TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.

HC Deb 09 July 1900 vol 85 cc993-1075

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 3:—

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I confess that when I read, with great interest and satisfaction, the report of the debate in another place on Friday last,^* I hoped we should to-night have the welcome announcement of the withdrawal of this Bill. Any Government with the feelings of ordinary human beings in their breasts would have been determined to withdraw the Bill, by the act of the Irish landlords, in selecting this instant to inflict upon them a humiliating defeat. ^*See page 728 of this volume.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot discuss that matter. I called upon him to move an Amendment.

MR. DILLON

I will come to the Amendment, and I hope to find the Government in a more reasonable frame of mind than was the case last week. I trust they will consent to accept the Amendment I am about to move, for it appears to me to be an Amendment so manifestly reasonable, and so just on the face of it, that I do not understand how any argument can be used against it. The Government have decided not only to break up the settlement of 1872 and to make tithe rent-charges in Ireland once more variable, without offering to the Committee a single reason for making that great change, but they have decided to make them variable on a totally new principle. That principle is that they shall vary in accordance no longer with the prices of agricultural produce, but with judicial rents. Is it unreasonable that I should ask, when they have decided so radically to alter the standard of variation, that that variation should be confined for the future to cases of tithe rent-charge which issue out of hereditaments in respect of which judicial rents have been fixed? I think it is hardly possible to imagine a more reasonable or logical Amendment than that. I can fortify my case in support of this Amendment by referring to that portion of the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary attempted to make a case of grievance in justification of this reduction of tithe rent-charge. There can be no doubt that the only attempt he made to justify this proposal was on the ground that the landlords' rents had been reduced. If that be the cause of this alteration—and we have listened in vain throughout these debates for any other alleged ground of justification—is it not manifest that the benefit of the change should be confined to cases in which the rents have been reduced? We who have followed the operation of the Irish Land Courts are aware that the application of the judicial rent sections of the Land Acts is confined strictly to certain classes of farms, and that there are large areas of land, including a great deal of the richest land in the country, which do not come under those sections at all. Are we to be told that a man who is deriving a large income from, say, grass farms, future tenancies, and so forth, or any of the various classes of farm which are specifically excluded from the judicial rent clauses of the Land Acts, is to obtain a reduction in his tithe rent-charge in proportion to the reduction of judicial rents on other holdings in which he has no financial interest, simply because of the grievance caused to his class by the reduction of judicial rents? That is a perfectly grotesque absurdity in the present Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to break up the settlement of 1872 simply and solely by restoring the law as it then stood, something could be said for not going into the figures, and refusing to investigate the operation of the proposal. But the right hon. Gentleman is not proposing to recur to the condition of the law prior to 1872; he is deliberately proposing to apply to this tithe rent-charge a new standard of variation which will be infinitely more favourable to the laudlords than the old standard. The case for this Amendment is greatly strengthened by the fact that, according to the landlords themselves, this new standard will do much more for them than the old system would do. I feel bound to say a few words on this point, because the right hon. Gentleman, in various speeches, has asserted that if the old system under which tithe rent-charge was variable were reverted to, the reduction would be greater than under the scheme now proposed. Let us hoar what the landlords themselves have to say. Commenting on the remarks of the Chief Secretary in regard to certain Amendments proposed on Wednesday last, the Daily Express, the chief organ of the landlords, used this language— The enacting part of this arrangement is in Clause 3, Clause 2 merely directing preliminary steps. It was, however, opposed by the Nationalists, who desired that the industry of that noble body, the Land Commission, should be devoted to ascertaining something quite different, that is, the variation in prices of agricultural produce during that period. We say advisedly 'something quite different,' for it is notorious that the reduction in rent has been out of all proportion to the fall in agricultural values. The Nationalists have reason to know this better than anybody, as the difference has gone into their own pockets. Consequently they are in favour of setting up a standard which would justify reductions much less than that foreshadowed by Mr. Balfour's Bill. Whether or not that is a correct view, it is the view of the landlords. It appears to me that this is an exceptional case, and therefore I trust the Government will without wasting time accept this Amendment, and let us proceed to other and more contentious matters. I beg to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 28, after the word 'hereditaments,' to insert the words 'in respect of which judicial rents have been fixed."—Mr. Dillon.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,) Leeds, Central

contended that the Amendment was wrong in principle and would be unfair in practice. It was wrong in principle because it assumed what he had again and again denied—that the Government were proposing to make tithe rent-charge variable because rents had been reduced. The alteration in rents was taken merely as a measure. The Government did not say that tithes should be reduced because rents had been reduced, but they said that tithes should be made variable, and variable by a measure or standard better than that which had hitherto been in use. The Committee had decided that the standard to be adopted should be that proposed in the Bill, and now the hon. Member came forward and asked that that standard should be applied only in cases where rents had actually been fixed by the Land Commission. Why should the application of the standard be restricted to those cases? It was impossible to give any reason for such a restriction when once it was clearly appreciated that the alteration in rents was taken merely as a standard and a measure. The Amendment would also be grossly unfair in practice, because it would exempt from the operation of the clause lands which had every bit as much right to the benefit as those to which the clause would then apply.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

The right hon. Gentleman has again repeated the denial he has made on previous occasions, that the reduction of rents by the judicial process is the reason for this Bill. He says the reduction of rents is the measure of the relief proposed, but not the reason for proposing that relief. He asserts that as a member of the Government, having a knowledge superior to that possessed by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. I accept his declaration with some difficulty, because I cannot reconcile it with the equally emphatic declaration made by members of the Cabinet in another place two or three days ago. In answer to a motion which expressly declared the grievances suffered by Irish landlords through legislation since 1881, and demanding relief for those grievances, the Duke of Devonshire stated that relief had already been provided, first, in the Purchase Acts; secondly, in the remission of rates to the extent of £316,000 a year; and then he went on to say in the same connection that— The measure now before the House of Commons will give landlords further relief of the same character. Later on he said that— The Tithe Rent-Charge Kill now before the House of Commons shows a sympathetic spirit for a class and an interest which we believe to be in an unfortunate and difficult position"— the unfortunate and difficult position being that which is created by legislation since 1881, which I suppose may be summed up in the reduction of rents by the judicial courts. How, in the face of that declaration, can it be maintained that the judicial reduction of rents is not the reason for, but only the measure of, this relief? I think as between those two statements, which are absolutely irreconcilable, I must accept that made by the superior authority, and therefore we are entitled —nay, we are bound—to regard the reduction of judicial rents as the reason as well as the measure. And what are the contradictions in which we are involved thereby? The right hon. Gentleman said, as if it was an argument on his own side, that all the land in Ireland is not subject to rents. I do not know much of the Irish land question, but I believe this is a fact—that the land of Ireland can be divided into three categories. There are the hereditaments not under rents, but which pay tithes; there are the hereditaments which are not under judicial rents which pay tithes; and there are those under judicial rents. How in the name of goodness can it be a reason for giving relief to the first two classes that the third are subject to a judicial process? Or how can you get a rational measure thereby? What reason can be assigned why this particular mode of reduction should be more rational than any other? When the variation depended on prices, you had a variable element which affected practically all the land of Ireland, but now you are selecting as your measure of variation an element which has no relation to two out of the three classes into which Irish land is divided. Therefore, whether regarded as a measure or as a reason, the proposal of the Government is one which cannot really be defended, and I shall be constrained to vote for the Amendment. I would warn the House against the introduction of these artificial measures. We had exactly the same question of artificiality in the Merchant Shipping Bill, and it is essential for those of us who want reasonable legislation in a matter of this sort to vote for the Amendment of my hon. friend.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

looked upon the Amendment as fair and equitable. The new standard of variation should be confined exclusively to tenancies which had been affected by the conditions to which the new standard of variation was applicable. It was perfectly ridiculous to say that the tithe rent-charge of tenancies which had not been subjected to judicial rents should be subject to a measure of reduction which was the creation of the Land Acts from which those tenancies had been absolutely exempt. It might be, and it was, alleged that this new variation would work out some compensation to those whose property had been affected by the reduction of rents. Be it so; but how could the standard apply to those whose property had been as unaffected by any legislation of Mr. Gladstone's as they were before 1870? There was no use disguising the word. The Bill was an outrageous fraud. Under the Irish Church Act it was provided that the surplus of the Irish Church Fund should be applicable to charitable purposes or the relief of those who suffered distress. If they applied the reduction of tithes to land unaffected by the legislation of the last thirty years they were perpetrating a palpable fraud. What was the object of this Bill, and what was the reason for its introduction? If it was not for the relief of the landlords, why did they include in this system for the reduction of tithes the owners of land who, under no possibility whatever, had been affected by recent land legislation? If ever there was a fair and equitable Amendment it was that proposed by his hon. friend. Unfortunately, this Bill was to lay Members a Chinese puzzle, and it was very difficult to distinguish between the legal and technical terms with which it was draped. Could the right hon. Gentleman give any reason which would appeal to any fair-minded man why land which had never come under the operation of the Church Acts or of the Acts of 1870 and 1881 should be included in this clause? By including these lands which had not been subject to this law before, Parliament violated two distinct Acts of Parliament— the Church Act of 1869 and the Amending Act of 1872. There was not a shadow of a pretext for this proposal, which was purely the exercising of a dominant power. He believed in his heart and conscience that if the hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken the trouble to master this Bill, they would never have supported it.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

said that this Amendment proceeded actually on the lines of the clause itself, and on the lines upon which the Bill was originally framed and introduced. The Amendment really meant that if there were to be reductions or variations they should only be in respect of holdings of which the judicial rents had been fixed. Surely that was the line upon which the Bill was constructed and upon which the clause proceeded. He thought this was an Amendment which ought to be accepted. He did not think the Chief Secretary would hold that where a judicial rent had not been fixed there should be a variation and a reduction of tithe rent. The clause proposed that whether the judicial rent had been fixed or not, or whether there had been a reduction of rent or not, there should be a reduction of tithe-rent charge. It was perfectly hopeless for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to argue that this variation in tithe-rent charges did not aim at compensating landlords who had had their rents reduced by the Court. That case had been given away completely by the speech of the Duke of Devonshire in another place. He thought they were bound to take the noble Lord's declaration as the view of the Government. This Bill had been brought in to give relief to the landlords in cases where the rents had been reduced by judicial process. He wished to ask if they were now prepared to provide that the tithe rent-charges should be reduced to landlords in respect of holdings of which the judicial rents had not been fixed? Was the tithe rent-charge to be reduced on behalf of landlords where the rents had not been reduced at all? He understood that, roughly speaking, the judicial rents fixed in Ireland were very much less than 50 per cent of the whole. What became of the other 50 per cent.? There must be a large number of cases where the landlord and tenant came to an agreement, and where the tenant considered that he was not justified in seeking the protection of the Court. But even in those cases where the landlord had lost nothing and where the rent had not been reduced, he was to get the benefit of this clause just the same as those whose rents had been reduced, and also to the same extent. The class of tenants who at the passing of this Act were in arrears—which had been held in terrorem over them—had never been able to get judicial rents fixed, and those arrears were held over them to prevent their seeking the benefit of the legislation. If the Committee did not accept this Amendment, the landlords to whom he had just referred would get the benefit of this clause just the same as those landlords where judicial rents had been fixed by the process of legislation. There was another large class at the present moment upon whom the landlord had reimposed the whole rent under Section 7 of the Act of 1887. They were still paying the old unreduced rents, and in tens of thousands of these cases the landlord would be entitled to the full amount of reduction on the tithe rent-charge. And why I Were they justly entitled to it? Nobody ever heard of such a hard-and-fast line. If they were bound to have some fixed rule, at any rate they should try and make it approach as near to justice as was possible, but nobody would argue that the reduction embodied and enshrined in this clause was either fair or equitable. They knew now that during the same period rents in Somersetshire had been reduced 35 per cent., whilst in Ireland the average was only about 15 per cent., and under those circumstances they were now proposing to give further relief to the landlords of Ireland. It was not sufficient for the representatives of the Government to make a few perfunctory remarks on the Bill, and then join in a conspiracy of silence, when they could not meet the arguments brought against their proposals. It would be more satisfactory if the Chief Secretary for Ireland declared that, no matter what case was made out, or whatever powerful arguments were brought forward, the Government did not intend to accept any Amendments; and the right hon. Gentleman might as well say bluntly, "Whether right or wrong, we shall accept no Amendments whatever to this clause."

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said he quite agreed with his hon. friend who had just sat down that it would be a saving of time, and a much more regular and forward policy on the part of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he would abstain from offering any arguments or making any speeches in reply to the Amendments proposed, because it seemed quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman traversed not only the statement made by others who are members of the same Government in a higher and more responsible position than himself, but he even traversed his own statements. He was not surprised that the Chief Secretary should deny that this Bill was founded upon a reduction of rents. The right hon. Gentleman vehemently denied that, because he knew that if he came down to the Committee and said this Bill was based upon a reduction of rents he would be confronted with two difficulties. He would be confronted with the delaration of a Cabinet Minister in another place, and there would be the greater difficulty that if he came down to this House and defended this Bill on the ground of reduction of rents his case would be absolutely extirpated by the speech to which he had just alluded. How could the right hon. Gentleman put the case of exceptional hardship forward as a plea in favour of this Bill, in face of the fact that one of the greatest of Irish landlords and a Cabinet Minister had asserted that the landlords of Ireland were in an exceptionally favourable position as compared with the landlords of England? He was glad that this debate had at least elicited a great truth which they had been endeavouring for the last fifteen or twenty years to impress upon this country—namely, that in spite of agitation, and in spite of the legislation of the past twenty years in this House, they had not even succeeded in getting the rents in Ireland reduced in the same proportion as they had been reduced in England. In face of the confession made in another place by a Cabinet Minister that rents in England had been doubly reduced as compared with Ireland, he was not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman disclaimed altogether that the principle of this Bill was governed by the reduction of rents in Ireland. Upon this question the right hon. Gentleman was forgetful even of his own words. The Chief Secretary was almost driven to anger when the hon. Member for Dundee suggested that the reduction of rents had something to do with this Bill; but when his hon. and learned friend made that assertion he was only repeating what the right hon. Gentleman himself had said in a previous debate upon this Bill. That was his recollection of the debate, but since then he had consulted the records, and he found the report absolutely in accord with his own recollection. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think the tithe rent-charge should be reduced because rents had been reduced, but he said the hardship of the situation was emphasised by the fact that rents had been compulsorily reduced. So that the right hon. Gentleman brought in the reduction of rent not as a sole reason for the reduction of tithes, although he said that the compulsory reduction emphasised the hardship. He admitted that the reduction of rents was at least a contributing cause, and it was considered a very potent reason for the reduction of tithes. Therefore his hon. and learned friend, when he declared that the reduction of rents was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman as a reason for introducing this Bill, was strictly in accord with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Therefore they arrived at this position: that this Bill had been brought forward, according to the right hon. Gentleman, partly because a grievance had been created in Ireland in regard to the tithes, by the compulsory reduction of rents. They were now face to face with the fact that the more the rents were reduced the greater relief would the landlords get under this Bill. Relief was now to be given with an equally liberal and bounteous hand to the landlords whose rents had been reduced judicially, and also to those whose rents had been reduced voluntarily. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the rents had been compulsorily reduced. Yes, they had been reduced compulsorily in Ireland by about 16 per cent.; but during the same period the rents had been voluntarily reduced in England by 35 per cent. If the reduction of rent by judicial process was a hardship and entitled the landlords to a reduction of their tithes, all they asked for was that those landlords should be loft out who had not reduced their rents. Those landlords had no complaint to make. Their rents had not been reduced at all, or if they had been reduced it was by voluntary process. His hon. friend proposed, by his Amendment, that, as the whole foundation of the Bill was practically based upon the compulsory reduction of rents by judicial process, those estates should not get relief where there had been no compulsory reduction. He put it to the hon. Members opposite, who understood the affairs of Ireland very well, whether they ought not to consider seriously how wide and far-reaching the effect of this proposal would be. There seemed to be a popular idea in the House that every single farm in Ireland had been brought before the Land Court, and that in every case the rent had been reduced. That was an entirely erroneous impression. He had not had the time to run through the figures exhaustively in the short time at his disposal, but he thought the Attorney General would confirm the figures which he would give, and which he had taken from the last Report of the Land Commission. He believed there were about500,000 holdings in Ireland altogether; and what had happened in regard to them? Of this total 144,689 had been brought before the Land Commission and had had their rents reduced. In addition there had been 32,040 brought before other courts, and altogether 176,729 cases had been dealt with. To put it roughly, about 200,000 cases had been the subject of judicial process. What did that moan? If this Amendment was accepted the reduction of tithes would apply only in the case of these 200,000 holdings. In other words, the statistics showed that not one-half of the entire number of holdings in Ireland had been made the subject of legal process; and what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do under this, Bill was to give relief not to the 200,000 judicially-rented holdings, but also to the 300,000 which had never gone through any judicial process at all. He thought his hon. friend had made out a good case for this Amendment.

*SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)

I think it is the bounden duty of every Irish Member to endeavour to inform the Committee as to the nature of this Amendment. It appears to me if the clause remains unamended that there cannot be a. more arbitrary or illogical standard than that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman for reducing the tithe rent-charge. I will not repeat what has been so forcibly stated by my hon. friend who has just spoken, but I wish to emphasise the fact that in every county in Ireland there are three classes of tenants—namely, present tenants, whose rents have been subject to the orders of the Land Commission; future tenants, who are not within the purview of the Acts at all; and a great number of tenants whose rents are moderate, who have reasonable landlords, and who are satisfied to pay on the old system. Why should you select one, and that the smallest class, as the standard by which all the tithes are to be reduced? There cannot be a more illogical or indefensible proposal. Tithes in England are revisable by a certain standard based on the price of corn.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman is now entering upon a discussion which has already been disposed of.

*SERJEANT HEMPHILL

I will not pursue the point further. I was only about to remind the Committee what the existing standard in England is, because I am always glad, whenever I can, to adopt the procedure which obtains in this great country of England, with its great prosperity and its great wealth. Has any reason been assigned for this arbitrary standard? I could understand the argument, if the fact was so, although I would protest against it, that as all the rents in Ireland had been reduced by the action of the Land Commission, that universal reduction would be adopted as the standard for reducing the tithe rent-charge. There would be some substance in that argument, but it is wholly inconsistent and illogical to select this standard, especially when we recollect that, in the wisdom of Parliament, it was decided years ago that, as far as ecclesiastical tithe rent was concerned, it should not be revisable at all.

MR. DOOGAN (Tyrone, E.)

said, to his own knowledge, there were many tenants in Ireland who had not their rents reduced at all, because they had been kept out of the courts by the ingenuity of clever agents, who always allowed arrears to hang over them, and by that simple means prevented them from taking advantage of the Act. Would the landlords of these tenants have the same reduction as the landlords on whose estates fair rents had been fixed? He merely mentioned that to show the unfairness of the manner in which the spoil was to be distributed. There was another class of tenants in Ireland who were fairly satisfied with their rents, and who had certain turbary rights which they would lose if they went into the courts, and they pre- ferred to keep those rights rather than lose them by having their rents reduced. He should like to know what the state of Ireland would have been had not Parliament compelled the Irish landlords to reduce the rents. A few weeks ago a very important English landlord told him that he had reduced his rents 75 per cent., which he said was the general reduction throughout England. Assuming that the Irish landlords had been as sympathetic with their tenants and as anxious to see their tenants thrive as English landlords were, the law would never have stepped in to compel them to reduce their rents. Morever, the English landlords made all the improvements, whereas the Irish landlords not only made no improvements, but charged an exorbitant rent to the tenant for the improvements he himself had made.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member seems to me to be discussing the general land question.

MR. DOOGAN

said he would put himself in order. He wanted to show that the element of the compulsory reduction of rent which was necessary in order to make landlords do their duty in Ireland should not be adopted as an argument for the reduction of tithe. The basis of the distribution of the money was unfair, because many landlords on whose estates no reductions had been made would benefit equally with landlords on whose estates the rents had been reduced. Under the Bill the landlords would get an enormous reduction, but if the Amendment were accepted they would still get a substantial reduction, though not to the extent now proposed. The limits of the question were very narrow. The proposed basis for the division of the money was erroneous, and would work unequally. He supported the Amendment because of the injustice that would be perpetrated if the Bill remained as it was.

MR. G. W. BALFOUE

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 190.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.
Allsopp, Hon. George	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Arrol, Sir William	Gilliatt, John Saunders	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath
Baird, John George Alexander	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Myers, William Henry
Baldwin, Alfred	Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geor's	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Parkes, Ebenezer
Banbury, Frederick George	Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hunts	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Pender, Sir James
Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)	Gull, Sir Cameron	Penn, John
Bartley, George C. T.	Gunter. Colonel	Percy, Earl
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir. M. H (Bristol)	Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B (Hants.	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George	Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton
Bethell, Commander	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Pretyman, Ernest George
Biddulph, Michael	Hardy, Laurence	Purvis, Robert
Bigwood, James	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Pym, C. Guy
Bill, Charles	Heath, James	Rankin, Sir James
Blakiston-Houston, John	Helder, Augustus	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Henderson, Alexander	Remnant, James Farquharson
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.	Ridley, Rt Hon Sir Matthew, W.
Boulnois, Edmund	Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. T.
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)	Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)
Brassey, Albert	Houldsworth, Sir William H.	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Howard, Joseph	Round, James
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow	Howell, William Tudor	Russell, Gen. F. S (Cheltenham)
Carlile, William Walter	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbys.)	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Sandon, Viscount
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thomas, M.
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)	Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. Edw. J.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.
Chamberlain. J Austen (Worc'r	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Kimber, Henry	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Charrington, Spencer	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Chelsea, Viscount	Knowles, Lees	Smith, Hon. W. F.D.(Strand)
Coddington, Sir William	Lafone, Alfred	Spencer, Ernest
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Stanley, Sir Henry M (Lambeth)
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.	Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Curzon, Viscount	Leighton, Stanley	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(S'wns'a)	Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Thornton, Percy M.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Lowe, Francis William	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Fardell, Sir T. George	Lowles, John	Warde, Lieut.-Col, C. E.(Kent)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Man'r)	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton)
Finch, George H.	Macdona, John Cumming	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Fisher. William Hayes	M'Killop, James	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose	Malcolm, Ian	Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)
Flower, Ernest	Middlemore, John T.	Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R.(Bath)
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Milner, Sir Frederick George	Wyndham, George
Galloway, William Johnson	Milward, Colonel Victor	Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Garfit, William	Monckton, Edward Philip	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Gedge, Sydney	Monk, Charles James	Sir William Walrond and,
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lond	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Gold, Charles	O'Malley, William
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)
Allison, Robert Andrew	Harwood, George	Paulton, James Mellor
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Hazell, Walter	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Atherley-Jones, L.	Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H	Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs S.W.
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles, H.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Holland, William Henry	Price, Robert John
Baker, Sir John	Horniman, Frederick John	Reckitt, Harold James
Barlow, John Emmott	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighshire)
Billson, Alfred	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Birrell, Augustine	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir. U	Shaw, Chas. Edward (Stafford)
Blake, Edward	Kearley, Hudson E.	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd)	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Caldwell, James	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)	Souttar, Robinson
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Leng, Sir John	Spicer, Albert
Carew, James Laurence	Lewis John Herbert	Stevenson, Francis S.
Causton, Richard Knight	Macaleese, Daniel	Strachey, Edward
Cawley, Frederick	MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's C)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Channing, Francis Allston	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Colville, John	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Crilly, Daniel	M'Crae, George	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Crombie, John William	M'Dermott, Patrick	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	M'Ewan, William	Ure, Alexander
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	M'Ghee, Richard	Wallace, Robert
Dalziel, James Henry	M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)	Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	M'Leod, John	Wason, Eugene
Dillon, John	Mandeville, J. Francis	Wedderburn, Sir William
Doogan, P. C.	Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand	Weir, James Galloway
Dunn, Sir William	Molloy, Bernard Charles	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Emmott, Alfred	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Wills, Sir William Henry
Engledew, Charles John	Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)	Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Moulton, John Fletcher	Wilson, John (Govan)
Evans, Sir Francis H.(South'ton	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Woods, Samuel
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Flynn, James Christopher	O'Dowd, John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis	O'Kelly, James
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Oldroyd, Mark
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.	Garfit, William	Monk, Charles James
Allsopp, Hon. George	Gedge, Sydney	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Alison, Sir William Reynell	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cy of Lond.	More, Robert. J. (Shropshire)
Arrol, Sir William	Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)	Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.	Morrell, George Herbert.
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Morton. Arthur H. A (Deptford)
Baird, John Geo. Alexander	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Mount, William George
Balcarres, Lord	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Muntz, Philip A.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.J.(St. Geo's	Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Myers, William Henry
Banbury, Frederick George	Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'y	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith-(Hunts	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Beach, Rt. Hn Sir M. H.(Bristol)	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Parkes, Ebenezer
Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants.	Gull, Sir Cameron	Penn, John
Bethell, Commander	Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Percy, Earl
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Bigwood, James	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.	Pilkington, R. (Lanes Newton)
Blakiston-Houston, John	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Pretyman, Ernest George
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo	Purvis, Robert.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Heath, James	Pym, C. Guy
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)	Heaton, John Henniker	Rankin, Sir James
Brassey, Albert.	Helder, Augustus	Rasch, Major Frederick Carne
Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John	Henderson, Alexander	Remnant, James Farquharson
Butcher, John George	Hermon-Hodge, Robert. T.	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Carlisle, William Walter	Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Howard, Joseph	Robertson, Herbert. (Hackney)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Round, James
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cecil, Evelyn (He Rt. ford, E.)	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)	Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)	Seton-Karr, Henry
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Charrington, Spencer	Keswick, William	Sidebottom, William (Derbsh.)
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Kimber, Henry	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Knowles, Lees	Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lafone, Alfred	Spencer, Ernest
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Curzon, Viscount	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.	Thornton, Percy M.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Dixon-Harland, Sir Fred. D.	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Donkin, Richard Sim	Long, lit. Hon. W. (Liverpool)	Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lopes, Henry Yande Buller	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Doxford, Sir William T.	Lowles, John	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Williams, Joseph P.- (Birm.)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Willoughy de Eresby, Lord
Faber, George Denison	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)	Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r)	M'Killop, James	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)
Finch, George H.	Malcolm, Ian	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.-
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Marks, Henry Hananel	Wylie, Alexander
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Wyndham, George
Fisher, William Hayes	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
FitzGerald, Sir Robert. Penrose-	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.	Middlemore, John T.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Flower, Ernest	Milner, Sir Frederick George
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Milward, Colonel Victor
Galloway, William Johnson	Monckton, Edward Philip
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Blake, Edward	Charming, Francis Allston
Allison, Robert. Andrew	Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Colville, John
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert. Henry	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Crilly, Daniel
Atherley-Jones, L.	Burns, John	Crombie, John William
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Caldwell, James	Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)
Baker, Sir John	Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)	Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)
Beaumont, Went worth C. B.	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Dalziel, James Henry
Billson, Alfred	Carew, James Laurence	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan
Birrell, Augustine	Cawley, Frederick	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Dillon, John	M'Crae, George	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Doogan, P. C.	M'Dermott, Patrick	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Dunn, Sir William	M'Ghee, Richard	Souttar, Robinson
Emmott, Alfred	M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)	Spicer, Albert
Evans, Sir Francis H (South'ton	M'Leod, John	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Mandeville, J. Francis	Steadman, William Charles
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Molley, Bernard Charles	Stevenson, Francis S.
Flynn, James Christopher	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Moulton, John Fletcher	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Haldane, Richard Bunion	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Tennant, Harold John
Hazell, Walter	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	O'Dowd, John	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Hogan, James Francis	O'Kelly, James	Wason, Eugene
Holland, William Henry	Oldroyd, Mark	Weir, James Galloway
Horniman, Frederick John	O'Malley, William	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)	Wills, Sir William Henry
Kearley, Hudson E.	Philipps, John Wynford	Wilson, Hn. J. (York, W. R.)
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)	Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lanes S. W	Wilson, John (Govan)
Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)	Power, Patrick Joseph	Woods, Samuel
Leng, Sir John	Price, Robert John	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Lewis, John Herbert	Reckitt, Harold James	Yoxall, James
Lough, Thomas	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Macaleese, Daniel	Robson, William Snowdon	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.
MacDonnell, Dr. MA (Q'n's C.)	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Sinclair, Capt. J.(Forfarshire)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 177. (Division List No. 191.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.	Hedderwick, Thomas Chas H.	Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lancs S W
Allison, Robert Andrew	Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.	Hogan, lames Francis	Price, Robert John
Atherley-Jones, L.	Holland, William Henry	Reckitt, Harold James
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Horniman, Frederick John	Rickett, J. Compton
Baker, Sir John	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Robson, William Snowdon
Billson, Alfred	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'land	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh
Birrell, Augustine	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Blake, Edward	Lewis, John Herbert	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James	Lough, Thomas	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Macaleese, Daniel	Souttar, Robinson
Burns, John	MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q'n's C.	Spicer, Albert
Caldwell, James	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Steadman, William Charles
Carew, James Laurence	M'Crae, George	Stevenson, Francis S.
Cawley. Frederick	M'Dermott, Patrick	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Channing, Francis Allston	M'Ghee, Richard	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Colville, John	M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Crilly, Daniel	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Tennant, Harold John
Crombie, John William	M'Leod, John	Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	Mandeville, J. Francis	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dalziel, James Henry	Molloy, Bernard Charles	Wallace, Robert
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Moulton, John Fletcher	Wason, Eugene
Dillon, John	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Weir, James Galloway
Doogan, P. C.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Williams, John Carvell (Notts
Dunn, Sir William	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	Wills, Sir William Henry
Engledew, Charles John	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.
Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton)	O'Dowd, John	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
FitzMaurice, Lord Edmond	O'Kelly, James	Woods, Samuel
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Oldroyd, Mark	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Flynn, James Christopher	O'Malley, William	Yoxall, James Henry
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Philipps, John Wynford
Hazell, Walter	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
NOES.
Allsopp, Hon. George	Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Balcarres, Lord
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bailey, James (Walworth)	Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r)
Arrol, Sir William	Baird, John Geo. Alexander	Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)
Banbury, Frederick George	Goldsworthy, Major-General	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith-(Hunts)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Beach, Rt. Hon Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Morrell, George Herbert
Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B (Hants.)	Goschen, Rt. Hn G J (St. George's)	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Bethell, Commander	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Mount, William George
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)	Muntz, Philip A.
Bigwood, James	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute)
Blakiston-Houston, John	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Myers, William Henry
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Gull, Sir Cameron	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Halsey, Thomas Frederick	O Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens.
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George	Parkes, Ebenezer
Brassey, Albert	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Penn, John
Brodrick, Rt. Hon St. John	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Percy, Earl
Butcher, John George	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Carlile, William Walter	Heaton, John Henniker	Pilkington, Rich (Lancs Newt'n)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir. Edw. H.	Helder, Augustus	Pretyman, Ernest George
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)	Henderson, Alexander	Purvis, Robert
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.	Pym, C. Guy
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Rankin, Sir James
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Howard, Joseph	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Remnant, James Farquharson
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Chaplin, Rt. Hn. Henry	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Charrington, Spencer	Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Button, John (Yorks, N. R.)	Round. James
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles
Corbett, A. Cameron Glasgow)	Keswick, William	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col Edw. J.
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.	Kimber, Henry	Seton-Karr, Henry
Curzon, Viscount	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Knowles, Lees	Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Lafone, Alfred	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Donkin, Richard Sim	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea)	Spencer, Ernest
Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Faber, George Denison	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Thornton, Percy M.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lowles, John	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r)	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Finch, George H.	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Fisher, William Hayes	M'Killop, James	Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Malcolm, Ian	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
FitzWygram, General Sir F.	Marks, Henry Hananel	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Flower, Ernest	Meysey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcrstersh. N.)
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Meysey-Thompson. Sir H. M.	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Galloway, William Johnson	Middlemore, John Throgmort'n	Wylie, Alexander
Garfit, William	Milner, Sir Frederick George	Wyndham George
Gedge, Sydney	Milward, Colonel Victor	Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond.)	Monckton, Edward Philip	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)	Monk, Charles James
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

MR. DILLON

I do not propose to move my next Amendment on the Paper, as it refers back to a point in Clause 2 which has already been decided. I, however, propose to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, which is— In Clause 3, page 2, line 35, after 'accordingly,' to insert, 'provided that any such tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission shall not be deemed to be so varied to a greater amount than that in which the rents payable to the person by whom such tithe rent-charge is payable in respect of the hereditaments out of which the same is payable have been varied by the fixing of judicial rents as aforesaid.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I think that Amendment is out of order. It raises points which the Committee have already decided. For instance, in regard to the Land Commission the Committee have already decided to draw no distinction between tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission and that payable to the lay impropriators; and the Committee have just decided to draw no distinction between those who have to pay tithe rent-charge who are in receipt of judicial rents and those who are not.

