Sitting of 16 June 1870

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William Unwin Heygate, esquire, for Leicester County (Southern Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—Railway Companies, Mr. James Lowther discharged, Mr. Rowland Winn added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Trust Funds Investment* [168]; Rents and Periodical Payments * [169]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* [171]; Processions (Ireland)* [170]; Absconding Debtors* [172].
Second Reading—Extradition [138]; Local Government Supplemental* [153]; Dividends and Stock* [158]; Sligo and Cashel Disfranchisement [139]; Larceny Advertisements* [159]; Salmon Acts Amendment* [163].
Committee—Report—Elementary Education [33–167].
Considered as amended—Customs and Inland Revenue [156]; Stamp Duty on Leases* [161].
Third Reading—Protection of Inventions* [157]; Magistrates in Populous Places (Scotland)* [121], and passed.

WOMEN ON EDUCATIONAL BOARDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether by the use of the words "he" and "his" in the Clauses of the Elementary Education Bill relating to Local Boards, he intends to exclude women from sitting on such Boards?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had to state that the words "he" and "his" were not used with the view of excluding women from the local Boards of Education, but because the use of those words was the best way to include them. ["Hear!" and a laugh.] He was not at all surprised at hon. Members laughing; but the reason why "he" meant "she" in this case was that Lord Brougham's Act, the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 21, enacted that in all Acts words importing the masculine gender should be taken to include and mean the feminine gender, unless the contrary was specifically declared. So far from being anxious to exclude women from these Boards, he looked forward to their assistance in some cases being most valuable.

CASE OF DANIEL MATHIEU, B.A.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL EDWARDESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to letters that appeared in "The Times" on June 3rd and June 11th, signed "Daniel Mathieu, B.A.;" and, whether a strict investigation has been made into the conduct of the police who wrongly apprehended Mr. Mathieu, also into the truth or otherwise of the statements made in those letters; and, if he has any objection to state the result of such investigation?
  MR. BRUCE: In reply, Sir, to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, I have to state that my attention has been directed to those letters, which appeared in The Times, and that a strict investigation was immediately made into the circumstances of the case and into the conduct of the officers who had been implicated by the charges contained in those letters. The facts of the case, as far as I have been able to ascertain them, are these—On Saturday, the 3rd of June, there was a large assembly of people in the Parade behind the Horse Guards to witness a review. Some detectives, in plain clothes, were stationed there to watch for pickpockets. One of these detectives saw a person whose conduct he deemed suspicious, whom he followed for some time; but at length, believing that the person in question had discovered his object, he spoke to two other detectives, also in plain clothes, and informed them of his suspicions. The result of the observations of the two detectives was to satisfy them that on more than one occasion the person whom they were watching had attempted to pick the pockets of some women, whereupon they took him into custody, and conveyed him at once to the police court, where, owing to the case of Boulton and Park being heard, it was impossible that his case could be disposed of that night. The prisoner was then conveyed to the Bow Street Station, where he was asked to give his name and address. He absolutely refused to give his residence, but gave what eventually turned out to be a wrong name. However, in the course of the evening he did state where his residence was, and the next—Sunday—morning the police of their own accord went to his residence to make inquiries with refer-

  261
  ence to his position and employment, I when they saw his wife, to whom they communicated what had occurred. At 12 o'clock on that Sunday morning his wife came to see him, and he then, for the first time, applied for a message to be sent to his friends, which request would have been immediately complied with had it not been that the presence of his wife made it unnecessary. I regret exceedingly that this long delay occurred; but it was the opinion of the magistrate, before whom the case was heard, as well as of the Commissioners of Police, that these men, who had been selected to perform the duties of detectives in consequence of their previous good character and trustworthiness, had only been performing their duty in the course they had pursued. The magistrate dismissed the case with a warning to the defendant, and stated that the detectives had only done their duty. Therefore, although it is quite possible—and I hope that such is the case—that they were mistaken in their suspicions, I cannot come to the conclusion, in the face of the opinion entertained by the magistrate and by the Commissioners of Police, that these men were acting otherwise than in the discharge of their duty, and that they have done anything to call for punishment or for dismissal.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—SEATS IN THE CENTRAL HALL.—QUESTION.
MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If it be his intention to provide seats in the Central Hall for the accommodation of the public now excluded from the Lobby; if it be true that the Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain of England has opposed the placing of the seats in the Central Hall, promised to be placed there last Session; and, if so, under what Statute or Charter has the Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain of England any control over the Central Hall or other part of this building?
MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, in consequence of the promise stated to have been given by his Predecessor in Office, in reference to providing seats for strangers in the Central Hall, he made an application to the Lord Great Chamberlain on the subject. After giving the matter due consideration, the Lord Great Chamberlain said he thought that
262
if seats were put up in the Central Hall they would become the resort of idlers and loungers, who would take possession of them; and, therefore, he thought it inexpedient to give permission for their erection. The authority of the Lord Great Chamberlain was understood to extend to all parts of the Houses of Parliament that were not appropriated by either of the Houses to special purposes.

TURKEY—EMBASSY HOUSE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.—QUESTION.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in the event of the rebuilding of the Embassy House at Constantinople being determined upon, he will lay upon the Table of the House the estimates of the work proposed to be done before any contracts for the same are entered into or sanctioned by the Treasury?
MR. STANSFELD, in reply, said, that no contract would be entered into for rebuilding the Embassy House at Constantinople until an estimate of the cost had been laid before the House. Of course, any estimate laid upon the Table of the House during the present Session must, of necessity, be a rough one.

CASE OF MR. M'LEAVY BROWN.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Mr. M'Leavy Brown, ex Chinese Secretary to the Legation at Pekin, and Private Secretary to the British Minister, and now in charge of the Chinese Embassy to Europe, resigned his office or is still in the service of the British Government; and, if so, whether on the return of the Chinese Embassy to Pekin he will be permitted to resume his place in the British Service?
  MR. OTWAYreplied, that Mr. Brown, on being appointed Secretary to the Embassy of Mr. Burlinghame, offered his resignation to Sir Rutherford Alcock, who declined to accept it, leaving the matter to be settled by the Secretary of State. Sir Rutherford Alcock, however, granted him leave of absence for a certain time. The Secretary of State approved of this proceeding, and ultimately Mr. Brown was informed that, without prejudice to

  263
  his position in the British Mission, and, of course, without pay, he might remain with the Chinese Embassy until such time as the Secretary of State should feel it necessary to call on him to resume his duties.

IRELAND—TROOPS IN THE TIPPERART WORKHOUSE.—QUESTION.
MR. HERONsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to comply with the request of the Board of Guardians of the Tipperary Union and to remove from the workhouse of Tipperary the Troops now stationed there for more than three years, the continual occupation of the workhouse by the Military being, in the opinion of the Board of Guardians, injurious to the health of the inmates from overcrowding, and prejudicial to the discipline of the establishment; whether it is the intention of the authorities to provide other suitable accommodation for the Troops, and build a barrack, as suggested by the Resolution of the Board, dated December 14, 1869; and, whether there is any objection to lay before the House Copy of the Correspondence which passed between the Chairman of the Board and the Military or other authorities on the subject?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he must admit that the Guardians of the Tipperary Union had some reason to complain of the continuance of the troops in the workhouse; but the preservation of the peace of the country required them to make a sacrifice to that extent. He was not able to say when those troops would be withdrawn, nor whether it would be considered necessary to build a barrack there. He should have no objection to produce the whole of the Correspondence on the subject.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTION.
MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, with a view of economizing the time of the House and accelerating Public Business, it would not be desirable to arrange for the commencement of the regular business of the day at a quarter past Four o'clock on those days upon which the House meets at a quarter before Four?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he had made inquiry of the highest authorities upon the subject, and was informed that the state of Private Business would enable them to commence Public Business at a quarter past 4.

CASE OF MR. LEONARD EDMUNDS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, On what ground and under what authority Mr. Leonard Edmunds has been arrested and is now confined in Whitecross Street Prison, the Act 32 and 33 Vic, c. 62, declaring—
  "That no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, be arrested or imprisoned for making default in payment of a sum of money?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: The ground, Sir, upon which Mr. Leonard Edmunds has been taken is his debt to the Crown of the sum of £7,904; and the authority on which he has been taken is the authority of the law, which has not been altered in respect to Crown debts by any recent legislation. The hon. and gallant Member, I apprehend, proceeds upon the assumption that the Act for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt affects Crown debtors; but we are advised that this is not the case, and that writs have been issued in consequence of the non-payment of Queen's taxes; so that Mr. Edmunds has been subject to the same treatment as any other debtor to the Crown. I am informed that Mr. Edmunds calls in question the legality of the arrest, and he has applied to a Judge for his discharge; the point will, therefore, be immediately determined. Under these circumstances, it would not be desirable to notice the subject further at present.

GREECE—MURDER OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.—QUESTION.
MR. EASTWICKsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will explain how it happened that Mr. Erskine was left for some time without the aid of any Secretary of Legation during late events in Greece; how soon after the capture of Mr. Herbert was known Mr. Watson started for Athens from Constantinople; and, what measures were taken by the Turkish Authorities to prevent Takos

265
Arvaniki from escaping into Turkish Territory?
MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that the staff of the Legation at Athens consisted at the commencement of this year of Mr. Gould, the first Secretary; Mr. Smijth, the second Secretary of Legation; and the late Mr. Herbert, whose death had been so much lamented. Some time before the occurrence of the massacre Mr. Gould was promoted, and his place was to be supplied by Mr. Watson, one of the Secretaries at Constantinople; but Mr. Watson's presence was considered necessary at Constantinople to wind up the quarter's accounts, and hand them over to his successor. This delayed his departure by the steamer of the 13th to the steamer of the 16th of April, and Mr. Erskine was therefore deprived of Mr. Watson's services until the 18th of April. It was thought very undesirable that the Embassy at Constantinople should be left without a Secretary, and as the very serious character of the events at Athens was not appreciated from the first report that reached Constantinople, the departure of Mr. Watson was delayed for three days. With regard to the second part of the Question of his hon. Friend, he observed that immediately the Turkish authorities were informed of what had occurred in Greece they gave orders that the frontier should be very strictly watched; orders were given for the capture of the brigands if found on Turkish territory, and immediately Mr. Erskine reported that they had crossed the frontier orders were sent for the pursuit and capture of Takos Arvaniki and his band.

ARMY—CORNET AND ENSIGN.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR DICKSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is his intention to abolish the rank of Cornet and Ensign, notwithstanding the promise made to the House on March 14th that this should not be done pending the Report of the Royal Commission now sitting to consider the Purchase System; and, if this is not intended, why the Circular, dated May 25th, 1870, fixing the Establishment of Subalterns of Infantry Regiments at fourteen Lieutenants and no Ensigns, has been addressed to Officers commanding Regiments?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, he had not the smallest intention of departing from the declaration made by him on the 14th of March.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.

  [BILL 33.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker—I rise for the purpose of moving that you, Sir, should leave the Chair, and that the House should go into Committee on the Elementary Education Bill. I venture to assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) that if the Notice which he has placed on the Paper had stood alone, and had constituted the solitary point to be decided as between him and the Bill of the Government, I should not have thought of interposing at this moment, but should have waited respectfully till he had made his statement before giving any opinion on the subject. But such is not the case, and the natural interest, warming into eagerness, which the House and the country feel with reference to the measure, has caused the Notice Paper to be charged and loaded with a number of Motions, all of which express alternative and different methods of proceeding with regard to questions bearing upon religion, but all of which it is not possible, according to the forms of the House, to bring under consideration upon equal terms. It has, therefore, appeared to the Government that it would be for the convenience of the House if, before a Motion was made by way of proposing a substitute for the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, we should declare our general views and intentions with regard to these very important portions of the Bill. I shall not now refer to other portions of the Bill, which are also of immense importance, but which, with the exception of my hon. and learned Friend's second Resolution—and that could not be put on the present occasion—do not enter into the matter immediately before us. I shall confine myself generally to that field of discussion which is embraced in the first Resolution of my hon. and learned Friend, in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), and

  267
  the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Reed). The Government have thought it their duty to reserve to themselves the advantage of consideration for as long a time as was accorded them by the interval between the second reading and the Committee on this Bill—because every day which has passed has multiplied the expression of the opinion and the feeling of the country—and all these manifestations add something to the materials upon which we have to legislate. It is quite true that expressions of opinion and feeling may still be declared to be very incomplete. There are very large and powerful bodies of great influence in this country who cannot be overlooked in legislating on such a question as elementary education, and which, up to the present time, have made but very partial expressions of their views. But though it is the duty of the Government at the proper time to take its part, and not to shrink from its part in considering how to settle the question, we concluded we had better wait till the Bill was about to go into Committee, and then frankly explain the view we take on the matters principally in dispute, so as to lay before the House at once the terms and the mode on which we hope it may be possible to legislate on this great subject during the present Session. It must be borne in mind that there are many parties and sections of parties in Parliament and in the country who may be strong enough to postpone or prevent legislation; but that nothing except a general disposition to make sacrifices of cherished preferences, for the purpose of arriving at a common result, can enable us successfully to go through a work so difficult as that before us, but which, difficult as it is, we feel ourselves pledged to in honour and in character, and likewise by that greatest of all obligations which binds us to consult in everything the highest welfare of the country. With regard to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. V. Harcourt), which is the only Motion which can be brought directly to issue on the present occasion, the Government are not able to accede to it. They feel that it is very easy, without its being necessary for me to anticipate the general argument of my hon. and learned Friend, to state in
  268
  a few words the reasons why we cannot become responsible for the Motion. It appears to me that if we were to adopt such a proposition, the very first challenge that would be addressed to us would be to explain its terms. And I am bound to say, without in any way fettering my hon. and learned Friend, that that is a challenge which we should be totally unable to meet. We do not know what, in the language of the law, "undenominational" and "sectarian" instruction mean. We know perfectly well that practical judgment and the spirit of Christianity, combined with common sense, may succeed, and does succeed in a vast number of cases—probably in the enormous majority of cases—in averting the thorny paths of controversy in the work of communicating religious instruction to children. But the whole essence of that process lies in its voluntary character. If you lay down rules, you must provide those who administer the law with the means of compulsion. You must do one of two things—either constitute a new religious code by the authority of Parliament, by a process of excision or amputation, or you must do that which appears to me to be more objectionable, though perhaps not quite so difficult—you must set up, as seems to be the fashion "elsewhere," a living authority which, with the sanction and in the name of Parliament, will from time to time, when appealed to, draw the lines and definitions of Divine truth on behalf of the children. Now, we are not prepared to enter into this thorny and tangled wilderness, at least until some one shall have been successful in cutting out paths through its wastes such as we have been wholly unable to discern. Passing on from the particular methods of meeting the difficulties of the case, I would wish to remind the House succinctly of the general scope of the Bill, which forms as it does the starting-point from which we have to measure the modifications which have been, or are now proposed to be, made in its provisions. Leaving out of consideration the reasons which governed the Administration in the preparation and introduction of this measure, we have now arrived at a time when religious differences ought, we think, no longer to stand in the way of conferring upon the nation a great and essential public good. It was, therefore, our desire to present

  269
  to Parliament a scheme which should aim at making elementary education universal in an efficient form throughout the country. It was in our view essential to the success of this measure that so far as the funds of the State—and I use the term now in the narrow sense of that which proceeds from the Imperial Treasury—that so far as the funds of the State were concerned, they should be applied only for secular results. The machinery of voluntary schools we found not only existing in this country, but overspreading it to an immense extent; and on every ground, whether of that which is due to the promoters of those schools, to their benevolent and self-denying labours and the success which they have obtained, or, whether on the ground of that which is due to the purpose which we have in view, and its effectual, speedy, uniform, and economical attainment, we adopted this principle also as a fundamental principle of this Bill, that we would frankly and without jealousy endeavour to employ the machinery of voluntary schools, as far as it was available, in aid of our object. But, feeling that that large deficiency which is now observable in the country could not be made up by means of voluntary schools alone, we proposed to fall back on the principle of rating, and to make use of it by way of supplementing the gap which we saw before us. Of that machinery we proposed to make use under the authority of local Boards. These were to be appointed by a free popular election. They were to be, in a substantial and genuine sense, the representatives of the parents of the children who were to receive education at their hands. We looked upon them as the most natural champions and representatives of these young creatures. We, therefore, proceeded without hesitation on the principle of placing a large, though not an entirely unlimited, discretion in the hands of those local Boards. They were, indeed, to be bound, in our view, to grant in every case effectual provision and of a generous character, but subject to the sole condition that they were to be free to introduce schools of a strictly secular character, and of carrying it to the extreme; or, on the other hand, of introducing such shades, such degrees, and such development of religious teaching as they might, in their judgment, find best suited to the wants
  270
  of the particular districts which they happened to represent. Besides this function of these local Boards, they had, under the Bill as it stands, another most important function to perform—namely, that of giving or refusing aid, as they might think fit, to what I should call the voluntary schools of a district, subject only to the condition that, in order to check the action of undue religious prejudice, they must give to all or none, and might not make a selection between them. That, I think, combined with the circumstance that the Bill exhibited no preference for any one religious body in the country, but aimed at aiding all benevolent and useful exertions, is a fair outline of the Bill as explained upon its introduction in his able speech by my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. The Bill, however, has been sufficiently long before the country to enable the House to understand the considerations which have been pressed on the minds of the Government, and the degree of weight which they attach to those considerations I shall lay before the House in the statement which I am now about to make. We see nothing to be ashamed of in the outline of the Bill as I have described it. We should have deemed nothing more to have been necessary in order to make it work efficiently than some amendments in its details without any modification in its principles. Nor do I now think it is our duty to modify what I should call the principles of the measure; but undoubtedly one of the moving springs of the Bill is local discretion, which, although I do not call it a vital principle, yet it is undoubtedly associated with its objects, and is a matter of the utmost importance and consequence with reference to the question how far the sphere of that discretion extends, and to what extent it should undergo contraction. On this subject we have carefully observed the manifestations of opinion throughout the country, and I own that our anticipations and hopes with reference to it have not been altogether fulfilled. We found that throughout the country, in many of the greatest centres of population, thought, and activity, the utmost apprehension prevails with respect to the extent of the sphere which we have assigned to the free judgment of the local Boards. I am not ashamed to say we have watched carefully, with a

