether prices rose or fell, the rent should remain the same. Hon. Members, therefore, should not talk of rents fixed as unjust or oppressive rents. The other objection of the Government to this clause was the administrative objection. The administrative difficulty was not one that could be neglected or overlooked. The hon. Member himself said that, if his proposals were adopted, four-fifths of the tenants of Ireland would at once apply to the Court. How would it be
  848
  possible for the Court to deal with such a mass of applications?
  MR. DILLONexplained that he had not said that four-fifths of the tenants would apply. His view was that, in regard to the number of applications, the Court would be in exactly the same position as the Land Court was in 1881.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was true that the tenants did not all apply to the Court in 1881, but, if their present condition was as parlous as the hon. Member made it out to be, it was clear that they would all apply now. The accumulation of arrears between 1881 and 1887 was enormous, and there were cases in which tenants were not able to get their rents fixed for two, three, and even four years after they applied. Exactly the same thing would happen now unless they appointed a perfect army of such Commissioners. He thought the House would agree that it would not be desirable to have the Commission flooded with applications, for the administrative machinery of the Land Acts would break down under the strain.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that it was rather late in the day to raise the question of the sacredness of contracts in connection with Irish land. The principles accepted in 1881 had been recognised by every Government since then, and adopted by the Party opposite in the legislation of 1887. At that time they heard language even more forcible than that used by the Chief Secretary that evening. It was said that contracts could not be disturbed, and that judicial rents could not be revised. He had recently read again Lord Salisbury's declaration on that subject. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill of 1887, the Prime Minister said:—
  "A belief on the part of men that they will have to perform the promises they make is the very foundation of civilised society. You are laying your axe to the root of the fabric. There is nothing to prevent the tenantry from again acting at a future period for the purpose of again operating on your feelings by the means which they have used in times past. And you may depend upon it that such interference with judicial rents, attractive as it may seem for the moment, will be dearly paid for by the absolute loss of confidence which it will introduce into all transactions between man and man."

  849
  But what happened? A term of 15 years was established, and only five years of that term had expired when the Government found that they could not standby it themselves. They found that they could not bind the landlords and tenants in Ireland by their hard-and-fast rule of a 15 years' term. They found it absolutely necessary to do that which they said would destroy the fabric of civilised society. That showed, in his opinion, that the 15 years' term was a great deal too long. Was there anyone who would say that in the last few years of that 15 years' term the relations between landlord and tenant had been satisfactorily regulated? He did not think even the Member for South Tyrone would say that, nor anyone else who knew anything of the condition of the country. When such a long term as 15 years was taken, a state of things which was not contemplated at the commencement of the term was certain to arise. It used to be the habit in England to have leases for 15 years; but was there a landlord now in England who would think of making, or a tenant who would think of taking, a lease for 15 years? He did not think there was an estate in England on which such a venture would be made. The experience in England, as well as in Ireland, showed that 15 years was too long a term to tie up either the landlord or the tenant. The late Government did propose to shorten the term, and certainly they should support the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  CAPTAIN DONELANvery much regretted that the Chief Secretary had not seen his way to accept the Amendment. He regretted it the more because the right hon. Gentleman's refusal was admittedly founded more on motives of expediency than on considerations of justice. The Irish tenant-farmers were to be left to struggle on as best they could under a burden which was acknowledged to be heavier than they ought to bear, simply because immediate relief would be troublesome and costly. The attitude of the Government would not have such serious consequences if the farmers were in a position to keep their heads above water, but that was not so. The majority of farmers in Munster whose rents were fixed between 1883 and 1887 would be quite
  850
  unable to continue to pay them for the next three, or four, or five years. Many of them were, indeed, already on the border of bankruptcy. He was, of course, aware that nothing he could say was likely to alter the resolve of the Government, but He considered he would have failed in his duty if he did not enter an emphatic protest against that decision.
  MR. J. A. RENTOULsaid that, as he supported the Amendment brought forward in Committee, he should of course support it now. It seemed to him to be as much desired by the Unionist tenant-farmers of Ulster as by the tenant farmers in the South of Ireland. He would have been glad if the Chief Secretary had given him such reasons against the Amendment as he could have put before his constituents as a justification for voting with the Government; but the reasons the right hon. Gentleman had given were not sufficient. They were, first, that it would be impossible to find a sufficient number of Land Commissioners, and that there would be a block in the Committee. Had the right hon. Gentleman been able to prove that, he would have thought it unanswerable from his point of view. Another reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was that short periods tended to unsettle men's minds and keep up constant friction; but he had been told by a gentleman in England that they had the strongest objection to let farms for more than 10 years. It would give immense satisfaction to the tenant-farmers if the Government accepted the Amendment. He was sure it would raise the Bill greatly in the estimation of the tenant-farmers.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he was extremely glad to hear that the Chief Secretary did not intend to accept this proposal. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that the present condition of the tenants in Ireland was in-tolerable, that prices had fallen to such an extent that they could no longer pay their rent, but, as usual, the hon. Gentleman did not give the House a single figure to back up his assertion. On a former occasion he ventured to adduce some figures to the House, and those figures had never been disputed by any hon. Gentlemen on the other side. He was glad to hear his right hon. Friend

  851
  say that He did not agree with hon. Gentleman opposite that all contracts in Ireland should be looked upon as valueless. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were always asking for justice—" Justice without contract "was their new war cry. Mr. Gladstone, at the time that the Irish Land Act was under discussion, had pointed out that the Irish landlords would be in a far better position after than before the passing of the Act, because they would be perfectly sure of getting their rents for 15 years. The tenant farmers in Ireland ought to be made to know that contracts would he enforced in that part of the British Empire, and that knowledge would be given them if this Amendment were rejected. A 15 instead of a 10 years' term gave the landlords something like breathing time. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GEORGE MURNAGHANsaid that he hoped that the Amendment would be accepted so that the lives of the Irish people might not be sacrificed to mere technicalities. The position of Irish tenant farmers was far worse than that of English agriculturists. If the relief proposed to be given to the Irish farmers were not given the farmers would be driven from their homes into the slums of the towns where they would remain for the rest of their lives. He hoped that the Government would reconsider their determination with regard to this clause.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said that this was probably the most difficult question which could occupy the attention of the House in connection with this Bill and he did not think that, as an Ulster Member, He ought to give a silent vote upon it. He quite admitted everything that had been said by hon. Members opposite with regard to the amount of fooling and excitement on the question, and especially in the province of Ulster. He admitted that to the full, and he thought that it would be exceedingly strange if that feeling did not exist. The farmers everywhere were suffering from bad times, and when men saw the reductions in rent on the second statutory period now commencing, of course those who had to wait for a year or two would be exceedingly obliged if they could get that reduction at once. He desired, as an
  852
  Ulster Member, and representing a farming constituency in Tyrone, and not as a Member of the Government, to show what his action in the past had been upon this Question, and why he adhered to that action now. With regard to the retrospective part of the Amendment, if they looked at the proceedings of the Committee on the Land Act, they would find that the question was raised, and that Mr. Sexton moved a paragraph to this effect:—
  "and in regard to the conclusions stated in paragraph 19 of the Chairman's draft Report, they consider it equitable to apply this abridgment of period to existing statutory terms."
  "What was the result of that? There was a long discussion in the Committee, and a Division took place. There voted for Mr. Sexton's Amendment Mr. Clancy, Mr. Dillon, and Mr. Sexton; and there voted against it Mr. Puller, the Solicitor General, and himself. The vote was therefore equal, whereupon the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Montrose, declared himself with the "Noes"; that was to say that, upon the Committee which investigated the Land Acts in 1894, this proposal was rejected by the Committee, and was rejected by the deciding vote of the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Montrose.
  MR. DILLON: I recollect very distinctly that the Chairman said he was not prepared to commit himself on the question without further consideration.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that he was reading from the actual records, which he had taken pains to study. ["Hear, hear!"] The vote which he gave was an open and a public one, and he saw no reason to recede one iota from it. After He had given that vote, he had been returned to that House. When the Bill of the right hon. Member for Montrose was introduced, he admitted that it was not in harmony with the decision of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's Bill contained a clause to the effect that the abridgment of the period should be retrospective, and that the statutory period should be shortened; and He (Mr. Russell) had then said that he could give no active support to that proposal. He would point out the reason he had for giving that vote and the vote he was about to give that night. Hon. Members opposite

  853
  had made little of contracts. The view he had was this. Parliament, rightly or wrongly, had undertaken the duty of fixing fair rents in Ireland in 1881. The tenants went into Court, and the rents had been fixed for 15 years between the parties for that term. He submitted that it was unreasonable to ask that the Irish tenants should have all the advantages of State arbitration and also all the advantages of free contract. If the House interfered in the way proposed, what were they to do if a demand was made for an abatement of the land purchase instalments? He could easily see that they would find themselves in great difficulties if concessions of this kind were made. As to administrative difficulties, he looked with great apprehension upon the appointment of an army of temporary commissioners. They had now a body of men who were permanently in the service of the Crown doing this work. They were not responsible in the way temporary commissioners would be responsible; and he did not hesitate to say he would look with very great alarm to handing over the property of either landlord or tenant to an army of temporary commissioners to do what they liked with for the next two or three years. Whatever might be said of the pressure on the tenants, it was a lessening evil. In view of the serious danger of tampering with contracts in Ireland, and of great administrative difficulty arising, and in view of the fact that the evil was a lessening and not a growing one, he thought the House would be wise in accepting the proposal of the Government and resisting the Amendment. He frankly admitted that the demand in Ulster was stronger than it was in any other part of the country, and that he was going against the feeling of the great mass of the agricultural population. There were times, however, when a Member of the House should do what he thought right; and he, for the reasons he had given, should give his vote in support of the proposal of the Government.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid that, as the representative of the constituency adjoining that of the hon. Member who had last spoken, he felt bound to say he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that a very strong feeling existed in Ulster in favour of a reduction
  854
  of the statutory term. When the hon. Member rose, he fully expected he would have endorsed the Bill, which was read a Second time last year, and which Bill, if he was not very much mistaken, the hon. Gentleman told his constituents he adopted in omnibus.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had made that statement more than once; He had never said he accepted the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs in full. On the contrary, he placed on the Paper a series of Amendments, and upon the Bill plus those Amendments he went to his constituents.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLwas sorry if he misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, but he would ask him if he put down an Amendment to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose cutting down the term from 15 years to 10? He would be the last person in the House to try and do anything that would render more awkward than it otherwise was the position of the hon. Gentleman in reference to the Land Question, and therefore he would pass from the personal matter and deal with the question on its merits. It was clear that in the vast majority of cases rents could not be recast for four or five years. It was clear that the existing rents were higher than the tenants could pay, that farm produce was never at so low a price, or the interests of the tenants at such a low ebb. Under such circumstances, He put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it would not be following the dictates of common honesty and morality to give the tenants an opportunity of having their rents recast. The Chief Secretary sought to draw a distinction between a statutory contract and a contract by lease or any other agreement. There was no distinction between such contracts. A statutory contract had no effect in preventing the rents being recast, as they knew the rents were in 1887, on account of a change in the times. A statutory contract had no effect with reference to estates purchased in the Landed Estates Court. They were aware that in the Incumbered Estates Court and the Landed Estates Court estates were conveyed subject to existing tenancies, and those tenancies

  855
  were specified to be at certain rents. It was contrary to all experience to contend that a statutory contract could not be altered by a subsequent Act of Parliament. If there was any wish on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that this Measure should assume anything of a final character, he would grant this concession, because, so long as the 15 years' term existed, the tenants would never regard this as a settlement of their claim.
  SIR J. COLOMBsaid he rose in consequence of statements made on the other side, especially by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who had said that the existing rents were higher than the tenants could pay, and that the interests of the tenants were at a very low ebb. The true test was the price which the tenants got for their tenant-right interest. ["Hear, hear!"] This very year in Sligo a farm at a rent of £7 sold for £93–13 years' purchase. In Roscommon a farm at a rent of £21 was sold for £465–22 years' purchase. In Tipperary a farm rented at £2 10s. sold for £73. So he could go through all the counties in Ireland. When they spoke about low prices people thought of England, but let them compare the arable land in England and in Ireland and they would find a gigantic difference. Ireland was a stock-rearing country. In some of his own land he was better this year than last, and last year was better than the previous year. Complaint had been made by the Member for East Mayo that the tenants were between the upper and nether millstone of landlord and labourer, but the increase in the wages of the labourers was a proof of prosperity. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the hon. Gentleman (Sir John Colomb) had informed the House that, as regarded the produce of his own land this year, he had obtained much better prices than last year, and that those prices were better than the year before, but in order to give the House an opportunity of estimating what his position was he should prefer to examine the Income Tax returns. If he had made an enormous income from the land as shown by the Income Tax returns, no doubt it would indicate a great increase in his prosperity, but unless the hon. Gentleman could assure him that he paid a much larger amount he should hesitate to accept his statement.
  856
  The hon. Member for South Tyrone (the Secretary to the Local Government Board) and other Gentlemen viewed the matter under discussion as one of contract. He (Mr. Healy) had on previous occasions endeavoured to show that there was no contract whatever, that it was a Parliamentary term forced upon them in their despite, and it showed the bad advice continually given to Ulster by those whom the Ulster men relied upon. Who wanted to make the term 31 years? In 1881 the Presbyterian Ministers of Ireland petitioned the House that the 15 years' term should be increased to 31 years. And who was in favour of making it 5 years? The Irish popular Party of that day. Who was it that was in favour of making it 10 years, and who put down an Amendment to the effect? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, now the Leader of the House. [Opposition cheers.] He regretted that the First Lord was not in his place, but he was a very ardent debater of the Bill at that time, and he put down a number of Amendments, one of which was to reduce the term to the very term which the hon. Member for Mayo now sought to enact, viz., 10 years. Having quoted from "Hansard" the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of that Amendment, the hon. Member went on to say that it was true the Amendment chiefly affected the Ulster farmers, because they preferred to follow the advice given by those eminent Presbyterian divines and rejected the advice given them by the Land League, and because the House preferred to act upon the views presented for Ulster and against the view presented from the Nationalist Benches. If the House had accepted the latter view the term would have been shortened. Mr. A. M. Sullivan had an Amendment down to make the term five years, and that represented the view of the popular Party of the day. Might he use one argument that had not yet been presented to the House to-night? The hon. Member for South Tyrone had dealt with the case as if it only affected a 15 years' term; but the Ulster tenants who went into Court between 1881 and 1887 had not had a 15 years' term, but a 20, 21 and 22 years' term, because the