MR. DILLON

I have studied this matter very carefully, and I confess, with all submission, that I do not accept the interpretation which you, Mr. Lowther, put on the effect of the Amendment on other clauses. In the first place, this proposal is not to make the tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission invariable, as the previous Amendment did, but it is a proviso that there should be some distinction between the tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission and that payable to lay impropriators. The previous Amendment would have cut the tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission completely out of the clause. The question raised by the latter portion of the Amendment is totally different, though somewhat analogous—namely, that the advantage given to individuals participating in these results should be proportioned to their receipt of judicial rents. I will put a case which I know personally. A man is the owner of an estate of which one half is left tenantless, and in respect of which he loses a portion of his income. The other half is let to another man. Now, the judicial rents of the whole estate are affected, but the man who is compelled to pay tithe rent-charge on the whole estate loses his income in respect of half. The point of this Amendment is that he should only get the benefit of the reduction in respect of half the rent-charge.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I followed the argument of the hon. Gentleman, and I think I also understand his Amendment. It seems to me that the Committee decided on Thursday last that no distinction will be made between tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission and tithe rent-charge payable to lay impropriators. As to the second part of the Amendment, the Committee have just decided that no distinction will be made between those persons whose rents have been judicially fixed and those whose rents have not been judicially fixed. The Amendment raises the same two questions again. For these reasons I ask the hon. Member to move the next Amendment.

MR. DILLON

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section 2 of Clause 3. This subsection provides for the carrying forward the variation according to judicial rents to each succeeding period of fifteen years, and thereby emphasises the evil consequences of this proposed Act. I am not at all surprised that the Chief Secretary said he utterly denied that this provision for reducing tithe rent-charge according to judicial rents was based upon the fall in rents—although I was amazed at his courage in saying so—because if he had adhered to the position he took up in introducing the Bill, it would have been absolutely impossible for him to have resisted the last Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill last year, said— It must be remembered that the charge is a charge upon rents, and while rents have been greatly reduced under the supervision of a state tribunal the rent-charge can no longer be varied. While I am not prepared to place this grievance in the same category with the first-mentioned, I do think a hardship has been inflicted on the tithe-payer to which it would be desirable to apply a remedy, if a reasonable remedy can be found. I maintain that there is no meaning in that sentence at all if it does not mean that the grievance of the landlords was the reduction of rents in Ireland. Twenty-eight years ago the landlords of Ireland agreed to make the tithe rent-charge invariable, and no reason has been given for a change in that settlement, except that the landlords have a grievance. But we are entitled to demand some explanation and definition of the nature of the grievance. According to the statement in the Dublin Daily Express, the landlords themselves admit that the standard, of which this sub-section of Clause 3 is a most vicious continuance, is one giving to them a far greater reduction than they would have got under the old law. Admitting for the sake of argument that the landlords had a grievance—which I most certainly deny —no reason has been brought forward on behalf of the Government to show that the injustice should be remedied, not according to the old law, but according to a new and unheard of standard which will give the landlords a vastly greater reduction than under the old law. I assert, without fear of contradiction, that from the first introduction of the Bill down to this hour, no attempt has been ^*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxi., page 494. made to justify that change. This subsection asks us to accept this vicious principle, and carry it on to successive periods of fifteen years, and the Government afford us no information as to what the reductions may amount to in the future, whether twenty, thirty, or fifty per cent. I move to omit the sub-section because I believe it to be an illimitable application of an extremely unjust and vicious principle, and because it is a leap in the dark, the effect of which is absolutely uncertain.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 36, to leave out Sub-section 2."—(Mr. Dillon.)

MR. FLYNN, in supporting the Amendment, maintained that the House was entitled to know what was to become of the Church Fund thirty or forty years hence. Where did the matter stand if, after the expiry of fifteen years, when this provision was put into force, it was found that there was a further and dangerous incursion into the coffers of the Church Fund? The grants to the Agricultural Board and the Congested Districts Board and other grants were all thrown upon the Irish Church Fund, and yet the Government, not content with throwing all those charges upon it, were going a step further. How would the matter stand if at the end of thirty years the fund was put into such a condition that it could not meet its engagements? Would it not be better to allow the clause to run for fifteen years only? Then, if it was necessary, a further Bill could be introduced for another fifteen years. Under Sub-section 2 as it at present stood steps were being taken which would seriously imperil the Irish Church Fund; that was a very serious matter. This sub-section set up a very dangerous principle. With regard to the Land Act they knew to an extent where they were; that the average reductions which had been made since 1881 could be pretty well ascertained; but when Sub-section 2 came to be considered they were dealing with a hypothetical set of figures. Let the Committee assume for a moment that, owing to the increased importation of foreign produce, prices continued to decline; the reductions for the second period of fifteen years would be much greater than the reductions during the first period, and that would make a still further incursion into the Church Fund, which might render it unable to perform its obligations. It might be said that these results could not occur, but in all probability they would occur. If they did, was the reduction of the judicial rents to go on with the reduction of tithes, and, if so, why? So far as the Government was concerned, no argument urged against the sub-section made the slightest impression, and it was a significant commentary upon this piece of legislation that upon the only Irish Bill of the session there was not a single member representing the. Treasury present to safeguard the Irish Church Fund. Irish Members had long ceased to look to the Chief Secretary to safeguard any Irish fund, but they had hoped, if this step was to be taken with regard to the first fifteen years after the passing of the Act, it would have been limited to that, and the Government might then be left to deal with the condition of things which might then arise. Even at the eleventh hour he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the position with regard to Sub-clause 2, and make some slight concession in a clause which bristled with difficulties.

*SERJEANT HEMPHILL

joined in the appeal to the right, hon. Gentleman to leave out the sub-clause. It was a most reasonable suggestion that the experiment should not be made perpetual, and by leaving out the sub-clause it would always, be open to the Legislature to say whether this legislation should at the end of fifteen years be renewed or not. He desired to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that this particular clause applied to-both ecclesiastical and lay tithes. They already knew that during the last fifteen years in many parts of Ireland rents had been greatly reduced—33⅓ percent, in some instances; and the effect of this sub-clause would be to whittle away the ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge to a very great extent. The Government did not appear to apprehend the fact that this was a leap in the dark; the Church Fund itself was nothing more than the accumulation of the revenue of the tithe rent-charge, which amounted to some £200,000 a year. It was the only fund existing to pay the costs of all the charitable Acts of Parliament passed for the benefit of Ireland, which, if that fund was whittled down, would all fall upon the Exchequer. Under those circum- stances, why perpetuate a state of things until it was found whether it was right or wrong? With regard to the lay tithes, he had put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, in order to prepare for this discussion, asking for information as to the amount of the lay tithes. The attitude which the right hon. Gentleman took up was that the Government had no means of ascertaining the amount of the lay tithes, which was quite possible and reasonable, seeing that the lay tithes were private property. But the revenue from the lay tithes I have heard stated to amount to £140,000 or £150,000 a year, and that was private property and dealt with as such, yet a perpetual clause was introduced into the Bill which might whittle that down to nothing if prices continued to fall and depression continued to exist for the next fifteen years, because that would necessitate further reductions. The Committee really did not realise how far-reaching the evil might be, and he hoped under the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

MR. G. W. BALFOUR

, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say that he had been attacked for not having given the reasons for this clause. He had given his reasons more than once, but he invariably found that, when he had sat down, hon. Gentlemen jumped up and asked for them again. He would, therefore, confine himself entirely to the question of whether the variations which the Committee had decided should take place during fifteen years should be continued for a further period. The only argument urged against that was the effect which this provision would have on the Church Fund. But in the Memorandum made in the previous year allowance was made for a further increase in the average reduction of rents in Ireland to the extent of from 20 to 30 per cent. He did not himself look forward to an indefinite series of reductions in the rents of Irish land. Those reductions, of course, must depend principally upon the fall of prices, but he did not think that they might look forward seriously for a very long time to come to reductions taking place that would impoverish the Church Fund to anything like the extent which the hon. and learned Member anticipated. Taking all reductions into account, the Church Fund would suffice to meet all the burdens upon it up to 1947, and even after that would be able to afford a large sum annually to the Department of Agriculture. Under those circumstances he thought he might fairly say that no serious danger need be apprehended to any of the purposes for which the Church Fund was security for the next generation, and if after thirty years the Church Fund should prove unequal to the burden of £70,000 for the Agricultural Department,, that would be subject to such revision as the Treasury might deem necessary. But, for a generation at least, certainly the Church Fund would meet all its liabilities. If such an improbable contingency should arise that the fund could not bear the £70,000 for the Agricultural Department, it would be for Parliament to consider how the deficiency should be met.

MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.)

said that his objection to the clause was that by it a perpetual arrangement was made by which the landlords were really made the possessors and manipulators of the Irish Church Fund. He thought the operation of the sub-section should be restricted to the next fifteen years. If that were done it might be considered a reasonable modification of the clause. That the landlords were to be the possessors of the Church Fund in perpetuity was not reasonable, and he hoped therefore that the right hon. Gentleman would limit the operation of the clause to fifteen years.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had put the case fairly and succinctly. This Bill, like a great many other measures passed for Ireland by English legislators, cursed him that gave and him that received. He had heard that it would not benefit the Irish landlords to any great extent. Only about £40,000 would go into their pockets. That amount distributed amongst a great many landlords would only result in a very small sum for each—so small that it reminded one of the story of the man who, during the revolution of 1848, went to Lord Rothschild and said all men are brothers, and demanded his share of wealth. Lord Rothschild gave him 10 centimes, and said that if he gave all his brothers a like amount it was more than they ought to receive. The result to the individual would be small. At the same time, £40,000 would be a serious peril to the fund. The Agricultural Board had £70,000 which they devoted to agriculture. It was a large sum, but the good which they were able to do with it in benefiting the various districts was very large indeed. In this Bill the right hon. Gentleman ran the risk of interfering with the good work done by this Board, simply in order to put an infinitesimal contribution into the pockets of the Irish landlords. That alone was a sufficient condemnation of the clause. He did not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could be precluded from accepting the Amendment of his hon. friend. It would not interfere with the working of the Bill, and by adopting the Amendment no new precedent would be created, because in the Irish Agricultural Rating Bill, passed a few sessions previously, a similar limitation was imposed. After a Parliamentary inquiry, the Government consented to limit the operation of that Act to five years. He hoped, therefore, in the present case the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to comply with the reasonable request of the Irish Members to limit this measure not for five years or even ten, but for fifteen years, which could not be considered not to be a reasonable time to give for the experiment. This clause meant that the landlords would hold a perpetual mortgage over the Church Fund. In Ulster he found that the reduction in the second statutory term—that was to say, the reduction not on the original rents, but the reduced rents—was in Antrim 25 per cent. and Fermanagh 24 per cent. The average reduction in the province of Ulster was 25 per cent., in the province of Leinster 24.3, in the province of Connaught 23.8, and in the province of Munster 21.3. He might interject the observation that the more he went into the question of rent reduction in Ireland the more convinced was he that the farmers who had suffered most from exorbitant and unconscionable rack-renting were those of the loyal Unionist province of Ulster, for whom the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh and other such gentlemen were the advocates in that House. It was now near the dinner hour, and he hoped his congratulations might aid the appetite of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He congratulated the Member for North Armagh on the extraordinary political adroitness by which the landlords of Ulster had been able to convince the loyal but violently rack-rented farmers of that province that they were doing so exceedingly well by their English connection. The reduction of 25 per cent. in the second statutory term, added to the reduction in the first statutory term in Ulster, made altogether something like 45 to 50 per cent. If that was to go on what was to become of the Irish Church Fund? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had come to the extraordinary conclusion that the reduction of rents in Ireland had come to an end. How did he know?

MR. G. W. BALFOUR

remarked that reductions could not go on for ever.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be in office in another House of Commons—which was at least possible—and that he would bring in a measure which would abolish rent altogether in the greater part of Ireland by a judicious and fair system of compulsory land purchase. That was, perhaps, what the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind, and to that extent he agreed with him that these reductions could not go on for ever. At the same time they saw no sign of that step now. The causes which had produced the present reduction of rent were still going on. What he might almost call the wickedness of this Bill practically was that it might, by the redemption of tithes, reduce to the vanishing point that magnificent fund which was doing such wonderful work in Ireland. While this clause perpetuated what they regarded as an injury, it would not have the effect the right hon. Gentleman anticipated. If the right hon. Gentleman had any hallucination that this clause, or any other clause, would have the effect of stopping the mouths and the demands of the landlords of Ireland, he must have come to that conclusion within the last six or seven days. At the very moment when he was pushing this Bill through the House, the landlords of Ireland defeated his colleagues in another place. In pushing this Bill the right hon. Gentleman was using precious Parliamentary time—time which the Leader of the House found so valuable that he was not able to give it to any measure called contentious in any sense of the word—time so valuable that the children of the country could not be relieved from the tyranny of wicked and unprincipled parents who sent them to the public-house. At the very moment when the right hon. Gentleman was wasting Parliamentary time by pushing this Bill through the House, his friends and protégés were bringing in their claim for another piece of impossible relief in another House. This Bill would have the effect of doing great injustice to the tenantry of Ireland, it would seriously impede the best and the only good Department in Ireland, and at the same time it would bring no peace or satisfaction to the class it was intended to benefit.