  271
  desire to observe correctly, and to possess information as to the actual state of public feeling on the subject, because the state and feeling of public feeling must necessarily enter largely in the motives which weigh with the Government in introducing a measure of this kind with the hope and desire of seeing it carried into a law. Looking specifically to the objects of the Bill, I think I may say that there are three principal points which have reference to the question of religious feeling. It is, in the first place, urged that the Conscience Clause gives insufficient protection. In the second place, comes the objection which is so strongly urged by the Nonconformists in this country that it is not right, as some go so far as to contend, that any funds which proceed from taxation, whether general or local, should be made applicable to purposes of religious instruction; others, while not going quite so far, maintaining that the funds of the entire community, whether general or local, ought not to be made so applicable in cases where either many or some persons might disapprove such application, and feel that it constituted a grievance. The third objection, and, perhaps, the weightiest, is that the free choice which we propose to give local Boards would create discord in those Boards, and the announcement that such discord would be likely to arise is to us a very great obstacle, because the prediction is one which is likely to fulfil itself. If the prevailing opinion among the communities who are to elect these Boards prognosticates animosity and contention as the result of a measure entitling them to discuss and settle many questions bearing on religion with the great breadth of free discretion, and if then you still proceed to force such Boards, with such constitutions and such powers, upon these districts, we may be pretty sure that we are going the way to defeat the beneficial action of our own measure, because it will be felt that the action of this measure cannot be efficacious, nor, in a larger sense, widely beneficial, unless it also be pacific and satisfactory to the public sense and opinion of local communities. This last and greatest objection turns, of course, upon two points—first, that we propose an unlimited discretion with regard to religious teaching in the rate-founded schools, limited by no condition except that of the Con-
  272
  science Clause; and, secondly, that, with respect to the voluntary schools outside the circle of those founded upon the rate, we refer it wholly to the discretion of the 'local Boards to give or to withhold aid from those schools. And now as to the mode in which we propose to treat these objections. In the first place, as regards the insufficiency of the Conscience Clause, that, I hope, in principle we have adequately met by the addition of the time table. Leaving it to my right hon. Friend to enter upon the discussion of any questions that may arise upon the particular form of the enactment, I may say that the time table Clause which we propose has its origin in our admission of the necessity that something of that kind is required to give working efficacy to the principle of the Conscience Clause. The very best Conscience Clause that can be devised in terms may be, to a great extent, neutralized, where there is a disposition to neutralize it, unless it be also further guarded by some conditions as to time. We therefore propose a time table Conscience Clause, founded upon the double principle of an entire freedom, so far as the interposition of the clause goes, in the matter of religious instruction—although the time for that instruction must necessarily be circumscribed—and an entire freedom on the part of the parents corresponding with the freedom of the teacher to teach. Then we come to the second objection—that, namely, to the levying of public funds from public taxation of any kind for purposes of religious instruction, or to the overlooking of the scruples of a minority in respect of the application of these funds for such a purpose. And here it cannot but be observed that the situation is a very peculiar one. On the one hand, there is a very strong and vivid opinion among a large and active part of the community, that the safe course in a matter of national education is to limit the application of public funds to secular instruction. That is the principle upon which our Privy Council system has always been founded; because, although it may be said that you have deviated from the rigour of that system in permitting inspection with regard to religious results, yet it has been always seen that the amount of public aid has left a large void to be supplied by private benevolence, and this it is which supplies the

  273
  means of religious instruction. I apprehend it is perfectly clear that if education throughout the country had been, or were to become, a matter of secular instruction only, the sources of private benevolence would at once be dried up, not from any want of appreciation of secular instruction or aversion to it, but because it would be said that that was a matter with which public authority was quite competent to deal, and if the instruction were only secular, voluntary contributions would entirely disappear. It is now proposed by some that we should meet this objection by limiting the application of the public rate to secular instruction alone, and there is no doubt that that is the logical result of the particular objection I have mentioned. Nor do I refer to that logical result with any horror, because I do not think that by itself it implies the slightest disrespect to religious teaching, or any wish to prevent or obstruct such teaching. I think it is compatible not, indeed, with the finding of the means of religious teaching from public sources, but with every freedom and facility, outside the actual application of the rate for giving religious teaching to those who are the subjects of secular instruction from the rate, and even in such near conjunction with the secular instruction that, practically, no inconvenience need be felt, and no separation need be preserved. But, however logical this conclusion, I am bound to say—pronouncing upon it a most impartial judgment, and endeavouring to come to the consideration of the question with a perfect integrity of purpose, and with that abnegation of mere personal preferences which I have presumed to recommend to others as the only solution of our difficulties, I do not think this conclusion would be agreeable to the general prevailing sense of the country. It is true that the country has a right to expect, if it chooses, that its Parliament should be logical, while there is no corresponding right on the part of Parliament with regard to the country. If I may presume to criticize its proceedings, the country has been far from logical upon the subject of education, for multitudes of those who have felt the expediency of limiting the rate to purposes strictly secular, and the difficulty of discovering another course, yet have felt such a reluctance, and have combined with other bodies of
  274
  people in showing such reluctance, to the severance of religious instruction by public authority from other instruction, that they have proposed a variety of plans which it is perhaps difficult to reconcile with the strictest rules of consistency, but which nevertheless indicate the strong and, I believe, the decided prevailing sense of the English nation. Some have given effect to this feeling by recommending that the local Board should have a discretion to introduce the reading of the Holy Scriptures into the schools, but to do nothing else; and I observe that there are those who are so oppressed with the difficulty between their rigid, abstract, voluntary principles and their desire to give religious colour to education, that they maintain, and I think very perilously maintain, that the reading of the Bible is not a religious but a secular exercise. Now, I do not speak with any disrespect or contempt of the reading of the Bible. A reverent reading of the Bible may be a most valuable thing; but I cannot agree with those who think that, if it is done in the manner in which it ought to be done, it is to be regarded as a secular exercise. I only refer to this as indicating the difficulties which people have felt in resolving the problems attending this question. Some, going a little farther, have said that we might do what was done in Ireland—endeavour to form a body of extracts from the Bible, and allow instruction to be given from that volume of extracts. I will not dwell upon that proposal, because it has not attracted much attention or support, and although that plan was attempted in Ireland with the best possible intentions and the greatest authority to start it on its way, it cannot be said to have succeeded in that country, because, practically, Scriptural extracts, though originally read as well as the Bible, have passed out of use in the National Schools of Ireland. Then came the plan of Bible reading, with a faculty for expounding the Bible, limited by terms such as those which my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) proposes we should use, and as to which I have briefly stated the reasons why we could not adopt this proposition. Last comes the proposition placed on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper-Temple), who, if it were in his power to do so by the forms fof the House, would confine the scope of

  275
  the Amendment to rate-founded schools, shutting out the rate-aided schools, and who invites us to leave out all the words after "schools" in the Amendment, for the purpose of inserting the words—
  "Hereafter established by means of local rates, no catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught."
  My right hon. Friend, I suppose, like others, has felt how desirable it was, on the one hand, to make those schools widely and, if possible, universally accessible—at least not to frighten from their door, by the ostentatious exhibition of any peculiar symbol, those who might otherwise be disposed to enter—and, on the other hand, to maintain in its essence and in its substance the power of a religious education, without attempting any of those interferences with the mode of handling Scripture, no practicable mode of effecting which has yet been discussed or suggested. All the projects which I have thus briefly enumerated are projects proposed to be introduced into the Bill as modes of limiting the discretion of the local Boards. Nobody has proposed to take away that discretion absolutely and entirely—I mean with regard to rate-founded schools. It is free to the local Board at this moment by the Bill to found schools perfectly secular; but no one I think has said—"Tell the Board to confine itself to schools absolutely secular." What is a school absolutely secular? Not one which merely compels the application of the rate to secular instruction; but one which shuts the doors of the school-house and withholds the aid of the schoolmaster from any religious instruction within the walls of the school building at any time whatever. I want to point out how essential it is to proceed in this measure not by endeavouring to give effect to any abstract and inflexible opinion, but to allow conflicting considerations to meet and equitably to modify one another. I beg those who have objected so much, and to some extent fairly, to the unlimited discretion of local Boards with respect to religion, to observe that it is impossible absolutely to get rid of that discretion, for even supposing we adopted the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), there would still remain the question—which might become a question of religious discord, whether religious teaching was
  276
  to be permitted in the school building at times other than the school hours fixed for secular instruction, and whether, if given at all, it might or might not be given by the master, he acting as the servant of the Board, on the application of the parent. Therefore, I take it for granted, we cannot wholly get rid of this discretion of the local Boards, and the real question is, what limitation it is desirable to impose upon them? I must remind the right hon. Member for South Hampshire that, by the adoption of his Amendment, we should very greatly narrow the field of religious contention, and at the same time allow religious instruction to be introduced into the schools. It would still remain open—as I think it ought to remain open—to the local Boards to confine the rate to secular instruction. Accepting that which undoubtedly appears to be the general desire, I will assume that religious instruction should not be excluded from schools, even during school hours, taken in the strictest sense of the term; and if a plan is to be adopted to carry out that object, I believe this is one which is perfectly practicable, which to a large portion of the community would be highly acceptable, and which, to all those to whom it was not absolutely acceptable, would yet be much less unacceptable than any other that could be adopted. We think, therefore, upon the whole, that the proposal of my right hon. Friend is one which in substance we ought to adopt and incorporate in the Bill. We think it is the best mode in which we can recognize the prevailing and very general desire and conviction of the people for including religion in the career of education within rate-founded schools, and that it is the most equitable manner in which, while imposing a certain limitation upon the discretion of local Boards, we can, on the one hand, bring together the conflicting opinions of various parties, and, on the other, if not wholly get rid of what may be called denominational controversies, yet in a very great degree abate their acrimony and diminish their range, besides, in a large number of cases, abrogating them altogether. That is the mode in which we propose to meet the objection taken to the unlimited discretion of local Boards so far as the rate-founded schools are concerned. Now I come to the important case of the rate-aided schools, and here the very same

  277
  objection has been taken, and I must say with, even greater force. The voluntary schools contain every variety of full denominational teaching; they raise in the broadest form whatever controversy may be connected with the subject; and they raise controversy especially in connection with one portion of the community, whose case is the most difficult to deal with, whose case is also one which demands justice at our hands, and which cannot be overlooked—I mean the case of the Roman Catholics, who may be said to form 5 per cent of the entire population. I believe they assume that the proportion is higher; I take it at that. But that proportion by no means represents the share they ought to have in the operation of this Bill, because they are massed together in the great towns, and probably a tenth, an eighth, or even a sixth of the educational destitution sought to be relieved is that of the children of Roman Catholic parents. Of course, the fact that they would claim full denominational education in their schools would, in many cases, provoke acrimony at the local Boards when the question had to be decided whether or not they should give aid out of the rates to denominational schools. It would be quite idle to propose that the denominational schools should be required by the local Boards to abandon their denominational character; and, if that is so, on the other hand we feel that whatever objection applies to the free exercise of discretion by local Boards in the case of the rate-founded schools, applies in an enhanced degree and with augmented force in the case of rate-aided schools. There is another point of view from which it is right to contemplate this part of the question, and it adds great force to the considerations on which I have been dwelling. It is this—What sort of assistance is it that the local Board may be enabled to give to these rate-aided schools? If persons are to be encouraged to expend their own resources by the prospect of public aid, it is perfectly plain that the public aid, of which the prospect is held out to them, ought to have something like permanence attached to it. I do not mean from generation to generation, but from year to year. It ought to carry the same sort of confidence as to its continuance as has been carried by the annual Votes of this House of sums dis-
  278
  bursed by the Privy Council. How could the local Board give aid under these conditions? A local Board might with the utmost sincerity and good faith vote assistance to local schools by a majority attained after a contested election; but who could secure the continuance of it? The fluctuating and unstable character which must attach to any assistance given by a local Board out of the rates to voluntary schools has come prominently under our notice, and appears to me to be a consideration of the utmost importance in any attempt to bring about a practical settlement of this question. There are two modes in which this difficulty may be met; but, unfortunately, in removing that particular objection we encounter others still more formidable. We may either forbid or compel a local Board to aid voluntary schools; but if we forbid them, and make them leave voluntary schools, as they are, dependent on the modicum of aid which they now obtain from the Privy Council, that would not be consistent with the view with which this Bill was brought forward, and it would not fulfil that engagement under which all along we have admitted ourselves to lie—namely, that of giving fair terms to voluntary schools, so as to enable them to lend to us all the aid they are capable of lending in the accomplishment of this great work, in which there is plenty for us all to do. Therefore, as our sole measure for dealing with that part of the case, we cannot forbid the local Boards to give aid to voluntary schools, because the promoters of those schools would be liable, equally with others, to contribute to the rate, and, contributing to it, to aid and found schools to compete with and beat down the school for which they were paying out of their own private resources. That is a state of things we do not desire to bring about, and cannot be responsible for. Then, would it do to compel the Boards to aid voluntary schools? We might give schools which communicated an effective secular education, and which adopted a time table Conscience Clause, a right to draw a limited amount from the rates, carefully limiting and defining that amount, so that in no case when added to the grant of the Privy Council it should come up to the full value of the secular instruction given; but we cannot conceal that even that form of drawing from the rate, although it is

  279
  done at the discretion of the local Board, might embarrass the operation of a measure of this kind, for if a payment were made out of the rates, as to which the ratepayers as such were not consulted, and over which they had no control, it might become a cause of discontent and exasperation. As our desire is to avoid bringing such feelings into activity in the inauguration of this great and important measure, we should not think it wise and desirable to ask Parliament to invest a voluntary school with an absolute claim on the rate. There is one other mode in which we might proceed, and in which we may gain a great variety of objects. We may entirely escape from the evils attending these controversies in the local Boards in connection with voluntary schools, and we may at the same time do justice to these voluntary schools, and prevent any of that action of religious prejudice against particular, and possibly in some place obnoxious, Communions, which may give great cause of complaint, and we may at the same time adhere to what I hold to be the fundamental principle of the Bill—namely, that the funds of the Exchequer, whatever discretion you give to the local Boards, are to be dispersed solely and exclusively for secular results. I say these objects we may gain in one way, and it is the way we now propose to the House—that is, that we shall sever altogether the tie between the local Board and the voluntary schools; but then we must fulfil the engagements we have already entered into with the voluntary schools. We all along held out—and I think in every scheme of education that has been propounded it has been held out—to the promoters of voluntary schools, that in their competition with rate schools they should receive some assistance towards lightening the burden of their expenditure. What we propose is this—that in lieu of the mode now inserted in the Bill, of giving this augmentation from public sources to the means available for secular education in voluntary schools, the amount of that augmentation shall be drawn from the Exchequer, instead of from the rates. We do not accomplish this object so much by positive provisions in the Act of Parliament as by negative changes. It would be carried out principally by a modification of the Minutes of Council under which these grants are
  280
  now made. As to the amount of that augmentation the Government have considered the objections which have been taken to unlimited assistance given to voluntary schools, and we are strongly of opinion that that assistance ought to be so limited that the whole amount which they would receive, whether from the rates, or from the Privy Council, or from both combined, ought to be so limited as that it should be less than it would cost the ratepayers under any circumstances to establish a purely secular school. We think that an addition to the present grant from the Privy Council to the voluntary schools, which may be taken at its maximum at 50 per cent, would fully gain that object. I do not know whether the House is aware of the computations generally current as to the expenses of schools and the contributions to them. I believe that none of those computations can be said to be exact; but, speaking roughly, it is said that the expense of educating a child in an efficient secular school is 30 s., of which it may be said one-third is now provided by the Privy Council, one-third from voluntary sources, and one-third by payments from the children. We think that if to the third which is now dispensed the half of the second third were added, subject to the strict conditions which I have described with regard to secular education, the voluntary schools would have no reason to complain. But of course it will be necessary that further voluntary subscriptions should be contributed by the Exchequer with regard to the rated schools; because whatever the Privy Council might do in regard to the amount of its contribution, it is clear—and I believe it has never been disputed—that it can only be fair if the amount given to voluntary schools from the general taxation of the country be equal, and no more than equal to that which should be given to rated schools. Some changes will be necessary in the body of the Bill if the proposition to which I have just referred should be adopted by the Committee. It will be necessary to change the 84th clause, which provides the assistance to be given from the Exchequer to secular schools in case the rate should exceed 3d. in the pound, because the relief to the rates by this plan would be so considerable that, in point of fact, the rate would never come to 3d. in the pound. We might,

  281
  therefore, altogether dispense with this, contingent reserve of assistance from the Exchequer. We think, also, that if this liberal annual assistance were granted by the State to schools—whether voluntary or rated—it is quite unnecessary to maintain any system of aid for building grants. The building of schools is the easiest of all the efforts made by the promoters. Their great difficulty is the maintenance of the schools; and when we give liberal assistance to the maintenance, I think we may fairly leave to the locality the cost of the building. Another point has been the subject of continued discussion and much interest. I mean that which has been called the "year of grace." This is mixed with various matters which enter into the most complex part of the machinery of the present Bill, and I cannot say precisely whether we shall be able to offer any modification with regard to the proposal in respect to the "year of grace." But there is a very great desire undoubtedly that a system of rated schools, by which local deficiencies are to be supplied, should be brought into action as rapidly as possible. It may be found that the adoption of the provision which I have recently referred to may make it practicable to accelerate the operations proposed to be taken under the Bill, in such a manner as to allow that some shorter period should intervene before the system of rating is brought definitely into action. These are changes which may perhaps follow from the adoption of the plan which I have described. I hope the House has understood the nature of the changes which the Government propose to make. But I will very briefly repeat them. We propose to, in substance, adopt the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) with regard to the rate-founded schools. We propose that a time table Conscience Clause shall cover all schools whatever receiving any description of aid, whether from rates or from the Privy Council. We propose that local Boards shall cease to have any connection with or relation to voluntary schools, and that these voluntary schools, so far as they have depended on public aid, shall only stand in relation to the Privy Council; we propose that the contribution of the Privy Council towards the annual charge of schools shall be augmented in such a manner as to afford
  282
  an increased amount of support to the local schools, whether voluntary or rated. That increase or amount of support would vary in detail according to the different heads under which it would be given. It is not necessary for me to refer to them separately; but the augmentation would be within a maximum of 50 per cent. It might not be so much; but taking it at about that amount, I think if our propositions be acceded to we may fairly require the promoters of voluntary schools to supply from their own resources and the pence of the children what, with the grant from the Exchequer, will enable them to perfectly well stand in competition with the rated schools. I need scarcely say that our plan would not have any effect on the Estimates of the present year, though they must be considered in connection with future rates. The changes, therefore, in the body of the Bill will be very slight in order to give effect to the propositions which I have described. Indeed, to give effect to the change with regard to the altered relations between local Boards and the voluntary schools requires the omission of three clauses, the 22nd clause, which principally deals with the subject, the 23rd, which is supplemental to it, and the 84th, which provides for a contingent draft upon the Exchequer, which the Government consider to be quite unnecessary under the circumstances of the case. Sir, before sitting down, I would say I am deeply sensible of the great disadvantages under which we approach the consideration of the Bill. Those disadvantages are many, both as regards time and circumstances. This Session the House has not been idle, and I believe that its exertions have not been unfruitful. If we have passed through the months of February, March, April, and May, and are half through June, in Parliamentary business I believe we have no cause to be ashamed of the work which has been under our hands, and which has been the result of our hands. Still, we must not disguise from ourselves that we are now approaching the practical consideration of a measure which, from its importance, its complexity of machinery, its variety of objects, and its grave difficulty, when all taken together, may well be compared even with the measure upon which we have spent the greater part of the Session, and is equaled

  283
  by very few Bills which, in recent years, have been presented to Parliament. We are approaching the middle of June, when general legislation of a secondary order cannot be said to be forward, and when, of the necessary business of the Session, connected with the Votes in Supply, a very large proportion still remains entirely undischarged. Under these circumstances, when I ask myself what we have to set against this disadvantage—the disadvantage of that growing exhaustion which, as long as men are men, must affect the House of Commons as well as any other assemblage in proportion as its labours are prolonged, I know of but one thing that can be set against it—and that is the earnest desire of the country—faithfully, as I believe, reflected in this House—that the Bill shall pass during the present Session on the great subject of the elementary education of the people. There has been, I think, no single occasion in which the Bill has been mentioned, even in the incidental form of Question and Answer across this Table, when the cheers, the spontaneous utterances of the Members of the House have not testified to the earnestness, and I may say the vehemence of that desire. That it is entertained in good faith I do not for one moment question, and that it is entertained by both sides of the House, I fully believe and am aware. I hope that, being as it is, perfectly upright and undeniably strong, it will also be attended with that careful computation as to the means by which we can attain our end, and on which we must wholly depend for any hope of eventual success. That desire can, after all, only be attained by a disposition on the Benches opposite, and upon these to abate private opinion, to put aside subjects, not of party—because they have never been introduced—but of sectional difference of whatever kind, and to join in one common effort for the attainment of a common object. There was a man who left a name which is ever to be mentioned with honour in this country—Mr. Cobden—whose declaration long ago on this subject is well worthy of our attention. He certainly had no religious or sectarian prejudices, but was a man of popular principles and ideas, and one who would have taken fright, if any one could, at the idea of too great a scope being given to the power of religious
  284
  communities or to the ministers who preside over them. He spoke, too, at a time when the deficiency in the means of elementary education was far less glaring than it is now, for the sentiment to which I am about to refer was uttered nearly 20 years ago. Addressing a meeting in Manchester, he declared that—
  "Such was the sense he entertained of the necessity of a universal, efficient, and accessible secular training for the children of the mass of the community, that he was ready, so long as private conscience was protected in the school, to accept a measure that would attain that end on any terms whatever, he did not care what, in regard to the details of its religious arrangements."
  A prolonged consideration of the subject has enabled us, I have no doubt, to deal with some of the difficulties which were unsolved in the days of Mr. Cobden. We have, at any rate, endeavoured carefully and impartially to weigh the claims that might fairly be made by the various sections of the community, and in the proposals that we now make we have been governed by a sense of the great responsibility that we shall incur—a responsibility which others also will incur if they pursue a course that will produce the same result—if we abstain from using any means in our power to promote and expedite the passing of this measure. We have, therefore, sought to meet, as far as we could, the demands that may be urged from any quarter, and to make a liberal provision to enable the promoters of voluntary schools to continue their Christian and philanthropic enterprize. We have sought to meet the objections, the fair objections, of those who wish to exclude, as far as possible, from the area of local Boards the painful subject of religious controversy; and to meet the strong, the widespread, the everywhere manifested desire of the people that the general education of this country in secular matters shall not be separated from religion. Upon this broad basis we present our proposals, and as to the particular form which they have assumed, we present them as the best and fairest plan, in our judgment, by which, in the existing state of opinion and feeling, without involving the State in religious controversy, but confining its central function strictly to its work of obtaining beneficial secular results, we can give not only facility, but also respect, honour, and