  857
  tenants who went in after 1881 did not get their rents fixed, many of them, until 1885, 1886, or 1887, and it was not until 1887 that the law was altered making the rent date, not from the time of the decision, but from the sale day following the original notice. He thought the Government might have given some decision, when they were debating that point, as to how they were going to meet a thing against which no breach of contract could be alleged, the grievance which had sprung up from the congestion of the Land Courts at that date. The Amendment now before the House was one of great importance—["hear, hear!"]—affecting the whole body of Irish tenants, and certainly he was amazed that Irish landlords should commence an outcry against the Government for what they had given to the tenants, while forgetting what the Government were refusing. They were refusing the almost unanimous appeal of Irish Members of all sections to reduce the judicial term which would give relief to tens of thousands of tenants, and yet when the Government accepted some little scrappy Amendment that would admit a little group of one, two, or three tenants to a fair rent, or give them a little bit of bog, instantly the whole landlord party rose in insurrection against the Government. [Cheers.] If the Government resisted this Amendment he thought they were doing wrong, and bringing mischief upon themselves. Certainly it was a remarkable thing to observe, while the Government were maintaining that attitude, what was the attitude of the landlord party towards the Government because of the slight and slender Amendments which they had accepted? The hon. Member for Trinity College, in denouncing the Government for accepting those small Amendments, reminded him of the Princess in Hans Christian Andersen's "Fairy Tales," who, being of royal blood, through 15 eiderdown coverlets was able to feel the crumpling of a roseleaf underneath. [Laughter.] The Amendments accepted from the Irish Benches, were just like those crumpled rose leaves, which so seemed to affect the sensitive epidermis of the landlord party. [Cheers and laughter.] He said that the Gov-
  858
  ernment were doing wrong in not meeting the question boldly and adequately. It was no question of contract. The length of the term was forced upon them against the protests of the popular party of the day, and the House should remember that the Sub-Commissioners admitted that the rents were unfairly fixed, and that, in Scotland, owing to falling prices, the term was reduced to 7 years. On all those grounds he strongly urged that this was an Amendment the Government ought to accept. If they refused to accept it, they would have, in honour, to accept the Amendment reducing the term, at any rate, to that which would enable the tenant to count from the lodgment of his application, for before it was heard He often was waiting for tardy justice for five years during which he lay at the mercy of the landlord and of the sheriff, when he was seeking to get a fair rent fixed. When, in consequence, evictions took place, and future tenancies were created all over the land, as they had been, by the delay of the Courts in bringing justice to the door of the tenant, why should the Government now turn round and say, "Do not tamper with these future tenancies, they are the operations of the law," forgetting all the time that they were the operation of rack rents and delayed remedies. The Irish tenant had no legal locus penitentiœ when judgment in ejectment was served upon him beyond six months for redemption; the moment a registered letter was fired at him, that moment and for ever the present tenancy was gone, unless he could pay in full the unabated rent. Such were the tremendous consequences which attached to a breach of statutory conditions. He implored the Government to set aside the prejudices, raised on the plea of contract, to induce them to refuse this Amendment, and to bring to the large body of the tenants, as had been admitted by the Member for South Tyrone, something of comfort and something of security in their holdings. [Cheers.]
  MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid he would ask his right hon. Friend to consider the special case of those tenants whose term of 15 years had been prolonged owing to the congestion

  859
  of the Land Courts in the earlier years of the statutory period. He was told that in a particular district in his own constituency these tenants really had not a 15, but a 17 or 18 years' term simply owing to the congestion in the Land Courts during the first two or three years after the passing of the Land Act of 1881. He felt sure that many of his constituents would like him to support this Amendment. But he felt that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had had a most difficult task to perform; he had refused to yield to the landlords on many most important points, and he had refused to yield to the representatives of the tenants on other important points, and he was plainly trying to steer a just and fair course between landlord and tenant. Therefore, he felt bound to support his right hon. Friend and the Government, who were honestly trying to pass a fair Bill. He would, however, ask them to consider the case of those tenants the fixing of whose rent was postponed owing to the congestion in the Land Courts to which he had referred.
  MR. DENIS KILBRIDEcited figures to show that on every occasion when judicial rent-holders, whose rents were fixed in 1881, had had liberty to appeal to the Courts reductions had followed of from 25 to 40 per cent. He had come to the conclusion, therefore, that the real reason why the Government refused to accept this Amendment was not because they wished to steer on an even keel between landlord and tenant, but because they wished to safeguard the property of the landlord as long as they could. The tenant farmers of South Tyrone, as well as of the west of Ireland, would believe that that was the real reason of the Government for their refusal. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said that they did not point out where the great fall in prices had been since 1887, but he must be aware that on all the smaller holdings in Ireland rent was
  860
  made largely out of the sale of pigs, and that the price of pigs since 1887 had fallen 30 per cent.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Would the hon. Member give the figures?
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid the present price was about 32s. per cwt. for the best class in any of the towns of the constituency which the hon. and gallant Member represented. It was acknowledged that the rents up to 1887 were fixed on the basis of the average prices of the 15 years previous to the passing of the Act, and the average prices of the products that went to make up the rent of the small farmers had fallen very much since 1887. Nobody denied that prices had fallen 30 per cent.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I deny it.
  MR. KILBRIDEmaintained that he had not exaggerated the fall in prices, and it was apparent that under these circumstances rent had almost disappeared. The refusal of the Government was due to the unfortunate fact that the Irish tenant farmers in 1896 were not as united and determined in their own interests as they were in 1886. If the Chief Secretary refused the Amendment, the fact would prove to the Irish tenant-farmer that as long as he remained disunited and squabbled over differences of procedure in politics their best interests would be neglected by the House, and if they were, he, as an Irish tenant-farmer would heartily say, "Serve them right."
  MR. JAMES DALY, is supporting the Amendment, said the outlook for the Irish tenant for the next 10 years was a dark one. But for the money they received from their children in America they would be unable to pay their rents. "Breach of contract" had been talked of. If there was an agitation in Ireland such as they had in 1887 there would be little talk of breach of contract. The Government would soon sue for peace with the people of Ireland.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNGsaid that as a representative of an agricultural constituency, he felt that the Government had made a mistake which they would repent before many years. It was quite true that many tenants would not be able to make ends meet until the time arrived when they could get fair rents fixed. Many would have to go to the States of America as the poor people of Ireland had had to do from time to time.
  MR. MICHAEL FLAVINsaid he wished briefly to give a few instances of the fall of agricultural prices in Ireland. The average price of wheat between 1886 and 1895 was 16s. 8d. per cwt.; the price now in the south did not average 7s. per cwt. The average price of oats from 1886 to 1895 had been 11s. 8d.; the present price was not 5s. 6d. Barley was 13s. 6fi. per cwt.; now, to his own knowledge, it was not over 6s. per cwt. The Irish tenant was expected to pay the rents he paid 10, 12, and 16 years ago when prices were so much higher and things so much better. The rents paid for land six or seven years ago were now impossible. Not only had the prices of agricultural produce fallen, but the produce of the land is a drug on the market. For instance, barley had not been a marketable article for the last two years Barley grown in the south, where the tenants were asked to pay exorbitant rents, had been sold at as low as 7d. per stone. Shop-keepers who had had to hold it for two years could not even sell it at cost price.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLheartily joined with what had been said on his side of the House with regard to this important Amendment, and could only express his regret that the right hon Gentleman had not seen his way to accept it instead of climbing down in face of the opposition of the landlords' friends.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETTthought the Government were quite right in resisting the Amendment, but considered they might make a concession in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for North Louth, and allow the tenants—the fixing of whose rents were delayed by the overcrowding of the Land Courts in former years—to make their judicial rents to date from the time of their application, or, at any
  862
  rate, from a reasonable period after the date of their application. ["Hear, hear!"] There was a strong ground for such a course, for unquestionably the landlords did get some advantage at that time from a delay which was not contemplated when the Act was passed. It was really a small concession to make, and he thought it would be a fair compromise upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo,
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 101: Noes, 172.—(Division List, No. 353.)
  MR. DILLON MR. DILLON moved the following new clause, which was read a First time:—

  JUDICIAL TERM IN CASES OF AGREEMENTS.
  "In the case of a tenant who applied to the court under Section 6G of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, on the first occasion on which it sat, to have a fair rent fixed, and who, since making that application, has signed an agreement under Sub-section 6 of Section 8 of the said Act, the statutory term so created shall, for the purpose of an application to fix a fair rent, he held to date from the day on which the Land held (Ireland) Act, 1881, came into force."
  He said the clause dealt with cases of very great hardship and injustice. He would illustrate by giving the case of a body of tenants which came under his notice—the tenants of Lord Ormathwaite. The tenants had gone into Court relying on the 60th Section of the Act of 1881, and were accordingly first occasion tenants. Considerable delay having arisen in getting their rents fixed, they signed agreements with the landlord fixing the rents out of Court. Neither the landlord nor the tenants who were parties to this agreement, were aware of the fact that by signing this agreement they lost their privileges as first occasion tenants, and that their period only dated from the date on which the agreement was signed. Some of these tenants came into Court the other day in order to have fair rents fixed for a second judicial term, but they were dismissed because of having signed the agreement, though the landlord did not take this point against them. Lord Ormathwaite wrote a letter stating that he considered it to be a

  863
  hardship, and that he would be glad if any legislation could be passed which would take this obstacle from their path and place them in the same position that they would have occupied if they had gone in and had their rent fixed.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid this proposed new clause must, he thought, be discussed with some reference to the Amendment down on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, which was somewhat analogous to it. Under the law as it stood these tenants, who made application on the first occasion when the Court sat, were entitled to date the judicial term, when it came to be fixed from the gale day after the application. There was a great block in the Court after that, and considerable delay in fixing the rents, and there were no doubt cases where the tenants who had made applications on the first occasion were deprived of the advantage by the voluntary arrangements they made with their landlords. At the same time, he was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member say that neither they nor the landlord knew that in doing so they would be deprived of the advantage they would have been entitled to in the ordinary course of events. He turned for a moment to the case which the hon. and learned Member for Louth sought to deal with. He had already stated that these first applications entitled the tenant to date the statutory term from the gale day after the application. Under the Act of 1887, a similar rule was made for all tenants, and what the hon. and learned Member sought practicably was to make the Act of 1887 retrospective as regarded those tenants who did not apply in the first instance, but who applied before the Act of 1887. No doubt these tenants, and also the tenants who would be affected by the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo, were in a rather curious position, and he had a good deal of sympathy with them. But he must remind the House that this matter was thoroughly discussed on the Committee stage, and he then said he would consider whether this Amendment and the analogous one standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Louth should not be accepted if the procedure was so far expedited as to do away with the administrative difficulty which he foresaw
  864
  would arise if the Amendments were accepted without such expedition. As the House knew, they were, unfortunately, obliged to withdraw the procedure clauses, and he was afraid that the effect of the changes they had made in the Bill would be, so far from expediting the procedure, to tend to make it slower than it was at the present time, for in the clause that now stood first in the Bill they had required the Court to ascertain and to state a number of particulars which were not required under previous Acts. Under these circumstances he was afraid it was not in his power to accept either the present Amendment or the one of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. But he might just mention that they had introduced a clause into the Bill at the instance of the hon. and learned Member which entitled landlords and tenants who might wish to do so at any time to abridge their statutory term and arrive, by agreement, at a fresh term and a fresh fair rent. He thought that provision would meet the case of the tenants contemplated both by the hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. and learned Member for Louth. He thought that provision would meet the case of Lord Ormathwaite and his tenants, because they could under the clause, if they desired to do so, come in and arrange for the fixing of a fair rent for a second term, and that it would go a long way to meet the oases of those tenants whom the hon. and learned Member for Louth wished to come in.
  MR. T. M. HEALY, who expressed his grief and disappointment with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, said he had opposed the clause entirely on the fact that, in his opinion, procedure had not been expedited in such a way as to justify him in accepting it. What was the procedure under this Bill? It abolished Court hearings, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that Court hearings in nine-tenths of the cases occupied no time at all, and that so far as his clause went it would not have shortened the process by one hour. The valuation was the tedious process, and by the right hon. Gentleman's clause that process could not have been abridged but would have been extended. He believed the argument that the rejection of the procedure clause involved the

  865
  rejection of these Amendments was not put forward by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but by those who advised him. It was a most flimsy argument. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that his clause met the difficulty, but his clause was optional, and being optional it did not touch the question. To suggest that the Irish landlords would allow those tenants to go into Court by agreement years sooner than they would otherwise be able to do was absurd. Now, in regard to this matter, Irish Members were not a little disappointed. It proved that hon. Members should never give up the powers of influencing Governments when in Committee. When this question was brought forward in Committee the Government asked for time to consider it, and said they would deal with it on the Report stage. The Irish Members gave way, and what was the result? Why, that they now absolutely got nothing at all. That was scarcely fair. It should he remembered that the class of tenants referred to were largely Ulster tenants—men who were kept waiting for more than five years at the gates of justice to get a fair rent fixed. Why? Simply because the Treasury would not appoint a sufficient number of sub-Commissioners to hear their cases, and in consequence of that the Government now denied them justice, and would impose on them not even a 15 years', but a 21 years' term. He protested against the policy of the Government in this matter as wholly unreasonable, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College that he might here have his revenge on the Government. [Mr. CARSON: "I wish I could."] [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman must know from professional experience how bitterly hard was the grievance of those tenants, who were kept year after year from getting a fair rent fixed, and many of whom were evicted and lost their present tenancies. Yet the Government, who had an opportunity of doing an act of bare justice to these men, refused to do so on grounds utterly insufficient. He could not understand the position taken by the Government in this matter. The Amendment was in accord with the policy adopted in the Act of 1887—a policy which was approved by both Houses. Then what could be the reason
  866
  why the Government refused to accept the Amendment. If the reason was the glutting or the congestion of the Courts, he could only say that the tenants would be quite willing to take their chance of waiting to get their rents fixed if they knew that the fixing of the rent was dated from the day of application. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, who had fought his corner well for the landlords, must know the heavy disabilities under which the tenants referred to suffered through no fault of their own, and he now appealed to him, under the circumstances, to support his countrymen in the effort to remove a great grievance.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid the Amendment was moved with the object of protecting a tenant from suffering, or from injustice, because He had made an agreement with his landlord. That was really the effect of the Amendment. Under the Act of 1881, tenants got special privileges if they went into Court on the first occasion on which it sat. Thirty or forty thousand did so; but a number of tenants who could not get their cases heard came to an agreement with their landlords, and the position the Government had really taken up was that, therefore, those men were to be punished. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman could not be aware that if those tenants had fought their landlords in the Land Courts they would have had no necessity for seeking the benefit of this Amendment—that if they had held their landlords at arm's length, and insisted on the Court deciding between them, they would have secured the right of which they had been deprived. To deny the tenants, under such circumstances, the right of going into Court for several years to come to have a fair rent fixed was a gross injustice. The clause only applied to tenants who went into Court to have fair rents fixed, and who afterwards agreed with their landlords as to the fixing of the rents. It was a term of all the agreements that the rents should run back to the time the notice was served. The rents had run for 15 years. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "By agreement!"] Yes; and, therefore, He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he understood the hon. Gentleman wished to confine the operation of the clause to cases where, evidently by the terms of the agreements, landlords and tenants intended the term should end in 15 years dating from the time of the application. [Mr. M. HEALY: "Hear, hear!"] Then he did not see what objection there was to the clause. ["Hear!"]
  Clause read a Second time.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid an Amendment to the clause would be necessary, and
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDrose to suggest an Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he would give the right hon. Gentleman time to prepare the Amendment, and left the Chair for the customary interval.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND moved, after the word "shall" to insert the words, "where the judicial rent has been received as having accrued due from the gale day succeeding the date of the application."
  Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved the following clause:—

  CERTAIN REINSTATED TENANTS TO BE PRESENT TENANTS.
  "Where, prior to the commencement of this Act, a tenant holding under a present tenancy was evicted from his holding, and such tenant or his personal representative was afterwards reinstated in the possession of the holding, the tenancy created on such reinstatement shall he deemed to he a present tenancy unless the contract of tenancy expressly provides otherwise."
  This clause, He said, recognised as the starting-point from which the tenancy should begin the date given in the Act of 1881, and did not propose to alter that date. There were an enormous number of these eases, the number having been greatly multiplied under
  868
  Section seven of the Act of 1887. Some of the; tenants who were served with eviction notices and reinstated were, he had no doubt, reinstated in express terms as under a present tenancy; but these transactions were managed in an informal way. All that the clause proposed to do was to give legal sanction to what was unquestionably the intention of the parties in all these cases.
  Clause read a First time.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he should entirely agree with the hon. Member if he believed that, where the contract did not expressly so provide, it was the intention of the parties in every case that the tenant should be reinstated as under a present tenancy. But he could not believe that that was always the case, or that that could always be taken to be the intention of the parties. Under the Bill, it would be possible for the landlord and tenant to agree to make the present tenancy the regular course. He thought, therefore, it would be unreasonable to accept the Amendment.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved the following new clause, which was read a First time:—