MR. G. W. BALFOUR

was understood to say that the conclusion the hon. Member had come to in regard to the effect of the redemption of tithes on the Church Fund was not in accordance with his own expectation.

MR. POWER (Waterford, E)

complained that the provisions of the Bill were so complicated, and the information supplied so meagre, that it was difficult to form any true idea of the effects of the measure.

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Dr. TANNER:, Cork County, Mid). House counted, and, forty Members being found present,

MR. POWER

contended that it would be very much fairer if, instead of making this charge a charge in perpetuity, the standard was tried for the first fifteen years, and then it could be re-considered. The fund upon which the charge was to be made was established for purposes of general public utility, and no one could contend that the object to which the money was to be applied in this case was one of "general public utility." There were certain crying demands, such as education and migration, which would come within that category, but certainly the relief of the worst class of rack-renting landlords would not. He altogether failed to see why these tithe-

payers should have any such terms offered to them, as they were perfectly well satisfied with the terms they received when the Church was disestablished. The Chief Secretary had made the admission that it was quite possible there would be larger calls upon the fund than were anticipated, in which case the grant to the Agricultural Department would be jeopardised to some extent, but that then Ireland would have a very good claim to come to the House and ask for a grant out of Imperial funds. That was an admission they were glad to have, but how did they know who would be on the Treasury bench when that time came? This proposal would not satisfy the landlords, but at the same time it would dissipate a fund which, by judicious management, might do great good to the country generally.

MR. JAMES O'CONNOR

desired to make a last appeal to the Chief Secretary to limit the operation of the clause to the next fifteen years. The right hon. Gentleman had with an iron inflexibility stuck to every word of the Bill, and had conceded nothing whatever to the representatives from Ireland. He admired the right hon. Gentleman's firmness when he had a good ease, but this was an iniquitous Bill, and in such a case firmness was not a virtue, but a vice. If the experiment was limited to the fifteen years, the matter could then be again considered, and any further necessary changes might be made. Surely the Chief Secretary could concede that much to the universal demand of Members from Ireland.

MR. FLYNN

declared that the Treasury Memorandum of 1899 could not be accepted, because four years previously a Treasury Minute declared that the Irish Church Fund could not bear any further charges without serious danger of insolvency. Moreover, the belated document of 1899 could not be taken as authentic, as it was evidently a "cooked" Memorandum prepared for an obvious and specific purpose.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 192.)

AYES.
Allsopp, Hon. George	Bailey, James (Walworth)	Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)
Arrol, Sir William	Balcarres, Lord	Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hurts
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)	Bethell, Commander
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Murray, Rt. hon. A. G. (Bute
Bigwood, James	Green, Walford D (Wednesbury	Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Bill, Charles	Gull, Sir Cameron	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Blakiston-Houston, John	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George	Pease, Herbe Rt. P. (Darlington
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert. Wm.	Percy, Earl
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hardy, Laurence	Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)	Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cecil, Evelyn, (Hertford, East)	Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Purvis, Robert.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Hobhouse, Henry	Rankin, Sir James
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)	Howard, Joseph	Rasch, Major Frederic Came
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.
Charrington, Spencer	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Robertson, Herbert. (Hackney
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)	Round, James
Colomb, Sir John Charles R.	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham)
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth.)	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W)	Keswick, William	Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles-
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E.J.
Curzon, Viscount	Knowles, Lees	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Denny, Colonel	Lafone, Alfred	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Donkin, Richard Sim	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Lecky, Rt. Hon William Edw. H.	Spencer, Ernest
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool)	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart
Faber, George Denison	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lowe, Francis William	Strauss, Arthur
Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r)	Lowles, John	Thornton, Percy M.
Finlay, Sir Robert. Bannatyne	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Macartney. W. G. Ellison	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Fisher, William Hayes	Macdona, John Cumming	Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-	Maclure, Sir John William	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.	M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Flower, Ernest	M'Killop, James	Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Marks, Henry Hananel	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)
Galloway, William Johnson	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Wylie, Alexander
Garfit, William	Milward, Colonel Victor	Wyndham, George
Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond.	Monckton, Edward Philip	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	More, Robert. J. (Shropshire)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Goldsworthy, Major-General	Morrell, George Herbert.
Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Mount, William George
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Muntz, Philip A.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Price, Robert. John
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Rickett, J. Compton
Billson, Alfred	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh-)	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Blake, Alfred	Langley, Batty	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Caldwell, James	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Carew, James Laurence	Lewis, John Herbert.	Souttar, Robinson
Cawley, Frederick	Macaleese, Daniel	Spicer, Albert
Crilly, Daniel	MacDonnell, Dr MA (Queen'sC.	Steadman, William Charles
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Stevenson, Francis S.
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Davies, M. Vaugham-(Cardigan	M'Crae, George	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	M'Dermott, Patrick	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Dillon, John	M'Ghee, Richard	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Doogan, P. C.	M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)	Wallace, Robert
Dunn, Sir William	Molloy, Bernard Charles	Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Moulton, John Fletcher	Weir, James Galloway
Flynn, James Christopher	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert. John	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Wills, Sir William Henry
Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Gurdon, Sir William Brampton	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Harwood, George	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Hazell, Walter	O'Dowd, John	Yoxall, James Henry
Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.	O'Kelly, James
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Oldroyd, Mark	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Hogan, James Francis	O'Malley, William
Holland, William Henry	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Horniman, Frederick John	Power, Patrick Joseph

MR. DILLON

said he did not intend to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Louth, although he believed he would be in order in doing so. The Amendment he wished to propose was to provide "that the owners of lay impropriate tithe rent-charge may elect to have the tithe payable to them varied according to the provisions of the present law." He protested against mixing up two utterly different subjects. Observe what this Bill proposed to do with lay impropriate tithes. Those tithes were private property, and had been private property since the Reformation. They were just as much private property as railway or any other stock. In dealing with lay impropriate tithes there was no question of a grievance in the same sense as had been contended in the case of the landlords. Lay impropriate tithes had been dealt with as private property, and had been bought and sold for many generations without any variation. He did not know any class of property which had been more frequently sold, and these tithes were very frequently made the subject of investments under marriage settlements. These tithes had always been valued in accordance with a certain standard. In some parts of the country they were variable in proportion to the price of oats, and in other parts in proportion to the price of wheat. But whether they were variable according to the price of wheat or oats, those who had bought and sold them had done so upon the basis of the price of the article with which they were varied. The necessity for legislation in the case of lay impropriate tithes appears to arise from a totally different cause than the necessity for legislation in the case of ecclesiastical tithe-payers. In this case the only necessity is the neglect of the Government in Dublin to publish the average prices of oats and wheat in the Dublin Gazette. But whatever difference arose in the case of lay impropriator tithe-payers would be removed by a single clause making the variations depend on the prices published in the Annual Reports of the Land Commissioners. That would remove the difficulty, and restore the owners and the payers of these tithes to their strict and well ascertained and legal rights which had prevailed since 1838. The Government in this Bill proposed to deal with private property in a way in which it was never proposed to be dealt with before. Without a shadow of reason or ground, the Government proposed to deal with this private property by introducing a new standard of variation never heard of before, which would, in many instances, reduce this private property by a greater percentage than it was legally rateable under the present law. Let them consider the case of the person of moderate income, who held £50 invested in lay impropriate tithes. Suppose that was in a district where oats was the measure of the value, and where they were entitled to get tithes revised on the basis of the price of oats. If he got them revised on that basis under the present law he might obtain 10, 12, or 15 per cent. reduction. But because the authorities at Dublin Castle neglected to publish in the Dublin Gazette the average price of oats and wheat, which was necessary for this man to get his tithes revised, the Government now came forward and proposed a Bill under which the tithe would be revised on a new scale, which would cut away from the owner of this private property a much larger percentage of the property than would be the case under the present law. What excuse do the Government give for such a scheme? They propose to apply Subsection 2 of Clause 3 to the lay impropriate tithes as well as to the ecclesiastical tithes, with the result that this private property will be reduced by a further 25, 30, or 40 per cent. in future. During the twenty years he had been in this House he had never heard such a monstrous proposition. So peculiar was this tithe that the man who was paying it might be twenty times as wealthy as the man who was receiving it. It might be the Duke of Devonshire who was paying the tithe, and it might be some very poor widow who was receiving it. Without rhyme or reason or just cause it was now proposed to cut down the value of this private property. He waited with much curiosity to hear the excuse the Government would put forward for this extraordinary proposal.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 5, at the end of the clause, to add the words, 'Provided always that owners of lay impropriate tithe rent-charge may elect to have the tithe payable to then varied according; to the provisions of the present law' "—(Mr. Dillon.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. G. W. BALFOUR

said the hon. Member should remember that the Government had been obliged to touch the tithe problem in consequence of the difficulties to which reference had been made, and partly in consequence of the hardships which the Acts of 1869 and 1872 threw upon the tithe-owners. Having boon compelled to deal with the question and to recognise the indefensibility of the existing system of variation, the Government determined in consequence of the many difficulties in the way to reform the whole system. This had been done by means of this Bill, and he could not allow any exception like that suggested by the hon. Member in the Amendment.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

said the right hon. Gentleman had referred to two alterations by statute in regard to lay impropriate tithes, but he wished to point out that those alterations were made at the earnest supplication of the lay impropriators themselves. He knew that hon. Members from Ireland sometimes attacked great interests, but on this occasion they wore defending the rights of property the owners of which were poor people. To them every single farthing was of very great consequence. Every Irish lawyer must recollect, if he had not forgotten his law, that lay impropriate tithes used to form a very important part of Irish marriage settlements. The amounts were generally not more than £1,500 or £2,000, but these tithes were adopted as securities because they were a first charge upon the land, and they formed a capital security to those persons to whom every single farthing was of importance. What did the right hon. Gentleman propose to do? He proposed to render that which was now secure insecure. This was a perfect invasion of the law of property. The owner of lay impropriate tithes was a poor man, and the person benefited by this proposal was a rich man. This variation according to the fixed standards of the price of wheat and oats had prevailed since 1838, and that value had been understood, and now a reduction was proposed in that property which was not called for in any way. Unfortunately he did not believe hon. Members opposite had read this Bill, for it would be an insult to their intelligence to assume that if they had read it they would vote for it. Up to the present time lay impropriate tithes had been considered as good a security as the National Debt, and there was no excuse for this proposal. If the First Lord of the Treasury understood it, as he does not, he would say that there was no excuse for attacking private property in this way. He (Mr. Swift MacNeill) was delighted to pose for once as the defender of the rights of property. The money invested in these tithes belonged to the very poor, and it was a monstrous thing to disturb the value of that property in this manner. This was a miserable attempt to rob the very poor. They must recollect that the second portion of this very atrocious section applied to lay impropriate tithes. The excuse for doing this was that the old system of revising upon the standard of wheat and oats had failed. Why had it failed? Simply through the folly and malfeasance of the Government themselves, who had not published the prices in the Dublin Gazette. he thought the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend was a just and reasonable one, for it simply gave the owners of these lay impropriate tithes the option of having their tithes revised in accordance with the system which had prevailed for more than two generations. Lay impropriate tithes were held by individuals, as distinguished from ecclesiastical tithes, which were held by the Church. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division, for a more unconscionable attack upon private property he never hoard of before being proposed from the Front Bench. It was all the more unconscionable because it was going to attack the poor for the benefit of the rich, and it was an attack made in the interests of the landlords. A more revolutionary measure he had never heard of.

*MR. MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)

This Amendment is one of a totally different character to others which have been moved. It appears to me to be an Amendment which I should have supposed, from my knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, he would either have accepted or would have expressed his regret at not being able to accept. I confess I was astonished to hear from him a speech so irrelevant and flippant in answer to a complaint made in very moderate terms, that it shows that the Bill is in the hands of a man who wishes to carry it through without giving himself the intellectual trouble of seeing how it will operate, I am not given to using language of this kind, but I use that language in this case because, knowing the great intellectual ability of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot think that he was honouring this Committee in treating us to that speech. I am going to put as plainly as I can, and without the use of any language that might aggravate, the meaning of this Amendment and the claim for its acceptance. Tithes always were a charge on the gross produce of the land. They passed into the hands of private persons, and they were bought and sold with well-defined legal rights, namely, rights to such and such a proportion of the gross return of the land. The difficulty of collecting them made the owners willing to alter the shape but not the nature of their right, and consequently Tithe Commutation Acts were passed not only with the consent of the payers of the tithes, but at the earnest desire of the receivers. Gradually the tithes got into more definite form, until at last they came to be a certain number of quarters of certain agricultural produce the price of which was fixed in a specified way, and they were paid not in kind but in money. In that form they passed into the hands of persons whose fate is in our hands to-night. Largo quantities of tithe passed into public hands and the Legislature felt it might deal more freely with them, and they were commuted for a fixed payment gladly accepted by the landlords. But the Legislature did not touch the tithes which had passed into private hands and which wore the subject of definite legal rights. Now we come to the cry of the landlords who pay tithes that are in public hands that they would like the fixed impost they had gladly accepted in lieu of the variable demands on them changed, and the Government has decided that it must be changed. It is going to be altered in this way. If judicial rents have gone down, then this fixed impost is to be put down also. But how about those who have no fixed impost? Their returns have also been going down, because the price of the produce on which the tithe was based has been going down, and now it is proposed to strike these tithes down again, because in consequence of produce going down rents have also gone down. Is it just that they should be punished twice? They have already borne the consequences of the fall of wheat and oats, and now you are going to reduce them still lower because the fall of wheat and oats has affected rents. I say that that is unjust. These tithe-owners are to be punished more severely by making them take the consequence twice over of the fall of wheat and oats. But apart from this consideration there is a special injustice in making tithes go down in the same proportion as judicial rents. Judicial rents, like all other rents, are the value of the margin between the return of the land and the necessary cost of producing that return, and that margin we know in many parts of England has fallen to nothing. The reduction in the value of a marginal return like a rent is in a far higher ratio than the reduction in the price of produce. You now propose to reduce the tithes in proportion to the reduction in rents, although these tithe owners have already taken the consequences of the fall in the price of produce, because it was part of the bargain they entered into, and to which they loyally adhered. You are going to tell them after they have borne the burden of these bad years, that because you want to relieve the landlords of a fixed impost, you are going to reduce the returns they purchased, and reduce them in this exaggerated manner. I was going to say, "exaggerated and unjust manner," but the word "unjust" is perfectly needless, because you have no right to meddle with private property at all when no public need demands it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite display a scrupulous devotion to the rights of private property, and I do not blame them for it. These rights only ought to give way when a great public need demands it, and I am perfectly certain if this were an English Bill it would be howled down, and no one would have dared to suggest on this side of the channel that a peaceable set of proprietors of property of this kind should in face of no public need have their property altered in this way. If we are ever going to make Ireland a contented part of this realm we must be as sensitive to Irish questions as we are to English questions; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite deliberately shut their ears to the plain and simple demand that those people should be allowed to enjoy that which they have purchased, it will confirm that belief in Ireland—which is the greatest difficulty we have in uniting it heartily with our great country—that no one cares a button whether an injustice is done to Ireland or not.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.