  285
  aid to religion, and secure—as we hope to do for the people of this country, wherever it is still deficient—the great and paramount advantage and blessing of elementary education.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. DISRAELI: Whether we look to the gravity of the subject, or to the unexpected manner in which the communication has now been made to us by the Prime Minister, I must say, both for its importance and for the rarity of the circumstances, I hardly know any occasion since I have sat in Parliament that can be compared with the present. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his observations by dwelling on the impossibility of our arriving at any satisfactory conclusion on this vital subject, unless we acted in a spirit of mutual concession, and he terminated his remarks by an appeal to the co-operation of all sections of opinion in the House for a common object. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has anything, so far as this measure is concerned, to complain of in the conduct of those who sit opposite to him. It is four months ago since Her Majesty's Ministers, after having had no trifling time to mature their measure, and to consider its provisions, placed upon the Table of this House, after an able exposition from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education—which it was my misfortune not to hear—the measure for the elementary education of the people which had been so long promised and expected. What was the chief provision of that measure? A provision which delegated to school Boards the power and the privilege of deciding upon the religious education of the scholars. The right hon. Gentleman remembers well our long contests and controversies about the Conscience Clause. In this instance we waived all question of the principle of a Conscience Clause; we testified the sincerity of our support by dealing with the right hon. Gentleman in a spirit of co-operation and concession, by abrogating for ever all ground of controversy, and meeting him in a manner which greatly facilitated the progress of the measure, and permitted us to accede to some of his most novel propositions.
  286
  When I speak of the principle of a Conscience Clause, I allude, of course, to that contained in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has since given Notice of an Amendment to that Conscience Clause; but we have not yet had any reasons stated in favour of the change, and I think the most legitimate and natural manner would be to allow us in Committee to express our opinion upon it. The principle of that Conscience Clause was unanimously, sincerely, and cordially accepted by those who have hitherto been opposed to it, and by that course they greatly facilitated the plans of the right hon. Gentleman, and permitted him to expect that with our co-operation the arrangements that he had proposed to make in delegating to the School Boards this power of deciding upon the matter of religious education of the pupils in schools would be carried. What, however, is one of the leading features of the statement which the Prime Minister has made to-night? I came here to support the Bill which the Government introduced four months ago, and the character and provisions of which have been maturely considered. I came here to candidly consider in Committee any Amendments, whether they were made by the Government or by hon. Members sitting on either side of the House, which might have modified, improved, changed, or developed the principle of the measure; but so far as the Bill of the Government was concerned, I was prepared to support it. I take it for granted that, in this discussion, we are not to enter into any arguments respecting the abstract excellencies or disadvantages of secular education; and I understand it is agreed on both sides of the House that we are to recognize the determination of the great majority of the people of this country that "national education" is to be a "religious education." I understand that is the admission of those who are avowedly, and no doubt conscientiously, advocates of a strictly secular education. I understand that, as far as the House of Commons is concerned, in our efforts to carry a measure of elementary education, we are not to deviate into barren arguments upon the subject of secular education. Then, if we are to have a religious education, I am at a loss to understand how it is to be secured by the change which the right hon. Gen-

  287
  tleman has notified to-night for adoption by the House, though I shall listen with candour, if opportunity offers, to any arguments that may be advanced in favour of views to which at present I do not give my adhesion. Our course is clear. The country demands a "national education" which will be a "religious education." The country will not entrust that education to the Church, but has agreed to entrust it to the community; and the right hon. Gentleman, acting on that principle, has proposed to us, in the measure before the House, that to the community shall be delegated the power of deciding upon the religious education of the people. To-night, however, we are told that the powers of the school Board are not only to be abridged but even to be abrogated, and it is proposed that we are to take refuge in an Amendment, Notice of which has been given, but which cannot be moved. This appears to me a most extraordinary course for a great Minister and the Leader of the House to take. After having devoted a portion of his time, and that of his Colleagues, to the consideration of this question, after having laid a matured and deeply-considered Bill before the House, and after Parliament and the country have been considering it for four months, the right hon. Gentleman suddenly comes down and tells us he is going to make a great change—a change which is expressed in an Amendment by a private Member who cannot move it. This appears to me to indicate vacillation of purpose. I do not wish to depreciate the proposition of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple); but I want to understand it. It is easy to say that no catechism or formularies should be used in these schools distinctive of any particular denomination. But I think that before we can accede to such a proposition, it would have been convenient if we had had the advantage of having it explained to us. When the original Bill was brought in we had the advantage of an explanation of its principles. Without, therefore, depreciating in any way the suggestion of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire, I wish to remind the House that we have never had from the right hon. Member (Mr. W. E. Forster), nor from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government,
  288
  any explanation of what may be the possible or the probable consequences of this principle if admitted, or what really is the meaning we may annex to it. The right hon. Gentleman has very properly expressed his belief that it would be impossible to give any definite and precise meaning to such words as "unsectarian" and "undenominational." In dealing with the proposition of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire, which we are now told is to be the leading principle of the Elementary Education Bill—of this Bill which has been so long before us—which has been before us for four months in another shape—I am merely giving my first impressions of it; but when a proposition of this importance is started without Notice, called upon to discuss the subject upon the spur of the moment, I can see nothing but the utmost difficulty in the course which has been indicated by the Government. I am speaking now in the hope of eliciting some information which may guide us in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he, for one, would not be content with religious education in our elementary schools if it merely consisted in reading chapters of the Holy Scriptures without comment. Why, there are but few of us who read chapters in either the Old or the New Testament who do not require comment, and sometimes considerable comment, upon them. Therefore, nothing would be more unfair than that the children of this country, without any previous religious instruction, should be told by Parliament that they must find adequate religious instruction in merely reading passages from the Holy Scriptures. I am, therefore, not at all surprised to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is not inclined to sanction such a course; but, as far as I can ascertain from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the new scheme would be this—that, although no creed nor catechism of any denomination is to be introduced, yet the schoolmaster would have the power and opportunity of teaching, enforcing, and explaining the Holy Scripture when he reads. Now, he cannot do that without drawing some inferences and some conclusions, and what will those inferences and conclusions be but dogmas? They may not be the opinions of the rector, nor of the Presbyterian minister, nor of the Nonconformist mi-

  289
  nister, but they are the opinions of the schoolmaster. You are contemplating the establishment of a class who must be endowed with great abilities, and who certainly will have to perform most important functions and to exercise great powers, and I want to know in the present state of affairs where these school-masters are to be found? You will not intrust the priest or the presbyter with the privilege of expounding the Holy Scriptures to the scholars; but for that purpose you are inventing and establishing a new sacerdotal class. The schoolmaster who will exercise these functions, and who will occupy this position, will be a member of a class which will, in the future, exercise an extraordinary influence upon the history of England and upon the conduct of Englishmen. That was the second great announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I say that that announcement, if the right hon. Gentleman intends to adopt that scheme of elementary education, is not only one of which we have had no notice, but it is one which we are not in a position even to discuss. I, for one, am not prepared to discuss it; it is too grave, big, comprehensive, and wide a subject for discussion at so short a notice; but I am stating the first impressions that occur to me with regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman, after abridging or abrogating the functions of the school Boards, after announcing that new powers of a most remarkable description are to be intrusted to a class with whom we are at present but little acquainted, enters into details of the most complicated kind with regard to voluntary schools, assisted schools, and rate-established schools under the Bill. The details produced by the right hon. Gentleman, although he said they were very simple, appeared to me to assume almost the character of a Budget. I followed his explanation with difficulty, and my right hon. Friends near me were not able to assist me in the matter. That is to say, my right hon. Friends shared what I believe was the universal feeling of the House, that when a complicated statement was made involving financial details, it would have been more convenient for a popular Assembly to have received it in a more precise and formal manner. Of one thing there can be no doubt—that the details of the right hon. Gentleman, and the changes generally, which he has announced, show that we
  290
  are called upon to consider an altogether new Bill. The Bill which during months of the autumn was carefully prepared by the Government—which was brought forward with so much comment upon its details four months ago—the Bill which for four months has been studied by the House of Commons, is not the Bill which we are now called to go into Committee upon, and which, if we enter into Committee upon, we shall do so with the greatest disadvantages. I am bound to say that there is not a man out of the Cabinet—and I believe not every one in the Cabinet—who has at this moment a precise and clear idea what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do with voluntary schools which are not to be supported by the rates of the school Boards. Now, Sir, how have we been treated by the Government in this matter? The Vice President of the Council on Education only very recently placed some important Amendments upon the Paper, and he told us that those were all the Amendments he meant to propose. These were his last words just before the Whitsuntide Recess. No doubt, the Government have acted with the utmost straightforwardness in the matter—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council really meant what he said—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister meant what he said four months since, and meant what he said to-night. We are dealing with a very difficult subject, and it will not do to make—I will not say a claptrap appeal to the House, because that would not be respectful to the Prime Minister, but that ordinary appeal to the House that it is of the utmost importance that we should legislate upon this subject during the present Session. I had hoped until to-night that we should be able to legislate upon this subject this Session; but allow me to impress upon the House that there is one thing much worse than not dealing with this question this Session, and that is to pass a sham Bill, evading all difficulties by loose phrases to which no one can annex a precise idea, and which, when attempted to be carried into practice by a practical people like the English, will end in the utmost mischance, and result in public disappointment and mortification. Now, the course that I should have thought would have been taken

  291
  under the circumstances is, that the right hon. Gentleman should have moved this Committee merely pro formâfor the purpose of inserting these clauses, and should have then postponed further discussion upon it until the Bill had been reprinted. I will not, under the circumstances, move the adjournment of the debate, because I am anxious that on this question we should proceed with as much accord as possible; but I desire to put it fairly to the House and to hon. Members opposite, whatever may be their peculiar opinions respecting elementary education, whether they think that we are now going into Committee with that ample and precise information as to the intentions of the Government which it is desirable, and indeed, which it is absolutely necessary, we should have. Ought we not to have an opportunity of considering the new scheme of the Government? And although we have wasted four months in studying the first Bill, is it right that we should not have four days nor four hours to consider propositions which so intimately concern the interests of the country? The right hon. Gentleman tells us they are very simple; he has only to take out three or four important clauses and we might then go to work; but the right hon. Gentleman took an hour and a-half to explain this new scheme, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman did not waste a word in that explanation. As far as I am concerned, I candidly confess I cannot comprehend the scheme; there may be others who have more confidence in themselves, and who are not so ready to confess a weakness, which I fear is rather my characteristic; but I candidly confess myself utterly incompetent to decide at present upon the momentous propositions and the minute details set forth by the right hon. Gentleman. I trust, therefore, he will accede to my proposal that he will move this Committee pro formâ, insert his new clauses, and let the Bill be reprinted. This done, I care not whether it be at a Morning or an Evening Sitting, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will find the House ready to give his propositions a candid, and, I hope, an efficient examination.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he was obliged to join the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) in his confession of weakness. He was quite unable to master the new scheme of the
  292
  First Lord of the Treasury, and he was sure the House would concur in the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the matter should be postponed. As far as he could understand, it would be absolutely impossible that the principle of compulsion could be applied, for voluntary schools would be removed from the operation of the local Boards, which would alone have the power of enforcing attendance. This was a question that affected the whole framework and texture of the Bill; and it was a matter which they must have time to consider. It was, in fact, a new Bill framed upon new principles. As to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), he would ask who were to determine whether a religious formulary was the distinction of any particular denomination? Every objection that the right hon. Gentleman had urged against his (Mr. Vernon Harcourt's) Amendment appplied equally to that of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire. There ought to be some tribunal to decide as to religious formularies. The New Testament was a religious formulary of Christians, as distinguished from those who were not Christians. He hoped, on a future occasion, to show that there was such a thing as unsectarian religion. He had heard with the deepest regret the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that he did not understand what was meant by undenominational and unsectarian religion. He believed that the great body of the Christian people of this country knew thoroughly well what was meant. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I never used the words.] He was extremely sorry to find he had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman; but the incident showed how true his statement was that he did not understand him. Certainly he gathered from him that there was no such thing as undenominational religion. He was glad, however, to find he had misunderstood him. The country did not desire to have a national system of education founded on denominational principles, though he agreed with the Prime Minister that the country desired religious education; and if the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that he could not secure unsectarian religious education, then he was perfectly certain that at no distant period the country would have a system of secu-

  293
  lar education. The Amendment adopted by the Government on this subject was in very vague terms. While it pretended to do a great deal it really did nothing at all; it simply prevented the formularies of religion being taught, as if the substance of those formularies could not be taught without the words. It would be easy to teach the Apostle's Creed without the form; even the Athanasian Creed could be put into vulgar and intelligible English, if it were possible, and imparted to the children. He would be no party to a proposal which forbade the form and yet permitted the thing to be done. The proposition would be offensive to the Churches of England and Rome, which had formularies, and unsatisfactory to the Dissenters, who objected to the substance which those formularies taught. As he thought that they were not in a condition to discuss the Bill, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Vernon Harcourt.)
  MR. DIXONagreed that it would be utterly impossible adequately to discuss the important questions involved in the new proposals of the Government without an adjournment; and he submitted that if the Bill were pressed forward that evening the new propositions would not be approached in a proper spirit. There were two principles discussed out-of-doors, both of which were seriously affected by the statement of the First Minister. The strongest feeling existed among Nonconformists and almost all those who supported the National Education League, that, whatever was done, there should be no extension of the present denominational system, and that there should be no increase of public grants to the existing denominational schools. Yet, if he understood the Prime Minister, his new propositions involved an increase of the grant to denominational schools of 50 per cent. There was another principle which was held to as strongly, and which was under consideration, as to whether the money of the ratepayers should be given to support sectarian religious teaching. If he correctly understood the proposition of the Prime Minister, it was that the teachers might be allowed in all rate-provided schools not only to teach religion, but to
  294
  teach religion of the most sectarian character. It would be permissible to teach the sectarianism, not only of 20 Churches, but of thousands of individuals. These two principles had been prominent throughout the whole agitation which had been going on in the country, and he would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they ought to allow a little time to elapse before asking the House to approach the discussion of these new propositions, lest they should give utterance to feelings and opinions that might afterwards be painful to themselves, as well as unjust to the Government. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that the House would, without hesitation, agree to adjourn the debate.
  VISCOUNT SANDONrose with very great regret to approve a course of procedure similar to that recommended by his hon. Friends opposite. Entertaining, however, as he did, an earnest desire to press the Bill forward, he felt that the course proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) would lead to some unnecessary delay. He therefore urged the House to go into Committee pro formâ, so as to delay as little as possible the consideration of this important measure. As to the proposals of the Government, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that they made the Bill almost a new one. With regard to many important details, the measure had been entirely transformed. The adoption of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple), respecting the exclusion of formularies, was one of very great importance, now it had been adopted by the Government, and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House required time to consider whether they could support it. Again, the future position of the existing schools would be different from what was originally intended. He did not say that the Government proposals might not turn out to be highly valuable; and, for his own part, he hailed with delight the concession with regard to the relief of the rates, for he believed the inhabitants of populous towns had no idea of the unfair burden they would have to bear if all schools were put upon the local rates. Seeing the magnitude and importance of the changes proposed, he trusted the

  295
  Government would allow hon. Members at least two days to consider them. He recommended the hon. and learned Member for Oxford not to persist in his Motion for the adjournment of the debate; but to assent to the milder course of allowing the Bill to go into Committee pro formâ, with a view to its being reprinted with the Amendments, and to its further consideration on another day.
  MR. COWPER - TEMPLEsaid, he thought it very desirable that hon. Members should have time to consider the proposed changes. He agreed with the last speaker that the best course of procedure would be to go into Committee pro formâ. The impression he had formed from listening to the speech of the Prime Minister was, that the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the subject in a most statesmanlike manner. The hostility with which this comprehensive measure had been met proceeded from other causes than a desire for the best education of the poorer classes of this country, and some changes had become necessary to conciliate objectors. The Amendments acceded to would diminish the opportunities for sectarian strife. Against the Bill there had been urged difficulties which the Government were willing to endeavour to remove; and he thought that the solution proposed this evening was, on the whole, the best. He would, however, forbear from entering into a discussion on the subject on the present occasion.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I believe the going into Committee pro formâ and the subsequent reprinting of the Bill, with the Amendments, will be advantageous alike to the House and to the Government. I should be extremely sorry to be compelled to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate; but I do not see what other course I could take in the event of the Government not consenting to reprint the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seemed adverse to such a course; but it was surely to the advantage of the Government to have the Bill in their hands in its altered form, so that every new Amendment must proceed from other quarters. There is another point that strikes me as being one on which it is very important the Government should give us some information—namely, as to the projected change in the Revised Code. You are about to make changes which will affect
  296
  some 12,000 schools, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; and it is all important for the carrying on of the best part of the education of this country that we should know the position they are to be placed in under the new Revised Code. I do not mean to say that the Code is to be altered now; but I think the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Education Department here ought to put on paper what it is proposed to do in reference to the Revised Code next year. Speaking for myself, I came down here to assist practically in carrying out what I deemed to be the principle of the Government measure, although I am aware there are certain points which will have to be discussed at considerable length in Committee. It was with the same view that I abstained from speaking on the second reading; and now I shall be as brief as possible, because I desire to facilitate the passing of the Bill. I trust, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will give us two or three days to consider his proposals, instead of driving us into apparent opposition to the Bill, by rendering it necessary for us to vote in favour of the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not think we have the slightest right to complain of the wish which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and by the other hon. Members who have asked for time to consider the change which has been proposed by my right hon. Friend. I do not deny that that change is an important one; but I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) rather exaggerated the effect of it when he described it as an entirely new Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) suggests that we should go into Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of having the Bill reprinted. Now, on the part of the Government, I am quite ready to assent to the postponement of the debate until Monday next; and it is entirely for the House to consider whether they would prefer going into Committee pro formâ or to have the Amendments laid on the Table. I would only remind hon. Members that if the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is adopted, the effect will be that all those Amendments which now