  CERTAIN TENANCIES TO BE PRESENT TRNANCIES.
  "Where at any time between the twenty-first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, and the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, a holding was held by a tenant under a letting made by a judge or master of the Supreme Court or the Lord Chancellor, and the tenant or his personal representative, on the determination of such letting by the cesser of the control of such judge, master, or Lord Chancellor, continued to be the tenant of the holding, and has so continued until the commencement of this Act, the tenancy existing in such holding at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be a present tenancy unless the contract under which the same was created expressly provides otherwise."
  He pointed out that the argument used in Committee was to this effect—that it would be unjust, where a letting was treated by the Court of Chancery, to thrust the letting on parties who had

  869
  no part in creating the tenancy. He accepted that doctrine for the purposes of this clause; but all he asked was that where the parties themselves, of their own volition, deliberately recognised the tenancy, then the effect of the Act of 1881 should not be a ground for saying that there was no present tenancy.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that the Government could not accept the clause, because it would be unjust to the person entitled, after the determination of the cause or the litigation, to fix upon him as a present tenant anyone who might be found in possession of the holding, who had no claim upon him, and whom He was not bound to recognise.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved the following new clause:—

  REPEAL OF 44 & 45 VICT., c. 49, s. 8,. S.S. 5.
  "The fifth sub-section of Section eight of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, is hereby repealed."
  The clause was, he said, designed to facilitate and expedite the proceedings of the Sub-Commissioners. The subsection had a direct connection with the right of preemption, but the landlord's right of preemption remained after this sub-section was repealed. At the beginning of the statutory term this subsection enabled the landlord to ask the Court to fix the price at which he might buy the tenancy at any time during the term. Rut in the course of 15 years the value of the tenancy must enormously change and vary. The time to fix the price was when the right of preemption was exercised. If the work of the Sub-Commissioners was to be facilitated, some stop must be put to the absurd process of having the selling value of the tenancy fixed without any regard as to whether any person wished to sell or buy it at all.
  SIR J. COLOMBwas inclined to think that the clause would operate against the tenant. If, on the fair-rent application the saleable value was determined by the Land Commission, and if the rent was going to decline, it was obvious that the earlier the period the greater would be the advantage to
  870
  the tenant, because at the end of 14 years, the rent having declined, the landlord was bound to pay the price fixed by the Court several years previously. He hoped that the Government would not give way on the clause. He was not merely a landlord. He was a middle-man, a present tenant, a future tenant, and a tenant outside the Act. [Laughter.] His interest in the last capacity exceeded all his other interests; and he was voting on this question in the general interests of Ireland. If the Land Commission could fix a fair rent they could fix the saleable value; and he hoped the Government would not give way.
  MR. FLYNNurged that the hon. Gentleman ought to support the Amendment if he were a tenant; because, the knowledge that the holding would never get beyond the specified value was a bar to improvement by the tenant.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that Judge O'Hagan, speaking on 3rd May 1883, used these words:—
  "With all respect to the Legislature, to put upon an unfortunate Commissioner the task of estimating the value of Land in places where laud has not been in the habit of being set up to be sold, and where no experience can he brought to bear upon it, was one of the most absurd tasks ever put upon man."
  Outside Ulster there was no means of determining what the tenant-right was before 1881. It was to be hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOITRsaid that he had always entirely failed to understand what earthly good the landlord derived from the fixing of a specified value. The Government would be prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  MR. ELYNN MR. ELYNN moved the following new clause:—

  PRESENT THNANCIES.
  "(1) Where a tenancy in a holding began not less than one year 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

  871
  holding or the substantial part thereof, the tenancy shall he a present tenancy within the meaning of the Laud Law Acts, and the application shall he deemed to have been made by a 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 Law Acts."
  He said that if this, Bill were to have good results its scope ought to be as wide as possible, and many thousands of tenants, who were now future tenants, would, without this clause, be outside the Bill. In the present year no less than 2,238 present tenants had been converted into future tenants, and altogether quite 40,000 present tenancies had been destroyed, many because the fair rents could not be fixed in time. Then, the 7th Section of the Act of 1887 had worked more actual wrong to the tenants than the most barbarous evictions. He knew this was a drastic Amendment, but they should be willing to accept any reaasonable modification of it, or any material rearrangement of it, so long as these future tenancies were relieved from the hopeless condition in which they were at present. In the interests of peace, harmony, and good government, he hoped the Government would give some relief to a deserving body of men, a number of whom had been suffering cruel wrong.
  MR. DILLONstated that the effect of the 7th Clause of the Act of 1887 had been this—that by the receipt of a registered letter hundreds and thousands of tenants had lost all their rights under the Land Acts without knowing what had happened. Indeed, for a considerable period after the letter had reached them they had not the least idea of the disastrous consequences that had been inflicted upon them by a registered letter. Country people could not understand all the subtleties of an Act of Parliament, and He held that the old system of the Sheriff marching out with a force of constabulary to deprive the tenant of the right of occupation of his home was a more wholesome system, painful though it was, because it gave the man full warning of the chance wrought in his condition. Under the operation of the clause in question 30,000 or 40,000 tenants had been driven outside the pale of the law and were now future tenants
  872
  at the mercy of the landlords, and just in the same position as if no Land Act had ever been passed at all. He received a letter the other day on behalf of 300 future tenants in one parish alone. He warned the Government that no Bill could settle the Irish Land Question which did not take into account the position of the future tenants, those tenants, most of them, being in their present position owing to the failure of the Government in the Act of 1887 to provide a remedy for a grievance which they admitted to exist.
  SIR J. COLOMBsaid he was not going to ask the Government not to give way on this matter, because that was certain to produce a decision of the Government to give way. [Nationalist cheers.] But he was going, as an English Member representing an English constituency, to explain to English Members what was the difference between a present and a future tenant. The Act of 1881 created every tenant in possession a present tenant, and as such he had a right to get his rent fixed and a right to his improvements, but it was conditional on this, that when he had his rent fixed he paid it. He had been a Member of an East London constituency from 1886 to 1892, and had seen more evictions in East London during that period than he had seen in all his life in Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Did the English tenants build the houses they were evicted out of? [Nationalist cheers.]
  SIR J. COLOMBhoped that no heat would be imported into the discussion, as they had up to this got on amicably together. [Laughter.] He would not ask the Government whether or not they were going to accept the Amendment, for they had done so many extraordinary things that one was never sure of them. But when he told English Members that future tenants were men who had lost their positions as present tenants, with fair rents fixed by the Land Courts, because they had not paid those rents, He felt sure that English Members would not support the Government if they gave way.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid his hon. Friend need not be afraid; the Government were not going to give way on the point. If a tenant were evicted from a holding he might be replaced as a present tenant if the landlord so desired;

  873
  but if the landlord replaced the tenant as a future tenant, there could be no justification for the Government stepping in and saying that all future tenants should be present tenants. He believed that if the clause were passed it would be an incentive to landlords not to put back evicted tenants as they could only put them back as present tenants, but to let the holdings instead to other men as future tenants.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid that a clause similar to the one now under consideration was inserted after great deliberation in the Land Bill of the late Liberal Government, which passed its Second Reading last year. He thought the suggestion of the Chief Secretary that the effect of the clause would be to prevent the landlords from reinstating evicted tenants was rather strained, The meaning of the clause was that a man who had lost the status of a present tenant by eviction should be placed in the position of the present tenant again and have a fair rent fixed. It was unfortunate that the Bill of last year had not passed into law. If it had passed there would be some hope that the vexed question of landlord and tenant in Ireland would be settled for half a century; but they would be as badly off as ever after the present Bill had become the law
  MR. JASPER TULLY)said the unfortunate condition of the future tenants was exemplified by the condition of the Madden tenants in the constituency he represented. These tenants, about 100 in number, owed in 1881 a couple of years' rent as a result of the great distress of the preceding years. When the Land Act of 1881 was passed the landlord came down on them, served them with ejectments, and thus deprived them of their status as tenants, which prevented them from going into the Land Court to have fair rents fixed. They were then compelled to accept agreements constituting them future tenants, and making their arrears a debt to be paid oft' in instalments. This landlord was, therefore, better off than landlords who treated their tenants with more wisdom and less harshness. It was not the good and generous landlords who would be touched by the clause, but the bad landlords, who were a constant source of trouble in Ireland.
  MR. SMITH-BARRY)said the condition of the future tenants had been much exaggerated, A few cases which had occurred on his own estate in Tipperary would show that future tenants were in as good a position as the present tenants. In one case a man paid down £600 for the sake of going into a farm as a future tenant; in another case between, £300 and £400, and in a third case £500, were paid for the interest in farms held under future tenancies.
  COLONEL WARIRG)gave instances of present tenants on his own estate who had gained a distinct advantage by being converted into future tenants.
  MR. KILBRIEexplained that the class of future tenants was largely composed of men who were obliged to take advantage of the Arrears Act of 1882 These tenants found themselves in the position of owing one year's rent after they had taken advantage of the Act, and that liability debarred them from benefiting under the Land Act of 1881. Of course as had been shown, there were cases of men who had voluntarily consented to occupy the position of future tenants, and he admitted that as far as they were concerned, this clause perhaps went a little too far. It might be fair to exclude them from the operation of the clause until they should have been in possession of their holdings for five years. It should not be forgotten that the tenants who took advantage of the Arrears Act of 1882 were men who had been grievously rack-rented. It was computed that there were 40,000 future tenants in Ireland at present, and the process of converting present tenants into future tenants was proceeding at the rate of 3,000 a year. In a very short time a very large percentage of the total number of tenant-farmers in Ireland would have been converted into future tenants. It was to the advantage of the landlord to make his tenants future tenants, for he thus deprived them of the benefits of the Land Acts, and was able to extract from them the whole value of the produce of the soil. The hardship of the condition of a future tenant was chiefly felt in the poor districts of South Antrim, Mayo, and Galway. To large numbers of small tenants in the congested districts of the

  875
  West, this Bill as it stood would not apply. If nothing was done for them he feared that these men might be driven to agitate in order to force their grievances on the attention of the House.
  Motion made and Question put, "That the clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 189.—(Division List, No. 354.)
  The following clause stood upon the Paper in the name of Sir Thomas Lea:—

  ADVANCES TO TENANTS.
  "Whereas under the Irish Church Act, 1869, the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1872, advances to tenants were authorised for such proportions of the money required for the purchase of their holdings, and upon such conditions and terms as therein specified, and whereas, notwithstanding that such terms and conditions were altered and modified by the Irish Laud Act, 1887, in certain cases, and to the extent therein mentioned, there still remains an inequality which presses severely and injuriously on the purchasers under those earlier Acts as compared with the advantages provided under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, and the Irish Land Act, 1887, and the Purchase of Land Act, 1891, be it therefore enacted as follows:—
  On the application of the tenant of any holding purchased under the Irish Church Act, 1869, the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, or the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1872, and whether the annuities or instalments payable out of such holding have been altered under the provision of the Irish Land Act, 1887, or the Purchase of Land Act, 1801, or otherwise, and if, upon due investigation, they find that any portion of the purchase money other than the advance made by this State was borrowed by the tenant and still remains due, the Irish Land Commissioners shall make such further advance as may be required to pay off such debt, and shall pay it off: Provided that upon due inquiry, the Land Commission is satisfied that such holding is sufficient security for such advance when added to the portion still unpaid of the original State loan or advance.
  The Land Commission shall ascertain the present capital value of the annuities or instalments still remaining unpaid of the original advance, and shall add such capital sum to the amount advanced under this section, and repayment of the total sum so found shall be provided for by an annuity from the first day of May or the first day of November next preceding the date of the application under this section of such amount as shall be found by the Land Commissioners to be required to repay it by half-yearly instalments calculated under section seventeen of this Act."
  MR. SPEAKER: The next clause which stands upon the Paper, in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Londonderry, as I understand it, is not in order, because it proposes to throw an additional burden upon the State. The clause appears to me to propose that where a tenant has, under previous Acts borrowed any portion of the purchase money from persons other than the State, the Land Commissioners shall make such further advance as may be required to pay off such debt. That would be to throw an increased burden upon the State, and such a proposal is out of order upon the Report stage of the Bill.
  SIR THOMAS LEAsaid that his only object was to put tenants who had purchased their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts in the same position as other tenants would occupy under this Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is exactly what I understood the meaning of the clause to be, and as it proposed to throw an increased burden upon the State, it is out of order.
  Clause 1,—

  PART 1. LAND LAW.

    FAIR RENT.—AMENDMENT AS TO IMPROVEMENTS.
    (1.) Where the court fixes a fair rent for a holding, the court shall ascertain and record in the form of a schedule—

    (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 such improvement—

    (i) the nature, character, and present capital value thereof, and the increased letting value due thereto;

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

    (iii) the deduction from the rent 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:

    877

    (f) such other matters in relation to the holding as may be prescribed; and

    (g) the fair rent of the holding;

    and the record shall be admissible in evidence on its mere production from the proper custody.
    (2.) No rent shall be allowed or made payable in respect of an improvement made by the tenant on a holding by reason only of the work constituting such improvement not being suitable to the holding.
    (3.) 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 any improvement, provided that 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 object 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 object shall be implied where not expressed.
    (8.) Sub-sections one, 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.
    MR. KNOX MR. KNOX moved in Sub-section (1), after the word "court"—("Where the court")—to insert the words "if the applicant so demand at the hearing."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. KNOXasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. KNOX MR. KNOX moved, in Sub-section (1) after the word "shall" to insert the words "if either the landlord or the tenant so requires."
    MR. KNOXsaid he would accept the words the Chief Secretary had suggested, "unless landlord and tenant agree in asking that such schedule shall not be filled up."
    MR. DILLOXsubmitted that it would be to the advantage of the tenant that the schedule should be filled up.
    MR. JORDANcontended that the schedule would deprive small tenants of the protection of the statute.
    MR. KNOXsaid the schedule in its present form, instead of being an advantage to the tenant, would be a great disadvantage. However, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. KNOX MR. KNOX moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "schedule," to insert the words "unless both landlord and tenant concur in asking that such a schedule shall not be filled up." Believing this sub-section was the worst thing in the whole Bill for the tenant, he hoped the words would be accepted.
    MR. T. M. HEALY, in supporting the Amendment, observed that the schedule was prepared by the Government in favour of the landlords; it was a landlords' schedule, and was obnoxious to the tenants' interest.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KNOX Mr. KNOX moved, in paragraph (g), Sub-section (1), after the word "and," to insert the words "a certified copy of the record shall be sent by post to each party, and."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. KNOX MR. KNOX moved, in paragraph (g), Sub-section (1), after the word "record," to insert the words "or a certified copy thereof."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. KILBRIDE MR. KILBRIDE moved, in paragraph (g), 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."
    The hon. Member said he moved this Amendment in order to give the Government an opportunity of reconsidering their position on the question of improvements. If the Bill was to pass in its present form it could not be accepted by the tenant-farmers as a final solution of the land question, and especially on this matter of improvements, around which the whole question centred. As the law now stood, for every pound which the tenant had expended, and which increased the letting value of his farm by one shilling, part of that shilling had to go to the landlord. He should like to hear whether the interest the tenant was entitled to on the capital he had expended was to go up and down according as money was dear or cheap. The Land Commission might hold that the rate of interest to which the tenant was entitled on the capital value of his expenditure was 2½ or only 2 per cent. Money expended in land reclamation or improvement did not, in the great majority of cases, bring in a large percentage. He thought the tenant was entitled to the full increased value of the land on the money he had spent in improving his holding. As the Bill stood, the tenant-farmers were to be told that whore the expenditure was remunerative that expenditure was to be taxed in the interest of the landlord. That was to say, where the tenant created something very valuable, the landlord was to have a slice, but where the tenant created anything that instead of being valuable resulted in a loss, the landlord was not to bear any share of such loss. The Bill gave the sanction of statute law to the decision in Adams v. Dunseath. He thought that was an entirely one-sided arrangement. If the increased letting value was to be divided between landlord and tenant, and the latter got a certain percentage on the capital he had expended, then, where the tenant made
    880
    an unfortunate speculation, and where, instead of increasing the letting value and getting interest on the money he expended, he made a dead loss, there should be a provision for the landlord to share the loss with the tenant. The Bill, however, contained no such provision. They heard a great deal about the inherent capacity of the soil. He did not dispute that the inherent capacity of the soil was the property of the landlord, but what he did say was this. When a tenant took a farm it was because of his knowledge that the farm possessed an inherent capacity, and for which alone he paid the rent. But the landlord ought not to get two rents upon the inherent capacity, namely, for the natural inherent capacity of the soil and the inherent capacity which had been developed and made more active by the skill and improvement of the tenant. According to the Bill, the more the tenant developed the inherent capacity of the soil the more rent had he to pay for it. As a holding was rendered more valuable by the improvements effected at the expenditure of much capital and labour by the tenant, the Land Commission might, under the Bill, say that he was to pay a higher rent. He was thus to be mulcted for having succeeded in making two blades of grass grow where only one grew before. He contended that inherent capacity ought to pay one rent only. The tenant-farmers of Ireland would not be satisfied with the Bill as it at present stood. The tenant-farmers, rightly or wrongly, believed that the increased letting value due to their expenditure of capital and labour in developing the inherent capacity of the soil was their property, and their property alone. If they were to encourage industry, if they were to encourage the tenant-farmer to improve his land, they must secure to him the whole benefit of that improvement. There was no other means by which the soil of Ireland could be thoroughly developed. The Bill, as it stood, did not foster industry, but, on the contrary, it almost discouraged the tenant to go on improving his land and making it as remunerative as possible. What this House ought to do was to impress the tenant-farmer of Ireland with the fact that the best bank he had