The hon. and learned Gentleman could not have spoken with greater confidence if he had known something of the subject. It has been my fortune, good or ill, to have had to devote some study to the tithe question in Ireland, and to have listened to remarks upon it by various speakers, and I can confidently say that I never heard anyone approach the subject in such blank ignorance as the hon. and learned gentleman. This Amendment, which, by the way, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not read to the House, and which I do not think he could have read, even for his own private information, gives the tithe - owner the option of selecting either the system set up in the Bill or the existing system; but the hon. and learned Gentleman does not know that there is no existing system in Ireland.

MR. DILLON

The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the Amendment, which evidently he has not read. There is not a word in it about the existing system; it only refers to the existing law.

MR. ATKINSON

I take it for granted that what is meant by that is the existing system. If that is so, it means that, instead of the system set up in the Bill, the tithe-owner should be allowed to select the existing law, which gives him no relief, and cannot give him any relief unless it be revised. The reason it gives no relief is because, according to the existing law, when revision is brought about, you compare the price of either wheat or oats mentioned in the certificate with the average price of wheat or oats for the seven years preceding the date of the application; but such average prices have not been kept since 1879, and therefore, if they were set on foot now there would not be the material on which to work for a revision under the existing law for the next six years. The hon. and learned Gentleman was not aware of that, but that is the fact notwithstanding. Therefore, when an Amendment is proposed that an option should be given to the tithe rent-charge payer of taking the system set up by the Bill or the existing law, it is really no option at all. I doubt whether the hon. and learned Gentleman ever heard of the Act of 1824, of Goulbourne's Act of 1832, or Stanley's Act of 1838, because he appeared to me to talk as if tithes in Ireland were as they are in England, subject to revision from year to year. What are the facts? In 1828, the owners of tithes were forced to take a composition regulated on certain lines, whether they liked it or not, and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks as if there had been no interference with tithe property. I suppose he is talking in ignorance of the legislation on the subject, because whether it was right or not there was legal interference both in 1832 and 1838. In 1838 the tithes that had been settled on Irish settlements were deliberately cut down by 25 per cent.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

With the consent of the people themselves.

MR. ATKINSON

On the contrary. In 1838 a different system of revision was adopted, because the tithes were revised according to the price of wheat or oats. Wheat or oats were not fair samples of produce, and were not fair samples of what the tithe was entitled to take. They were merely selected because the records of the prices of these two cereals had been preserved for other and entirely different purposes, and that machinery was taken as a test of revision. That is a bad system, and it has become impossible to work it owing to the fact that the officer whose duty it was to furnish these averages has ceased to exist. It is a cumbersome and difficult system, and the system which we propose is, as we think, more reasonable. It is automatic, and will produce more uniform and regular results. So far from there being an invasion of private property any more than has taken place under previous Acts, nothing can be further from the truth. Tithes have always been subject to revision, and we maintain that more justice will be done and more uniform results will be obtained under the system we propose than under the previous system.

*SERJEANT HEMPHILL

It appears to me from the two speeches we have heard from the Treasury Bench that the great weapon being used in defence of this indefensible Bill is to sneer at the arguments advanced on this side of the House. The Chief Secretary commenced by sneering at the arguments of the Member for East Mayo, and said he was astonished to see him stand up and protest against interference with the rights of property; but in indulging that sneer he forgot how vulnerable himself and his party are in bringing in a measure more confiscatory than any measure ever introduced into this House with regard to the private rights of property. My right hon. and learned friend who has just spoken thought fit to attempt to disparage one of the ablest, if not the very ablest, contribution to the debate we have heard during the four days the Bill has been under discussion. He felt his withers gall under the unanswerable arguments of my hon. and learned friend, because he failed to meet the gravamen of that speech, which was that without any public demand or necessity or any agitation for it, the Government are cutting away the very foundations of property which for centuries has been held in the ordinary way as any other fee simple estate. My right hon. and learned friend cannot deny that. These tithes have been the subject of settlement over and over again. They have been the subject of marriage settlements, of mortgages, and of sales; and I know, because my attention has been called to it by friends, that this Bill will inflict the greatest hardships in many respects. Jointures have been charged with these lay tithes, and if this Amendment is not carried, very great hardship will result. I happen to know a case where a lease of lay tithe was taken for a long number of years, the lessee paying a fixed rent, just as if he had taken the lease of a farm. The lessee is bound to pay that rent, whatever happens.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,) Dublin University

That would not be so under the Land Acts.

*SERJEANT HEMPHILL

I am speaking of a lessee of tithe, and the Land Acts do not apply; and I would ask my right hon. friend to reserve his contributions to the debate until I have sat down. A lessee of tithe might have covenanted years ago to pay £100 a year, expecting to get £150 from the tithes. He is irrevocably bound to pay that £100 as long as his lease continues; but if the tithe is to be reduced in this way, instead of making a profit he may suffer a loss, as the tithe may pay less than £100 a year. That is only one of the innumerable illustrations which might be cited. Again, a jointure of £200 a year may be charged on a tithe worth £300 a year, and the result of this Bill will be to cut away the property on which the jointure is charged. The point of my hon. and learned friend's argument has not been fairly met, nor has the argument of the Member for East Mayo been appreciated, because that hon. Gentleman in introducing this Amendment said that it was quite true that there should be some change in the law in order to reinstate the old system of the average price of corn as the standard for adjusting the tithe. That was lost sight of altogether, and I would remind the Committee that so late as 1882 tithe in England was made to depend on the price of corn, the prices being ascertained and determined by what is called the Corn Returns Acts, and it is on the average of seven years prices of corn that the tithe system of England depends. Would the Committee listen to any change in or encroachment on that system? My right hon. and learned friend says, "Oh, but there was the Act of 1824 and Goulbourne's Act and Stanley's Act, by which a reduction in tithe was made." But my right hon. and learned friend forgets the lessons of history, and especially of the history of Ireland. In the early part of the century Ireland was almost in a state of revolution because of the determination of the people not to pay tithes which were then paid by the tillers of the soil. We have only to take up an Annual Register to see that tithe-collectors were shot by the dozen. I do not know whether my right hon. and learned friend ever indulges in a study of the history of Ireland. If not he ought to do so. Does he not recollect the famous battle in Ireland where several policemen were shot in endeavouring to force the payment of tithes? It was these events that led to the Stanley Act, and under the Act of 1838 the tithe was reduced 25 per cent. in consideration of its being made a first charge on the land, and the tithe-owner had no longer to subject himself to the danger of being shot. He was only too glad of the change, and yet that is the Act referred to by my right hon. and learned friend as an argument in favour of this confiscatory measure. It was merely by a decision of the Court, on which there was great difference of opinion, that because the returns had not been published in the Dublin Gazette, it was laid down that there was no standard by which revision could take place. But that could have been remedied by a short Act of Parliament, or even by a clause in this Bill. Therefore the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston stands completely unanswered and unanswerable; and it will be impossible now or hereafter to justify this aggression on private property, which may affect many orphans and widows, and as to the extent of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has not furnished materials to enable the House to form a judgment, although I have seen it stated, I know not with what accuracy, that the lay tithe amounts to a million and a half a year.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

It is not my business to make any reference to the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman towards one of the most brilliant members of his profession in this House, when the right hon. Gentleman was denouncing the interference of an Englishman in Irish business. While attacking the hon. and learned Member for Launceston for ignorance and unintelligence in Irish affairs, the right hon. Gentleman might have done the justice to correctly state what he did say, and not put into his mouth words and principles which he did not enunciate. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. and learned Member for Launceston had declared that the rights of private property had never been interfered with, and then he went on triumphantly, as an answer to that, to point out that in 1824 there had been legislative interference with the rights of tithe-owners in Ireland. In the first place, the statement of my hon. and learned friend's principle was incorrect; and, in the second place, the inference which the right hon. Gentleman drew from that incorrect statement was fallacious. What my hon. and learned friend said was that the rights of private property were never interfered with in this House unless a public necessity had been shown for it. Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean the Committee to believe that my hon. and learned friend was stupid or childish enough to say that the rights of private property had never been interfered with? My hon. and learned friend never laid down any such an absurd proposition. His proposition was that when you come to interfere with private property you ought to show a great public necessity for so doing; and his object was to demonstrate that the Government were interfering with the rights of private property without showing an absolute necessity for it.

MR. ATKINSON

What I said was. that there was no interference in this Bill with the rights of private property different in kind or nature from that to which tithes have been subjected from the year 1824.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

That is an entirely different point. The Act of 1824 was a very great and serious interference with the rights of tithe ownership; but then that was because there was a great public necessity for so doing. The right hon. Gentleman is quite as familiar as my hon. and learned friend with the history of tithes in Ireland. Early in the century all over Ireland the payment of tithes by the occupiers of the soil was resisted, and scones of bloodshed and murder were frequent during that armed resistance. In 1825, the very year after the Act of 1824 was passed interfering with the tithes, Archdeacon Trench, in the county of Tipperary, raised a riot in which life was lost, because he endeavoured to sequestrate a number of geese in carrying out his right of tithe. So hot and wide-spread was the feeling against the payment of tithes in Ireland by the occupants of the soil, that even the collection of a few geese or a few sheaves of corn was quite sufficient to produce a riot in which blood was shed. In the face of these facts the right hon. the Attorney General has the coolness to come down here, when there is no demand in Ireland for it, no resistance of the tithe - payers, no petitions from them, and introduce a Bill following the precedents of 1824 and 1828, when the soil of Ireland was wet with the blood of the slain in the collection of tithes. The right hon. Gen- tleman has established the argument of my hon. and learned friend, by showing the difference between the past and the present. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to seriously consider this Amendment. He was not satisfied with a misrepresentation of my hon. and learned friend the Member for Launceston, but he actually had the courage to misrepresent the scope of the Amendment before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was in favour of the existing system. There is no existing system. Nobody used the words "existing system." Here are the words of the Amendment— Provided always that the owners of lay impropriator tithe rent-charge may elect to have the tithe payable to them varied under the existing Jaw. The existing law is not the existing system. Was it fair for the right hon. Gentleman not only to so grossly misrepresent the statement of my hon. and learned friend, but also the terms of the Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman says there is no system at the present moment. Does the law exist or does it not? Is the law suspended in regard to the collection of tithes?

MR. ATKINSON

It is inoperative.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Let us examine this startling proposition laid down by the Attorney General—

MR. ATKINSON

It is inoperative because the system by which it was to work does not exist.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman and is the Government treating us fairly in regard to this matter? Is that a candid way of dealing with us? He says the law is inoperative. Does he mean that under the existing law, owing to what occurred in connection with the Dublin Gazette, the tithe-payer cannot effect a reduction of his tithe proportioned to the prices of produce? But that is not the question we are discussing. We are not discussing the amount of money that the tithe-payer is bound to pay, but the question of the rights of the tithe-owner. Is the law inoperative in regard to them?

MR. ATKINSON

Neither the tithe-owner nor the tithe-payer can get a revision.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I think this is rather an irregular, though Socratic, method of getting at the truth. The Committee, however, ought to be grateful for once for this means of getting at the bottom of the matter. It is quite true that the tithe-owner or the tithe-payer cannot get a, revision. But have the tithe-owners asked for a revision? Are we to understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that they have allowed the law to remain in suspense, and that the only debtors in Ireland who cannot recover their debts are the tithe-owners?

MR. ATKINSON

They may recover their debts, but they cannot get a revision.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I am asking one question, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman always takes care to answer another. I did not say that the tithe-payers or tithe-owners could get a revision; but that the tithe-owners were able to recover their property. Have the tithe owners asked for a change in the law? The Government have offered no evidence whatever that they have done so. We are in this position: that because certain debtors demand a revision of their debts, the creditors are to have a revision of these debts carried in this House for the benefit of the debtors. And this is a Government which, above all the Governments of the world, pose as the defenders of the rights of property! The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have brought in this Bill for the relief of the landlords of Ireland. But the Duke of Devonshire says that they are much better off than the landlords of England. The Government in this House contradict the Duke of Devonshire, and say that, "the landlords of Ireland have a grievance, and therefore we will reduce the burden of their debts." The landlords of Ireland are usually men of vast estates and great property. But who are the tithe-owners? They are not all landlords. A very considerable number of them, if not the majority, are not landlords at all. They are small people, and tithes form the subject of jointures and marriage settlements which are passed from hand to hand like Consols. Why benefit the Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of Abercorn, the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Londonderry, the Marquess of Clanricarde, and the like? I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh would be benefited by the Bill or not, but if so I congratulate him. The Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of Abercorn, the Marquess of Londonderry, the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Clanricarde, and other persons of vast possessions and princely incomes are the charitable objects of this Bill, but what about the poor small landlord? What about the young woman who married with a little fortune consisting of £100 in tithes? What about the widow with a jointure of £200 a year from tithes? Whenever I hear of the vicissitudes of fortune caused by the land war, I am deeply moved by the stories of want and suffering that have come to small landlords, some of whose wives have even died in the workhouse. Why, that is the class we want to protect—the small tithe-owners, whose income is going to be reduced from 25 to 50 per cent. in order that the Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of Abercorn, the Marquess of Clanricarde, the Marquess of Londonderry, the Marquess of Lansdowne, and the like may have a considerable reduction in the payment of their tithes. If this were a question of dealing with private property in England, a Bill of this kind would have been hooted out of the House of Commons and if it had been brought in by a Liberal Government, such a proposal would have met with the most determined and obstructive opposition from hon. Gentlemen opposite; and if it had had the strange fortune to pass through this House—as such proposals rarely do—it would have got very short shrift and hard measure when it went to another place which is mainly concerned with the rights of property.