  297
  stand on the Paper in their names will disappear. That would be an inconvenience. If the House approves, the new Amendments might be printed and in the hands of Members to-morrow morning. In point of length these Amendments will be slight, being simply the omission of three clauses and the addition of a few words to the 14th clause. The right hon. Gentleman has asked for a detailed statement as to the relations which all the public elementary schools would in future bear to the Parliamentary Grant. In reply, I would observe that it is impossible for us until the Bill passes to say how that would be. I can only repeat the statement made by my right hon. Friend, that in framing the new Code we shall frame it on the principle of contemplating an additional grant of not more than 50 per cent. The precise mode in which it would be given it is impossible to state now, because we do not know what may be the alterations made in the present mode of distribution. We have been all along aware that as soon as the Bill passed the framing of the Code would be a most important matter, and I have every hope that when brought before Parliament next year it will receive the most attentive consideration. As to the Bill itself, I have no wish to enter into any defence of it on the present occasion; but I feel confident that those who take an interest in education, and whose object is the extension of the advantages of education to every child in the kingdom, will regard the Bill as being improved by the alterations in it which have been proposed to-night.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, there was one reason not yet urged why the House should not vote the Speaker out of the Chair then. By doing so they would preclude themselves by the usages of the House from discussing the Bill upon its principles. Though not wishing to say a word against the proposals enunciated that night, they were so novel in their character, and they had been introduced so unprecedentedly, that he thought it most undesirable they should preclude themselves from discussing the principles of the Bill in connection with those proposals.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he saw no advantage in prolonging the discussion. But no person could for a moment dispute the fact that, considering
  298
  the important statement they had heard that night and the changes proposed by the Government, common fairness required that both sides of the House should have time to consider those Amendments. The best plan, then, in his opinion, to adopt was to go into Committee pro formâ, to reprint the Amendments, and to proceed as soon as possible with the consideration of the Bill in its now shape. He thought Monday was too soon to fix for resuming this discussion, although he hoped that no time would be lost in the progress of the measure.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there was not the slightest objection on the part of the Government either to the adjournment of the debate or to the going into Committee pro formâ as had been suggested. The latter course was one which the Government themselves could not well propose, inasmuch as it would be the first step towards giving effect to their plan. With regard to the reprinting of the Bill, if they were to do so it would appear again exactly as it was, with the exception of three clauses, which would be omitted, and a short Amendment to the 14th clause. It it be the wish of the House, the Amendments already on the Paper might be reprinted. The proposals of the Government, so far from being complicated, could be written in three lines. The principal question, that with regard to formularies, could be contained in two lines, and in regard to voluntary schools, it was a transfer from the local Board of the function of administering to the wants of voluntary schools. He hoped that the Motion for adjournment would be withdrawn.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTasked the Speaker in what position would hon. Members be who had Amendments on the Paper, in case they assented to the committal of the Bill pro formâ?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member will be in a much more advantageous position than that in which he is now placed; because at present, having moved the adjournment of the debate, he has exhausted his powers of speaking. If the House should go into Committee pro formâ, and the Bill should be reprinted, then every hon. Member will, at the re-commencement of the debate, be informed as to the main principles of the change proposed by the Prime Minister.
  MR. HORSMAN: When the debate was recommenced, would every Member who had an Amendment on the Paper have a right to speak?
  MR. SPEAKERreplied in the affirmative.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DISRAELIsuggested to hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper that they should replace them, or otherwise they would not have an opportunity of discussing them, should the House go into Committee pro formâ.
  MR. HIBBERTobserved that, in respect to the proposal for recommital, every one of the 200 or 300 Amendments on the Notice Paper would be replaced at the cost of much time and trouble. He suggested that both Motions before the House should be withdrawn, and then let the Amendments that were really to be proceeded with be placed on the Table of the House.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYconsidered it would be a great advantage if they got rid of all the Amendments on the Paper, so that they should be able to start with the consideration of those Amendments only that involved any material changes in the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked if the Government would be prepared to put on the Paper their Amendments with regard to the school Boards, or the compulsory part of the question.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESalso wished to know if the Government would insert in the Bill a provision with reference to the extent and the amount of the Government grants, so as not to leave them to the caprice and whim of the Educational Department, more especially when they exercised such arbitrary and absolute powers?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was absolutely impossible to put upon the Paper at present the new or additional Code, for reasons quite irrespective of the changes proposed by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. They were unable then to form any opinion of the precise details of the provisions under which the annual grants should be made under the altered circumstances caused by the passing of this Bill. What had been said was, that the Government looked forward to additional grants to schools not exceed-
  300
  ing 50 per cent. It was not the intention of the Government to place Amendments on the Paper with reference to the school Boards and compulsory education. Throughout the discussion there had been an unusual desire to anticipate discussion in Committee by arrangements beforehand; but the Government felt that these difficult questions must be left to be dealt with in Committee.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there was a very strong and prevalent feeling that that Bill should be a complete educational measure, in every sense of the word, and he felt certain that many hon. Members would give their support to any attempt to make it such. He suggested that, in order to make it so, the new Code should be incorporated, if possible, in the Bill, so that the minimum as well as the maximum amount of the grants should be known.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 167]; re-committed for Monday next.

PARLIAMENT—MORNING SITTING.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, it would be convenient to hon. Members if the Prime Minister would state if it was necessary now to have a Sitting to-morrow morning.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that as in all probability many hon. Gentlemen had made arrangements on the understanding that there would be a Morning Sitting, he thought it was not advisable to make any change.

EXTRADITION BILL— [BILL 138.]
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
EXTRADITION BILL— [BILL 138.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the advantages of Extradition Treaties were obvious. It was clear that a crime could be best investigated in the country where it was committed, and where the witnesses and the persons most interested in bringing the offender to justice resided. It was to the advantage of every country that its fugitive criminals should be surrendered

  301
  to it, and it was no less to the advantage of every country to get rid of foreign criminals who had fled to it. They had criminals enough of their own without being troubled with criminals belonging to other countries, and it was somewhat remarkable that, of all civilized countries, England had received the least benefit from Extradition Treaties. France had now 53 Treaties of Extradition. The United States had nearly as many. Most of the Continental States had a great many. But at that moment England had only three. This was partly owing to jealousy, lest they might be required to surrender political offenders, and to violate the right of asylum always afforded here to political refugees, and partly because a separate Act of Parliament had been required for each treaty. The Bill was founded almost entirely upon the recommendations of the Select Committee, which considered this subject in July, 1868, and it provided that Her Majesty, after having made an arrangement with any foreign State, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act, might direct by Order in Council that the Act should apply to the extradition of criminals between us and such State. The Bill was drawn upon the footing of reciprocity, according to the recommendations of the Committee; but he doubted very much whether it was well to insist upon this reciprocity. It seemed to him that the getting rid of a foreign criminal was a benefit, nor did there appear any reason why they should insist on continuing subject to the nuisance of keeping foreign criminals, because foreign countries chose to endure the nuisance of keeping theirs. The list of crimes was extended in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee; but it was still limited to the graver crimes, and to such crimes as had some common element in the legislation of the countries with which they agreed for the purposes of extradition. These were specified in the Schedule to the Bill. The Queen, however, was not bound in each case to put in force the whole Schedule, but might make a selection. The Schedule to the Bill set forth a number of offences, but it need not be adopted in toto by the Queen when entering into any arrangement with any foreign country; indeed, she might adopt only so much of the Schedule as might be thought convenient under the circumstances. It had been held by the Court
  302
  of Queen's Bench that they ought not to surrender criminals if they had jurisdiction to try them; but that decision was arrived at by the Court against the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice; but now that that opinion had been generally adopted by the profession in England, and he understood in America, the Bill proposed to give effect to it, and to enable the Courts to surrender prisoners for certain offences, piracy for instance, even although we might have jurisdiction to try them here. It was right to state the safeguards by which the principle of extradition was surrounded in the Bill. First, there was a distinct provision that no criminal should be surrendered for any political offence. They had found it more difficult to define a political offence than to define the Ulster Custom, and they had finally given up the attempt, and had left the matter to the Courts. In addition to this, the Secretary of State for the Home Department might at anytime interfere to prevent the extradition of a criminal for any offence which he deemed to be of a political character. It was further provided that no person surrendered should be tried for any offence except that for which he was surrendered, without having been previously restored to liberty. This was to prevent a foreign country demanding a man—say, for manslaughter, and then trying him for a political offence. Further, it was provided that no criminal should be surrendered for what the French called par contumace—that of being convicted in his absence. The Committee further recommended that all extradition cases should be heard at Bow Street, and that recommendation had been adopted, subject to the exception that if a crime had been committed on the high seas it might be dealt with, to avoid delay, at the port at which the ship arrived, by a stipendiary magistrate in England, a chairman of quarter sessions in Ireland, and a sheriff in Scotland. At present proceedings were commenced by an order from the Home Secretary on a requisition from an Ambassador; but Sir Thomas Henry pointed out that this involved delay, which might allow a prisoner to escape; and therefore power was given to any magistrate to issue his warrant on such information, as he would do if the offence were committed in England; but no further proceedings were to be taken unless the

  303
  usual order was given by the Home Secretary. Every person taken up under the provisions of the Act would have notice given him that 15 days were allowed to him to apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus, in the event of his having reason to complain of his having been arrested, or reason to give why he should be set at liberty. The Act would apply to the Colonies, unless any were excepted by an Order in Council; and in the Colonies a requisition was to be made by a Consul or Vice Consul, and the Governor was to perform the duties which were here performed by the Secretary of State. There was a further provision that if Colonial Acts on the subject had been passed and were in force they were not to be interfered with, so that if the Colonies liked to deal with this question themselves they were at liberty to do so. He thought it would be found that this was a very important enactment, and that it would lead to the adoption of the principle of extradition to an extent which hitherto had been little thought of; and he trusted it would lead to a number of treaties with foreign countries. At the same time, he thought the principle was surrounded by such safeguards that the most timid persons need no longer fear the possibility of the extradition of criminals for political offences and other interferences with liberty, which hitherto had prevented them resorting to the principle of extradition.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he was Chairman of the Committee referred to, and, so far as he could then judge, the Bill appeared to be carefully and skilfully drawn in conformity with the Committee's Report. It would remove a defect in their criminal jurisprudence which was a disgrace to them as a civilized country; and it would place them on the same footing as the other civilized nations of Europe. Jealousies had arisen in consequence of the course they pursued with regard to political offenders, and also that each treaty had to be confirmed by Parliament. Those matters had created such great difficulties hitherto that nothing practical had been attempted to remedy them. He trusted the Bill would lead to a number of treaties that would
  304
  enable them to get rid of many rogues who now went about this country with impunity.
  MR. DICKINSONtook exception to the principle of the Bill, that of contracting with foreign countries, as unsound, and involving them in all sorts of difficulties and different agreements with different countries; and he maintained that the principle was to determine by what rule they should be guided themselves; and having determined their own municipal law, we should inform foreign countries, and ask them to extend to us advantages corresponding with those which our laws afforded them. In Committee he should move the rejection of that part of the Bill which rendered it necessary to make treaties with foreign countries on the subject. He thought, too, it would have been better to confine themselves to their own municipal law, and to have allowed those Colonies which had Legislatures of their own to legislate on this subject for themselves. This Bill would apply to Canada till Canada thought fit to render it inoperative as regards that Colony by legislation of its own. The fact that Canada was in advance of England in this matter rendered it the less necessary that we should include that Colony in our extradition arrangements with other States.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, the Bill carried out two important recommendations of the Select Committee; one was, that after a fugitive was committed by a magistrate he should have 15 days to sue out a writ of Habeas Corpus; the other was an enlargement of the catalogue of offences so as to afford more protection to commercial interests. As a member of the Select Committee, he proposed that the Court of Queen's Bench should be the authority to decide what was and what was not a political crime. Two members of the Government who were on the Committee had undertaken to give the Committee a general definition on that subject; but subsequently they admitted that the task had baffled their powers. The Committee, by a majority of 1, recommended that the decision should be left to the Court of Queen's Bench; but he regretted that recommendation was not embodied in the Bill, because he thought the Secretary of State was the last person in whom the decision on such a point should be vested.
  MR. WHEELHOUSE, as one who had practical experience of the glaring deficiencies in our criminal law with reference to fugitive criminals, was glad to express his opinion that this Bill was a step in the right direction. Any objection that had been made to it was as to particular clauses, and might be discussed in Committee. He wished to know why the word "arrangement" had been used instead of "convention" in one of the clauses?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, said, that the Secretary of State would not determine what was a political offence. The magistrate would determine that question subject to an appeal, in case of dispute, to the Court of Queen's Bench, or some other of the superior Courts. The Bill did empower the Secretary of State to interpose, if he should think the offence was a political one; but it did not give him authority to decide that it was. The word "arrangement" was used in order that an agreement might be come to without a formal treaty.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Stansfeld.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

  [BILL 156.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he had taken the opportunity of placing on the Notice Paper three Resolutions in relation to the inhabited house duty. It might seem an unusual thing to bring them up at such a time; but he thought that the subject had been treated in a somewhat unusual manner by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) thought that the duty fell more heavily upon houses as they descended in the social scale, whether they looked at the amount of rent paid, or the amount of income of the occupant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, said that there was not the slightest reason why the tax should be remitted. Small as was the boon he (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) asked, if it were granted it would be a great concession to the general community. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  306
  would not lose a great opportunity of doing justice. He moved to insert the following clause:—
  (Exemption of certain houses from Inhabited House Duties.)
  "From and after the fifth day of April one thousand eight hundred and seventy, every dwelling house let out in tenements or separate lodgings where the rent of each separate tenement or holding does not exceed the sum of seven shillings and eight pence per week, or under twenty pounds per annum, shall be exempt from Inhabited House Duties whether such dwelling house has or has not a front door."
  MR. CRAWFORDseconded the Motion, in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have an opportunity of speaking.
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the proposal was, that when a man possessed a house which was divided into separate tenements, for each of which the tenant was charged less than £20 a year, such house was to be exempt from the tax. Every shopkeeper who lived in a house of £20 a year had to pay house duty; but if a man happened to possess a house worth hundreds a year the hon. Member would exempt him from the tax, in the event of the house being let out to tenants each of whom paid less than £20 rent. His opinion was that the house duty ought to descend much lower than £20. It would be in the highest degree unjust for the House to accede to the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he had another clause to move with respect to the house tax. This one applied to houses used as temperance hotels and coffee-houses. At the present moment every house licensed for the sale of ale, wine, or spirituous liquors was liable to a house tax of 6d., whereas hotels not so licensed were treated as private houses, and had to pay 9d. in the pound. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following clause:—
  (Reduction of Inhabited House Duties on certain houses.)
  "From and after the fifth day of April one thousand eight hundred and seventy, every inhabited dwelling house which, with the household and other offices, yards, and gardens therewith

  307
  occupied and charged, is or shall be worth the rent of twenty pounds or upwards by the year, which shall be occupied by any person who shall carry on in the said dwelling house the business of an hotelkeeper, or an innkeeper, or coffeehouse keeper, although not licensed to sell therein by retail beer, ale, wine, or other liquors, there shall be charged for every twenty shillings of such annual value of any such dwelling house the sum of six pence."
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERapprehended the reason the clause was brought forward was that the law imposed a tax of 9d. in the pound on houses which were not used as shops, and 6d. in the pound upon those which were so used. In the case of public-houses and temperance hotels the line drawn was, perhaps, a somewhat thin line; but one reason why the charge on a public-house should be less was, that it already contributed in many ways to the Revenue. So far as he could see, it did not appear to him to be worth while to make the change proposed.
  Mr. M'LAREN and Mr. MORLEYsupported the Amendment.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, one reason for not dividing the House was that it was the custom of the House to deal with the Budget proposals of the Government as a whole; to reject, or it might be to modify them, but not to introduce new proposals. Another reason was that the case as between the public-houses and the temperance hotels was not at the moment so much before the House as his hon. Friend seemed to think. Without speaking of the taxes on the articles consumed, the taxation on the public-house for licences was much heavier than on coffee-shops and temperance hotels. In the interests of temperance his hon. Friend would be very unwise indeed if he instituted a comparison between the taxation of public-houses and temperance hotels. He would remind the House that a large measure dealing with the licensing question generally had been undertaken by the Government, and that it was much more desirable that any changes which it might be found desirable to make should be made by its means rather than in a temporary and discursive manner.
  After a few words from Mr. MONTAGU CHAMBERS and Mr. ALDERMAN LUSK in support of, and Mr. PEASE against it,
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 68: Majority 33.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, there was another clause which he wished to submit to the House. Under the existing law premises used for purposes of trade were exempt from inhabited house duty although a servant resided there merely for purposes of protection. But the Inland Revenue Department held that if a solicitor, an architect, an engineer, or any professional man occupied offices in a block of buildings otherwise exempt, such occupation not being for the purposes of trade, rendered the whole block liable to duty. Under these circumstances solicitors and professional men would be driven out of the chambers they occupied if the house duty were to be imposed. In order to obviate all difficulty for the future he moved the insertion of the following clause:—
  (Exemption of houses occupied partly as a warehouse, &c. from Inhabited House Duties.)
  "Whereas doubts hare arisen with respect to the exemption from Inhabited House Duties (under the Act thirty-second and thirty-third Victoria, chapter fourteen, section eleven) of a house occupied partly as a warehouse or shop or counting-house, and partly as an office for a solicitor or architect or engineer, or for a person engaged in other professional pursuits, and in which house a servant or other person dwells for the protection thereof, Be it enacted, That, from and after the fifth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and seventy, every such house as aforesaid shall be exempt from Inhabited House Duties, whether such house be partly or wholly occupied for professional or trade purposes, when a servant or other person dwells therein for the protection thereof."
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would answer the clause instead of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, for the former he could understand, but the latter he could not. The clause, in effect, proposed that if a house were occupied by a professional man all day and by a servant at night—circumstances which constituted the strongest grounds for taxing it—it should, therefore, be exempt from duty. He was reminded by hon. Friends near him of the case of

  309
  Box and Cox, which was very nearly that defined by the clause.
  SIR JAMES LAWRENCEexpressed surprise at the inability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to comprehend the meaning of the clause itself, which was framed in almost the same words as the clause of the Bill of last Session, which was evidently intended to relieve such houses from the inhabited house duty. The proposed clause was not new, except so far as it sought to interpret the existing law, and to put an end to the litigation and the annoyance occasioned by the sudden action of the Revenue authorities in exacting house duty in cases in which it had never been intended to be imposed.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSconsidered that the clause went farther than was intended by the hon. Gentleman who had framed it, because it really said that by reason of a servant occupying a house at night such house should be exempt from the duty.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he was of opinion that the clause was drawn up by a man of business, and was perfectly intelligible. Was it right, he asked, that a house otherwise exempt from this duty should, from the fact of a policeman or other guardian being hired to protect it at night, be made liable to the inhabited house duty?
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he would withdraw the Resolution. He might not have drawn it correctly; but he had proved a grievance, and he would leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

SLIGO AND CASHEL DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL— [BILL 139.]
(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)
SLIGO AND CASHEL DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL— [BILL 139.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE), in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, in 1868 two candidates of opposite politics stood for Sligo, and that Major Knox was returned; but, a Petition having been presented, Judge Keogh decided that the election was
  310
  void on the ground of corrupt practices of which persons by name were guilty. The Judge reported that several persons not named had been in the habit of applying to Major Knox for money, in consideration of their agreeing to vote for him or refraining to vote for his opponent. The learned Judge said in his judgment—
  "The measure of the corrupt practices of Sligo, I have no hesitation in saying, is full. In every description of corrupt practices, especially in intimidation, it appears to have attained a bad pre-eminence."
  After that decision a Royal Commission was issued on the 23rd of June, 1869. Having made its inquiries it reported that at the last three elections corrupt practices had extensively prevailed in Sligo, and that the absence of corruption at the election of 1859 was due to the circumstance that one of the candidates had no money and that the other came forward reluctantly. At the election of 1860 three candidates came forward—Mr. M'Donogh, Lieutenant-Colonel Tennison, and Mr. Somers. Lieutenant - Colonel Tennison retired after the day of nomination, and Mr. Somers polled very few votes—so that Mr. M'Donogh was practically returned without opposition; but, notwithstanding this, corrupt practices extensively prevailed. That election cost Mr. M'Donogh £1,350, of which between £800 and £900 was spent in bribery, and after the election about £470 was distributed among about 14 voters. At the election of 1865 extensive bribery was reported to prevail; the names of the persons bribed were to be found in the Schedules to the Report, so far as they were discovered; and so in 1868, though the number of persons bribed appeared to be smaller than at previous elections. This, however, was not owing to the increase of electoral purity in the borough, but to the fact that, for obvious reasons, the usual practice in Sligo was not to pay money until some time after the election, and after the time for petitioning had expired. The Commissioners, indeed, reported that large numbers of persons were expecting money. The Government did not desire to make this a political question or a party one. They had introduced the Bill, because they felt that, if they had not done so, the sending of Commissioners to report on corrupt practices would in the case of