    881
    for his savings was the land he cultivated. The Bill, in its present form, did not do that.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYwas sure the hon. Gentleman would not think him guilty of any disrespect to him when he said he would strongly advise the House not to enter into the complex discussion involved in this Amendment. The policy of the Government had been laid down with great distinctness on a previous stage of the Bill. There were hon. Gentlemen opposite who took the view of the hon. Member who had just spoken, and had pressed very strongly that the law should be modified in the sense of the Amendment. There were other hon. Gentlemen who had pressed the Government to modify the law in precisely the opposite direction. The resolution they had come to was not to modify the law in this particular at all, and not to attempt any definition in regard to the inherent properties of the soil. They had, if he might remind the House, a deal of work before them that night, and He thought it would be desirable that they should consider some of the big questions that had been so fully debated before as now being finally settled, and that they should not discuss at great length the very difficult problem which the hon. Gentleman had raised in his speech. He hoped he would not press his Amendment, but if he did he trusted the House would not be betrayed into a long and elaborate discussion over ground which had been so often trodden before.
    MR. DILLONadmitted that this subject had been very fully discussed on the Committee stage, and He should be glad to see the advice of the First Lord of the Treasury accepted, and a Division immediately taken. He had not the slightest intention of traversing ground already covered, but he desired to warn the House that the farmers of Ireland could not and would not regard this question of the protection of the tenants' improvements as settled until the law was altered in the sense aimed at by this Amendment. This was a question which affected the whole body of farmers, and he believed nothing short of this Amendment would give full and ample protection of the tenants' improvements.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 181.—(Division List, No. 355.)
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to leave out the words, "an application to fix a fair rent," and to insert instead thereof the words, "the Land Law Acts." He said this was simply a drafting Amendment, and therefore he promised there would be no objection to it. There were continual references in the section to improvements, and obviously the amendment of the law in the clause should extend to any proceeding under the Land Acts.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he really did not quite see at the first glance what was the purport of the Amendment.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman to take the case of the pre-emption clause. When a tenant exercised his right of pre-emption, the Land Commission fixed the value of the land. One element for consideration was improvements. It would be absurd that there should be two definitions of improvements.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN moved, in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words "valuable consideration," and to insert instead thereof the words, "money, or money's worth." When they found that sections of the Act of 1881 had been turned against the tenant, and the word "consideration" misinterpreted, it was necessary they should guard against a similar failure of justice under this Bill.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that in the first draft of the Bill they had the words "money or money's worth," but they had deliberately left them out. They could not go back on that decision.
    MR. T. M. HEALYcomplained that the words were omitted because they were understood to be in favour of the tenants. The change was made to carry out the views of Mr. Justice Bewley.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN moved, in Sub-section (6) to leave out the word "twenty" and to insert instead thereof the word "fifty." There was a strong feeling that this change was necessary to protect the interests of tenants.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he had already explained this question of improvements.
    MR. DILLONsaid that there was a great deal of land in Ireland which was of a semi-waste character, the tenant of which was debarred from the exemption in favour of the reclamation of waste land.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN moved in Sub-section (6) to leave out the word "waste." Reclamation of waste land was a very important feature in connection with the improvements made by the tenantry of Ireland, but unless land was technically waste, i.e., without any trace of cultivation whatever, the tenant could be rented upon his improvements. In many districts of Ireland mountain land had been reclaimed by the tenants from a state of nature and made fit for grazing by means of lime, and there were many thousands of acres which had been so reclaimed by constant expenditure and unremitting industry.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the hon. Member seemed to suggest that they were altering the law, but the law had been so ever since the Act of 1881 was passed. The expression "reclamation of waste land" was now thoroughly understood; it was perfectly clear from the rulings of the Courts, and to omit the word would lead to much difficulty.
    MR. FLYNNasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN moved in Sub-section (7) to omit the word "fixed." It must be apparent to everyone that the words "valuable consideration" would bear a meaning of dangerous import to the tenant if the word "fixed" were retained.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURthought the hon. Member misinterpreted the application of the words. He could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that if the Amendment were not accepted a tenant might be compensated for his improvements by having his rent increased.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN moved in Sub-section (7) to leave out the words "allowed to remain unaltered," in order to insert the words, "reduced substantially." The clause as it stood assumed that if a tenant's rent was not raised it was a "valuable consideration."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURrefused to accept the Amendment.
    MR. DILLONsaid it would be open to a landlord, who charged a higher rent than other landlords in the district, to argue that he did not impose a still higher rent in order to recoup the tenant for improvements.
    MR. HARRINGTONthought the meaning of the clause was clear; it would be imperative on a landlord to prove that he allowed the rent to remain unaltered for the purpose of recouping the tenant.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is so.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLthought the Amendment was substantial, and hoped the Government would accept it. He very much feared, otherwise, that mere acquiescence by the tenant in the old rent after he had made improvements, would be taken as proof that he had received compensation for those improvements.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, at the end of Sub-section (7), to insert the words—
    "unless it shall be proved to the Court that the tenant in fact received no consideration for making the improvement."
    He said that there were to be certain cases in which the landlord was to get rent on improvements for which the tenant had not been compensated. That was one defect of the clause. Another was contained in the words at the end of Sub-section (7)—
    "and in the case of an improvement made, in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, such object shall be implied where not expressed."

    885
    It was one thing for the tenant to enter into a contract to make an improvement, and quite another thing to agree to pay rent on that improvement. No tenant in making an improvement would contract to pay rent on it, and his Amendment declared that, where the tenant proved that he had received no compensation, the landlord should not have power to rent the improvement.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Government could not undertake to enter into those cases whore a contract had been made by the tenant to make an improvement. To break through that rule would be to open the door to a vast amount of litigation. The only way to prevent that litigation was to accept the general principle that, where an improvement had been made in pursuance of a contract, it should be held that he had been compensated for the expenditure of his capital. The Government must adhere to the clause as drafted.
    MR. T. M. HEALYcited a case where a tenant had an agreement with the right hon. Member for South Hunts, by which he was bound to build a house. The tenant built the house, and expended £600 upon it. He then sold the tenancy to Richard Maloney for £600. Richard Maloney went into Court, and though the right hon. Gentleman had not expended a shilling on the building, he claimed rent on the house. The Sub-Commissioner said it was a monstrous thing that rent should be claimed in such a case, and it was adjourned for some days in order that the right hon. Member for South Hunts might be communicated with. The right hon. Member telegraphed back—"Certainly; demand rent on the house." What remuneration or consideration did Richard Maloney get in that case? The Government were using the words "valuable consideration" in an antiquated and mouldy chancery sense.
    MR. SMITH-BARRYsaid that the case referred to did not really come under the Land Act at all. It was a case where a gentleman built a house under a contract on a small plot of land as a residential holding, and after his death the executors sold it. An attempt was then made to use the farmhouse, and to get the whole farm brought into Court as an agricultural holding, but the
    886
    house and land were never an agricultural holding, and they were, besides, outside the Act altogether.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The holding was decidedly under the Act,
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved, in Subsection (8), after "1870," to insert the words" and, as regards buildings, Subsection three of said section." He said that admittedly the landlords of Ireland had not built the tenants' houses; if they had, then they were a disgrace to them. This Amendment was intended to bring the law into accordance with the fact. If the landlords had built the houses they would be able to prove the fact, but for one landlord who had built a tenant's house, there were thousands of houses which had been built by the tenants. If in any case the tenant was entitled to a presumption it was in the case of buildings.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURagreed with the hon. Member that for the most part the buildings on the holdings in Ireland had been erected by the tenants; but he did not think this was a desirable Amendment to accept. Buildings were surely a form of improvement whose origin was easy to trace, and therefore there was no necessity for the Amendment.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman failed to remember that the tenant under this Act included the tenant and his predecessors in title. If the house was built by a tenant's grandfather who was unable to read or write, and who kept no records, the suggestion was that the tenant, born long after the house was built, and living at a time when every contemporary present at the building of the house was dead, could have no difficulty in proving the fact. The right hon. Gentleman and the landlord party had willingly enacted that the tenant should have no necessity to prove the building of the house if it was built any time after 1850, because the odds were that the existing tenant remembered the circumstance. The Government, therefore, gave a presumption which was not of the smallest value to them, and because a presumption was wanted in

    887
    the case of a dwelling-house erected before that time, and when the present tenant could not possibly prove the building of the house, they were told that the presumption could not be granted. This was what happened in the Land Court. The tenant walked into the witness box, and when he proceeded to give evidence as to his improvements he was asked, "Who erected the buildings? "and he replied," It was my father or grandfather." The landlord's lawyer asked, "Where you there when the buildings were erected"?" and the tenant, of course, replied," They were built before I was born." Thereupon arose a shout of derision, and the tenant's answers were struck out as not being evidence. It was in these cases, where the buildings were erected before 1850, that the presumption ought to be in the tenant's favour. The Amendment would bring the law into consonance with the notorious facts. In the majority of cases there was no pretence that the landlord had erected the buildings, and in exceptional cases where they had been erected by the landlord the fact could be easily proved. Unless the Government accepted this Amendment they would be handing over to the landlords nine out of ton of the buildings erected by the tenants before 1850.
    MR. VESEY KNOXsaid that the presumption of fact in Ireland was that the tenant had made the improvements himself. Why, then, sanction a presumption of law which they all knew to be contrary to the facts? The Government were asking them to lay down an artificial rule, and thereby to go out of their way to perpetrate injustice. If the facts were that in nine cases out of ten the tenants or their predecessors had built their houses, why declare that the landlord must be presumed to have erected the houses unless the contrary was proved? That was a ridiculous presumption, and he trusted that the Government would reconsider the point.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved, in Subsection (2), after the word "fix," to insert the words "or has fixed." He said the Irish Members would consider themselves very badly treated if the
    888
    Government did not accept this Amendment. He had already established by argument that it was a most unfair thing that where a tenant had been delayed for years in getting a fair rent fixed, those years should be added on to the statutory term. There were cases in which men had for five years been rapping in vain at the doors of British justice in Ireland and had failed, not through any fault of their own, but because the British janitor would not open to them. He would suggest that the Government should now agree that such tenants should not suffer, after being kept waiting for four or five years, the additional hardship of having a 20 years' term put upon them.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that, of course, although there were strong arguments in favour of the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, there were also arguments on the other side. If agricultural prices had gone up instead of falling, the adoption of short terms for judicial rents might have operated disadvantageously to the tenants. No doubt Parliament had, rightly or wrongly, so acted as to make everyone in Ireland believe that no bargain, whether made with the State or otherwise, was of a permanent character, and they should therefore be very cautious not unduly to extend the principle of this clause. The grievance that tenants had not had freer access to the Land Courts, though a real was a diminishing and would ultimately be a vanishing one, and it must not be supposed that by declining to accept this new subversion of an accepted agreement that the Government were doing any permanent injustice or permanent hardship to any class connected with the tenure of land in Ireland. The Government were not unsympathetic in the matter. They had fully considered it, and had been reluctantly driven to the conclusion that this hardship could not be remedied without inflicting greater injuries in another direction.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid the tenants in Cork and Kerry would not receive them with much favour if the only excuse they could give them for their grievances was that they were the fault of previous Governments. There was not one word to be said against the

    889
    Amendment. It had been said that its acceptance ought to depend upon procedure. But procedure had not one atom to do with it, and certainly it was an extraordinary thing, when dealing with an Amendment of this kind, that even hon. Gentlemen opposite—the Irish landlords themselves—should not rise in their places to protest that they, at any rate, would be no parties to inflict injustice on their tenants merely because the Administration in power from 1881 to 1887 were not permitted by the British Treasury to employ an adequate number of Sub-Commissioners to fix fair rents with sufficient speed.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved, in Sub-section (3), after the words "payable by him," to insert the words—
    "unless the judicial rent exceeds fifty pounds a-year, in "which case the difference may be deducted from any rent subsequently payable by him."
    He explained that he brought forward the proposal in consequence of a promise made at an earlier stage to deal with this question.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 3,—

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

    (a.) To a tenancy in any holding' which is not substantially either agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, or to a letting of land, the main object of which is for a residence:

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

    (i) land being or forming part of a home farm; or

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

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

    890

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

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

    (ii) if the tenant does not actually reside on the holding, or where the holding adjoins or is ordinarily used with another holding then on the latter holding:

    (2.) Where a distinct and substantive part of the property held under one demise is demesne land, or is not agricultural or pastoral in its character, or is an incorporeal hereditament, and the Court consider that that part is not the substantial part of such property, the Court may, if they are of opinion that, apart from the fixing of a, fair rout, the separation of the property into two parts will not diminish the value of the landlord's interest therein, direct that that part shall thenceforth be, or, if it is an incorporeal hereditament, be treated as a separate holding, and be held at such rent during the continuance of the tenancy as the Court determine to be the proper proportion of rent reserved by the demise, and the Court may fix a fair rent for the remainder of the property held under the demise, and the said Acts shall apply to that remainder as if it were a separate holding.
    (3.) Nothing in this section shall extend to any holding in respect of which a judicial rent has been fixed before the commencement of this Act.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved in Paragraph (a) Sub-section (1) to omit the words "or to a letting of land, the main object of which is," leave out from "or" to "for" in line two, and to insert instead thereof the words "the main object of the letting of which was." This was, he said, a purely drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB, on behalf of Mr. CARSON, moved, in Sub-paragraph (ii) Sub-section (1), after the word "demesne" to leave out the words "and which" and to insert the word "unless." This and the next Amendment sufficiently explained the object in view, which was to make it perfectly clear to what cases the provisions of the clause should apply.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDwas understood to say that the Amendment provided for that which never could occur.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved in paragraph (c) Sub-section (1), after the words "dairy farm" to insert the words "or a holding which was laid down in permanent pasture by the tenant at his own expense." He said he understood the right bon. Gentleman to agree to this Amendment in substance when they were in Committee, but that he would like time to consider it.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he had been considering it, but he could not see to what cases it would apply, because if a holding was originally an agricultural or pastoral holding and it was converted by a tenant, at his own expense, into permanent pasture, that would naturally come under the Land Act. He did not see really what case the hon. Member had in his mind.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that if a tenant had laid down land in permanent pasture at his own expense, and a very expensive operation it was in some cases, it would surely be very unjust that a landlord should afterwards come in, and, on the ground that he contracted with the tenant to keep the land in pasture, be able to debar the tenant from the benefits of a subsequent Statute and prevent him going into Court to get a fair rent fixed. The Government accepted this Amendment in principle in Committee subject to the consideration of certain verbiage, and promised to deal with the matter in the Report Stage. They now found, however, that there was a certain disposition to accept no Amendment on the matter. At the same time the Government had not attempted to meet this Amendment by argument, and he thought the Irish Members were not being treated fairly and in a proper spirit.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he could not help looking upon the Amendment as involving a very strong inducement to the Irish farmers to perjure themselves through efforts to prove that their fathers or grandfathers had laid down the land in pasture. The question really affected very few cases, and he did not think that any grievance existed in Ireland with regard to it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY Mr. T. M. HEALY moved, in Subparagraph (i), paragraph (c), Sub-section
    892
    (1), after the word "of" to insert the words "upwards of," so as to provide for even money.
    Amendment agreed to amid Nationalist cheers.
    MR. SMITH-BARRY MR. SMITH-BARRY moved, in Subparagraph (i), Paragraph (c), Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "one hundred," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifty." He submitted that no reason had been shown why these figures should ever be changed. There never was any case made out why it should be altered in favour of the dairy class of tenants. These tenants were not like the ordinary class of tenants who might have built the houses or made improvements. They were really graziers and cattle dealers, and they made no improvements upon the land. He very strongly protested against the alteration from 50 to £100, and he begged to move that the latter be struck out and £50 inserted.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that he could not accept the proposal of his right hon. Friend.
    COLONELSAUNDERSONregarded the proposal in the Bill as a wanton alteration in the Act of 1881.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid he had an Amendment to raise the figure from £100 to £150, but he did not propose to move it. He said the limit of £50 was fixed under the Act of 1870. Under the Act of 1881, the limit under which they could contract was £150.
    MR. W. FIELD)pointed out that a grazing farm of 50 or 100 acres was not such an extraordinary allowance. The circumstances of the time were entirely different now to what they were in 1871.
    SIR J. COLOMBsaid no adequate reason had been given for a departure from the principles of 1881. For his own part, when he went down to his constituents, He could only say that he had been supporting an Amendment of the Government to confer benefits on the very well-to-do classes in Ireland which were denied to the poorer classes in his own constituency.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Is a man earning £1 a week well-to-do?
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved, in Subparagraph (i) paragraph (c), Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or upwards."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved in Sub-paragraph (iii), paragraph (c), Sub-section (1), after the word "holding" to add—
    "In the construction of the 9th Section of the Land law (Ireland) Act, 1887, the word 'agriculture' shall be construed to mean agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral."
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsubmitted that this provision would be more in place if inserted in Clause 4.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURasked leave to withdraw the Amendment for the present.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (2), after the words "a separate holding and," to insert the words "unless the tenancy has expired." The clause provided, in a case where a portion of the holding was non-agricultural, that the non-agricultural portion should be segregated from the rest of the holding, and then be held for the continuance of the tenancy. It might happen that a tenant with such a holding, being satisfied with his position, did not want to go into court. In that case there need be no necessity for that division.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that if the words suggested by the hon. Member were inserted in the place proposed they would make the clause run awkwardly.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that if the Amendment were made to read "shall, unless the tenancy has expired, "the awkwardness felt by the Government would be obviated.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Words "shall, unless the tenancy has expired" inserted.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved, in Subsection (2), after the word "holding," to insert the following sub-section:—
    "(3) Where a holding is held by joint tenants or tenants in common and such tenants have
    894
    worked and occupied separate portions thereof, and the division of the holding was made prior to the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, the court may, if it thinks just, on the application of any joint tenant or tenant in common, fix a fair rent upon the portion of the holding-so separately occupied."

    TOWN PARKS.
    In the construction of the seventh Section of the Land Law (Ireland) Art, 1887, the word "agricultural" shall he construed to mean agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: We accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 4,—
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to leave out the word "seventh" and to insert instead thereof the word "ninth.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved, at the end of the clause to add "and the words 'city or town' in the Land Law Acts shall be deemed not to include a village.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDthought the Amendment, instead of making the law as to what constituted a town park more clear, would make it more involved, because a village was just as undefined and un-ascertainable a thing as a town. The leading judgments had pointed out the difficulty of fixing a statutory limit of population, but they had said that where there was a number of persons congregated together sufficient to create a demand for accommodation land, it should constitute a town within the meaning of the Act.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, at the end of the clause to add,—
    "and a holding shall he deemed to have been let and used as an ordinary agricultural farm within the meaning of the said section, unless the contrary is proved."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. KNOX MR. KNOX moved, at the end of the clause to add,—
    "and no holding to which the Ulster custom applies shall be deemed to he a town park within the meaning of that section."
    He contended that in a case where a dual ownership had existed for generations then the tenant should not be excluded from those portions of the Land Act allowing him to get a fair rent fixed. It was a small Amendment, which, though not affecting a very large number of cases, did affect a number of cases in which injustice had been suffered.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURthought that no sufficient reason had been given for inserting this Amendment. The Government had pointed out that nothing in the Bill should in any way abridge the privileges of the Ulster custom on any holding whore those privileges existed.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 5,—

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

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

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

    Provided that this enactment shall not apply unless the court think it reasonable to entertain the application having regard to the acreage of the holding and to any other matter which they think should be taken into consideration, and the court may entertain the application notwithstanding that any such house
    896
    or part of a holding is occupied by a person to whom it has been sub-let in contravention of Section 2 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.
    (2.) Where a part of the property held under one demise is sub-let, and the property was let to the tenant subject to the tenancy of some other person in the part sub-let, the court may direct that the part so sub-let shall thenceforth be, or if it is an incorporeal hereditament be treated as, a separate holding, and shall be held during the continuance of the tenancy at such rent as the court determine to be the proper proportion of the rent reserved by the demise, and the court may fix a fair rent for the remainder of the property held under the demise, and the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act shall apply to that remainder, as if it were a separate holding;
    Provided that, if the landlord so elect, the court shall order that the tenant of the part so sub-let shall be the tenant of such landlord as his immediate landlord.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "an application to fix a fair rent," and to insert instead thereof the words "the Land Law Acts."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in paragraph (a) Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "of the tenant," and to insert instead thereof the words "in which the tenant for the time being resides."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB*SIR JOHN COLOMB moved, in paragraph (a), Sub-section (1), after the word "person," to insert:—
    "(unless it be shown that such sub-letting was made by the tenant for the purpose of making a profit by the sub-letting, or not solely for the due cultivation of his holding)."
    He referred to the case of a tenant who had another dwelling-house on the holding and who let it for lodgings or as an hotel, and yet claimed to have a fair rent fixed as an agricutural tenant. [SEVERAL IRISH MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Was it just or right that he should be allowed to do so? This other house should be in the occupation of some one employed necessarily on the holding; and the tenant letting another house on his holding for profit should not have a fair rent fixed if he was letting it at a profit.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUBsaid it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. The clause had been put into its present shape in order to meet a recognised grievance. Where there was a house or houses on the holdings not let in breach of the contract, and it was proposed to sub-let to a mill-hand for example, that was a case which they wished to provide for in this section.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "this enactment," and to insert instead thereof—
    "(i.) for the purpose of the foregoing provisions of this Section, a breach of the contract of tenancy shall not be deemed to have taken place if the landlord waived such breach;
    (ii.) the foregoing provisions of this section."
    He said the Amendment was introduced in pursuance of his undertaking to consider a recommendation made by the hon. Member for Cork City. If this Amendment was not inserted, the effect would be that, if a breach of tenancy had taken place and was afterwards condoned by the landlord, it would, nevertheless, not be possible for the tenant to take advantage of this section. The Government thought that would be a great hardship. They could not, however, go so far as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, which stood next on the Paper.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he preferred his own Amendment, but, as the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to meet him, he accepted the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, at the end of Sub section (1), to insert:—
    "For the purposes of the fifty-seventh Section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, a portion of a holding sub-let shall he deemed to be sublet with the landlord's consent if the consent of the landlord or his agent shall be proved thereto, though given in a manner other than that prescribed in the contract of tenancy."
    He said the case he asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider was that of "Bowman v. Caterhill," which was decided under the present law. Under the Act
    898
    of 1881 a tenant had to be in occupation of his holding before he could have a fair rent fixed. There was, however, a proviso that, where he had sub-let part of his holding with the consent of his landlord, ha should be deemed to be in occupation. Of course the courts in Ireland held that the landlord must have consented in the manner prescribed by the instrument of tenancy. All he sought to do was to apply the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the general law under the Act of 1881, and he thought the Attorney General would admit that unless that were done the case to which he had referred would still remain law.
    MR. SMITH-BARRYobjected to the Amendment.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid that the object of the Amendment was to meet cases where the Acts required the landlord's consent to be in writing, and the consent had been given verbally.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that in his opinion the object of the Amendment was fully attained by the Amendment which had just been agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYpointed out that, under the existing law, even where the landlord admitted that he had consented verbally to the sub-letting of the holding, the tenant was not protected by the consent because it was not in writing.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELANDsaid that in his view the hon. Member's object would be carried into effect by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which had just been agreed to.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved at the end of the clause to add:—
    "The sub-letting of any such dwelling-house as is referred to in Sub-section 1 (a) of this Section during the continuance of a statutory term or after its expiration shall not be deemed to He a breach of any statutory condition, nor shall the second Section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, apply to any such sub-letting, whether made before or after the passing of this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 6,—

    TURBARY AND OTHER PROFITS, EASEMENTS, AND PRIVILEGES.
    Where, on an application to fix the fair rent for a holding, it is proved to the court that the tenant of the holding by virtue of his tenancy has, by the permission of the landlord, whether with or without payment, been accustomed to exercise any profit a prendre, easement, privilege of turbary, or other privilege over land belonging to the landlord, and it appears to be necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the holding that he should not be deprived of what he has so exercised, and that the interests of the landlord in portions of his estate other than that in which the said profit a pendre, casement, or privilege is to be exercised will not be thereby injuriously affected, the court may, after giving the landlord and tenant of the holding and any tenant of the land an opportunity of being heard, make an order for securing the profit, easement, or privilege to the tenant of the holding, upon such terms, as to rent or otherwise, and in such manner as the court think just, and such order shall he binding on all estates and interests in the said land.
    MR. LECKY)*MR. LECKY (Dubin University) moved the omission of Clause 6. If turbary was tolerably clear, the other privileges alluded to in this clause were as vague as could be conceived. They had heard during the discussions in Committee a good deal about them, and they appeared to comprise such things as the right of way through the landlord's park, the right of cutting firewood and brushwood in it, of digging gravel, of grazing cattle on the mountain lands, but the Attorney General was totally unable to specify the greater number of them. There was no question here of disputed right. The present legal and complete authority of the landlord, which was being taken away was undoubted, and there was no question of abuse of rights. If the landlord had not chosen to give these privileges the law would not touch him. It was because of his own free will and generosity he had chosen to grant them to the tenants that they were to be taken away from him for all future time, and he was to lose all power of supervision and control. It was difficult to conceive a more direct and absolute violation of the rights of property than this. A plain legal right was plainly taken away by a party that professed to be especially the party representing property, by the party whose leaders had told them that they would be no parties to any further predatory legislation about
    900
    Irish land, to any attempts to take any more from the diminished property or the attenuated rights that still remained to the Irish landlord. He did not wish to use any exaggerated or violent language, but he must say that if this clause passed into the Statute-book it would create a precedent which was certain to grow, and the fact that it had been proposed by a Unionist Government had left an impression on the minds of many of their supporters which was not likely to be effaced.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he could not help thinking that his hon. Friend approached the consideration of this clause with such a prejudice against the principles of the Act of 1881 as to make him really incapable of judging the present position. They had to start from the Act of 1881. They had undertaken, so far as they could, to carry out what they believed to be the spirit and intention of the authors of the Act, and to smooth away as far as possible its ragged edges. That Act conferred on the tenant in regard to his holding the right to have a fair rent fixed and the right of fixity of tenure. They had then to consider whether what were no doubt called privileges in this clause were not such as should be practically included in the holding when a fair rent was fixed. If they did not take that course they ran the risk of undoing everything the Act of 1881, in regard to these holdings, intended and purported to do. His hon. Friend had asked the House to consider whether it was not, by this clause, taking away privileges which landlords had freely given to their tenants, and which they might freely take away, But his hon. Friend, like others who had criticised that clause, had carefully avoided calling the attention of the House to its guiding and dominant words. Those words were that the privileges "are to be necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the holding." Those words were all-important. ["Hear, hear!"] In this matter they were not dealing with privileges which the landlord gave one day and could take away the next. If the landlord took them away it would be practically equivalent to giving the tenant notice to quit, because the holding could not be usefully enjoyed without them. ["Hear, hear!"] He would ask the House

    901
    once more to note how carefully the clause was drawn. In the first place the privileges referred to were to be enjoyed by virtue of tenancy; next, the permission of the landlord must have been customary; then, the privileges must be necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of the holding; and, lastly, the privileges were not to be secured to the tenant for nothing. The terms upon which the privileges were secured to the tenant had to be fixed. The hon. Member had spoken of the Government taking away that which belonged to the landlord, but there was no unjust action of the kind in this case. There was no robbery in this case. ["Hear, hear!"] The Act of 1881 might have been wrong from the beginning, but it would be generally admitted that the Government had no option but to take that Act as the foundation of their action; and, that being so, he could not see that they were open to the strictures which the hon. Member and other hon. Members had showered upon them. ["Hear, hear!"]
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that they had fought this clause more strenuously than any other clause in the Bill, and he thought the opinion of the majority of the House, so far as he could gather it, was that, athough they lost the Division, they WON the day in argument against the clause. Although they had been in a minority, yet the sense of the House was with them. Members opposite did not admit the landlords had any rights except to pay the Poor Rate—[laughter]—but he could not conceive a party mainly composed of Conservatives, which had always held to the principle of the rights of property, taking away from the Irish landlords lights and privileges which they had always enjoyed, without rhyme or reason beyond showing that the Act of 1881 was a bad Act, and that it might be made a little worse. [laughter.] The clause was likely to bring about evil results. It dealt with privileges conferred for nothing on Irish tenants by their landlords—["No, no!"]—but because these rights of cutting wood and turf had been freely conferred in times past they were now to be lost, and by the law of the land these things were to be conferred on the tenant or whoever the tenant sold the land to. It was a monstrous proposition, and he had no Parliamen-
    902
    tary word that would fitly apply to it. If the power of the Irish landlords to deal with turf was to be obliterated, the Bill would create more confusion and bloodshed than anything up to the present time. ["Oh, oh!"] The Irish people had had their firing for nothing from time immemorial, and this wanton interference would bring in an element of hopeless confusion. Therefore, he declared the clause bad from beginning to end, and without a redeeming feature. ["Hear, hear!"]
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid his hon. and gallant Friend had spoken with great warmth, and no doubt he felt strongly. They were told that they were interfering with the convenience, the safety and even the lives of the Irish tenants if the clause was passed. He did not regard that as a necessary consequence. Probably, in the great mass of cases, the bogs would be left precisely as they were. ["Hear, hear!"] The first argument of the distinguished Member for the University of Dublin was that they were taking away what was an act of liberality, and his second argument was that they were interfering, not only unjustifiably but unnecessarily with the existing rights of property. No man would regard more jealously than he any attempt to stop the fountains of liberality, and to punish those who were liberal by turning what was an act of grace into a rigid and inevitable law, but He denied that this clause would have that effect. The principal argument of his hon. Friend was that this was a new interference with the rights of property, and his right hon. Friend near him had been taunted with having "aid that this was a corollary of the Act of 1881. What his right hon. Friend desired to convey was that the benefits given, rightly or wrongly, to the tenant by the Act of 1881 might in certain cases be rendered absolutely nugatory unless a clause somewhat on these lines was passed into law. ["Hear, hoar!"] To show that, he would take an extreme case, because an extreme case was the best illustration in such matters. He would suppose the case of a holding where the only supply of turf available was in the hands of the landlord, and on his estate; in such a case to state that they were giving fixity of tenure and fair rent to the tenant, while it was in