MR. DILLON

I wish to say a few words in reply to the right hon. the Chief Secretary; but before doing so I must express my astonishment at the attitude of the Attorney General towards the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston, who has exhibited a thorough acquaintance with this measure and the subject with which it deals. The right hon. and learned Gentleman sneered at an English Member interfering with Irish affairs. Well, I wish that he would request the legions of English Members behind him to retire from the House, and then we could deal with the Bill in an intelligent way. It is monstrous that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should adopt an outrageous tone in objecting to an English Member intelligently discussing the Bill, when he knows that his only chance of passing it is dependent on the votes of his legions of English Members, who neither understand the Bill nor listen to the debates on it, and who only came in to-night because they expected some lively scenes. The right hon. the Chief Secretary absolutely declined to argue the merits of the Amendment. The Attorney General said that in the year 1838 the tithe proprietors in Ireland were obliged to submit to a reduction of 25 per cent. They did submit gladly and willingly to the reduction, and why? Because they got a good quid pro quo. They exchanged the tithes leviable at great expense in the face of ferocious opposition at a great personal danger, for a first charge on the land just as secure as Government stock, and leviable without any expense or risk. In the present instance the Government are asking the tithe-owners to submit to an uncertain though great diminution, but they are offering them no quid pro quo whatever. The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to give any reason for this assault on property in Ireland. He talked of the extreme imperfection of the present system, and said the Government were going to effect a general reform. This system has been in existence in Ireland for sixty-two years, and when did the Government become so keenly sensible of its defects? Only when the landlords wanted a dole! They are going to effect a general reform—a general reform which consists in a reduction of the private property of men who have given no cause of offence, and property payable by people who are, for the most part, really well able to pay it, and who in many instances are much wealthier than the people who own the tithes. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to indulge in what I must confess was cheap sarcasm about the Members on these benches standing up in defence of the rights of property, and that we never did so except where the interests of the tenants were concerned. We might make the forcible retort that hon. Gentlemen opposite show no interest in the rights of property except when the rights of land-lords are concerned. I never saw a more glaring instance of the hollowness of the pretensions of hon. Gentlemen opposite than in their attitude towards this Amendment. Why do they sneer at us for our protection of tithe-owners? It is because the tithe-payers are mostly rich landowners, men of position and influence, and because the men and women who are interested in the rights of property, and for whoso rights we are standing up, are poor and not influential. Then the Attorney General came to the rescue and thought he had annihilated my Amendment by pointing out that I propose to refer the payer of lay impropriate tithes in Ireland for his remedy to the present system. That is what I did not do. I referred him to the present law. The quibble of the Attorney General is perfectly preposterous and absurd. It is impossible for any man, even the Attorney General, to deny that the law exists in Ireland today and ever since 1838, giving to the lay impropriate tithe-payer the right of revision; and when I referred to the remedy under the present law I stated when moving the Amendment that my proposal would involve the insertion of a short clause in the Bill giving the right of the lay impropriate tithe-payer to use the corn average prices published by the Land Commissions in their annual Reports. I say that the wording of my Amendment is absolutely correct. It proposes, instead of setting up a new, arbitrary, and most unjust standard, whereby the property of these men

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Faber, George Denison	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Crae, George
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.	Flynn, James Christopher	M'Dermott, Patrick
Atherley-Jones, L.	Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis	M'Ghee, Richard
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. J.	M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)
Barlow, John Emmott	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Kenna, Reginald
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Griffith, Ellis J.	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin
Billson, Alfred	Gurdon, Sir William Brampton	M'Leod, John
Blake, Edward	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Mandeville, J. Francis
Caldwell, James	Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	Molloy, Bernard Charles
Carew, James Laurence	Hazell, Walter	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Causton, Richard Knight	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Moulton, John Fletcher
Cawley, Frederick	Holland, William Henry	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Channing. Francis Allston	Horniman, Frederick John	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Crilly, Daniel	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cumin, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw	O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.
Dalziel, James Henry	Jones, William (Carnarvons.)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Dowd, John
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Kitson, Sir James	O'Kelly, James
Dillon, John	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Oldroyd, Mark
Doogan, P. C.	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)	O'Malley, William
Dunn, Sir William	Lloyd-George, David	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.
Emmott, Alfred	Lough, Thomas	Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley
Engledew, Charles John	Macaleese, Daniel	Pilkington, Sir G. A. (LancsS W
Evans, Sir Francis H (South'ton)	MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C)	Power, Patrick Joseph

can be cut and carved, that it should be referred to the law as it has existed for sixty-two years, by which revision would take place automatically, and which could be re-affirmed by a short clause in the Bill. Before the division is taken, I wish to repeat that the proposed mode of reducing the tithes of the lay impropriate tithe-owner in proportion to the judicial rents is most grotesque and unjust. It implies a widely different standard in different counties-a thing unknown to the law before. Why should the lay impropriate tithe-owner who lives in the county of Antrim, who, under the law as it stands, has suffered a reduction of 14 per cent. of his measure of oats, have the value of his property reduced by this Bill, without rhyme or reason, 30 per cent., and in another fifteen years have it cut down by another 30 per cent.? Take the county of Cork. Why should the lay impropriate tithe-payer of Cork, who might get a reduction of 50 per cent. on his tithe, be barred by this clause from getting more than 15 or 16 per cent. Never in the history of this House has a more absurd and reckless proposal been brought forward. It is perfectly grotesque in its operation, and utterly divorced from every consideration of reason or justice.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—9; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 193.)

Price, Robert John	Souttar, Robinson	Weir, James Galloway
Provand, Andrew Dryburgh	Spicer, Albert	Whiteley, George (Stockport).
Reckitt, Harold James	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.	Wilson,' Henry J. (York. W. R.
Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.	Steadman, William Charles	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Rickett, J. Compton	Stevenson, Francis S.	Wilson, John (Govan)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Strachey, Edward	Woods, Samuel
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Robson, William Snowdon	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)	Yoxall, James Henry
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.
Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)	Wallace, Robert
Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.	Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Arrol, Sir William	Flower, Ernest	M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'rgh W.)
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	K'Killop, James
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Galloway, William Johnson	Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Garfit, William	Melville, Beresford Valentine
Balcarres, Lord	Gedge, Sydney	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r)	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cy of Lond.)	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)	Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)	Milner, Sir Frederick George
Banbury, Frederick George	Godson, Sir Augustus F.	Mil ward, Colonel Victor
Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts)	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Monckton, Edward Philip
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Morgan, Hn Fred.(Monm'thsh.)
Bigwood, James	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Morrell, George Herbert
Bill, Charles	Graham, Henry Robert	Mount, William George
Blakiston-Houston, John	Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)	Muntz, Philip A.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Bond, Edward	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Gull, Sir Cameron	Myers, William Henry
Brassey, Albeit	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Han bury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington
Butcher, John George	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Carlile, William Walter	Hardy, Laurence	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Helder, Augustus	Pollock, Harry Frederick
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter	Pretyman, Ernest George
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)	Hoare. Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Hobhouse, Henry	Purvis, Robert
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Pym, C. Guy
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Howard, Joseph	Rankin, Sir James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.)	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Remnant, James Farquharson
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-	Rentoul, James Alexander
Charrington, Spencer	Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)	Richards, Henry Charles
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.
Colomb, Sir John Charles R.	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasg'w)	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.	Keswick, William	Round, James
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)
Curzon, Viscount	Knowles, Lees	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lafone, Alfred	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col Edw. J.
Denny, Colonel	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dickinson, Robert Edmond	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Digby, John K. D. Wingneld-	Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)	Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stalybr)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lecky, Rt. Hon William Edw. H.	Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)
Donkin, Richard Sim	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swan.)	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Smith, Abel H.(Christchurch)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Eillot, Hon. A. Ralph D.	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	Lowe, Francis William	Spencer. Ernest
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. (Man'r)	Lowles, John	Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Finch, George H.	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Stanley, Ed, Jas. (Somerset)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Stephens, Henry Charles
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Fisher, William Hayes	Macdona, John Gumming	Stone, Sir Benjamin
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Maclure, Sir John William	Strauss, Arthur

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	Welby, Lt -Col. A C E (Taunton	Wodehouse Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath
Thornton, Percy M.	Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Tollemache, Henry James	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)	Wylie, Alexander
Tomlinson, Wm Edw. Murray	Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)	Wyndham, George
Tritton, Charles Ernest	Willoughby de Ereshy, Lord	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Tuke, Sir John Batty	Willox, Sir John Archibald	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Warde, Lieut.- Col. C. E. (Kent)	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Warr, Augustus Frederick	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

MR. G. W. BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill he now put."

Question put, "That the Question 'That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 11)7; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 194.)

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)	Thornton, Percy M.	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)	Tollemache, Henry James	Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Smith, Hon. W. F.D. (Strand)	Tomlinson, William Edw. M.	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)
Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)	Tritton, Charles Ernest	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)	Tuke, Sir John Batty	Wylie, Alexander
Stephens, Henry Charles	Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)	Wyndham, George
Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Stone, Sir Benjamin	Williams, Jsph. Powell- (Birm.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Strauss, Arthur	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	Willox, Sir John Archibald

NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Holland, William Henry	Pilkington, Sir G. A (Lancs S. W.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Horniman, Frederick John	Power, Patrick Joseph
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Price, Robert John
Atherley-Jones, L.	Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.	Reckitt, Harold James
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.
Barlow, John Emmott	Kearley, Hudson E.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Kitson, Sir. James	Robson, William Snowdon
Billson, Alfred	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Blake, Edward	Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Caldwell, James	Lloyd-George, David	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Carew, James Laurence	Lough, Thomas	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Causton, Richard Knight	Macaleese, Daniel	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Cawley, Frederick	MacDonnell, Dr. M.A.(Qn'sC.)	Souttar, Robinson
Channing, Francis Allston	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Crilly, Daniel	M'Crae, George	Steadman, William Charles
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	M'Dermott, Patrick	Stevenson, Francis S.
Dalziel, James Henry	M'Ghee, Richard	Strachey, Edward
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	M'Kenna, Reginald	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Dillon, John	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Doogan, P. C.	M'Leod, John	Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)
Dunn, Sir William	Mandeville, J. Francis	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Emmott, Alfred	Molloy, Bernard Charles	Wallace, Robert
Engledew, Charles John	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Moulton, John Fletcher	Weir, James Galloway
Flynn, James Christopher	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Wilson, Henry J. (York. W.R.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)	Wilson, John (Govan)
Griffith, Ellis J.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Woods, Samuel
Gurdon sir William Brampton	O'Dowd, John	Yoxall, James Henry
Haldane, Richard Burdon	O'Kelly, James
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Oldroyd, Mark	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.
Hazell, Walter	O'Malley, William
Hemphill, Rt. Hon Charles H.	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Question put accordingly, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

AYES.
Acland Hood Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Arrol Sir William	Brassey, Albert	Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Atkinson Rt. Hon. John	Butcher, John George	Curzon Viscount
Bailey James (Walworth)	Carlile, William Walter	Dalkeith, Earl of
Balcarres Lord	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Balfour, Rt. Hn A.J.(Manch'r)	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Denny, Colonel
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby)	Dickinson Robert Edmond
Banbury Frederick George	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield
Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith-(Hunts)	Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Beach Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol)	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Beach Rt. Hon. W. W. B (Hants)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)	Doxford Sir William Theodore
Bemrose Sir Henry Howe	Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)	Dyke Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Elliot, Hon. A Ralph D.
Bigwood James	Charrinton, Spencer	Faber, George Denison
Blakiston-Houston, John	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward
Blundell colonel Henry	Colling Rt. Hon. Jesse	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r)
Bond Edward	Colomb, Sir John Charles R.	Finch, George H.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 201; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 195.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.	Rasch, Major Frederick Carne-
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Remnant, James Farquharson
Fisher, William Hayes	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)	Rentoul, James Alexander
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Richards, Henry Charles
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Flower, Ernest	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Galloway, William Johnson	Lowe, Francis William	Round, James
Garfit, William	Lowles, John	Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham)
Gedge, Sydney	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond.)	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.
Godson, Sir A. Frederick	Macdona, John Gumming	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Goldsworthy, Major-General	Maclure, Sir John William	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward	M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)	Sidebottom, T Harrop (Stalybr..
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)	Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	M'Killop, James	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Malcolm, Ian	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Graham, Henry Robert	Martin, Richard Hiddulph	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Gull, Sir Cameron	Milner, Sir Frederick George	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.	Milward, Colonel Victor	Stephens, Henry Charles
Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.	Monckton, Edward Philip	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart,
Hanson, Sir Reginald	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Hardy, Laurence	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Helder, Augustus	Morgan, Hon. F. (Monni'thsh.)	Strauss, Arthur
Henderson, Alexander	Morrell, George Herbert	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter	Mount, William George	Thornton, Percy M.
Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Muntz, Philip A.	Tollemache, Henry James
Hobhouse, Henry	Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute)	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Hornby, Sir William Henry	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Howard, Joseph	Myers, William Henry	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Nicholson, William Graham	Warde, Lieut. -Col. C. E. (Kent)
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.)
Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	William's, Colonel R. (Dorset),
Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)	Parkes, Ebenezer	Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)
Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. L.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Pender. Sir James	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Penn, John	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Keswick, William	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Knowles, Lees	Pollock, Harry Frederick	Wylie, Alexander
Lafone, Alfred	Pretyman, Ernest George	Wyndham, George
Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn,)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arey
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Purvis, Robert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Pym, C. Guy
Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)	Rankin, Sir James

NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Engledew, Charles John	Macaleese, Daniel
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Flavin, Michael Joseph	MacDonnell, Dr. M.A.(Qn'sC)
Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry	Flynn, James Christopher	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Atherley-Jones, L.	Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis	M'Crae, George
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	M'Dermott, Patrick
Barlow, John Emmott	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Ghee, Richard
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.	Griffith, Ellis J.	M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)
Billson, Alfred	Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton	M'Kenna, Reginald
Blake, Edward	Haldane, Richard Bunion	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin
Caldwell, James	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	M'Leod, John
Carew, James Laurence	Hazell, Walter	Mandeville, J. Francis
Causton, Richard Knight	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Molloy, Bernard Charles
Cawley, Frederick	Holland, William Henry	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Canning, Francis Allston	Horniman, Frederick John	Moulton, John Fletcher
Chilly, Daniel	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Dalziel, James Henry	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardig'n')	Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Kitson, Sir James	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Dillon, John	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)	O'Dowd, John
Dongan, P. C.	Leese, Sir J. R (Accrington)	O'Kelly, James
Dunn, Sir William	Lloyd-George, David	Oldroyd, Mark
Emmott, Alfred	Lough, Thomas	O'Malley, William

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs. S. W.)	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)	Wallace, Robert
Power, Patrick Joseph	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Price, Robert John	Souttar, Robinson	Weir, James Galloway
Provand, Andrew Dryburgh	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Reckitt, Harold James	Steadman, William Charles	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)	Stevenson, Francis S.	Wilson, John (Govan)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Strachey, Edward	Woods, Samuel
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)	Yoxall, James Henry
Robson, William Snowdon	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Scott, Charles Prestwich (Leigh)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Clause 4:—

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

asked why the clause had been inserted, its only object being to repeal a portion of Section 7 of the Irish Church Act. He found that the schedule of this Bill consisted entirely of Acts repealed, and among the Acts mentioned was that referred to in Clause 4, in so far as it related to the sale of tithe. It was a matter of drafting. Everything in the Act of 1872 worth preserving was the definition of the word "owner."

MR. ATKINSON

said Section 7 of the Act of 1872 was a very long section, and the draughtsman determined that the form adopted in the Bill with respect to the repeal was preferable, in order to make it perfectly clear what was meant.

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid)

said it appeared that Clause 4 was not in the Bill as drawn at first. He pointed to the provision of Clause 10, and stated it was rather curious that after completing their Act they came and stated that certain sections mentioned in the schedule should be repealed. That might be an Irish way of doing business, but it certainly was not English or Scotch.

MR. DILLON

said there was another point in connection with the clause to which he desired to direct the attention of the Attorney General. Of course he would be told that he was ignorant of the drafting of Bills, but if he was ignorant he wanted to be informed. The power to purchase tithes was given by Section 32 of the Act of 1869, and the Act of 1872, as far as he could remember, did not repeal the clause in the 1869 Act. What it did say was that the clause should be in substitution of so much of Clause 32 in the Act of 1869. What he wanted to know was this: Were they sure that, if the clause in the 1869 Act was not specifically repealed, the repeal of the clause in the amending Act of 1872 would not revive the clause in the 1869 Act?

MR. ATKINSON

was understood to reply that the repeal of the clause in the 1872 Act implied the repeal of the clause in the 1869 Act.

MR. DILLON

said he was still unconvinced that the clause in the 1869 Act would not be revived when they repealed the amending Act of 1872. He was told now by the Attorney General that Section 7 of the 1872 Act was an implied repeal, but why not make the thing clear? They had no assurance that the interpretation put upon the statute by Ministers would not be set aside by the courts of law. They might say that the repeal was implied, but they had no repeal. He was still in doubt as to whether Clause 32 of the Act of 1869 would not come into force on the repeal of Clause 7 in the 1872 Act.

MR. CALDWELL

said he did not find anything in this Bill to show that it was to be read along with the other Act. It was quite usual to find in the case of an amending Act a provision that it should be read along with the other Act.