  311
  Sligo and Cashel have been a mere mockery. With regard to the former borough, it might be urged that if they disfranchised it, the western sea board of Ireland, from Galway to Londonderry, so far as the towns were concerned, would be unrepresented. He was aware of that; but the more important the town the more necessary was it to make an example of that town where the corrupt practices were shown to have widely prevailed among the constituency. In the case of Cashel, it was only necessary for him to particularly refer to two elections—those of 1865 and 1868. In 1865, there were two candidates, Mr. O'Beirne, and Mr. Lanigan. The number of persons who voted was 109, and 32 of them were reported as having been guilty of corrupt practices. The last election held in the borough was in November, 1868, when the candidates were Mr. O'Beirne and Mr. Munster. Mr. O'Beirne was returned, but was unseated on Petition. The Judge reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed. A Commission was issued, and the Report of the Commissioners was the foundation of these proceedings. The number of persons who voted at this election was 184, and of these 77 were reported as corrupt. The Report stated that the election was conducted in a corrupt manner on the part of both the candidates. In one shape or another—in one or other of the Schedules—fully one-half of the constituency was implicated in the corrupt practices, and the House might come to the conclusion that if the truth could have been fully elicited a considerable percentage of the remaining half would also have been added to the names in the Schedules. Under these circumstances the Government had only one duty to discharge, and that was to ask the House to read the Bill a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COLONEL FRENCHprotested against the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman. For the purpose of eon-fusing those listening to him, he jumbled together two matters perfectly distinct and separate from each other—the opinion of a Judge and the Report of a Commission—neither of which sepa-
  312
  rately would justify the harsh and vindictive course he was directed to pursue in relation to the borough of Sligo. The statement of Mr. Justice Keogh related entirely to the intimidation proved before him to have been carried on at the last election for that town—"That in Sligo the cup of iniquity was full to the brim;" it had no relation to bribery, as but four cases had been brought under his notice. This sentence had been three times quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose stock of ammunition was not over abundant. Two of the Commissioners only signed the Report; the name of the Chairman was not attached to it. The conclusion, they arrived at was not borne out by the evidence—they reported as bribed persons those who contradicted on oath the charges against them. They reported one candidate to have declined standing, on being told that a sum of money to pay some voters would be necessary to secure his success. They did not examine this gentleman. He (Colonel French) was assured that this gentleman had left Sligo without making any communication to his committee, who felt certain of returning him—without any bribery—had he remained and gone to the poll. He did not rely on his own opinion as to the insufficiency of the evidence; he had spoken to several barristers ranking very high in their profession, who fully agreed with him. On an average, not 4 per cent of the 530 voters in Sligo were implicated; there was no precedent for the disfranchisement of a borough under such circumstances. In Norwich, where the report of bribery was far more extensive, it was not even thought of. Ireland, which in justice should have a large increase, was to be deprived of two votes by a Parliament professing, in words, a great regard for her interests, but taking the first opportunity of striking her a blow. How was Ireland dealt with in the last Reform Bill? Whilst a reduction of the franchise from £50 to £12 was given to England and Scotland, Ireland was refused a reduction of £4, although the late Sir Robert Peel declared her fully entitled to it. Scotland got seven additional Members. Ireland, since the meeting of the present Parliament, has been kept with three less than her number—two of whom, by this Bill, are proposed to be permanently swept away. By the

  313
  Acts of 1866 and 1867, England had one representative for every 41,000 of population, Wales one for every 38,000, Scotland one for every 52,000, Ireland one for every 56,000. The English, counties had a Member for every 58,000, the Scotch one for 56,000, the Irish but one for every 78,000. Ireland returned but 64 Members for her 5,000,000 of inhabitants. Had these counties been in England they would return 86 Members. Ten counties in England returned six Members each; 13 English counties, with a population from 150,000 to 300,000, returned four each, while the largest of the Irish counties only sent to Parliament two Members each. He (Colonel French) attempted to remedy this state of affairs. The Liberals had a very large majority brought up to support the addition of seven Members for Scotland, and to keep her nomination counties. Sutherland, with their sanction, continues to send a representative for 300 electors; but, when Ireland required their assistance, no majority was to be had. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated the addition to the character of the Government under which he serves for honesty, impartiality, and firmness this Bill will bring them—the very reverse of this will be the case; they are now looked on with distrust—which they may manage to change to dislike, but no credit could they look for from any section or party in Ireland for their wanton attack on the only stirring trading community in the West of Ireland. Connaught, entitled to a fourth of the representation of Irelard—26 Members—now sends but 13, one of whom they sought to destroy—by numbers they might do so—but their victory would not be one for the Government to plume itself on. He asked leave to move the I Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  MR. O'CONORseconded the Amendment. The Judge who tried the Petition of 1868 examined 80 witnesses, and reported that he had only been enabled to discover 15 electors who had been guilty of taking bribes; but that 40 others might have taken bribes if they had been offered. He thought it was only just to take into consideration the last election of 1868, and that alone, and that it would be unjust to disfranchise those persons who were not actually guilty of corrupt practices. Sligo was as great a
  314
  borough in Ireland as Norwich was in England, yet the Government had not ventured to disfranchise Norwich. He demanded that the same principle should be applied to Sligo as had been applied to Norwich. They had, in fact, no right to disfranchise Sligo.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "inasmuch as the evidence taken before the Royal Commission establishes the fact that corrupt practices did not extensively prevail at the last Election for Sligo Borough, only 14 voters out of a constituency of 520 having, after a most protracted inquiry, been proved guilty of any such practices, the Report of the Commissioners, so far as regards the last Election, was not justified; and, under these circumstances, the House considers the disfranchisement of the Borough should not take place,"—(Colonel French,")
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. WATERSsaid, that having been at the head of the Commission which reported against Cashel, he did not intend to vote upon the question. Compared with other constituencies, he did not think that Sligo had been proved deeply tainted with corrupt practices, as far as bribery was concerned. He found that, in the case of Norwich, 14 per cent of the constituency had been proved to be guilty of bribery, and the bribers only were punished; in the case of Sligo 13 per cent of the constituency had been found guilty of bribery, and the whole borough was disfranchised. The Solicitor General for Ireland relied on the fact that 60 out of 91 corrupt electors in 1865 remained on the register; but it seemed to him that if these corrupt electors, or, rather, those still in the borough, had mended their ways, the result was rather in favour of lenient treatment of the case.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the distinction between the cases of Norwich and Sligo was a very simple one. In the latter case, it was reported by the Commissioners that at the last three elections corrupt practices extensively prevailed; whereas, in the case of Norwich, the Commissioners reported that such practices did not extensively prevail. That distinction was a very material one; and he thought the only course open in the case of Sligo was that of disfranchisement. The present case

  315
  seemed to him to be entirely governed by former precedents. The hon. Member said that 14 per cent of the Norwich voters were found guilty of bribery; but the real number was 184 in a constituency of 12,000.
  MR. RAIKESthought that the Government were scarcely justified in singling out for condemnation Sligo and Cashel, against which but few Petitions had been presented. He asked the House to consider that in Ireland there were 30 boroughs with a population of less than 70,000, returning 13 Members, and that they were asked to disfranchise a borough which contained 12,000 or 13,000, in which only 14 persons were reported to have been guilty of bribery. He thought the House should pause before disfranchising Sligo and Cashel—leaving Youghal and other boroughs, equally corrupt, unscathed.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he would answer several remarks which had been made about the unfortunate borough of Youghal. It was very hard that Youghal should always be picked out for animadversion. No one could show that Youghal was guilty of corruption at previous elections; and even at the last election it was found guilty, not of corrupt practices, but simply of a small trifle of treating. He must protest against the practice of crying down Youghal.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that he moved last year for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at Youghal, where £5,000 had been expended in treating. The circumstance of that Commission not being appointed was no reason why Cashel and Sligo should not be dealt with. He believed that all three boroughs were a disgrace to the representation of Ireland; and that the sooner they were disfranchised the better. If a Division was taken he should certainly vote with the Government.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 23: Majority 135.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  TRUST FUNDS INVESTMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir ROUNDELL PALMER, Bill to amend the Law as to the investment on
  316
  real securities of Trust Funds held for public and charitable purposes, ordered to be brought in by Sir ROUNDELL PALMER and Dr. BALL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 168.]

  RENTS AND PERIODICAL PAYMENTS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir ROUNDELL PALMER, Bill for the better apportionment of Rents and other Periodical Payments, ordered to be brought in by Sir ROUNDELL PALMER and Mr. AMPHLETT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 169.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Local Government Act, 1858," relating to the district of Merthyr Tydvil, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 171.]

  PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Bill to amend the Law relating to certain Processions in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 170.]

  ABSCONDING DEBTORS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MORLEY, Bill to amend the Law relating to Absconding Debtors, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MORLEY, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, and Mr. BARNETT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 172.]
  House adjourned at quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Wages Attachment Abolition* (141).
Second Reading—Irish Land (122), debate resumed and again adjourned.
Committee—Union of Benefices Amendment (1870)*(118–140).

IRISH LAND BILL—(No. 122.)
(The Earl Granville.)
IRISH LAND BILL—(No. 122.)
  SECOND READING.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE. [SECOND NIGHT.]
    Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading [which Amendment was, That the Bill be read a second time this day six months (The Lord Oranmore and Browne)], read: Debate resumed accordingly.
    LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, although by the favour of your Lordships I am
    184
    permitted to follow the speech of the noble Viscount (Viscount Monck) who spoke last in the debate on Tuesday, I can assure your Lordships that I have no intention of following him into those historical researches which at considerable length he laid before the House. The opinions, if we could discover them, of Spenser, of Arthur Young, and of Sir William Petty may be matters of antiquarian curiosity; but the task which we have to discharge is to judge of the condition of Ireland at the present day, and on that question I doubt whether any of those earlier opinions would throw much light. If I depart from that course for a moment, and turn aside to make an observation upon one or two matters of past history, which were touched upon by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the beginning of the debate, it will be merely because I think any misconception or inaccuracy as to those facts may seriously prejudice us in coming to a conclusion on the subject. The noble Earl told us that one of the reasons for comprehensive legislation on the question of landlord and tenant in Ireland was, that the laws of Ireland and those of England on that point diverged very widely, both in spirit and in letter. Now, if this were the fact—and I do not stop to inquire whether it be the fact or not, although I think that what has been said upon the subject is much exaggerated—but, if it were the fact, it appears to me that it, at all events, could not afford a justification for the very special legislation upon which we are engaged. If it be the case that the tenant in Ireland is in a position inferior to that of the tenant in England, that may be a very good reason for bringing up the Irish tenant to the position of the English tenant; but it clearly cannot be a reason for putting the Irish tenant in a position which no English tenant ever dreamed of being in, or ever expected to be in. My Lords, I add one qualification only to that observation. I could, indeed, understand such a course and such an argument if you had it in view at some future time to repeat the process in the converse direction, and because you have raised the Irish tenant immeasurably above the English tenant you are to perform the same good office for the English tenant in turn, and place him at the elevation to which you have

    185
    previously raised the cultivator of the soil in Ireland. The noble Earl made another observation which, if not corrected, might seriously affect the estimation in which I am sure we all desire to see the administration of the law held. The noble Earl said that in England the tendency and the habit of the Judges had been to lean, wherever it was possible, to the side of the tenant, and that customs of a mild kind had sprung up in England under that system of jurisdiction; that, on the other hand, he supposed, at all events, that the Judges in Ireland had taken a stern and unbending view, opposed to the interests of the tenant, and that Judge-made law in this country had thus become more favourable to the tenant than was the case in Ireland. It would, my Lords, be an unfortunate thing if an idea of that kind were to prevail in Ireland. I know that it has been stated before, and stated on authority so high that I am not surprised at the noble Earl taking the statement on trust and repeating it to your Lordships; but I hope the noble Earl will allow me to assure him, and I think I shall satisfy him in a few words that not only is the statement inaccurate, but it is the very reverse of accurate. With regard to the customs of England, they have at all times possessed every proper incident of a legal custom, and when they have come before the Judges, the Judges have had no choice but to give them legal effect. But with respect to what are called customs in Ireland, they never had at any time—they have not at this day, after the lapse of centuries—any one incident of a legal custom; and that they are not established by law in Ireland is owing not to the fact that they were presented to the Courts and decided against by the Judges, but to the fact that everyone was so convinced that they possessed none of the legal incidents of a custom that on no occasion has any one of them been presented to the Courts for decision. Nor does the case end there; because as a matter of history, which is most interesting as bearing directly on the view taken by the noble Earl, at the close of the last century the most frequent tenure which had sprung up in Ireland, and spread over the whole country, was the tenancy for lives, with a covenant for renewal. Owing to the want, on the part of the tenants, either of money or
    186
    of habits of business, those leases had from time to time been omitted to be renewed as the lives fell in; and, according to all the principles of the English law, the right of renewal had become forfeited, and the landlord was in a position by that law to take possession of the property, disregarding the rights of the tenant. So common was this that the Judges of Ireland were struck by the hardship it was occasioning, and there sprung up in that country, and continued for a few years, a course adopted by the Judges—and adopted in direct violation of the law of England—of giving relief to tenants who had failed to renew their leases, and who were at the mercy of their landlords. And what happened? One of those cases in which relief had thus been given was brought over to your Lordships' House; and on whose advice did your Lordships act in the decision you arrived at? On the advice of Lord Mansfield, a man who, of all others, established his fame by having tempered the rigid principles of common law by an admixture of the mildest and most benignant principles of equity. To Lord Mansfield's lot it fell to express an opinion, in the first instance, ort the course taken by the Irish Judges. I shall read one sentence from the opinion of Lord Mansfield. Speaking of the Irish Judges, who are supposed by the noble Earl to have leaned against the tenant, Lord Mansfield said—
    "These sort of cases are not such as deserve support in a Court of Equity. They should be discountenanced as much as possible. They are extremely pernicious and oppressive, and a subject of general complaint to the gentlemen of Ireland, and I am astonished at the indulgence said to be shown in those cases in the Courts of Ireland."
    That was the opinion of Lord Mansfield, on which your Lordships' House acted, reversing the decision which had been pronounced, and Lord Thurlow followed the same line. The consequence was, that a state of terror at the loss of the property of the tenants prevailed in Ireland. Is that an instance in which the Judges in Ireland had borne hardly against the tenant? What happened??—because the matter did not end here. So pressing was the danger in that country that the Irish Parliament—largely, if not altogether, representing the interests of the landlords in Ireland—did what? Did they adhere to the opinion

    187
    of Lord Mansfield and the English lawyers? Not at all. In 1780 an Act was passed called the Tenantry Act—and I must remind the noble Earl of this, if he is under the impression that every statute relating to landlord and tenant in the reign of George III. was made stricter and stricter against the tenant—I would read this sentence from the Preamble of the Act passed in 1780 by a Parliament of Irish landlords—
    "Whereas tenants, and those deriving under them, have frequently neglected to pay or tender the fines within the times prescribed by such covenants … and whereas it has been for a long time a received opinion in this kingdom (of Ireland), to which some decisions in Courts of Equity and declarations of Judges have given countenance, that Courts of Equity would in such cases relieve," &c.
    Then the Act goes on to speak of the terror that was inspired by the decision of your Lordships' House, and the Irish Parliament reversed practically that decision, and declared that for the future relief should be given to tenants under these circumstances. I trust, therefore, that we shall hear no more of the Judge-made law that sprung up in Ireland and ground down the tenant.
    My Lords, I now come to the Bill before us, and I shall endeavour, as slightly as possible, to deal with matters of detail—although, in regard to a Bill of this kind abounding in detail, it is scarcely possible sometimes to avoid touching on matters of detail, if you wish to get at a comprehensive view of the measure. I will deal first with the clauses that cause but little controversy, and which, rightly or wrongly, are called Mr. Bright's Clauses. I wish to say at once that, in my opinion, there is no objection to them in point of principle. If there be an objection to them it is one not of principle, but of policy and expediency. And, my Lords, entertaining that opinion, I am the more bound to declare it, because, if it be true that the parentage of those clauses is such as I have suggested, some countenance might have arisen in the minds of some persons to the idea that clauses of that sort might, perhaps, have been more sweeping in their operation than sound principles would warrant. My Lords, allusion was made the other evening to their effect on the encumbrancers, who, it was suggested, would be endangered by those clauses. I am bound to say that, having looked at them with great care,
    188
    and without pledging myself to every word in them, that I think the interests of the encumbrancers are abundantly protected. But now, as to the policy of these clauses—I say, again, if you are able not only to make, but—what is much more difficult—to retain a body of middle-class occupiers of land in Ireland, who will also be owners and cultivators of the soil, I am persuaded that you will have done a good work. But I am sorry to add that the opinions of those most conversant with that country, to which it is impossible not to give great weight, are almost unvarying that the much greater probability is that the general rule will show you that when one of the occupiers of the land becomes an owner there will be subletting, there will be the transfer of the owner into the coveted position of the landlord; he will occupy perhaps a small part of the holding, but will be a landlord over others for the remainder. But time only can solve that question. We may speculate upon it now as we please. But there are two observations which I have to make on these clauses which, I think, ought to be made now, and on which we are now in a position to judge. The first of those observations is this—Has it occurred to your Lordships to consider, supposing one of these Irish tenants buys his holding, what is to be the condition of the property during the 35 years that must elapse before the purchase-money is fully paid off? Remember, during those 35 years the Government will be the mortgagee of this property. What are the provisions of the Bill on this subject? Permit me to read one very short clause which suggests some most extraordinary reflections. I refer to the 40th clause, relating to purchasers to whom advances have been made. The last paragraph of the clause says—
    "Any holding charged by order of the Landed Estates Court in manner aforesaid shall not, without the consent of the Board, be alienated, assigned, subdivided, or sublet during such time (35 years) as any part of the annuity charged on such holding remains unpaid, and any part of such holding alienated, assigned, subdivided, or sublet in contravention of this section shall be forfeited to the Board, to be held by them for public purposes."
    My Lords, for a third of a century the management of these properties is to be imposed on the Government. Now, let me suppose that these clauses are effec-