    903
    the power of the owner of the soil to make those two advantages absolutely of no effect whatever, was a proposition which the House ought not to sanction. The Act of 1881 had been carried. He hoped they would do all they could to introduce a better system, but while that Act existed they should not pretend to give with one hand to the tenant what they took away from him with the other hand. [Nationalist cheers.] It was admitted that the pecuniary interests involved were absolutely trivial, and those who voted against this clause for the arguments he had stated had mistaken its object and effect. It was one that did not touch property at all, that did not check the liberality of the landlords in giving that which was not necessary to the holding, and he earnestly hoped the House would support the Government in the retention of the clause.
    MR. W. REDMOND)said all the row was really about a few sods of turf, and the spectacle presented to the House of the Irish landlords striving to deprive the people of their fuel, explained why it was that landlords and tenants did not get on well together in Ireland. He was not surprised that the hon. Member for Armagh should grudge the tenants a few sods of turf, but it was astonishing to find a gentleman so distinguished as the hon. Member for Dublin University adopting such an attitude.
    SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he did not know of any landlord who denied his tenants fuel. The Chief Secretary had repudiated the idea that this provision would lead to waste of turf, because the right hon. Gentleman said the Land Commission would lay down regulations under which tenants would cut turf. Were the Land Commissioners to be made bog-rangers? This was a proposal to give to the Land Commission powers over property on which there were no tenants at all. Another practical point was that under the proposal they would have an, army of Sub-Commissioners under the Land Commission planted down at the public expense on the landlord's bog, that had never belonged to any tenants.
    MR. TULLYsaid this was one of the clauses of the Bill which stood in danger in another place. Members opposite had spoken as if turbary was property taken from the landlords.
    904
    He could mention some instances to the contrary derived from the estate on which he lived. On that estate, before the Land Acts came into operation, the bogs were the property of the tenants; at all events, they were regarded as valueless and rent was never charged upon them. A new landlord appeared on the scene and conceived the idea of giving the tenants bog-tickets at 1s. per year. This went on, and the tickets were increased in price to 2s. 6d., and, when the tenants went to the court to get a fair rent fixed, for every pound taken off the landlord's rent, he recouped himself by charging the tenants at the rate of £80 an acre for the bog which was previously reported as valueless. He had known an instance, too, where, because a poor man voted against a landlord in an election for poor-law guardians, he had been deprived of his bog and made to shiver through the winter. He hoped the Government would stick to the clause in another place.
    Question put, "That the words of Clause 6 to the word 'and,' in line 6, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Aves, 141; Noes, 34.—(Division List, No. 356.)
    The result was received with ironical cheers from Nationalist Members.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved at the end of the clause to add:—
    (2) Where a statutory term has commenced before the passing of this Act or where no order under the foregoing section has been made, and the landlord during the currency of a statutory term takes proceedings to restrain the tenant from exercising the privileges in the preceding section mentioned, the tenant may apply to the Court in the prescribed manner, and thereupon the Court shall have the same powers as upon an application to fix a fair rent, and the proceedings commenced by the landlord may be stayed pending the decision upon the application under this section."
    He said that the Amendment had been accepted in substance by the Government in Committee. At the time of the Settlements in Ireland, in every conveyance by the Crown to the settlers, waste, bog and mountain were excluded from the grant by the Crown. Quit rents were never put on the bog. He recalled a remarkable expression in one

    905
    of Mr. Lecky's books that the whole of the Whiteboy troubles in the hast century were due to the enclosures of commons in Ireland, which included bogs.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 7,—

    LETTINGS BY PERSONS NOT ABSOLUTE OWNERS.
    (1.) The Land Law Acts shall apply and be deemed to have always applied in the case of tenancies created by a limited owner or by a mortgagor or mortgagee in possession, where no fine or premium was received, and the tenancies shall not be or be deemed to have been determined (except in the case of fraud or collusion or a letting at a gross undervalue) by the cesser of the interest or possession of such limited owner, mortgagor, or mortgagee, and the person entitled on such cesser to receive the rent of the holding shall stand in the relation of landlord to the tenant of the holding, and have the rights and be subject to the obligations of landlord accordingly.
    (2.) This section shall not apply to a tenancy in a holding which at the date of the letting was demesne land, where the mansion house is let with such demesne land, or the application of the Land Law Acts to the tenancy would materially diminish the value as a residence of the mansion house situate on and theretofore occupied with the demesne: Provided always, that when the landlord is a limited owner or mortgagor or mortgagee in possession, no order to fix a fair rent for the first time shall be made without the Land Commission giving the prescribed notice to the person entitled on such cesser.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "Where no fine or premium was received." He said it was necessary to omit these words in order to insert the words he had lower down on the Paper, namely—
    "provided that where a fine or premium was received it shall be lawful for the Court to dismiss the tenant's application if the justice of the case so requires."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved, at the end of Sub-section (1) to add—
    "provided that the Land Commission, before fixing the fair rent for the first time in respect of a tenancy to which this section applies, shall give the prescribed notice to the said person entitled on such cesser, or to some person appointed by the Land Commission to represent his interest."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, at the end of Subsection (1) to insert—
    "provided that, if the tenant so elects, this section shall apply in cases where a fine or premium was received, if the tenant is willing that such fine or premium shall not be taken into consideration in fixing the fail rent."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "tenancy" to insert the words "created by a limited owner."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GERALD RALFOUR MR. GERALD RALFOUR moved, in Sub-section (2) to leave out the following words:—
    "Provided always, that when the landlord is a limited owner or mortgagor or mortgagee in possession, no order to fix a fair rent for the first time shall be made without the Land Commission giving the prescribed notice to the person entitled on such cesser."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "to fix," and to insert the word "fixing."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE LIEALY MR. MAURICE LIEALY moved, at the end of the clause, to add:—
    "but the failure or neglect of the Land Commission to give such notice shall not affect the validity of the Order."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 9,—

    DETERMINATION OF ESTATE OF IMMEDIATE LANDLORD.
    (1.) Where a superior landlord recovers against an immediate landlord a judgment in ejectment for nonpayment of the rent of a holding, or of lands including a holding, the estate of the immediate landlord shall be deemed to be determined within the meaning of Section fifteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, without prejudice to his right to redeem his interest, as if a decree to possession or a writ of habere facias possessionem had been executed.
    (2.) Where the nonpayment was not due to the nonpayment of rent by the tenant of the holding, such judgment shall not be executed against the tenant, and the tenancy of the holding shall not be affected, except that the

    907
    superior landlord shall stand in the relation of immediate landlord to the tenant, and may proceed accordingly for the recovery of all rent due from the tenant to the immediate landlord, but (except in the case of fraud or collusion or a letting at a gross undervalue) not for the recovery of the rent due to the superior from the immediate landlord. If the amount recovered by the superior landlord from the tenant equals or exceeds the amount duo to him from the immediate landlord, the interest of the immediate landlord shall not be deemed to have been redeemed, but the superior landlord shall pay the excess to the immediate landlord, after deducting any amount duo for costs.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "Where," and to insert the words, "Unless the Court before which the ejectment was brought certifies that."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "not," so that the clause should read, "Unless the Court before which the ejectment was brought certifies that the nonpayment was due."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved, in Sub-section (2), after the words "tenant to the immediate landlord," to insert the words "as if it had always been due to the superior landlord."
    Amendment agreed to. Clause 12,—

    EJECTMENTS FOR NONPAYMENT OF RENT IN CASE OF HOLDINGS UNDER LAND LAW ACTS.
    In the case of any ejectment brought for the nonpayment of the rent of a holding to which the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act apply, where the rent in arrear exceeds two years' rent, the tenant may pay, tender, deposit, or lodge under Sections sixty to seventy-one of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860, the sum of two years' rent instead of the sums therein respectively required to be paid, tendered, deposited, or lodged, and upon such tender, payment, deposit, or lodgment the tenant shall be in the same position under those sections as if two years' rent were the sum claimed; and the balance of the rent then due shall not be recovered by ejectment for nonpayment of rent or distress.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to insert in line 13, after the word "ejectment," "which shall be or has been."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to leave out the word "claimed," and to insert instead there of the words "duo for rent up to the gale day preceding such tender, payment, deposit, or lodgment."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. M AURICE HEALY MR. M AURICE HEALY moved at the end of the clause to add,
    "nor shall the holding be sold or affected by or under any judgment, execution, or proceeding taken in respect of such balance of rent."
    He explained that his object was to provide that where a landlord had already recovered two years' rent, he should not then take ejectment proceedings against the tenant. The hon. Member observed that in the Committee stage, the Chief Secretary expressed the opinion that these words gave too wide an application to the clause, and the right hon. Gentleman undertook to consider the matter with a view to seeing whether it was not possible to carry out the object aimed at by the Amendment. He did not see any proposal down on behalf of the Government, and accordingly he moved this Amendment, the words of which he regarded as much too narrow instead of too wide.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURthought the words of the hon. Gentleman were quite accurately drafted, but he could not admit that he himself gave any pledge or undertaking to deal with the Question. He had carefully considered the matter and while he admitted that something might be said for the contention of the hon. Member, on the whole he was not disposed to go beyond the clause as drafted. He did not think that the landlord after He had obtained two years' arrears from the tenant would then proceed by ejectment. [Mr. MAURICE HEALY: "The good landlord would not but the bad landlord would."] The adoption of the Amendment would mean that after the landlord had got his two years' rent, he should then have taken away from him the rights possessed by

    909
    other creditors. The principle of the clause was that while the landlord should have his exceptional privilege of two years' arrears he was not afterwards deprived of any rights which an ordinary creditor would have.
    MR. DILLONexpressed his regret that the right hon. Gentlemen had not been able to accept the Amendment. This was a matter of great importance. He (lid not believe that a respectable landlord would exercise this right, but the law was made to restrain not the reasonable or fair landlord, but the unreasonable landlord. If a landlord on an ejectment got two years' rent paid in cash, he must be a harsh man if he would not accept that as a reasonable discharge of the debt. But to give him, after the ejectment proceedings had been quashed by the payment of two years' rent, the right of proceeding forthwith on another and harsher method of ejecting the man out of his holding, appeared to him to take away from the tenant, in regard to the bad landlords, all real protection in this matter.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLthought the right hon. Gentleman was not quite correct in saying that the landlord would be in the same position as any other creditor with regard to the rent over and above the two years' rent. The landlord was in a much better position than any other creditor. Supposing a landlord recovered the two years' rent on an ejectment and there still remained two other years' rent due. The very day after he got his decree of ejectment he could maintain an action for the other two years' rent. He recovered judgment on the foot of those latter two years' rent and he could then put the sheriff in. The sheriff sold the tenant's interest and the landlord bought it in and might then maintain an ejectment on the title and so recover possession of the holding.
    SIR J. COLOMB*SIR J. COLOMB moved to add at the end of the clause the words,
    "and such debt shall have priority over all mortgages or other charges placed upon the lands by the tenant, or by the creditor of any tenant."
    910
    He remarked that the clause prevented the landlord from recovering by process of ejectment more than two years' rent, and the object of the Amendment was to make the arrears beyond that sum a prior charge upon the land. Anyone who knew Ireland was aware how necessary it was to have some provision of this nature in the interest of the tenant himself. It was pretty certain that when the tenant came to owe so large an amount to the landlord, he owed yet a great deal more to the shopkeepers and other persons. The reason in many cases why the tenant was allowed to accumulate large amounts of arrears was that the too considerate landlord, who knew the difficulties the man was in, wished to give him time. ["Hear, hear!"] In those matters he thought they should consider the interests of the smaller landlords, and there were no fewer than 62,000 in Ireland owning less than 500 acres each. He agreed entirely with the principle of preventing the large accumulation of rent, but where that took place some regard should be had to the other debts the tenant owes, in the interests of the tenant and landlord alike.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was impossible to accept the Amendment. The effect of the words would be to appropriate the tenant's holding for the payment of arrears.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 13,—

    PROCEDURE.—AMENDMENTS OF PROCEDURE AS TO LIMITED REPRESENTATION OF DECEASED PERSON.
    On any application under the Land Law Acts, as amended by this Act, an order may, subject to the prescribed regulations, be made by the court, appointing some person limited administrator of a deceased person for the purpose of such application, and such order may be made whether such deceased person did or did not die before the application, or make a will which was not proved.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to leave out the words "subject to the prescribed regulations."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to add at the end of the clause—
    "It is hereby declared that the court had power, at any time since the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, to make such an order as in this section is mentioned."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 14,—

    GROUND OF APPEAL TO BE STATED.
    "Rules under Section 50 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 he entered into except those so stated. For the purpose of this section 'appeal' includes 'rehearing.'"
    MR. SMITH-BARRY MR. SMITH-BARRY moved to omit Clause 14, which he believed would increase expense and lead to great hardships in rehearings.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid nothing was more unsatisfactory than rehearings. He thought the clause as it stood was too rigid, and he should be quite willing to insert after the word "shall" the words "save by leave of the Court," so that the Court might decide whether other points might be raised.
    MR. T. M. HEALYprotested against the proposal of the right hon. and learned Member, and cited the analogous case of a voter.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND*THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND moved to insert, after the word "Act," "1881."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to insert, after the word "appeal," the words "under the Land Law Acts."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND*THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND moved to insert, after the word "shall," the words "save by leave of the Court."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested the addition to the Amendment of the words "to be given only on special grounds," which he thought would make a way out of the bungle. If those words were not accepted, let the clause be struck out altogether. What good was it to the tenants? The courts had shown themselves for the last 15 years to be landlords' courts——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not in Order in speaking in that way of Her Majesty's Courts.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid the hon. Member for North Louth was proceeding on the assumption that no one appealed but the landlords. It was a common thing for the tenant to appeal as well as the landlord, and he thought it was well, for the protection of the tenant that such an application should be made to the Court.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid the object of the clause was just and equitable, but the Amendment would render it nugatory. The Court had for years tried to do by rule what they were now attempting to do by statute.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved to insert, after the Attorney General's Amendment, the words "but shall be granted only on special grounds."
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE)thought the Amendment should not be accepted.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURcould not see that the words were unreasonable, and therefore accepted them. [Nationalist cheers.]
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 15,—

  PART II.