*SERJEANT HEMPHILL

said it should not be left to the courts hereafter to determine what the intention of the clause was. There was a great deal of ambiguity whether the sale of tithe rent-charges included the conversion of the old tithe rent-charges into terminable annuities. He thought so all along, and he thought so still. If the Attorney General preferred to leave the matter as it was, and if the hon. Member for East Mayo was right, it might be all the better, because tithe rent-owners would be able to redeem on the old system.

MR. DILLON

said there was a very grave objection to that. It would enable landlords to redeem tithe rent-charges at twenty-two and a half years purchase. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said had greatly increased his alarm. There would be no remedy except by an amending Act if the courts should decide in that way, and he would like to see the Government that would bring in an amending Act if there was a mistake in this matter. Why not put a repealing clause into the Bill, which would remove all doubt on the question?

MR. ATKINSON

said that as the matter stood now the 32nd Section of the 1869 Act would be entirely repealed if they repealed the 7th Section of the 1872 Act. Under the Interpretation Act of 1889 it was provided that where any Act which repealed another Act was itself repealed subsequently, that did not set up the law which had been originally repealed. They were now repealing the 7th Section of the 1872 Act, and that would not revive the clause which it repealed in the 1869 Act.

*MR. MOULTON

said the difficulty which the hon. Member for East Mayo had was that there was no express repeal. There was no difference of intention, and he thought the Attorney General should consider the matter, and insert a clause which would put it beyond doubt.

MR. DILLON

could not imagine what objection the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to make the matter clear by expressly repealing the clause.

MR. ATKINSON

said the Interpretation Act which he had quoted put an end to the doctrine that the repeal of an Act revived a previous Act which it had repealed.

MR. DILLON

said his whole objection rested on the fact that there was no express repeal. An implied repeal was of a doubtful character, and it was an arguable question.

MR. ATKINSON

said he would consider the point by the Report stage.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:—

Question proposed, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

MR. DILLON

wished to understand the full effect of this clause. Supposing a man was paying £10 a year of tithe rent-charge, and that ten years ago he got a reduction of £2, and he went on paying £8. Then came in the Medge decision, which declared the reduction illegal. Could the tithe rent-charge owner sue for £20 of arrears?

MR. ATKINSON

said the clause set forth that the payments made would be deemed valid and sufficient in cases where the arrears had not been recovered up to the passing of the Act.

MR. DILLON

said the clause would work in an extraordinary way. Suppose he was the owner of a tithe rent-charge, and that it had been reduced £2 a year— he and the tithe-payer believing that to be legal—and the tithe rent-charge payer meant only paying the reduced sum. But ten years after it was discovered that the reduction was illegal. He then served a summons on the tithe rent-charge payer for £20—the amount of arrears—and obtained a judgment order of the court of quarter sessions for the amount. If he recovered under that judgment order before the Act came into force, good and well; but if he kept the order in his pocket until the Bill passed into law, was that judgment order then nil?

MR. ATKINSON

said they must draw the line somewhere. All that the clause provided was that after the Act was passed the tithe-owner should be prevented coming down on the tithe rent-charge payer to recover anything beyond what had been paid according to the last revision. But, if before the Act was passed the tithe-owners had got a judgment for the amount of arrears, then that became a judgment debt which the tithe rent-charge payer was bound to pay.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said after the explanation of the Attorney General the proper title of the Bill ought to be "A new way to pay old debts." The boon to be given by the Bill was that the offence for which there was no forgiveness was to pay your debts.

MR. DILLON

thought the clause a monstrous one, and he should be obliged to divide against it.

Acland-Hood, Capt Sir Alex. F.	Garfit, William	Morrell, George Herbert
Arroll, Sir William	Gedge, Sydney	Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford)
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(Cy of Lond).	Mount, William George
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.	Murray, lit. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Nicholson, William Graham
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Banbury, Frederick George	Goulding, Edward Alfred	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith-(Hunts)	Graham, Henry Robert	Parkes, Ebenezer
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)
Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W. B (Hants)	Greene, Hn. D. (Shrewsbury)	Pender, Sir James
Beckett, Ernest William	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Penn, John
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe	Gull, Sir Cameron	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Bigwood, James	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bill, Charles	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.	Pollock, Harry Frederick
Blakiston-Houston, John	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Pryce-Jones, Lt -Col. Edward
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hardy, Laurence	Purvis, Robert
Bond, Edward	Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Remnant, James Farquharson
Brassey, Albert	Hobhouse, Henry	Rentoul, James Alexander
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Richards, Henry Charles
Butcher, John George	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Carlile, William Walter	Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Jackson, Rt. Hon. William L.	Roberston, Herbert (Hackney)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Round, James
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Keswick, William	Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Knowles, Lees	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.)	Lafone, Alfred	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn)	Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Charrington, Spencer	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Chelsea, Viscount	Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry)	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Llewelyn, Sir Dilwyn, (Swansea)	Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)	)Stephens, Henry Charles
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Curzon, Viscount	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Strauss, Arthur
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lowe, Francis William	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Lowles, John	Thornton, Percy M.
Denny, Colonel	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Tollemache, Henry James
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Macdona, John Cumming.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Maclure, Sir John William	Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.(Kent)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart	M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)	Williams. John Carvell (Notts)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	M'Killop, James	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Faber, George Denison	Malcolm, Ian	Willox, Sir John Archibald
F'ellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Finch, George H.	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Wylie, Alexander
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Middlemore, In. Throgmorton	Wyndham, George
Fisher, William Hayes	Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Milner, Sir Frederick George
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.	Milward, Colonel Victor	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Flower, Ernest	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)
Galloway, William Johnson	Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)

NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)	Caldwell, James	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardig'n
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.	Cawley, Frederick	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Barlow, John Emmott	Channing, Francis Allston	Dillon, John
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Crilly, Daniel	Doogan, P. C.
Billson, Alfred	Dalziel, James Henry	Dunn, Sir William

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 196.)

Emmott, Alfred	M'Dermott, Patrick	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Engledew, Charles John	M'Ghee, Richard	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)	Souttar, Robinson
Flynn, James Christopher	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbt. J.	M'Leod, John	Steadman, William Charles
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Mandeville, J. Francis	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Moulton, John Fletcher	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Hazell, Walter	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Tennant, Harold John
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	O'Dowd, John	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Horniman, Frederick John	O'Kelly, James	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Oldroyd, Mark	Wallace, Robert
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	O'Malley, William	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Kearley, Hudson E.	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb)	Weir, James Galloway
Kitson, Sir James	Power, Patrick Joseph	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Price, Robert John	Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)
Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Macaleese, Daniel	Reckitt, Harold, Tames	Yoxall, James Henry
MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'sC.)	Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
M'Crae, George	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Clause 6:—

Question proposed, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."

MR. DILLON

said he did not intend to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Louth; but he desired to say a few words on the clause itself, which was an extreme illustration of the absurd methods of the present Government. As he understood the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill, under this clause it was proposed to recover from the Church Fund £6,000 a year, and then to pay out of it £30,000 a year. The Act of 1898 had tied the whole rating system of Ireland into a knot, and under this clause further complications would be introduced.

MR. ATKINSON

explained the object of the Clause. It provided as follows— The amount of tithe rent-charge payable by any person as from the first day of November, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety-eight, shall be deemed to have been and shall hereafter be reduced in respect of every pound in value thereof:—

1. (a) if the tithe rent-charge is payable out of hereditaments situate within a rural district, by one-half of the standard rate of poor rate certified under Section 49 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, as having been levied off those hereditaments; and
2. (b) if the tithe rent-charge is payable out of hereditaments situate within an urban district, by the whole of such standard rate so certified as having been levied off those hereditaments."

The last section of the clause provided that if a person had paid more than he ought to have paid a deduction might be made in the manner prescribed.

MR. DILLON

wished to know how many Members of the House understood the explanation. The Attorney General had done his best to make it clear, but he had made it as clear as a London fog in November. This would be a fruitful cause of disputes. It was an illustration of the tangle into which the whole rating system of Ireland had been thrown.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7:—

Question proposed, "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."

MR. DILLON

said that so far as he understood the clause it was of rather an extraordinary character. He did not know the object of putting it in the Bill at all. The clause appeared to have for its object to split up without any limit or discretion in the Land Commission the liability for the tithe rent-charges. Take, for instance, a tithe rent-charge of £10 or, £20, that would be split up between twenty or thirty persons, leaving each only liable for his own share. Before attempting to argue against the clause he wanted to know the object of it and the motive for introducing it.

MR. ATKINSON

said the hon. Member was the first person he had ever heard of who objected to a provision for apportioning rent-charge or any other charge. To have no power of apportioning the charge gave rise to the greatest inconvenience and difficulty in dealing with property. In the case of property out of which tithe rent-charge issued which was owned by several persons, the clause enabled the charge to be apportioned according to their individual interests.

MR. DILLON

said the Attorney General had abstained from explaining what motive the Government had in introducing this clause.

MR. ATKINSON

said it would enable a particular owner to have the charge properly and rightly adjusted.

MR. DILLON

said the right hon. Gentleman has still declined to explain what relation it had to the present Bill. He very much desired £1,000 a year added to his income-he wondered if the hon. Gentleman would introduce a Bill for that purpose. There was no justification for the clause, and it had no connection with the rest of the Bill. The clause struck at the security of all these charges. The power of apportioning the tithe given to the Land Commission was for a wholly different purpose, and to

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready	Greville, Hon. Ronald
Arrol, Sir William	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Gull, Sir Cameron
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.	Hamilton, Rt. Hon Lord George
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Curzon, Viscount	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hanson, Sir Reginald
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Hardy, Laurence
Banbury, Frederick George	Denny, Colonel	Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S. (Hunts.)	Digby, John K. D. Wing field-	Hobhouse, Henry
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B.(Hants.)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-
Beckett, Ernest William	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Jackson, Rt. Hon. Win. Lawies
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Bigwood, James	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William
Bill, Charles	Faber, George Denison	Keswick, William
Blakiston-Houston, John	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Knowles, Lees
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Finch, George H.	Lafone, Alfred
Bond, Edward	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)
Brassey, Albert	Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Lawrence, Wm, F. (Liverpool)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Fisher, William Hayes	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Bullard, Sir Harry	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose	Lecky, Rt. Hon William Edw. H.
Butcher. John George	Flower, Ernest	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Carlile, William Walter	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (S'wns'e)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Galloway, William Johnson	Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)	Garfit, William	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter(Liverp'l)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Gedge, Sydney	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond)	Lowles, John
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Godson, Sir Augustus Fred	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J.(Birm.)	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Macdona, John Cumming
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Maclure, Sir John William
Charrington, Spencer	Goulding, Edward Alfred	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Chelsea, Viscount	Graham, Henry Robert	M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)	M'Killop, James
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	Malcolm, Ian

meet a great public need. The Commissioners were required to exercise that power with due regard to the security of the charge, and they rarely exercised it, though they did redeem the tithe. The radical difference between the power given the Land Commission and the proposal in the clause was that in the first case it was in connection with the great system of land purchase, and to facilitate the sale of land to occupying tenants but this proposal was objectionable and injurious because it was for the purpose of facilitating and encouraging the sale of land, not to tenants, but to others who wished to buy over the heads of tenants. He must persist in his opposition.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

said the clause was not in accordance with the tenor and spirit of the Bill. It was a complete excrescence on the Bill. It was a disgraceful, mean, and cowardly fraud perpetrated in the interest of the rich against the poor.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 72. (Division List No. 197.)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Melville, Beresford Valentine	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Middlemore, John Throgmort'n	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Thornton, Percy M.
Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.	Purvis, Robert	Tollemache, Henry James
Milner, Sir Frederick George	Remnant, James Farquhar	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.
Mil ward, Colonel Victor	Rentoul, James Alexander	Tuke, Sir John Hatty
Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Richards, Henry Charles	Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. K.(Kent)
More, Robert J. (Shropshire)	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.	Williams, Colonel K. (Dorset)
Morgan, Hn. F.(Monmouthsh.)	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.	Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)
Worrell, George Herbert	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Mount, William George	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Sidebottom, Wm.(Derbyshire)	Wylie, Alexander
Nicholson, William Graham	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Wyndham, George
Nicol, Donald Ninian	Skewes-Cox, Thomas	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Parkes, Ebenezer	Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Pease, Herbert P.(Darlington)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Pender, Sir James	Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Penn, John	Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork N.E.)	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Reckitt, Harold James
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Jones, William Carnarvonsh.	Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)
Barlow, John Emmott	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'land)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Acerington	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Billson, Alfred	Macaleese, Daniel	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Caldwell, James	MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C)	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Cawley, Frederick	MacNeill, John Cordon Swift	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Channing, Francis Allston	M'Crae, George	Souttar, Robinson
Crilly, Daniel	M'Dermott, Patrick	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Dalziel, James Henry	M'Chee, Richard	Steadman, William Charles
Davies, M. Vaughan-('Cardigan	M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Dillon, John	M'Leod, John	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Doogan, P. C.	Mandeville, J. Francis	Tennant, Harold John
Dunn, Sir A William	Moulton, John Fletcher	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Emmott, Alfred	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Engledew, Charles John	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	O'Dowd, John	Weir, James Galloway
Flynn, James Christopher	O'Kelly, James	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	Oldroyd, Mark	Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Malley, William	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)	Yoxall, James Henry
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Power, Patrick Joseph	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Hazell, Walter	Price, Robert John
Horniman, Frederick John	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Clauses 8, 9, and 10 agreed to.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

It will be in the recollection of the Committee that on the first day in Committee on this Bill a debate arose on an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. It was then proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment the discussion on the Committee stage of the Bill might be narrowed down to reasonable limits. Certainly I understood, at the time when the Government acceded to that request, that the de- bates in Committee would be limited. That hope has been disappointed. The discussions have been by no means narrow, but of a most extensive description. I consider, however, that the Government are bound to introduce the Amendment on the Paper, but I see no reason why in carrying out that pledge we should give an occasion for further argument of the kind of which we have had so much today. I do not propose, therefore, to move the Amendment at this stage, but when we reach the Third Reading the Chief Secretary will move that the Bill be re-committed, which will give the fullest opportunity for carrying out the wish expressed on Tuesday that this subject should be brought on for discus- sion at an early rather than a late period of the evening. I hope this view will commend itself to all parties in the House.