    189
    tive, that in the various counties of Ireland you will have tenants buying, it may be, very small holdings—for there is no minimum of limit—you will have this period of 35 years running on: and what is the duty which the Government will have to perform during the time? Those of your Lordships who are acquainted with the position of things in Ireland know what a task it is to prevent subletting or assignment. You know, or your agents would tell you, that it is one of the most difficult operations they have to perform. You will have every possible scheme and device resorted to in order to produce the reality without the appearance of subletting. Now, how is the Board of Works in Dublin to cope with such proceedings of their tenants in every part of the country—proceedings with which local agents would have the greatest difficulty in grappling? And look at the consequences. If subletting be adopted to any great extent, you will have got into a most formidable danger; you will have to consider what you must do with those who have offended, and if you enforce the law you will expose yourselves to all the odium which falls on those who resort to evictions. It is not only the difficulty of the task—but look at the facilities for subletting. Who are the Board of Works? The Board of Works are the Treasury. I say it for this reason, that by the 49th clause the Board of Works are to obey "the orders of the Treasury from time to time;" not merely their general orders, but their orders in each particular case. Therefore, the Board of Works are the mere hands and agents of the Treasury, and the Treasury become the managers of these holdings throughout Ireland. Suppose a case to happen. Suppose one of these holdings is misused in the way pointed out in the Bill. But, in the first place, I would ask, is it possible that any property can be in a wholesome state that is for 35 years inalienable? It is contrary to the first principles of political economy that it should. Well, suppose a tenant dies and has a dozen sons on the farm. Will not that be alienation, and will you treat it as a forfeiture? Suppose the purchase-money is not paid, and you proceed to enforce your forfeiture. My Lords, in that case I do not envy the position of the Treasury. I think I can foresee the first time they
    190
    proceed to forfeiture, the pressure that will be brought to bear on them in Parliament and out of Parliament, and I know not which is the more dangerous. I venture to prophesy, with some confidence, that one of two things will happen, either the whole of these provisions will break down, and you will be obliged to say you cannot enforce their observance, or if you do there will be an outcry in the country, and the Government will assume a position more odious than that of the most disliked Irish landlord. That is one of the objections I have to these clauses; another is this—The greater number of the clauses proceed on the assumption that the landlord agrees to sell and the tenant to purchase. I think there can be no objection whatever to those; but there is one clause which seems to have crept in, under the operation of which something very objectionable may be done—namely, the clause which enables tenants armed with the public money to go into the Landed Estates Court and become bidders for the lands of which they are in possession. If the tenants are able out of their own resources to become bidders, I have not the slightest objection to offer; but what I object to is that tenants should be armed with the money of the State to conduct operations in the Landed Estates Court, which must have the effect of paralyzing all the biddings of the outside public. Do you suppose that if the outside public were to know that the tenants were going with two-thirds of the public money to bid for their holdings they would run the risk—for risk it would be—of outbidding the tenants, and become the owners of an estate the tenants of which would feel that they were defeated competitors? A story was told me, for the accuracy of which I will not vouch, though I have no reason to disbelieve it, which will illustrate what I say. There was an estate sold in the Landed Estates Court within the last few weeks; a tenant was bidding, and the estate went up to 14 years' purchase, upon which the tenant said, in the auction room of the Court—"Fourteen years' purchase! Is it possible that anybody will bid more for this estate when he knows that I am the tenant." I began by saying that, though I have no reason to question the accuracy of the statement, I cannot vouch for it; but

    191
    if it is inaccurate, which I believe it is not, it might very-well happen under this Bill.
    If your Lordships will permit me I will take next two provisions of the measure which seem to me rather excrescences on its general principles than to be part of them or warranted by them. One of these excrescences is the provision with regard to distress. My Lords, with regard to the Law of Distress, and the Law of Hypothec in Scotland, I always believed that those provisions of the law were for the benefit of the small tenants, and I think that opinion of mine is justified by the fact that the great agitators in Scotland against the Law of Hypothec are large tenants, who know very well that if the law were altered the small tenants would no longer be able to compete with them; because, in the absence of that law, terms would have to be imposed which the small tenants would not be able to accept. It is just the same with regard to the Law of Distress in Ireland: so far from its being a hardship to the small tenants it is a benefit to them, and if you do away with that law the landlord will have to impose other and private arrangements which the tenant will find still more hard to bear. The Devon Commission, which was favourable to the tenant, if I remember rightly, reported strongly for maintaining the Law of Distress. There are some persons, no doubt—outside creditors—who profess to be injured by the Law of Distress; they say that it gives the landlord a kind of charge on the property of the tenant, and in dealing with the tenant they suffer because they come after the landlord has made good his claim. But this Bill seems to me to produce all the evils of the Law of Distress without any benefit whatever; because what it does is not to abolish the Law of Distress, but to allow a private arrangement creating a right of the landlord to distrain under certain circumstances, thus prejudicing in a serious way the outside creditors, who will be kept in ignorance to the last, while it gives no benefit to the tenant. The other matter, which I think an excrescence on the general principles of the Bill, and which I hope your Lordships will not think it inconsistent with those principles to modify, is the mode in which notice to quit is dealt with. I
    192
    could perfectly well understand that if you were giving no other protection to the tenant, except the enlargement of the period of notice to quit, it might be a form, though not a good one, of giving that protection. But in the earlier part of the Bill you give the tenant protection for improvements, protection for occupancy, and protection for any customary rights he possesses. The Government tells us, and I believe correctly, that to be a perfect and complete protection to the tenant, and with it I dare say he will no longer be subject to any of those evils to which he has been said hitherto to be liable. But if that be so, what possible reason can you give for establishing a difference in the law of the two countries—for making the notice to quit run for 12 months in Ireland, while it runs for only six months in England? I see no advantage, but the greatest possible disadvantage in that, because in the only cases in which you say there ought to be eviction—namely, for improper management or improper conduct—you are going to give the tenant an opportunity for twelve months of cruelly injuring the farm he is about to leave; whereas, I believe, every noble Lord who has any experience of Ireland will bear me out when I say that six months would be abundantly sufficient for that operation.
    My Lords, I come now to what I may term the forensic part of the Bill—I mean the Courts and Judges who are to exercise the powers which the measure proposes to give. And here I wish to say that, so far as I can form an opinion, I think the Government were right in adopting the Civil Bill Judges, or Assistant Barristers in the counties of Ireland, as the primary Judges in these matters; I am perfectly alive to the inconvenience that might result from having 33 Judges proceeding, it might be, many of them, upon principles somewhat confused. I speak of the Assistant Barristers with great respect, yet I should be glad to have Judges of higher judicial standing and perhaps with more special training for subjects of this kind. But I believe, without creating a judicial staff which would be wholly unjustified by any amount of litigation I hope which will arise, this could not be done. I think, therefore, the Government were justified in the course they have proposed. Here, again, my Lords, having made

    193
    that admission, I want to point out three serious objections to the arrangements in the Bill with regard to the Judges, and with regard to the settlement of disputes which may arise between landlords and their tenants. Now, it can hardly be intended—indeed, I am told that the Prime Minister has said it is not intended—but it is certainly the effect of the Bill at the present moment, that after a tenant has made a claim against his landlord, and the landlord has made his counter claim, they cannot settle the matter between themselves, even if willing to do so, but must take it into Court—the matter cannot be settled in any other way except by the Court. What makes me think that this was not intended is this—Where the Bill deals with limited owners it allows the tenant for life to settle any disputed matter in any manner he pleases; but when you come to the absolute owner, he is not to be permitted to settle the matter without going into Court. Now the next objection I have is this—and here I may say I cannot imagine that the effect of the Bill can have been foreseen by the Government. The constitution of the Civil Bills Courts in Ireland is such that if a Judge or Assistant Barrister chooses he may have any question of fact decided by a jury. But the jury of the Civil Bill Courts is a jury of a singular kind—it is called "a jury of by-standers," consisting of as few as 3 or as many as 12. Now, I imagine that when some of these trials are being held, with a view to determine the custom of some of the estates in Ireland, the "by-standers" would probably consist of tenants of the estate, and it occurs to me that to empanel three of these persons to try a question of fact as to the custom of the estate would be a process anything but satisfactory. My next objection is this—You are certainly imposing on these Civil Bill Judges a duty such as I believe was never imposed upon a Judge before. Let me read to you what is called the Equities Clause of the Bill—
    "On the hearing of any dispute between landlord and tenant under this Act, either party may make any claim, urge any objection to the claim of the other, or plead any set-off such party may think fit (including in the case of a landlord any moneys paid on account of the purchase of the right of the tenant under the Ulster tenant-right custom or such usage as aforesaid), and the Court shall take into consideration any such claim, objection, or set-off, also any such default or unreasonable conduct of either party as may appear to the Court to affect any matter in dis-
    194
    pute between the parties, and shall admit, reduce, or disallow altogether any such claim, objection, or set-off made or pleaded on behalf of either party as the Court thinks just, giving judgment on the case with regard to all its circumstances, including such consideration of conduct as aforesaid, and the Court shall have jurisdiction at the hearing of any such dispute to ascertain what sums, if any, shall be deemed due by the tenant to the landlord under sections three, four, and six of this Act, or any set-off in respect of unliquidated or liquidated damages under said sections, or any of them; and in any case in which compensation shall be claimed under section three of this Act, if it shall appear to the Court that the landlord has been and is willing to permit the tenant to continue in the occupation of his holding upon just and reasonable terms, and that such terms have been and are unreasonably refused by the tenant, the claim of the tenant to such compensation shall be disallowed."
    Certainly, I repeat, there never has been such a task before imposed upon any set of Judges. I only hope that they will be able to discharge it. When it was proposed "elsewhere," as I understand, to define the duties of the Judges—to give them some directions as to the principles on which they are to proceed—it was said—"If you attempt to define them, you will only narrow their jurisdiction. The difficulty of defining is so great, it is better to leave them to deal with matters as they arise in the best way they can." I am willing to accept that as the best solution of this clause; but it appears to me to involve a consequence not fully apprehended. If you impose upon the Judges the task of considering all the questions in this manner, I contend it is absolutely necessary that you should learn from the Judge on the face of his award or judgment—I will not say the principles upon which he has proceeded, but the various items of claims on one side and upon the other of which he has taken cognizance. Because you must remember you are ordering the Judge to take a debtor and creditor account—for that is really what it comes to; and if the Judge is allowed, as he may do under this Bill, to lump the matter and give you a certain sum as the result of his judgment, you will never know what questions have been considered by the Judge, and—what is still more serious—when the question comes before the appellate tribunal for review, there will be no point of contact between the Judge of the Appellate Court and the Judge of the Court below. Their minds will be running in parallel lines, never approaching each other.

    195
    But I will leave this question, and come now to what I may term the three cardinal principles of the Bill, which I will endeavour to deal with as briefly as possible. These are the customs of Ulster and similar customs; the compensation for improvements; and the payment for disturbance in occupancy. With regard to the customary right of Ulster, I am certainly not going to trouble your Lordships with any opinion of mine, or with any argument upon its merits or demerits. I do not, however, by any means agree in the view that the custom of Ulster is the source of the prosperity of Ulster. I believe it would be more correct to say that the prosperity of Ulster was the source of the custom. I believe that the custom will be found to have sprung from the greater abundance of money in that Province and from the laxity of the agents, who found it extremely convenient to have a species of reservoir of money which they could come upon when the tenant went to the wall. The incoming tenant had money to pay, and thus the landlord's claims were satisfied. But as the custom exists it is quite right to legalize it. But here again, my Lords, let me point out how the Bill may cause serious injustice. It was not in the Bill originally, but there has come into the Bill a provision by which a man holding a farm under the custom of Ulster may throw overboard and abandon the custom of the Province, and may claim compensation under the other provisions of the Bill with the leave of the Court. Now, at first sight that appears to be a very strong provision; because if the custom of Ulster prevails upon that holding it is part of the contract upon which the farm is taken, and which regulates the relation between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord is bound by this custom, and it is only one-sided legislation to say that while the landlord must be bound by it the tenant may abandon it and adopt a different provision in order to obtain compensation. But I go further. Wherever the custom of Ulster prevails under this Bill there is no compensation for improvements, because the sum paid under the custom is supposed to cover everything. That is quite right. If a farm is under the custom of Ulster the landlord need not trouble to keep any account of the improvements, showing which were made
    196
    by himself and which by the tenant, because he knows that the sum he will have to pay will be paid irrespective of improvements, and will cover everything; but if a claim is to be made under other parts of the Bill it will be the landlord's duty to watch vigilantly every improvement, so as to be prepared to meet any claim that may be made upon him—for under this Bill he is to be left in perfect ignorance, until the time comes, under what portion of the Bill it is that the claim will be made, and then perhaps he will find that he has kept no account. It is rather hard to enact that a landlord shall never know precisely what the relations between himself and his tenant are—they are to be at the option of the tenant himself. Now, this is what I dare say many of your Lordships know to be a common case. There are what are called the conditions or "rules of the estate." These rules are printed and hung up in the office. Everybody knows what they are, and every tenant has a copy—he knows that these rules are the conditions upon which his farm is let, the same as if they were contained in a lease and signed by himself. Now, by this Bill you bind the landlord to those rules, but you allow the tenant to tear the whole thing to pieces, to fling it away and to say—"I claim under an entirely different principle." Now, this is a matter that ought not to be allowed to remain as it is. What I think ought to be done is this—that the tenant should not have leave to throw aside his first obligation under the custom of Ulster, unless the Court is satisfied that his doing so will involve no injustice or breach of contract towards the landlord. If that is done it will be rather a rough sort of thing, but no great harm will occur. I now come to the compensation for improvements; but I shall detain your Lordships but a very short time on that point, because there is scarcely anything to be said on the subject. The question is one that has been much discussed of late years. It has been a question of great doubt and much argument; but I can speak with perfect frankness upon it, because I recollect, when I was a very young Member of the House of Commons—in 1853—and again in 1855, when Tenants Compensation Bills were brought before the House, I put upon the Notice Paper a clause for the pur-

    197
    pose of giving retrospective compensation to tenants. Perhaps I am unduly prejudiced in favour of my own offspring; but I must say that I think it was a better clause than I have seen since, and I wish sincerely that that clause, or something like it, had been adopted at that time, for then we should have had done long before this time with the question of retrospective improvements. It has always seemed to me a very much less dangerous thing to compensate a tenant for improvements which he could not have made in times past, except at the peril of losing them, than it might turn out to be to compensate him for improvements in the future, which he might be tempted to make somewhat recklessly when he was sure of compensation for them. I am very glad this question is now going to be settled, but I think we ought to be very careful about one view of the matter. We must keep the question of compensation for improvements entirely distinct from the question of payment for disturbance in occupation. I say this because I have observed—I do not say in your Lordships' House, but "elsewhere"—that scarcely anyone commences to speak upon the subject of the relations between landlords and tenants in Ireland and the necessity for this Bill, or other strong legislation, without immediately going off into the subject of the hardship alleged to have been suffered by tenants who have made improvements on their holdings and have not been compensated. That was the staple of the speech of the noble Earl (Earl Russell), who is not in his place now, but who spoke the other night on this question. The noble Earl gave us the history of case after case where tenants had made, or said they had made, improvements, and whose rents had been raised or who had been turned out of their holdings without compensation. A good many of these cases, I am bound to say, as having some acquaintance with Ireland, were utterly incredible; but if they had all been perfectly accurate, I say, with all submission, that it was beating the air for the noble Earl to dwell upon them, for no one disputes that that is an evil which must be cured. Being agreed upon that, will your Lordships allow me to mention only two matters in this Bill with regard to compensation for improvements which appear to me to be open to exception? This is one point—
    198
    Your Lordships will find that improvements made before the passing of this Act are to be dealt with in a manner extremely different from improvements to be made afterwards, and I cannot conjecture the reasons for the difference. This is what the Judge is to do according to Clause 4 of the Bill—
    "Where a tenant has made any improvements before the passing of this Act on a holding held by him under a tenancy existing at the time of the passing thereof, the Court in awarding compensation to such tenant in respect of such improvements shall, in reduction of the claim of the tenant, take into consideration the time during which such tenant may have enjoyed the advantage of such improvements, also the rent at which such holding has been held, and any benefits which such tenant may have received from his landlord in consideration, expressly or impliedly, of the improvements so made."
    I think that is quite fair; for I cannot imagine any sound principle upon which, with regard to improvements, you ought not to take into account the length of time during which they have been enjoyed, and I think we must agree that there must be some length of enjoyment which must entirely obliterate any claim by the tenant in respect of his improvements, though we may differ as to what that length of time may be. Now, I want to know why this principle is not to be applied to the case of improvements made after the passing of the Act, and I have looked to the Bill for a reply in vain. My other objection, I am sorry to say, is much more serious, for I am coming to speak upon a clause in reference to improvements which is, I think, entirely foreign to the principles of the Bill, and which, if it were to become law, would, in my opinion, work rank and positive injustice—I allude to the 5th clause, which changes the law as to presumption. Let us remember that there is no use arguing how far tenants have made improvements and how far they have not, for we have in our possession some facts concerning them. We know that within a very moderate number of years past £2,000,000, borrowed from the State and repaid, has been expended upon the improvement of land in Ireland; and Dr. Longfield—than whom there is no one more capable of giving a trustworthy statement or opinion on the subject—has stated that almost all the arterial drainage, and a great part of the subsidiary drainage in Ireland has been done by the owners of land. We know further that at the time

    199
    of the Devon Commission, when the operations of landlords were not so far advanced as they have since become, all the buildings upon 22 estates—and those some of the largest in the country—were erected at the expense of the landlords. And we know, also, that last year it was told of a great man, whose loss we so much lament, that the value of the fee simple of his Irish estates had, in the conrse of a limited number of years, been expended in the improvement of those estates. Now what are we asked to do in regard to this question of presumption? We are asked to declare that unless the landlord can prove that improvements on his estate have been made by himself, it shall be presumed that they have been made by the tenant. Was there ever in the course of legislation anything like this clause? So strongly was this felt "elsewhere" that a modification had to be made, but it was only to apply to the past; and what, after all, was it? It was proposed that this presumption was not to apply where there had been a sale of the property, and a conveyance from the vendor to the purchaser—the idea being, I suppose, that if there had been a sale the purchaser would not know much about what had been done by those who had been on the land before, and would have no means of informing himself. But take a case where there has been no sale, but where the property has descended from father to son—where improvements have been made by the landlord from time to time, and where the landlord has taken no account of those improvements—I do not mean that he has taken no account of what he has expended upon the estate, but no account of the particular improvements made in particular cases, and at particular times. In such a case the agent may have removed to another part of the country; there may be no bailiff alive who was alive when the improvements were made—and yet a tenant might come into court, and without offering a scrap of evidence on the subject, say to the Judge—"I am the tenant of this estate, and you are ordered to presume that every improvement made upon my farm has been made by myself. Here are the improvements, and now let the landlord show that I did not make them, and that he did." Yet that is the effect of the legislation proposed with regard to the past. Now let me
    200
    pass on to consider what is proposed in regard to the future. My first objection in regard to that is, that in creating a presumption in law such as I have described you will be doing all that is in your power to make the reality tally with the presumption. I know it has been said that the tenant would be placed at a great disadvantage by the adoption of any other rule, because he would have difficulty in preserving evidence of the improvements that have been made, while the landlord has none. I maintain, my Lords, that the exact opposite of this is the case; the tenant has nearly the whole of the facilities, and the landlord has hardly any. The tenant has his own family, who are the living witnesses of what is done upon his farm, and he has his neighbours, who would be only too ready to testify in his favour: but in what position is the landlord? He may live miles away, and his agent may visit the estate not more than twice a year, so how can he bring forward evidence? He may be a new agent, who has only a general knowledge of the estate—or the agent may be dead. It is said that the landlord might keep books, but books would not be evidence in a Court; and therefore I say that it is the tenant and not the landlord who has the greatest facilities for keeping evidence as to improvements effected on an estate.
    I have now, my Lords, said all I meant to say on the question of compensation for improvements; and I now come to the great principle of the Bill contained in the 3rd clause. Let me ask your Lordships' careful attention to this clause, which is about as serious a matter as ever was attempted by legislation. Whatever course your Lordships think it right to take, do, I implore your Lordships, at all events understand distinctly what the clause is. It may very possibly be that, after understanding it fully and clearly, you may think it right to give your assent to it; but, at all events, let us understand distinctly what it is, and what will be the effect of it. The effect of the operation of this clause may be described in a few words. It is this—It is a clause that gives to every man who comes into the occupation of land as a tenant—wholly irrespective of any improvements, wholly irrespective of the length of time he may be in oqcupation—the right to say that