    LAND COMMISSION AND LAND JUDGE.— REGULATIONS AS TO INTERCHANGE OF DUTIES OF THE LAND JUDGE AND THE JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
    (1.) The Lord Chancellor, the Land Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court, and the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission, or any two of them (of whom the Lord

    913
    Chancellor shall be one) may make rules for the following purposes, namely:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (2.) For carrying into effect any such rules, and exercising the jurisdiction, powers, and duties arising there under, the Land Judge shall be deemed to be an additional Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission, and the Judicial Commissioner shall be deemed to be an additional Land Judge.
    (3.) The Land Judge, as respects officers of the Supreme Court who are attached to such Judge, or otherwise employed in or about the execution of any such jurisdiction, powers, and duties as may under this section be exercised by the Judicial Commissioner, and the Judicial Commissioner, so far as respects the officers of the Land Commission, may direct those officers to perform such duties as he thinks fit under the Land Commission or under the Land Judge, as the case may be, and those officers shall perform those duties.
    (4.) The Land Judge and the Judicial Land Commissioner may also make regulations for carrying into effect any rules made in pursuance of this Section, and for the mutual relations between the Land Judge and the officers of the Supreme Court on the one side, and the Land Commission and their officers on the other, and in particular for the payment into the High Court of money to be distributed among the parties entitled thereto, and for the Land Commission carrying into effect any sales under the Land Purchase Acts ordered by the High Court.
    (5.) Sub-sections two and three of section fifty of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, shall apply to rules made under this section.
    (6.) The first rules under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act.
    (7.) Such rules shall provide that the Court of the Land Commission in Dublin shall be holden at the Pour Courts, Dublin, and not elsewhere.
    MR. DILLON MR. DILLON moved to omit paragraph (a), Sub-section (1), which he regarded as one of the most objectionable in the Bill. He called attention to the appointment of Mr. Justice Ross as Land Judge, and asked what security was there that this Judge would not adjudicate on one of the sales in the Land Judges' Court, and then have one of his own adjudications as to the proper price referred back to him acting as Land Judge. He cited an incident in the Land Judges' Court in Dublin on Friday last in connection with the sale of an estate in which Mr. Justice Ross described an order of Mr. Commissioner O'Brien as ridiculous. It was monstrous to bring Mr. Justice Ross into this Court, seeing that he was so well known as a strong partisan; and he looked upon this clause as cutting the Commission in two in the interest of the landlord party. The Government ought to look elsewhere for an impartial Commissioner, because the administration of the Land Laws was of very great consequence in Ireland.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYthought the hon. Member would not be surprised when he said that the Government could not depart from the policy they had laid down on many previous occasions during the last few years. The hon. Member had expressed a fear lest the Land Judge should not be an impartial member of the Land Court. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that every attempt to strengthen the Land Court had taken the form of bringing in the Land Judge into the Commission, long before anybody ever conjectured that Mr. Justice Ross would be the Land Judge at some time or other. The Government certainly had no personal view in the matter, and they had no desire to bring into the Commission a Judge sympathising with either party in the agrarian dispute in Ireland.

    915
    He hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GEDGEsaid He rose to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—[cries of "No!" from the Nationalists]—and with a view to putting himself in order he would move the adjournment of the Debate. ["No, no!"and an HON. MEMBER: "Bosh."] Hon. Members were kept in the House Bill 2 o' clock on Tuesday morning, they had been in the House already 12½ hours, and they had to meet again at 12 o'clock. He wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the House consented last week to suspend the 12 o'clock Rule, they were told that there was no intention on the part of the Government to have all-night sittings, but if this Bill was to be finished there must be an all-night sitting. ["No, no!"] He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to let hon. Members go home now.
    MR. SPEAKERasked if any hon. Member seconded the Motion, and, there being no response, declared that the Motion fell to the ground.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved to leave out the words "shall be holden at the Four Courts, Dublin, and not elsewhere," and to insert—
    "when hearing appeals, or rehearing-cases, or hearing such other matters as may be proscribed shall be held at the Fur Courts, Dublin."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 16,—

    POWER TO NOMINATE JUDGE TO ACT AS ADDITIONAL LAND JUDGE FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.
    The Lord Chancellor may nominate any judge of the High Court with his consent to act for the time specified by the Lord Chancellor as an additional Land Judge for the purposes of the Record of Title (Ireland) Act, 1865, and the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the judge so nominated shall have during that time the jurisdiction of the Land Judge for those purposes.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved, after the word "may," to insert the words "while no vacancy in the judiciary exists." When such a vacancy existed the Treasury were pocketing £3,500 a year, which ought to go to Ireland in some form.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURappealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that, in the circumstances he would not take up the time of the House in pressing his Amendment, which He therefore asked leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 17,—

  PART III.

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

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

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

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

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

    (a) at the end of each of the said decades ascertain how much of the advance has been repaid by means of the accumulation during the decade of that portion of the purchase annuity which represents repayment of capital, and the residue of the advance shall be the unpaid amount upon which the sub-sequent annuity is to be calculated and paid; and

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

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

    (a) where more than 10 years have elapsed since an annuity for the repayment of the advance began, the amount of the advance remaining unpaid shall He ascertained as at the end of the last completed decade since that beginning, and the reduction of the annuity in the current decade shall date from the gale day next after the commencement of this Act;

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

    MR. MAURICH HEALY MR. MAURICH HEALY moved, in paragraph (a) Sub-section (5), after the word "from," to insert the words "and including."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he was afraid that the effect of the Amendment would be unsatisfactory.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that he had been rather doubtful of the meaning of the Government, and therefore be had moved the Amendment in order to obtain an explanation of it. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 18,—

    APPLICATION OF PART OF ACT TO ANNUITIES UNDER 32 & 33 VICT. c. 42.
    The foregoing provisions with respect to the calculation of a purchase annuity may be applied by the Land Commissioners with the
    918
    necessary modifications, to the calculation of the instalments of an annuity by means of which any mortgage debt is payable under section fifty-two of the Irish Church Act, 1869, and the Acts amending the same.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved to insert at the beginning of the clause:—
    "The Land Commission, upon the application of any person liable to pay interest on any simple mortgage under section fifty-two of the Irish Church Act, 1860, may, if they think fit, by order convert that mortgage into a mortgage to secure repayment of the principal of the mortgage debt then outstanding, with interest at the rate of three and one-eighth per centum per annum, by means of an annuity at the rate of four per centum per annum on the said principal, payable by half-yearly payments on the days fixed for the payment of the interest on the said mortgage, until the whole principal has been repaid, and such order shall be binding upon all persons interested, whether in the equity of redemption of such mortgages or otherwise."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 20,—

    ABOLITION OF PURCHASER'S INSURANCE MONEY.
    In the case of any advance offer the commencement of this Act for the purchase of a holding purchaser's insurance money shall not be payable.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, after the word "holding," to insert the words—
    "and also in the case of any instalment of a purchase annuity which shall become payable after the passing of this Act."
    It was, he said, a total mistake that it would make any trouble to calculate the annuities, because all they would have to find out would be how much 4 per cent. of the purchase money was. The number of cases would be small. The Land Commission had practically nullified the purchaser's insurance clause, and so fixed the fair value as to prevent the purchaser's insurance provisions having any operation at ail. It was all the more unjust that in the limited number of cases this unfair state of the law should prevail.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: As the Land Commission, have given us a great deal of trouble, we return the compliment. [Laughter.]
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is merely a question of trouble. On the question of principle I think the hon. Gentleman is right, and, therefore, the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved at the end of the clause to add—
    "In the case of a purchase annuity payable at the date of the commencement of this Act, the amount of the purchase annuity as from the date of such commencement shall he certified by the Land Commission, and sent by them for registration to the registration authority under The Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 21,—

    AS TO GUARANTEE DEPOSIT.
    (1.) The Land Commission on making an advance may dispense with the whole or any part of the guarantee deposit being made or retained if they think the security for the repayment of the advance is sufficient without it.
    (2.) The Land Commission may, if they think fit, on application, pay to the persons entitled thereto the whole or any part of the guarantee deposit made or retained in respect of advances under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, except in a case where any part of the deposit has been actually applied in pursuance of the Land Purchase Acts.
    (3.) In the case of any advance made otherwise than under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, the Land Commission may pay out of the guarantee deposit to the person entitled thereto a sum equal to the portion of the advance which at the end of any decade is ascertained under the provisions of this Act to have been repaid.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words—
    "pay out of the guarantee deposit to the person entitled thereto a sum equal to the portion of the advance which at the end of any decade is ascertained under the provisions of this Act to have been repaid."
    and to insert instead thereof—
    "if they think fit on application at any time after the end of the first decade of the purchase annuity pay to the persons entitled thereto the whole or any part of the guarantee deposit, except in a case where any part of the deposit has been actually applied in pursuance of the Land Purchase Acts."
    920
    The hon. Member observed that he moved an Amendment somewhat stronger than this in Committee. This proposal was really in the interest of the landlord. It merely provided that where the tenant had faithfully paid his purchase instalment for 10 years, then the landlord should have the guarantee deposit paid to him. If the tenant purchaser went on paying for 10 years, it might fairly be taken that the State was secured, and the Amendment was one which might well be accepted.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURwas afraid the objections which he urged in the Committee stage still held good, and that he could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 22,—

    EXPEDITING PROCEEDTSGS ON SALES.
    (1.) Where an agreement has been made for the purchase of a holding, and the Land Commission consider that the purchase money is adequate in amount, and are satisfied that the persons purporting to be the landlord or his mortgagee has, by himself or by his agent, or a receiver, been, for not less than six years, in receipt of the rents of the holding, and have ascertained in the prescribed manner that the estate in respect of which such person claims as landlord is sufficient to constitute him a person having power to sell under the Land Purchase Acts, he shall be deemed to be prima facie entitled to carry such agreement into effect; but if it appears to the Land Commission that the said estate is a leasehold for years not renewable for ever, they shall cause the prescribed notice to be given to the person who is entitled in reversion on the expiration of the lease. Provided always, that where the Land Commission are satisfied that the landlord has a good and marketable title to the holding they shall not be required to consider whether the purchase money is adequate in amount.
    (2.) Where the Land Commission are satisfied that the persons purporting to be the landlord and the tenant are prima facie entitled to carry into effect an agreement for the purchase of a holding, and sanction an advance for the purchase of a holding, they shall, as soon as may be, make a vesting order to the effect that the amount of the advance be paid into the High Court to the prescribed credit to abide the order of that Court, and that on such payment the holding shall vest in the purchaser.
    (3.) The vesting order shall be effectual to vest in the purchaser, and charge the purchase annuity on, the fee simple and inheritance of the holding purchased, subject—

    (a) to such exceptions and reservations (if any) as may be specified in the agreement

    921
    for purchase and approved by the Land Commission respecting any right reserved to the vendor or superior landlord as to mines, timber, and fishery, or other rights; and

    (b) to any public rights affecting the holding; and

    (c) to the provisions of this Act respecting the tenant's interest, and respecting easements, rights, and privileges',

    but, save as aforesaid, discharged from all claims, whether estates, charges, reservations, covenants, conditions, interests or incumbrances whatsoever, as well as of Her Majesty the Queen, and any superior landlord, as of all other persons whomsoever (except the tenant and persons claiming under him) who are interested in the holding, whether as incumbrancers or otherwise, and all such claims shall cease as against the holding, and shall attach to the purchase money paid into the High Court in respect of the holding, in like manner as immediately before the sale they attached to the holding.
    (4.) The money so paid into the High Court shall he distributed and dealt with by that Court in like manner as if it were the proceeds of the sale of an estate sold under the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act. 1858, and for the purpose of such distribution of or dealing with the said money, the High Court may, if it appears to such Court necessary, ascertain the amount or value of such claims as above mentioned, and cause that amount or value to be discharged, redeemed, or satisfied out of the said money.
    (5.) The vesting order shall be an order securing an advance within the meaning of Section 18 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, and that section shall apply accordingly.
    (6.) The interest vested by the vesting order in the purchaser shall be deemed to be a graft upon the previous interest of the tenant in the holding, and shall be subject to any rights or equities arising from its being such graft: Provided that any then subsisting charge on such previous interest which was created under any Act in respect of some improvement on the holding, shall be a charge on the estate vested in the purchaser by the vesting order next after the purchase-annuity.
    (7.) If any guarantee deposit is paid or retained, the amount thereof shall be excepted from the payment into the High Court, and held by the Land Commission, but the vesting order shall take effect and the right to the deposit be determined, as if the amount had been paid into that Court with the rest of the purchase money.
    (8.) Where the Judicial Commissioner certifies that the estate is free from incumbrances (as defined by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887), and that the purchase money can he paid or distributed immediately, the advance need not be paid into the High Court, and this section shall apply in like manner as if it were so paid.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH)MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH (Derbyshire, W.) moved to omit Clause 22, in order to obtain an explanation from the Government with regard to its provisions. So far as he understood the clause, its operation would have the effect of discouraging landlords from endeavouring to make sales. He could not imagine that that was the intention, for the whole object of Unionist policy had been to encourage purchase.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that up to this time an agreement for sale made in these Courts was not carried out until the landlord's title was ascertained to be good and marketable. The result was that a delay of two, three, and sometimes four years took place between the time the tenant signed the agreement and the time when he got his conveyance. During that period he was not bound to pay his rent, but he paid four per cent., and then, in the event of the purchase going off, he was remitted to his original right. The object of the clause was to provide that the Court should not investigate, in the first place, whether the landlord had really a good title or not. If it found that he had a prima facie good title, if it found him dealing as owner with a holding for a certain time, the Court should then validate the agreement between him and the tenant, and should sell to the tenant, vest the property in him, have the purchase money lodged in Court, and allow any question affecting the landlord's title to be fought out over the purchase money and not over the land. But that meant that everything would be expedited and a great deal of the costs be saved to the landlord. The only inconvenience he might possibly experience was that his money might be locked up for some time in Court. But even on that point he wished to point out that the moment an incumbrance was ascertained to be a valid incumbrance it could in many cases be immediately paid off and only the balance after payment retained in Court.
    MR. KNOXdoubted whether the clause, without some modification, would meet the real interests of both parties. He thought it was, to a large extent, a great improvement, but he believed that unless proof of title in Court was simplified——
    MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say it would be simplified.
    MR. KNOXsaid that would, to a large extent, meet his point.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved, in Sub-section (1). after the words "satisfied that," to insert the words" the person purporting to be."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved, in Sub-section (1), after the words "title to, "to insert the words" his interest in."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved, in paragraph (a) Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "as to mines, timber and fishery, or other rights."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved, in paragraph (a), Sub-section (3), after the word "rights," to insert—
    "in any case in which the Land Commission is satisfied in the prescribed manner that the effect of such reservation was explained to and understood by the purchaser, or the purchaser is represented by a solicitor other than the vendor's solicitor."
    He remarked it was understood that the Government had undertaken to provide for this point. He should be quite satisfied that, where the tenant had a separate solicitor, he should have no protection, but where a tenant had no separate solicitor, he should be protected by the Land Commissioners being satisfied that he knew of and fully understood the reservation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. KNOX MR. KNOX moved to add at the end of the clause:—
    (9.) "The Land Commission or the High Court shall not in any case be empowered to make any further requisitions as to title than a purchaser would be entitled to make under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, or any Act amending the same."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved, after the Amendment last inserted, to add:—
    "The provisions of this section and of any other enactment in this Act with respect to purchase money and the payment thereof into court or otherwise shall, where the advance is made by means of guaranteed land stock, apply to that stock and to transfer thereof into court or otherwise, and enactments relating to the payment shall be construed accordingly.'"
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 24,—