MR. DILLON

thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had been somewhat unfair to him, because although at the commencement of the discussion on this Bill the hon. Member for North Louth had indicated that if the principle of his Amendment was adopted by the Government he hoped the discussion would be concluded on Tuesday last, the hon. and learned Member for North Louth only spoke for himself. If it were a question of an honourable understanding he was perfectly prepared to justify the action he had taken. He got up immediately, and although he had every reason to be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for North Louth for the able assistance he gave and for one or two speeches he made, he said that while he did not deny the right of the hon. and learned Member to speak for himself, so far as he was concerned there was no understanding of the nature to which the First Lord of the Treasury had alluded. He had been requested by the chairman of his party to take charge of the conduct of the Bill through the House, and he had communicated, through the usual channels, with the right hon. Gentleman, and had agreed that the Second Reading should be taken on a certain date; but on being asked if the Committee stage would finish in a reasonable time he said he could give no pledge, because he regarded this Bill as one which the Irish Members should oppose by every means in their power. It was perfectly understood that the Bill was to be fought by every legitimate means, provided the Government did not make any concessions. They had not got a single concession, and that was not the way any Government proceeded if it desired to facilitate the passing of a Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had not a single scrap of evidence in support of the attitude that had been taken up. He had always intended to oppose the Bill as long as he could find a foothold, unless substantial concessions were to be made. They had come to the end of the Bill, and had not been able to get a single Amendment adopted by the Government. He did not think that that was the way to appeal to the Irish Members to facilitate Irish Bills, or to encourage them to place any confidence in the fairness either of the Government or of the House. It was absurd to imagine that a Bill of this kind, full of technicalities and very badly drafted, could not be improved by any Amendment. The Irish Members, from beginning to end, had been met by the most dogged opposition to every improvement which they had suggested; and, in fact, they had been hardly treated to the ordinary civility of an answer to their arguments. The Government depended on defeating these Amendments by summoning their supporters from the lobbies and the smoking-rooms. He maintained that the effect of Clauses 2 and 3 would be to reduce the tithe rent-charge in Ireland, which by the present law was invariable, from 14th November next, from 40 to 50 per cent. in the south of Ireland, and further reduce it fifteen years hence by another 40 or 50 per cent. In May, 1896, under the Land Act of that year, the Land Commission obtained power, in the case of the sale of lands in Ireland to! occupying tenants, to redeem the tithe rent-charges at twenty years purchase— the original price being twenty-two and a half years purchase, fixed by the Act of 1872. When the Chief Secretary was moving the Second Reading of this Bill he endeavoured to persuade the House that the Church Fund would be perfectly solvent, even after this Bill was passed. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his calculations were based on the idea that there would be no more sales of land in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman replied "Yes"; that was to say that the Treasury Minute professing to show the solvency of the Church Fund was based on the assumption that the sales of land in the Land Courts would cease. But they all knew that they had not ceased; on the contrary, they were likely to increase enormously during the next seven or eight years. Every £100 of tithe rent-charge sold at twenty years purchase took £40 a year oft the revenue of the Church Fund. If the Amendment he now proposed was not i accepted the tithe rent-charge, which had already been reduced 20 per cent., would therefore be reduced a further 40 per cent. The effect of this, if carried, would be to bankrupt the fund in the near future beyond all question. Having given this reduction, the Land Commission should in the future be able to fix the redemption price at not less than twenty-five years purchase. He fixed that period because he did not think it was unreasonable that the tithe rent-charge, being a first charge on the land, should be put on the same level as quit rent.

New clause— After the passing of this Act, when the Land Commission order the redemption of tithe rent-charge in pursuance of Section 15 of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, the price fixed shall not be less than twenty-five years' purchase."—(Mr. Dillon.) —brought up and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. G. W. BALFOUR

submitted that the clause in the Bill was sufficient to meet the necessities of the case, and he should be reluctant to introduce anything in the Bill which would have a prejudicial effect on a great number of landowners.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

The right hon. Gentleman is well aware—or he ought to be well aware, because he signalised his entry into office by giving peremptory orders to the judges—how to arrange matters.

MR. G. W. BALFOUR

It is quite untrue.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

The statement I make I adhere to. The right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to Judge Bewley.

*THE CHAIRMAN

That question is very remote from the point now before the Committee.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

That is quite true, and I will not pursue it; but the right hon. Gentleman has said that what I stated is quite untrue, and I wish to state that he, the very first time he addressed this House as Chief Secretary, stated that he had written a letter to Mr. Justice Bewley.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to go into that question.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

It is only a personal explanation, Mr. Lowther, and I adhere to what I said. The right hon. Gentleman must be well aware what is the practice of the Land Commission, which is to fix the redemption at twenty years purchase. This Amendment of my hon. friend fixes the minimum at twenty-five years. I hope my hon. friend will press this Amendment. I must say that the discussions on this Bill on the part of the Government have been conducted in a manner which I never recollect in my fourteen years Parliamentary experience. I never remember such small information given, such scant Parliamentary courtesy extended to others, and such small conciliation. I have no recollection of a Bill of this kind passing through Committee without being amended by a jot or line, although we have pressed Amendments again and again. The true character of the Bill is that it is a dole to the landlords.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is reviewing the whole Bill.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

I was arguing in favour of this Amendment. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members at twenty minutes past one are bad judges whether I was or was not, especially in that part of the House. I think the proposal of my hon. friend is reasonable.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

thought he was bound to say something in support of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had laid down the extraordinary doctrine that land purchase was not going to proceed at a large or accelerated pace within the next few years. That was one of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman thought that the fund would not be so largely diminished. Nobody knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that land purchase had considerably accelerated within the last few years. As a matter of fact, the whole tendency in Ireland was towards an increase of land purchase. He had little doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, if he should still be in office, would be seen introducing a compulsory land purchase system before many years, perhaps months, were over. At present the Land Commission redeems tithe at twenty years purchase, but under the Bill the period would be reduced to fifteen years. Was not nearly every Irish Member, with the single exception of the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, who represented an Ulster constituency, pledged to compulsory land purchase? He asked anyone acquainted with the history of Ireland if there was a single demand which was backed up by united Ireland—by Nationalists and Unionists combined—which the House would not ultimately adopt if it did not cost the English taxpayer a penny or inflict a burden on Imperial taxation. Therefore, compulsory purchase would take its place on the Statute-book of these realms in the near future. Applying that political probability — he might say political certainty—to this Bill, it followed that, all over Ireland, the tithe rent-charge would have to be redeemed on the reduced scale. In other words, the tithe rent-charge now redeemed at an average of twenty years purchase would be redeemed at twelve years purchase; and in some parts of Ireland— notably in the province of Ulster—it would come to a vanishing point. Therefore by these links of reasoning he had proved that this Bill in its present shape would practically lead to the extinction at no distant date of the Church Fund. There was a way of preventing that evil consequence, and that was that if the tithe was to be seriously reduced, the term of purchase should be increased. His hon. friend suggested in his Amendment that it should be increased to twenty-five years purchase. He put it to men of impartial mind on either side of the House that, if the period of redemption was reduced from twenty-two and a half to twenty years purchase, the loss in many of the counties in Ireland would be from 20 to 30 per cent. He knew the Government would reject the

AYES.
Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)	Channing, Francis Allston	Doogan, P. C.
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Crilly, Daniel	Emmott, Alfred
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Dalziel, James Henry	Engledew, Charles John
Billson, Alfred	Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan	Flavin, Michael Joseph
Caldwell, James	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Flynn, James Christopher
Cawley, Frederick	Dillon, John	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Amendment, but he offered his hon. friend this congratulation—that the Government would not reject it on its merits. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill knew that the longer it was discussed the more it was discredited, and therefore he was anxious to prevent another stage for discussion. It might be good Parliamentary tactics, for the right hon. Gentleman had the forces of the Ministry behind him, to recommit the Bill on Third Reading, instead of adopting the ordinary course of passing the Amendment now and allowing the Bill to be discussed on Report; but he condemned that course, of which there were few examples in the history of the House, and he would give the Amendment his strongest support.

MR. DILLON

thought that the Chief Secretary in his last speech had distinguished himself quite as much as in his previous speeches. He had been obliged to admit that the Land Commission ought to charge 22½ years purchase for the redemption of the tithe rent-charge, but he airily assumed that the Land Commission, which was carefully packed, had been pressing and badgering the Government to reduce the rate from 22½ years to twenty years. They had, in fact, been at that game for twenty years past, and at last they had got the Treasury to allow them to reduce the period of redemption from 22½ to twenty years. But could the right hon. Gentleman point to a single case in which the tithe rent-charge had been redeemed at more than twenty years purchase? The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that they never redeemed at the maximum of 22½ years, and that their unbroken practice was to allow redemption at twenty years.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 147. (Division List No. 198.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford	Moulton, John Fletcher	Steadman, William Charles
Griffith, Ellis J.	O' Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Hazell, Walter	O'Dowd, John	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Horniman, Frederick John	O'Kelly, James	Tennant, Harold John
Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Oldroyd, Mark	Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	O'Malley, William	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)	Power, Patrick Joseph	Weir, James Galloway
Macaleese, Daniel	Price, Robert John	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh	Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
M'Dermott, Patrick	Reckitt, Harold James	Yoxall, James
M'Ghee, Richard	Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)
M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
M'Leod, John	Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)
Mandeville, J. Francis	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Morrell, George Herbert
Arrol, Sir William	Galloway, William Johnson	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Garfit, William	Mount, William George
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Gedge, Sydney	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r)	Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.(City of Lond.)	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)	Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S.-(Hunts.)	Goldsworthy, Major-General	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Brist'l)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants.)	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Beckett, Ernest William	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe	Graham, Henry Robert	Penn, John
Bill, Charles	Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Blakiston-Houston, John	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Gull, Sir Cameron	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Bond, Edward		Purvis, Robert
Brassey, Albert	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George
	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Remnant, James Farquharson
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Rentoul, James Alexander
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hardy, Laurence	Richards, Henry Charles
Butcher, John George	Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.
Carlile, William Walter	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)		Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col Edw. J.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Keswick, William	Sinclair Louis (Romford)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Knowles, Lees	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Lafone, Alfred	Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Charrington, Spencer	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Chelsea, Viscount	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.		Thornton, Percy M.
Curzon, Viscount	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
	Lowles, John	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Dalkeith, Earl of	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Dalrymple, Sir Charles		Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.(Kent)
Denny, Colonel	Macartney, W. C. Ellison	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
	Macdona, John Cumming	Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Digby, John K. D W. Wingfield-	Maclure, Sir John William	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	M'Killop, James	Wylie, Alexander
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart	Malcolm, Ian	Wyndham, George
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Finch, George H.	Melville, Beresford Valentine
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas John
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Milner, Sir Frederick George
Fisher, William Hayes	Milward, Colonel Victor	TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Flower, Ernest	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Morgan, Hon. Fred(Monm'thsh.)

Schedule agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill without Amendment to the House."

MR. DILLON

said he thought the conduct of the Government on this occasion was entirely without precedent, and it was exceedingly unfair to those taking part in the debate. He maintained that it was not in accordance with the usual practice of Ministers in charge of Bills to resort to dodges of this kind. The Minister in charge of the Bill, in pursuance of a promise, placed on the Notice Paper of the House a new clause. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was bound to move that new clause unless there was some fair reason for not doing so. When the time came for moving the new clause, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill did not rise in his place at all, but the Leader of the House intervened and took the matter out of his hands. The Leader of the House proceeded to make a statement in regard to certain understandings, the accuracy of which was open to question; but whether accurate or inaccurate, it did not afford justification for the extreme and unprecedented course the Government had taken in this case, in withdrawing the new clause which was placed on the Paper in pursuance of a promise. The clause was withdrawn for the purpose of avoiding the Report stage, and the Government had resolved to adopt the extreme course of re-committing the Bill for the purpose of inserting this clause, which they could easily insert now. He never heard of such a thing being done before in the House of Commons. He did not believe anything of the kind ever was done in the House of Commons, and as the only means of protesting against such treatment, he proposed to divide the House on the motion that was now put.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

said it would be in order now to make a general review of the Bill, but as he was strong, he would be merciful. He would not do so, looking to the early hour of the morning. He thought the Government might have yielded to the Irish Members some of the small Amendments they had proposed. He did not recollect a Bill of this magnitude being pushed forward against the opposition of the Irish Members without even one comma being altered to suit their Amendments. He protested against the whole method in which the Bill had been introduced and pushed through the House. Every clause was a Chinese puzzle, and some of the clauses two or three Chinese puzzles combined. He protested against this Bill, because it was simply for the purpose of taking money out of the pockets of the poor and putting it into the pockets of the rich.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the merits.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

said he would be equally out of order in discussing the demerits. He did not know that he could do more than protest against the Bill. He was not allowed to discuss its merits or demerits, and under the circumstances discussion became a difficult matter.

MR. FLYNN

said it was most uncandid on the part of the Government, after the pledge which was given, that the new clause should now be withdrawn and relegated to a stage subsequent to the Third Reading. He was under the impression that the First Lord of the Treasury gave the Irish Members to understand that this clause would have been brought in at a reasonable time on the Committee stage of the Bill, so that they might have an opportunity of discussing it.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said the Leader of the House had that night established a precedent as to the conduct of business in the House. He thought he was correct in saying that the right hon. Gentleman had done something which had never been done before in the many centuries of the existence of that assembly. It was very true that Bills had been recommitted on the Third Reading, but in all such cases, at least in all the cases he was familiar with, the recommitment of the Bill on the Third Reading had been regarded as a somewhat violent and unusual proceeding, only to be justified by the fact that there had been an oversight, quite inevitable, and that the insertion was necessary to the proper force and authority of the Bill. The Leader of the House had that night announced that a certain Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of the Minister in charge of the Bill would not be moved, and that instead of adopting the ordinary and regular course of introducing the Amendment on the Report stage, he would ask that the Bill be recommitted on the Third Heading. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman had violated all Parliamentary precedent and the traditions of centuries for the purpose of saving a stage of this Bill. He was quite conscious of the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman in the responsible position he held as Leader of the House, especially at this time of the year, and the duress he must feel in regard to time. He was rather astonished at the right hon. Gentleman giving so much time to this Bill. He did not know whether it was on account of affection for the Irish landlords or a feeling of affection for the particular

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn
Arrol, Sir William	Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Lawson,. John Grant (Yorks.)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manc'r)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)	Finch, George H.	Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S.-(Hunts)	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol	Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Lowles, John
Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B.(Hants)	Fisher, William Hayes	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Beckett, Ernest William	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe	Flower, Ernest	Macdona, John Cumming
Blakiston-Houston, John	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Maclure, Sir John William
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Bond, Edward	Galloway, William Johnson	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh, W
Brassey, Albert	Garfit, William	M'Killop, James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Gedge, Sydney	Malcolm, Ian
Bullard, Sir Harry	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lon)	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F
Carlile, William Walter	Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Milner, Sir Frederick George
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Milward, Colonel Victor
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.)	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)	Morrell, George Herbert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Mount, William George
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)	Gull, Sir Cameron	Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Charrington, Spencer	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Chelsea, Viscount	Hanson, Sir Reginald	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)
Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)	Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-	Penn, John
Curzon, Viscount	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Dalkeith, Earl of	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Keswick, William	Purvis, Robert
Denny, Colonel	Knowles, Lees	Remnant, James Farquharson

Minister who happened to be in charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had given at this time of year an unparalleled amount of time to a Bill of this kind, and that was the reason why he grudged an additional moment's time. He sympathised with that feeling, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman might have regarded something higher than even the claims of fraternal affection and the saving of the time of that House, and that was the preservation of the unbroken traditions which were necessary to the good conduct of the business of the House. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that the precedent was rather a dangerous one for a Conservative Minister to make and offer to gentlemen of other political opinions, who might find in his action a very useful precedent for accelerating the course of legislation.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 132; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 199.)

Rentoul, James Alexander	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)	Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand	Wills, Sir William Henry
Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.	Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)	Wylie, Alexander
Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Wyndham, George
Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Tuke, Sir John Batty	TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Skewes-Cox, Thomas	Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

NOES.
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Billson, Alfred	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumberl'd)	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Caldwell, James	Macaleese, Daniel	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Cawley, Frederick	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Steadman, William Charles
Channing, Francis Allston	M'Ghee, Richard	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Crilly, Daniel	M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Dalziel, James Henry	M'Leod, John	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Mandeviile, J. Francis	Tennant, Harold John
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Dillon, John	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Weir, James Galloway
Doogan, V. C.	O'Dowd, John	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Engledevv, Charles John	O'Kelly, James	Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Oldroyd, Mark	Yoxall, James Henry
Flynn, James Christopher	O'Malley, William
Goddard. Daniel Ford	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOSE— Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O Brien.
Griffith, Ellis J.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Horniman, Frederick John	Reckitt, Harold James

Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.