    201
    he is not to be removed from the occupation of that land, although the terms of his tenancy would justify his removal, unless he be paid a number of years' rent, which may vary from seven to five or four; and it is a clause that gives this as an absolute right to the tenant, which no contract is to defeat. Let me put to your Lordships a very short case; and, in doing so, I will not forget that although I speak of a number of years' rent, I use the term for shortness merely, and that it may be cut down by cross claims according to a later section of the Bill. Now, I am quite sure that noble Lords opposite have persuaded themselves—because they have said so—that this claim does not in any way infringe or trench on the rights of property. I place a tenant in possession of a farm last year, for which he pays me £20 a year rent. I find by experience that although I cannot say that he is a condemned malefactor—which would make it a flagrant shame to continue him in the farm—he is an unsuitable tenant, being without industry, and not having any knowledge of agriculture, the farm is going to ruin in his hands. Acting on my judgment, I give him notice to quit. The notice will expire in November next year. By that time he will have been two years in occupation. He has not made a single improvement on the farm; he has paid me during the time he has occupied it £40 rent, and he is to leave the farm, if I have no set-off against him, the possessor of £100 of my money. That will be the operation of the Bill as it stands. I know noble Lords opposite say this is not restricting my rights of property, because the law says you may turn the man out. Yes, it allows me to purchase him out. I ask this—Suppose the enactment said—You shall pay, not five, but 20 years' rent, the full value of the fee simple, would not that be an interference with the rights of property? But you say—"We do not disturb you in the possession of the property." You allow me the first option of purchasing my property; but you say I shall only have to pay the first quarter of the price. I own it appears to me beyond the power of imagination to conceive how any persons, however much they may approve this clause, can deceive themselves for a moment with the idea that it is not an interference with the rights of property.
    202
    Now, my Lords, there has been a good deal of literature on the Irish land question, and one of the most intelligent works that have appeared on the subject has been written by Mr. Campbell, who has brought his knowledge of the settlement of land claims in India to bear on this question. Mr. Campbell's book has received great praise from the Prime Minister; it proposes something like the principles of settlement which was adopted with the ryots in India, who had rights connected with the occupancy of the soil from which they were not to be disturbed without payment. I turn with pleasure to the frankness with which Mr. Campbell expresses himself on the subject of proposals of this kind. Allow me to read to your Lordships two passages from Mr. Campbell's work. He says—
    "I must begin by expressing my belief that no petty measure will in any degree satisfy the Irish. If they are offered anything short of large and substantial concessions, the expectations which have been excited will have led to more harm than good. I do not think that any mere improvement of the law of contract can possibly operate as a great concession—that has already been tried without success. … It may be that you may take from one and give to another in such a way as to benefit him to whom is given without really injuring him from whom is taken; just as a man who is oppressed by two coats may feel all the lighter and easier when he has been compelled to give one to him who has none; but from his point of view there is confiscation of property nevertheless. In this view it would only be possible to argue that a moderate measure of confiscation would eventually be beneficial to all parties."
    Then, talking of the same subject, again he says—
    "It comes then to this, that there can be no settlement of the question without something which would be called confiscation on one side or other; unless, indeed, resort is had to a third plan, to which I, for one, should strongly object—the expenditure of British money. It is to this last plan that I especially object: and it is because the schemes put forward by the most distinguished of advanced Liberals, Mr. Bright and Mr. Mill, are in the main of this character, that I think something else must be devised."
    I think that very practical and candid. I understand exactly what that means. It means you must do one of two things. You must either satisfy the Irish tenants by giving them a slice of the property of the landlords, or you must satisfy the landlords with English money. I object to giving English money; ergo, the alternative is inevitable—the landlord must pay. I have listened with great anxiety

    203
    to hear by what arguments the principle of this clause would be supported; because I can assure your Lordships I have approached this clause with no prejudice whatever. I have been sincerely anxious to find any arguments by which it could be supported as a matter of principle, and not as a matter of mere rough expediency. But what do I find? The Secretary of State, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who spoke on Tuesday evening, adduced no arguments whatever in its favour. They entirely omitted to do so. The Secretary of State said it was intended to prevent capricious evictions. But what does capricious eviction mean? Suppose I have a farm in Ireland ill-cultivated and unproductive, but it would be extremely suitable as a grazing farm, and, in order to make it so, I propose to remove the tenant and consolidate it into a grazing farm by itself—would that be a capricious eviction? If I understand what capricious eviction means, it is an eviction out of mere caprice. I recollect—but many of your Lordships recollect, no doubt, better than I do—at the time of the debates on the Corn Law Repeal Bill, Sir Robert Peel, dealing with the case of Ireland, said it was no doubt a very hard thing for Ireland not being a manufacturing country; but, he said—"I wish really that landlords would make up their minds upon this point—Ireland does not produce very good corn; but it has infinite resources as a pasture country, and they ought to make up their minds, because it is the true principle of free trade, to use the land for the productions it is best suited for." He said they must make up their minds, and turn their land into pasture. Well, then, the landlords proceed on that principle; and will they be told that is capricious eviction? I do not think, therefore, that the discouragement of capricious eviction is a sufficient argument in favour of this clause. What was the other argument of the Secretary of State in its favour? I do not know whether it was meant as an argument or not, but he said the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act in England provided for the reimbursement of the tenant for the loss of his occupation. There is not the slightest foundation for that argument. The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act does nothing of the sort. Under it, if an undertaking like a rail-
    204
    way wishes to take any land it must settle with the landlord, and then give a notice for a definite term to the tenants. If the railway company wait until the term of notice has run out, then it takes possession without paying the tenant a farthing of compensation; but if the railway being in a great hurry, desires to have the land immediately, it then, as according to all principles of justice it is bound, pays the tenants for their loss of occupation during the period their tenancy would continue by law. It does not follow, however, that because it is proper to compensate those who are disturbed in their rightful possession, that therefore it is proper to compensate a tenant for an unlawful occupation continuing beyond the rightful period. A noble Earl (Earl Russell) said the other night that the Bill, in his opinion, was so good that he would vote for it without listening to any Amendments or improvements. That was the strongest Parliamentary statement I ever heard fall from any public man in a deliberative Assembly. The noble Earl went on to state that it is not sufficient to compensate for improvements, for he said, there is a tacit understanding when a landlord lets his land that, when a tenant makes improvements, the landlord will not confiscate those improvements, but will allow the tenant to recoup himself by continued occupation; and he said that the mere payment of the value of the improvements was not enough. Well, if it were true that there is that tacit understanding, that circumstance does not afford a justification for this clause; for a glance will show that the clause is not intended to give compensation for the loss of an occupation which the tenant may have improved, but compensation for loss of an occupation of any kind, even where the tenant has made no improvements at all. Therefore, that argument falls to the ground. It has been said "elsewhere" that compensation must be given, because if these small tenants were turned out they would have no resource but America or the workhouse. My Lords, I dispute that assertion, and I say with respect to tenants who do not hold more than 20 acres they would thrive much better as labourers. They have a labour market in Ireland where wages are rising, and if that resource fails him a few shillings will transport him to the great labour

    205
    market of America, which he can reach more freely than a labourer from Dorsetshire. But if it is so, why is not the same argument applied to the labourer? The labourers are as numerous and more helpless than the farmers, and I want to know on what principle you propose to compensate the farmer and refuse to compensate the labourer. With regard to the restriction on the freedom of contract the noble Earl says that the law of England interferes with many contracts. Undoubtedly there are certain contracts with which the law does interfere—wherever it is a question of life, or the loss of life, the law steps in and says you shall not give full effect to such contracts. But in other matters contracts are undoubtedly left free. The noble Earl (the Secretary for the Colonies) referred to the Truck Act, and said that he was an employer of labour, and that it would be convenient for him to supply some of his labourers with provisions; but he was prevented from doing so by the Truck Act. Now, that is not the case, the Truck Act does not interfere with contracts. What the Truck Act says is this—you may contract with your labourers for any amount of wages, high or low, but having made the contract you must pay the stipulated wages in money—not in that which is not money. The noble Earl, if he only pays his labourers in money, may set up a store in their neighbourhood, and the labourers may go there and purchase their provisions. The noble Earl also referred to the case of cabs. Now, with respect to them, I believe the noble Earl and anybody else in London would find it difficult to say what the law really is; but I was under the impression that, under recent legislation or by the rules which the Home Secretary has thought it desirable to establish, there now existed free trade in cabs, and that a cabdriver would be allowed to contract to convey a person for what sum he pleased. But I wish the noble Earl to observe the principle contained in his illustration. The principle on which the law has interfered with cabs is, that the trade was a monopoly, and in return it is required that no more than a certain fare should be charged. All this is—if it had fallen from any other than the noble Earl, I should have said—mere rubbish in support of the Bill.
    206
    My Lords, I have said nothing yet of the course I intend to take. So far as I am concerned, whatever course I may take there is one thing I will not be guilty of—I will not assert, what in my case would be the hypocritical assertion, that this clause is founded on a sound principle, and that it contains no interference with the rights of property—I believe that it does interfere with the rights of property. Yet I cannot venture to ask your Lordships to reject the Bill. I do not claim to speak on the part of the landlords of Ireland. I speak simply from what I have observed in public, and from what has fallen from them in their speeches both in the other House and here. I have heard what I think is greatly to their honour—language such as that held by the landlords of Leland. They say—"We have strong objections to this clause; but at the same time we feel that it is not our custom to evict our tenants under the circumstances which, under the action of this Bill, would be treated as a breach of the law. Not only so, but when we are compelled, by arrangement of our property or otherwise, to evict a tenant, we are in the habit, as a matter of charity and kindness, to look to the condition of those persons in the world, and to aid them as far as it is in our power. We do not admit that what we have done under the promptings of kindness and forbearance should be converted into a rule of positive obligation; but if it is thought desirable for the proper adjustment of the relations of the country that this should be done, we are not unwilling that the experiment should be tried." I think this is a sound view on the part of the Irish landlords, and that it does them great credit. On principles of this kind—on concessions of this kind—I think this clause might be submitted to. It makes an exceptional case; it converts into positive precept that which was never before made a rule of law. They continue—"But while we are willing to admit the general effect and operation of this clause, we think it ought to be so guarded as that we shall not, by means of it, be excluded from the management of our own property." My Lords, there are some considerations which make me doubt whether, if this clause is passed into law, it will have a wholesome effect upon the tenants, and especially upon those whom you most

    207
    wish, to protect; because as soon as you draw a sharp line, defining a rule of conduct for landlords and tenants, the natural tendency of the landlord will be not to go beyond that line. He will say—"My duty is defined by Act of Parliament, even in those affairs which were previously matters of charity and kindness, and that absolves me; to that line of duty I will adhere; and I will go no further." I fear, also, it will have another effect—namely, that no mercy will be shown to tenants who are in arrear with their rent; for this Bill says that eviction for non-payment of rent is the only cause for which a landlord shall escape payment to the tenant of compensation for the loss of his occupancy. Again, the tendency of this Bill will be to raise rents throughout Ireland; for it is the concurrent testimony of all persons that, as a general rule, the land of Ireland is let under its value. Depend upon it, if you put this obligation on the landlords, they will secure themselves against the possibility of having to make an expenditure of this kind by taking the first opportunity to raise rents to the highest point. You will by this Bill give the tenants in Ireland an idea that they have a kind of charge connected with their tenancy, by their being entitled in certain contingencies to receive a sum of money varying from £50 to £250, and that idea will not be less permanent in their minds because the circumstances under which the money becomes payable are only contingent—they will consider themselves as much entitled to it as the tenants in Ulster do now. The consequence, I fear, will be that they will seek to discount that charge; they will part with their farms, and get from the in-comer a sum in respect of this charge that you have put upon the occupation; they will then go off to America or elsewhere, and when the time comes that the contingency does arise, and circumstances may lead to an eviction, the incomers will get nothing at all except the repayment of the money they have given to their predecessor, and which, in all probability they had borrowed from some banker in the neighbourhood. There is one other consequence of this measure which some may think good and some bad; but I believe the tendency of the measure will be the consolidation of farms. You seek to protect the small
    208
    farmers who hate the very idea of consolidation; but you will find that the consolidation of those small farms will, under this Bill, go on at a much more rapid rate than it ever did before.
    I wish now to point out some clear and distinct defects in these clauses of which your Lordships have an absolute right to call for amendment. I shall not now go into the scale of compensation; but I hope we shall have some explanation of that which Lord Aberdeen would have called a conundrum, by which the tenant is entitled to drop from one scale to a lower. If it means anything it means this—that tenants on a low rent shall have greater protection than tenants on a higher rent. But here we have a proposition that if a man sits at a rent of £51, which under the scale would entitle him to two years' compensation, or £102, he may drop down, by the mere force of his own imagination—for there is nothing real in the transaction—to a rent of £49 and then he can claim three years' compensation, or £147. This is one of the drollest things I ever saw in an Act of Parliament. Let me now say a word as to the 31 years' lease. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) seems to think it is a compensation for improvements. It is nothing of the kind—the tenant gets the whole value of his improvement in any case. But what it does is this—It was proposed in the other House that a landlord might offer to give a man a lease in lieu of compensation. To this it was rightly rejoined a mere lease may be for one year or three years—it might be nominal, and therefore a sham; therefore the real question was, what is a reasonable lease? It must be no mere illusion—it must be something solid and practical. Can anybody deny that a 21 years' lease is a full and substantial one? There is a provision in this Bill that the loss of occupancy caused by the non-payment of rent shall not be that disturbance which entitles a man to compensation. The noble Earl, in introducing this Bill, glanced at that measure with his usual lightness of style, and bounded off so quickly that I could hardly catch the words he used; but I find there is a provision in the Bill which says that eviction for the non-payment of rent is not to be disturbance unless the rent was exorbitant. The Government proposal, therefore, is that when-

    209
    ever a tenant fails to pay his rent, and chooses to enter into a controversy with his landlord as to whether his rent was or was not too high, he is to be at liberty to try to persuade a Court that he is an injured man, and the Court may order the landlord to pay so many years' rent to a man who cannot pay his rent—the landlord is to be made to pay compensation calculated on a rent he has not received—a proposition which is so droll that I can hardly speak of it with gravity. Allow me to read a few sentences on this point from a very good authority—Dr. Longfield—
    "It should ever be remembered that it is a dishonest act for a man to make a contract which he does not believe that he can fulfil. The man who has obtained possession of a farm by promising a rent which he cannot afford to pay has committed a dishonest act. He has done wrong to the landlord, from whom he has obtained possession of the land on false pretences; and he has done wrong to the competitors for the farm whom he has outbid; and he has no just claim to have a law made to reduce his rent and give him an advantage over his more honest competitors."
    Only imagine what might be the case of such a tenant. He might go into Court and say—"My landlord is ejecting me for non-payment of my rent—but my rent is exorbitant; I cannot pay so much and live upon the farm; it is positive cruelty to exact a rent of this amount from me, for no one could pay so much and provide for his wife and family. I therefore implore you to judge, now that I am going to be evicted from my farm, to say that my rent was exorbitant, and compensate me for my loss in being deprived of a farm the rent of which is so exorbitant that no one could live upon it." Landlords have, I repeat, a right to ask Parliament not to deprive them of the management of their estates as to those purposes which are conducive to the general good of the country. There are two other points in this Bill to which I must allude—namely, the letting in con-acre and the subletting of farms for the purpose of labourers' houses. Subletting at conacre without the consent of the landlord should deprive the tenant of his claim to the bonus given under this clause. With regard to labourers' cottages, if you wanted to introduce a provision to facilitate subletting of the worst kind, you could not have found a more effectual way of doing it than you have in this Bill. Under it, I defy any owner
    210
    or agent of property to prevent subletting under this provision. You will always have a mud but or hovel built on a farm, with a piece of land attached to it; the son will be a labourer on the holding, with a cottage and a piece of land; his wages will be the right to cultivate one or two fields, and you will have subletting with a vengeance. His family will increase in course of time, and they will have to be dealt with in some way or other. And supposing the man ceases to be a labourer, what will you do with him—how are you to turn him out? I repeat, that it is utterly impossible to have this provision in the Bill, and to prevent subletting—and I would ask, what is the necessity for it? Landlords in Ireland know their own interests as well as other men, and if proposals are made to them to build labourers' cottages of a proper kind they will do it, without any legislative compulsion. You may safely leave that duty to them. Let me also, for a single moment, remind you of the present position of the landlords in Ireland, with reference to the great bulk of their tenants—those, I mean, who have yearly holdings. Such a tenant is at perfect liberty to assign his tenancy to any person he pleases. It is a thing unknown—or at least of very rare occurrence—to introduce any stipulation for the prevention of assignment, because, at present, the landlord has the remedy in his own hands. If the assignment were made to an improper person, the landlord has merely to give him notice, and to get rid of him. I believe that that system works most beneficially in Ireland. I believe that there is nothing which has a more wholesome influence upon the relations between the landlords and tenants than the system of careful selection which exists on all well-managed estates, by which careful, industrious, intelligent, and honest men are chosen as tenants. But what will happen under the Bill? I will put a case. I let a farm, a few years ago, from year to year, to a man who seemed to me to be industrious and frugal, with a little capital, a fair knowledge of agriculture, and a good character. In the course, however, of four or five years, he takes it into his head to go to America; or he gets a farm that he likes better in another part of the country; and he assigns my farm to another per-

    211
    son, against whom I cannot say there is anything that I could substantiate in open Court as criminal in any sense, yet I may know him to be a lazy man, not to be a good farmer, not to be of good habits, and though I cannot prove it, I may suspect him to be a Fenian. Yet I cannot disturb that man, although I never chose him as a tenant, and he is the last man that I should choose. I cannot remove him, unless I am prepared to pay him on this scale of compensation for disturbance. Is that fair? I say it is not. Nor is it even within the principle of the clause, which I assume to be a good one—namely, that the tenant is not to be capriciously or arbitrarily evicted. But suppose you have a man on your estate whom you have some good cause for evicting; after you have come to dispute with him, and you are about to go into Court with him, he might then assign his tenancy, and produce in Court an antagonist different from himself, with whom you would have to fight the case. Now, I say the mode of remedying this is quite simple. It is, to provide in this clause that wherever there has been an assignment of the tenancy, and the landlord has not accepted the new tenant, there should be no right to compensation under the clause—that is to say, no right to compensation for the loss of occupancy; not that there should be any forfeiture of improvements, or of payment for any work done on the land; but that there should be given none of this bonus which is intended for the regulation of the landlord's dealings with his own tenants, and not of those with tenants whom he never accepted.
    My Lords, I have now endeavoured to lay before you, at much length, the views which I entertain in regard to this important measure, and also the Amendments in it which I think ought to be made. I say, with great sincerity, with a full persuasion of the truth of what I say, that I think there is not one of the Amendments that I have mentioned which is not in perfect harmony with the principles of this Bill, or, as to which, it could be fairly alleged that it is an Amendment which would get rid of or neutralize any of the cardinal principles of the measure. The noble Earl (the Lord Privy Seal) said that for the purpose of effecting the pacification of Ireland Parliament would not
    212
    shrink from any sacrifice. My Lords, when I think of the provisions of this Bill, and of whose property it is on which it proposes to operate, I cannot help reflecting that the sacrifice approaches to something of a vicarious character. There is no doubt that in the course of the progress of this measure there have been considerable sacrifices made. It must, for instance, have been a great sacrifice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have read backwards the very eloquent speech which I remember hearing him deliver some two or three years ago in "another place," in which he said that after thoroughly studying the Irish land question, and serving on a Committee and examining witnesses, he had come to the opinion that there was no Irish land grievance; that the rights of property of the landlord were rights over the soil, and that if you took any of them away you would pro tanto take away his property in the soil; when he also said that it was contrary to natural justice that the tenant should be compensated for improvements made without the landlord's consent, and further, that if it was necessary to maintain firmly the principles of political economy in England, it was ten times more necessary to maintain them in Ireland. It must have cost a good deal to swallow all that. It must have cost a great deal to noble Lords opposite to persuade themselves that the provisions of this Bill are wholly in accordance with the declarations they made in this House last year that any measure on this subject which they would bring in would be entirely consistent with the rights of property. It must have cost much to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Dufferin) to have forgotten the principles enunciated in the able and logical treatises on this question which we must all have read with pleasure. It must have cost the great Liberal party much, I do not say to have swallowed, but to have devoured with avidity, at the bidding of one man, the whole of the favourite doctrines and principles of their school on the subject of free contract. These must all, my Lords, have been considerable sacrifices. But if this Bill should pass into law there will have been made a sacrifice greater even than any of these. If, as the noble Earl (the Lord Privy Seal) expects, this measure should lead to the peace and contentment of Ireland—as I