    AS TO REDEMPTION OF APPORTIONMENT OF ANNUITIES, RENTCHAKGES, ETC., UNDER 50 & 51 VICT. C. 33. SS. 15, 16
    (1.) For the purpose of the distribution of, or other dealing with, an advance paid into the High Court under this Act, sections fifteen and sixteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, and any other unrepealed enactment in the Land Purchase Acts, or this Act, relating to the redemption or apportionment of charges on holdings or otherwise to the distribution of the purchase money of a holding, shall apply as if the High Court were the Land Commission and the money paid into that Court were the holding.
    (2.) Where any annuity, rentcharge, or rent, ordered under the said sections to be redeemed is subject to any incumbrance as defined by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, the High Court shall have the same power in relation to that incumbrance under the said section fifteen as that Court would have if the incunbrance were charged upon the land sold.
    (3.) For the purpose of an agreement respecting the redemption price of any annuity, rent-charge, or rent apportioned under the said section sixteen, the High Court may determine the parties by whom such agreement may be made or by whom the consent may be given for the determination of the price by the High Court.
    (4.) The said sections as amended by this section shall apply to any contingent liability for any annuity, rent-charge, or rent, in like manner as they apply to the annuity, rent charge, or rent itself, and where any contingent liability has no appreciable value, the money may be distributed without regard to such liability.
    MR. KILBRIDE MR. KILBRIDE moved to add at the end of the clause the following new Subsection:—
    (5.) "That the twentieth section of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, be retrospective and apply to the reversion expectant on the termination of any lease."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid this Amendment could not be accepted in its present form.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest what words should be inserted? [Cites of "No, no."]
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 26,—

    LIABILITY FOR ARREARS OF RENT, AND INTEREST ON PURCHASE MONEY AFTER AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE.
    (1.) Where an agreement for the purchase of a holding is made after the commencement of this Act, and the Land Commission have sanctioned an advance for such purchase, the purchaser shall he discharged from all liability to the vendor in respect of any liabilities affecting the holding at the date of the agreement, including all rent and arrears existing at such date; but if the advance is refused the agreement shall be void, and the tenant shall be liable to pay rent as if from the gale day prior to such refusal.
    (2.) Interest at the rate agreed on, on the purchase money from the date of the said agreement until the day from which the purchase-annuity begins, shall be payable half-yearly on the first day of May and first day of November by the purchaser, and shall be paid to, and be collected and recoverable by, the Land Commission, in like manner as if it were an instalment of the purchase-annuity charged upon the holding, and when received by them shall be paid to the person in receipt of the rent at the date of the agreement or such other person as may prove himself to be entitled thereto, and if the advance is refused shall, unless the agreement otherwise provides, be allowed by the landlord to the tenant as a payment on account of rent.
    SIR J. COLOMB*SIR J. COLOMB moved in sub-section (1) to leave out the word "sanctioned" and insert instead thereof the word "made." He thought that the change was a sweeping and disastrous one. At present when the landlord and tenant made an agreement of sale and purchase, all arrears and debts due to the landlord were to cease and determine on the advance being made, but the sanction was a very different thing to the advance
    926
    being made. The position would be, unless this Amendment were accepted, that the Land Commission might sanction the sale at a less price than that which the landlord had agreed to. The landlord might refuse to go on, and the tenant would have his debts wiped out. He did not blame the Chief Secretary, but he did blame his legal adviser the Attorney General.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid he did not feel the blame, because the hon. Gentleman was hopelessly wrong, and if he would read for himself the second section he would see that, under the existing system, the advance was not made, although the agreement might be sanctioned, until the landlord's title was ascertained. That might take a considerable time. Under the clause, the moment that the Land Commission approved of the agreement and were willing to make the advance, they made an Order vesting in the tenant the land, so that there was no interval of time between the sanctioning of the agreement and the vesting Order.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved to insert after the words "for such purchase," the words, "such sanction shall be signified by an Order and." It was not safe for either the landlord or the tenant that any loose practices should be allowed in the office of the Land Commission. He therefore thought that those gentlemen, after they had sanctioned a purchase, should write out an Order giving the particulars of the transaction.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 20,—

    LIABILITY FOR ARREARS OF RENT, AND INTEREST ON PURCHASE MONEY AFTER AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE.
    (1) Where an agreement for the purchase of a holding is made after the commencement of this Act, and the Land Commission have sanctioned an advance for such purchase, the purchaser shall be discharged from all liability to the vendor in respect of any liabilities affecting the holding at the date of the agreement, including all rent and arrears existing at such date; but if the advance is refused

    927
    the agreement shall he void, and the tenant shall he liable to pay rent as it from the gale day prior to such refusal.
    (2.) Interest at the rate agreed on, on the purchase money from the date of the said agreement until the day from which the purchase-annuity begins, shall he payable half-yearly on the first day of May and first day of November by the purchaser, and shall he paid to, and be collected and recoverable by, the Land Commission, in like manner as if it were an instalment of the purchase annuity charged upon the holding, and when received by them shall be paid to the person in receipt of the rent at the date of the agreement or such other person as may prove himself to he entitled thereto, and if the advance is refused shall, unless the agreement otherwise provides, be allowed by the landlord to the tenant as a payment on account of rent.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURasked the, House to go back on a decision of the Committee. In Committee they inserted the words in Clause 26 "from the gale day prior to such refusal" [printed above in italics]. He proposed that the words of the original clause, "as if the agreement had not been made," should be restored, the effect of which was that if the advance was refused the parties would be in the same position as if negotiations had not taken place at all.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS)MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid) moved the adjournment of the Debate.
    MR. SPEAKERrefused to put the Motion, on the ground that a similar Motion was made only a short time before, and was not supported by a single Member. [Cheers.]
    Clause 29,—

    SALE OF HOLDING BY LAND COMMISSION.
    (1.) The Land Commission upon the sale of a holding under Section 30 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, or under any power of sale, may sell the holding in lots.
    (2.) Section 15 of the purchase of Laud (Ireland) Act, 1885, as amended by this Act, shall extend to a sale of a holding by the Land Commission, as successors to the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland.
    (3.) Where a holding is subject to the future payment of an annuity, and the Land Commission sell it in lots, or a portion of any such holding is required for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 5 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, for which a holding may he resumed,
    928
    the Land Commission may apportion the annuity in such manner as they deem expedient, or may, if they think fit, make an order discharging any such portion of the holding as aforesaid from any further liability for such annuity, or any part thereof, or any arrears thereof.
    (4.) Where the Land Commission sell a holding, the purchase money shall he paid and distributed as if it were the purchase money of a holding sold by a landlord to a tenant.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words—
    "a portion of any such holding is required for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 5 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, for which a holding may he resumed,"
    in order to insert instead thereof the words—
    "in the exercise of their powers under the Land Purchase Acts authorise the sub-division of the holding."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 31,—

    SALES UNDER THE LANDED ESTATES COURT ACT.
    (1.) Where an absolute order for the sale of an estate, comprising holdings to which this section applies has been made under the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858, and either a receiver has been appointed over the estate or the estate is so circumstanced that it would independently of this Act be sold without the consent of the owner as to price, the following provisions shall have effect:—

    (a) The Land Commission shall, at the request of the Land Judge, cause the estate to be inspected, and a report to be made by two Commissioners respecting the estate, and the circumstances thereof, and the price at, and the conditions under which, the sale of the holdings to the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts can properly be made.

    (b) The Land Judge, after giving all parties, including the tenants, an opportunity of being heard, and considering the report and any offers that may be made for the purchase of the estate or any part thereof, and any other matters that may be brought before him, and the general circumtances of the estate, shall make to the person appearing to be in occupation as tenant of each holding on the estate, an offer to sell to him the fee-simple of the holding, and the arrears of rent then due from ham in respect thereof, at such price, and subject to such condition, whether

    929
    as to the payment of part of the price in cash, or as to the offer to one tenant being conditional on the acceptance by other tenants of the offers made to them within a limited time, or otherwise, as the Land Judge may consider reasonable and just, having regard to the interest of all persons interested in the estate.

    (c) The offer shall be communicated in such manner as the Land Commission think fit to the person appearing to be in occupation as tenant, and if it is accepted then on fulfilment of the conditions the said person shall be doomed to have agreed to purchase the holding within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts, and the sale shall be completed accordingly.

    (f) If it appears to the Land Judge that the tenants of holdings on the estate to the extent of not less than three-fourths in number and value according to the rateable value under the Irish Valuation Acts, have accepted the offers under this section, he may, if having regard to the circumstances of the case he thinks it expedient, order that the remaining tenants or any of them shall be deemed to have accepted the offers made to them, and this section and the Land Purchase Acts shall apply accordingly; provided that such order shall not apply to any tenant if the purchase-money of his holding would exceed the limitation on the amount of the advance imposed by section two of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888, and the holding of such tenant shall not be taken into consideration in estimating the three - fourths above mentioned.

    (e.) Where a receiver has been appointed over part of an estate this section shall apply to that part in like manner as if it were an estate.

    (f.) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply only to holdings which are agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral.

    (2.) Any person in occupation of and paying-rent for a parcel of land (including the owner of an estate in occupation of a mansion house or demesne forming part of the estate) held under a letting by the Land Judge or Receiver Judge may agree to purchase such parcel of land, and the same shall be deemed a holding and such person a tenant, and the Land Judge or Receiver Judge, as the case may be, a landlord within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts.
    (3.) At any time after an absolute order for the sale of an estate or part of an estate has been made in pursuance of the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858, the foregoing provisions of this section so far as they are applicable may upon the application of the owner be applied to such estate, although a receiver has not been appointed over the
    930
    estate, and the estate is not so circumstanced that it would, independently of this Act, be sold without the consent of the owner as to price; provided that no advance shall be made to the owner to purchase any mansion house or demesne forming part of the estate.
    (4.) Rules under Part Two of this Act may be made for carrying into effect this section.
    SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD)SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD (Cambridge) moved to omit Clause 31. His main object in doing so was to call attention to the fact that for the first time the clause practically inserted the thin end of the wedge of compulsory purchase. It first of all sanctioned compulsory sale against the wish or consent of the legal owner; it would possibly interfere with the tenants also, and it imported compulsory interference with the discretion of the mortgagees. He thought it would be a hard case, and contrary to the interests of Ireland, if those men, who were living on their estates and doing what good they could, were compulsorily sold up without having the chance of redeeming their property. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he honestly believed this was one of the most valuable clauses in the Bill for the landlords. He would ask the landlords to take a cool opinion from some unprejudiced persons as to whether this Bill by its purchase clauses would not shoot sovereigns into their pockets. This clause would bring forward the money of the Treasury to their aid and prevent the lowering of the land market. That any landlord should object to it, to use the expression of a learned judge in Ireland, simply capsized his intelligence. [Laughter.]
    SIR J. COLOMBcalled attention to the amount of money invested in Irish property by English and Scotch insurance offices, which he put at £7,000,000. He saw that an organ of hon. Gentlemen opposite welcomed this clause because it would hit these insurance companies, and they regarded it as a commencement of a fresh agrarian revolution; and he protested against the

    931
    clause because he believed it would it those who deserved, perhaps, more that others, the protection of Parliament.
    Motion negatived.
    Clause 32,—

    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 thin 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 the Judicial Commissioner thinks it desirable the case shall be re-heard by those three Commissioners.
    MR. DILLON MR. DILLON moved to leave out the word "a,"—("a Judicial Commissioner ")—and to insert instead thereof the word "the."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he could not accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved, after the word "Commissioners," to insert the words,—
    "One of whom shall be a Commissioner appointed under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act 1885, except where, owing to absence, illness, or a vacancy in office, such a Commissioner is not available."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved to transpose Clauses 39 and 10 after Clause 12.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 39,—

    PROVISION FOR AGREEMENTS BY LAND- LORDS 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 lo 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;

    932

    (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 consequences in all respects as if the matters agreed to therein had been determined by the Land Commission.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved in Paragraph (a) Sub-section (1) after the word "holding" to insert the words "the partition of division of the holding."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 41,—

  PART VI.

    SUPPLEMENTAL. DEFINITIONS.
    (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 Part V. thereof, the Laud Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, except Part II., 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 by 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 these Acts, shall, subject to rules of Court, be exercised by the Land Judge.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved to insert in the fifth paragraph of Subsection (1), after the words "except Part II., and," to insert—
    "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1888, and the Timber (Ireland) Act, 1888, and the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1888, Amendment Act, 1889, and."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved, in Subsection (1), after the words—
    "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,"
    to insert—
    "The expression 'permanent building,' shall include embankments, structures, excavations, deepenings of rivers or watercourses, or other works effected for agricultural purposes and having a permanent character."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved to insert instead thereof—
    "The expression 'permanent building' shall include river and sea embankments, having a permanent character."
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Government to include the deepening of rivers and watercourses. Take the case of Lough Erne. Was he to be told that nothing was to be allowed to the tenants for the work they had done in connection with the drainage there? If a lough like the Erne, or a river like the Bann, were drained, the money borrowed in effecting improvements of that kind ought not to be lost to the tenant. When the landlord paid for any of the work he received consideration for it. There was hardly a drainage Act in which there was not a provision that a certain amount should be added on to the rent in consequence of the landlord's expenditure. In the same way where the tenant had to bear his portion of the charges he should have similar treat-accorded him.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONremarked that if the proposal of the hon. and learned Member were carried out in Ireland a permanent building could be erected by digging a hole in the bottom of a river.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 42,—

  SAVING OF ULSTER TENANT-RIGHT CUSTOM.
  Nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect any right, benefit, or presumption exercised or enjoyed under or by virtue of the Ulster tenant-right custom or any usage corresponding thereto.
  MR. DILLONproposed, at the end of the clause to insert the words—
  "In the province of Ulster a holding shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be subject to the Ulster tenant-right custom."
  This matter had been fully debated in Committee, and he would now like to hear whether the Government were prepared to make any concession upon the subject.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid they had turned this question about in every way to see what could be done with it, but the objections which had been stated in Committee seemed quite fatal to its acceptance. They could not define the Ulster custom except by referring to some common point which would represent the minimum of the Ulster custom. In each case the tenants would be obliged to prove the particular custom under which they held their farms. If they could prove their particular custom, then there was no advantage in giving them a presumption in regard to the minimum custom.
  MR. MURNAGHANdesired to know why the tenant farmers of Ulster should be placed in a worse position than the tenant farmers throughout the rest of Ireland in regard to this matter. Was this the penalty that the Ulster farmer had to pay for having two representatives on the Treasury Bench? He claimed that the tenant farmers of Ulster ought to be placed in a better, and not a worse position than the farmers of the rest of Ireland. [Laughter.] Hitherto the farmers of the North had been regarded as the petted children of fortune, and he was curious therefore to know the cause of their having now to take a back seat to the other farmers of Ireland. [Laughter.]
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 43,—

  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 them, as amended by this Act, apply, and Section twenty-two of the Land Law (Ireland)
  936
  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.
  MR. T. M. HEALY MR. T. M. HEALY moved at the end of Sub-section (2) to insert,—
  "and where such application can be so sustained, the holding shall be deemed to be and to have remained a present tenancy as from the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881."
  He stated that the Amendment was only a drafting Amendment, although it was important, and he hoped the Government would be able to accept it.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that if the Government did not accept the Amendment, they might as well drop Clause 3.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that as far as they were understood, this was a drafting Amendment, and in that sense they accepted it, with power to reconsider it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill to be Read the Third time Tomorrow (Wednesday).

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(The First Lord of the Treasury,)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes after Five o'clock in the morning.