    213
    firmly trust it may, notwithstanding any forebodings I may entertain—I hope it will be remembered, and remembered by the people of England and Scotland, that to the patriotism of the landlords of Ireland, to their liberality in what they expressed themselves willing to concede, and to their moderation in regard to the changes which they have asked for, this happy result will be in a high degree owing.
    VISCOUNT HALIFAXremarked that it would be an evil, of which they could hardly estimate the magnitude, if this Bill should not pass into law, and it was therefore with the greatest satisfaction that he had heard from the noble and learned Lord, as he did on Tuesday evening from the noble Duke sitting beside him, that the Amendments which would be proposed would be for the purpose of making the Bill better, and not with the design of materially impairing its principal provisions. He had listened with a feeling of melancholy, not unmixed with shame, to the long catalogue of abortive measures for improving the land tenure of Ireland, which had been given by the noble Earl in introducing the Bill. Private Members and successive Governments—Conservative and Liberal—had failed alike, and he was, therefore, most glad to find that both sides of that House were likely to join, as both sides of the other House had joined, in passing a measure which would remove a great blot in our legislation, and would, he hoped, put an end to a state of things in a neighbouring country which was a scandal to a civilized nation. The state of things which it was intended to remedy by this Bill was of long standing. It appeared to him to be almost the normal condition of Ireland that, from time to time, outbursts of agrarian outrage should occur. More than 30 years ago Sir Matthew Barrington, the Crown Solicitor for Munster, stated in a letter to Lord Morpeth, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, that agrarian outrages were constantly recurring. He gave a long list of them. In 1760 it was "the levellers" of Munster who were the offenders. In 1763 it was the Protestants of the North. In 1771 the counties of Down, Armagh, and Londonderry were the scenes of violence. He would not weary their Lordships by going through the list down to the present time; but in
    214
    reference to them Sir Matthew Barrington quoted the following opinion of Dr. Campbell, given in 1760:—
    "Until some step is taken in favour of tillage and the poor, Whiteboyism will probably remain, in defiance of all the securities which the legislative power can devise, or the Executive inflict."
    And Sir Matthew Barrington added his own opinion—
    "Almost every outrage, if closely scrutinized, is traceable to the eviction of tenants or the changing possession of land. The Whiteboyism of 1760 is the same as that of 1834. No essential difference is distinguishable between them. The root of the evil has not been reached as yet."
    It was, he feared, as true that the Whiteboyism of 1870 was not distinct in character from the Whiteboyism of 1760, and that the want of security of tenure in Ireland was at the root of the evils which had been running on for more than a century, and which at last, he trusted, a successful, but at all events a bold attempt was made to remedy by the Bill before the House. He had also heard with great pleasure the opinion expressed by the noble Duke opposite on Tuesday night, that we must look at this question as an Irish question. He had looked carefully into everything connected with it, and he was convinced that it was utterly futile to attempt to legislate upon this question of Irish land unless we did so in accordance with Irish views, Irish feelings, and Irish manners. He would not enter into a discussion of the subjects with which the greater part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had dealt. They were matters for discussion in Committee rather than on the second reading. It had been said that the Bill would lead to a great deal of litigation in Ireland. Possibly that might be the case at first; but, even if it did, it would be a great thing to substitute appeals to the Courts for appeals to violence, and to substitute the reign of law for the reign of outrage. He would now proceed to refer to the principal provisions of the Bill. On one of them he apprehended that there was no difference of opinion in that House—that is, that compensation should be given for the outlay made by tenants on improvements in Ireland. The first point objected to was, that the Bill gave what was not given in England—namely, compensation for permanent im-

    215
    provements, such as buildings and reclamation of land. The noble Earl who spoke from below the Gangway on Tuesday night (Earl Russell) denounced the injustice of the law, which he seemed to think applied to Ireland alone. But their Lordships were aware that the law was the same in this country as in Ireland, and what made it unjust in Ireland was the difference of circumstances in the two countries. It was too often assumed that the same law ought to apply to England and Ireland; they must not forget that the circumstances were totally different. In England the landlord made the permanent improvements; in Ireland, in most cases, the tenant made them. The law, therefore, which in England gave the landlord the buildings, gave him only what he had erected with his own money; and if in Ireland the Bill should give the value of the permanent improvements to the tenant, it was for the reason that he and not the landlord had made them. The same principle of justice would be equally observed in both countries, though the law by which it would be applied would differ according to the circumstances of each country; and this was a strong proof of the necessity of looking to the state and circumstances of Ireland in any measure applying to that country. It was the same thing with the next point. The noble and learned Lord had objected to the provision in the Bill, that the presumption of having made an improvement should, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, be in favour of the tenant. It seemed to him, however, that this was only just, and that for two reasons. In the first place, the landlord was more likely than the tenant to be able to adduce evidence as to the person by whom an improvement was in fact made; and, in the second place, the presumption of the Bill was in strict accordance with the general course of things in Ireland. As the great majority of improvements in Ireland were made by tenants, it was right to assume that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, any particular improvement was made by them. It was upon this latter ground, as he understood it, that a noble Viscount (Viscount Lifford), who had opposed the Bill on Tuesday night, had, in some letters published last autumn, advocated the principle of presumption in favour of the tenant; and a very able advocate of
    216
    landlords' rights, Mr. Bence Jones, had declared himself satisfied with the clause in the Bill on this subject. They ought not to require that an illiterate man should afford proof of his outlay, which might be very difficult in his case, though nothing could be easier than for the landlord to give proof of what he had done. The next point was, he thought, the most difficult in the Bill—the clauses for compensation for disturbance—and it was no doubt perfectly right to keep distinct the question of compensation for improvements and compensation for disturbance. Unless, however, they awarded compensation for disturbance they did nothing to give security of tenure to Ireland, and the whole Bill would be utterly useless. What the Bill did, and what the Bill, he thought, ought to do, was to recognize the custom as they found it in different parts of Ireland. It was quite right that this should be the case; because, on the whole, custom in these matters was stronger than law. A well-known and most intelligent agent of property in Ireland, not very favourable to the Bill, Mr. French, said, in his evidence before Lord Clanricarde's Committee, that he did not see how legislation could put down tenant-right. The first custom recognized by the Bill was the tenant-right in Ulster; and he thought it was quite right to do so. He did not mean to say that according to our notions, either of political economy or of common sense, the Ulster tenant-right was a good custom. It seemed to him to be bad for the tenant, who sunk during his tenancy a certain part of his capital, which he could more advantageously employ in the cultivation of his farm; and Bad for the landlord, out of whose pocket, in some way or another, part of this loss must come. But, strange to say, it was equally popular with tenants and landlords, and had been strenuously advocated in "another place" by the Ulster landlords. They attributed to it the good cultivation and prosperity of Ulster, for which view he agreed with the Lord Privy Seal that there was no good reason; but he agreed with them in attributing to it the peaceable character of the Province; for while several of the agrarian outrages, detailed by Sir Matthew Barrington, took place in the Northern counties, from 1760 to 1790, there had been no appearance of them in Ulster since the latter year.

    217
    A good deal had been said of the absence of any definition of the custom, and the consequent difficulty of enforcing it in a Court of Law. He could not understand this objection. In the part of England with which he was best acquainted a tenant-right for tillages and outlay by the tenants existed, differing in different parts of the country, differing on the same estate, and in one case within his knowledge in different parts of the same parish. All these were enforced by the Courts of Law without any difficulty, and he did not see why any difficulty should be found in doing the same thing with the tenant-right in Ulster. As regarded the Ulster tenant-right, the only change made by the Bill was, that the tenant could enforce in a Court of Law what he invariably received by custom. Proceeding on the same principle, the Bill, rightly too, recognized similar customs which existed in other parts of the country—as in the case of the noble Earl (the Earl of Portsmouth), who spoke on Tuesday, on whose estates, in the county of Wexford, the Ulster custom had been established, with the addition, he believed, of a lease, and where the result had been most satisfactory. But then came the question as to those parts of Ireland where the custom was not so well recognized. The evidence, however, taken before both the Committee of the House of Commons and the Committee held in their Lordships' House, as well as the result of the inquiries made by those gentlemen who had visited Ireland last year, and whose views had been made public in what the noble and learned Lord had truly called the extensive literature on this subject, showed that compensation was given to the outgoing by the incoming tenant on almost every change of tenancy throughout the whole of Ireland. He would not trouble their Lordships by many quotations; but he wished to read a short extract from Mr. George Campbell's book, which stated the whole case very concisely. That gentleman, who had served with great ability in India, and had had considerable experience in similar customs in India, said—
    "As in the case of Bengal, so in Ireland, the right of the occupier to sell was regulated by the custom of each district. In some districts—namely, those of the North—it had become a regular, well-defined, and generally acknowledged system. The tenant-right sold for large sums.
    218
    In other districts the right was less defined and less acknowledged; but, so far as I can gather, it everywhere, more or less, prevailed—i.e., the outgoing tenant generally got something from the incoming tenant, which the people considered to be the purchase-money, however the landlord might view it."
    The Bill proposed to recognize this custom, and to enforce from the landlord, on evicting a tenant, the sort of payment which the tenant would have, by custom, received from any successor to his tenancy; but restrained within certain limits. He did not think the amount of compensation proposed to be given was excessive. It was not more than was not uncommonly given by good landlords in the South of Ireland. Even as regarded the estates under the management of the Court of Chancery, it appeared, from Mr. Fitzgibbon's book, himself a Master in Chancery, that the substitution of a new tenant by the outgoing tenant was commonly allowed; and frequently, in addition to forgiving the arrears of rent, they contributed a sum towards the expense of the passage of the outgoing tenant to America. He observed, too, that in the Bill which had been laid on the Table by the noble Earl (Earl Longford) opposite, the amount of compensation to be paid to the lower class of tenants was as high as that contained in the Bill of the Government. Now, this proposal of compensation for eviction had been designated by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) as spoliation; and taking his property from one man and giving it to another. The noble Marquess, however, as well as every noble Lord who had spoken on the other side, approved of recognizing the Ulster tenant-right. A moment's consideration must show them Ulster tenant-right included compensation for disturbance. There was no pretence for saying that it only covered improvements made by the tenant. It had, in some cases, amounted to the value of the fee simple of the land; and it really had the effect of giving compensation to tenants, both for the improvements they made and for disturbance in their holdings. This being so in Ulster, he did not see how those who approved of the Ulster custom could object to the recognition of the same principle in the rest of Ireland. If it was not spoliation in Ulster, it could not be so in Munster and Connaught. If they admitted the pro-

    219
    priety of giving legislative sanction to the Ulster tenant-right, it could hardly be disputed that it was also right to give similar sanction to similar customs whenever they were found to exist in other parts of the country. That there were such customs, and that they were generally recognized by good landlords, was proved by all the evidence on the subject. The only extent to which a good landlord would be affected by this measure would be, that his tenants would, in future, obtain by right that which they now enjoyed by favour. It was true that this would make a considerable change in the relations between landlords and tenants; but, unless they did effect that change, and gave the outgoing tenant a right to such payment on eviction, the payment could not be enforced against those landlords—few in number, he gladly believed; but whose conduct, as the noble Duke had truly said, kept up the feeling of insecurity and injustice which it was the great object of the Bill to remove. The Times' Special Commissioner in Ireland, writing in reference to the selling of land in small quantities in the Encumbered Estates Court, said that where the tenants became the purchasers the happiest results followed; but when the lands were bought by attorneys and tradesmen from the neighbouring towns, they proved to be the hardest and most grasping landlords that could be imagined. It was indispensable, therefore, to confer as a legal right what had up to the present been admitted as a matter of favour, so as to protect tenants against that class of landlords who bought up estates merely as matters of speculation, and with the intention of making the largest amount of profit possible out of them by any means at their command. It was clear that, unless Parliament gave that right, it would do nothing to give a feeling of security to the tenants in Ireland; and, unless they did that, they might as well abstain altogether from legislating on the subject. With regard to the question of leases for 31 years, he would say nothing now. Leases for 19 and 21 years were thought sufficient in Scotland, and in his opinion a yearly tenancy with good tenant-right was better than either, both for landlords and tenants. The general opinion however in Ireland seemed to be favourable to the 31 years, and he would
    220
    not run the risk of rendering the Bill unsatisfactory by an alteration in what was, after all, a matter of secondary importance. So far, then, as related to compensation for improvements, and to compensation for disturbance or eviction to existing tenants and to their successors in ordinary course, he approved of the provisions of the Bill, subject of course to such Amendments in Committee as might be found advisable. With regard to the arrangements for the future, he agreed to some extent with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), who spoke on Tuesday, in his objections to the interference with future contracts. The sound principle was complete freedom of contract. It was a question, however, whether the tenants of Ireland were, as a whole, a class sufficiently independent to obviate the necessity of giving them protection. The Government, reviewing the circumstances generally, were of opinion that protection was necessary. This probably was the case, as to the smaller tenants who constituted the great majority of the body. He thought himself, as indeed the noble Marquess had admitted, that the Legislature had a full right to extend such protection to these tenants. He did not recognize the distinction which the noble and learned Lord had attempted to draw between protection to life and other cases. The prohibition of the truck system seemed to him a complete case in point. Perfect freedom of contract would allow the employer to agree with his workmen to pay partly in money, and partly in goods, and such an arrangement honestly carried out might be for the advantage of both parties. It had been found, however, to lead to so much fraud and oppression that the Legislature had wisely prohibited it altogether. It was a very different question whether the protection was necessary to the extent to which it was proposed to afford it by the Bill. Admitting that it might be essential in the case of the poorest class of tenants, it did not follow that it was expedient to interfere with contracts between tenants of a superior class and their landlords. So long as the holdings were transferred from one tenant to another, the ordinary system of payment for goodwill by the incoming to the outgoing tenant would continue. Suppose, however, that a landlord had paid full compensation to an outgoing tenant, and a future tenant was

    221
    willing to take the farm without any claim to compensation for goodwill on eviction, he and his landlord could not, according to the provisions of the Bill, agree to do so, though the tenant thought it for his advantage, unless the rent of the farm was above £50 per annum. That being so, the landlord would of course require to be paid, before he admitted the tenant, what would have been paid to an outgoing tenant. The landlord could easily protect himself; but a bad system was compulsorily perpetuated by the Bill. The tenant during his occupancy was deprived of part of the capital which might have been better employed in the cultivation of his farm, and the landlord, during the period of the tenancy, would enjoy the interest of the sum so paid to him. The Bill exempted from that restraint tenants paying above £50 per annum. As it originally stood, it only exempted tenants above £100—which was ridiculous—for of tenants from year to year, and under leases not exceeding 31 years there were, in all Ireland, only about 5,000, and there were but 20,000 of such tenants above £50 per annum. Out of 570,000 tenants, therefore, of that description, only 20,000 could relieve themselves from that restriction. It must be for persons better acquainted with Ireland than himself to say what should be the amount of rent the paying of which would render a man sufficiently independent to be allowed perfect freedom of contract, and whether £50 per annum was the lowest limit of independence. The only other part of the Bill to which he would refer was the purchase of land. He agreed very much on that subject with the observations which had been made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). He thought it a source of political weakness to this country that the number of landed proprietors should be gradually diminishing. He could not say that he was very sanguine that the number would, by any legislation, be largely increased in Ireland, when they were diminishing in the richer country. It was stated that a good deal of land had been bought and sold in the Encumbered Estates Court, which afforded many opportunities of purchasing small estates, and the farmers in that country were said—he did not know how truly—to have £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 in the banks. It did not, however, appear that, with the
    222
    means and opportunities of purchasing, they had availed themselves of this power to any great extent. If, then, this was so, there was little necessity for borrowing from the State; and he confessed that he looked with some alarm upon the plan proposed of lending money to small proprietors to purchase land, though he thought it a far better one than that proposed by Lord Mayo for advancing money for improvements in respect to which there would be no security whatever. There certainly would be ample security in the land purchased under the proposed Bill; but he had great doubts as to this system of State advances. He thought there was danger in the State being the creditor of many of the small proprietors in Ireland. If distress came and they were unable to pay the annuities charged on their estates, it would not add to their loyalty if the Exchequer had to enforce what was dues to it by process of law. If the system worked successfully, if they could create a considerable body of small proprietors whose interest and whose feelings must necessarily be in favour of the administration of the law, and if they could create such a feeling of contentment and satisfaction among the tenantry of Ireland as would dispose them to co-operate in furthering instead of thwarting the ends of justice, we might then—but he feared not till then—dispense with the constant and melancholy recourse to Coercion Acts. He entirely differed from the noble Marquess who spoke on Tuesday evening, as to the effect of relaxations of the old penal system. Every relaxation of the old Penal Laws had been followed by an accession of Irish loyalty to the Throne, and he looked with confidence to the effect of this Bill in enlarging and widening that circle. He did not believe that the present feelings of discontent could be removed for a year or two—perhaps for a generation; but he trusted they were now sowing the seeds of an improved state of feeling, an improved social condition and political attachment to this country in Ireland, of which the younger Members—and he hoped not a few of the older Members—of their Lordships' House would live to see and to reap the harvest.
    EARL GREY: My Lords, I do not, after the protracted debate which we have already had, intend to trouble your Lordships with many observations; but

    223
    there are some points upon which I should like to make a few remarks before I assent to the second reading of the Bill. And, first of all, allow me to say that there is a very considerable distinction to be drawn between that part of the Bill which is retrospective, and that which applies to future tenancies. I feel that the discussions of the last few years have proved that the grievances in connection with land in Ireland are of such a pressing character that it is absolutely necessary that they should be redressed as soon as possible. That consideration it is which reconciles me to the passing of this Bill. Though I do not believe that all these grievances are dealt with by the Bill in the best manner, still I am willing to hope that the rules established with respect to existing tenancies may not work so badly as some have anticipated. But I must say that I think it would have been better if a different mode of dealing with even these tenancies had been adopted. The real ground upon which I conceive that the existing tenants are entitled to great consideration when removed from their holdings is, because I believe that there has in many cases, and especially in Ulster, been a virtual and implied, though not a legal contract, between them and their landlords that the tenants should remain in occupation long enough, at all events, to recoup themselves the money paid for the right of occupation. And so, when money has been laid out on improvements—where a landlord has looked on and seen a tenant lay out money in improvements, and did not interfere, he morally bound himself not to disturb the occupation until it had lasted long enough to enable the tenant to recoup himself. There appears to me, therefore, to be a real and substantial contract, though it may not be a legal one, between the two parties. If, therefore, the Bill had proceeded on the principle of recognizing these implied contracts as valid—if, providing some mode of inquiry where existing tenants were disturbed, into the value of their equitable claims, it had awarded them full and liberal compensation—I think that would have been a far wiser and juster mode of proceeding than that which has been adopted, of laying down arbitrary and capricious rules applicable to all cases, by which in some cases the tenant would get too little and in others
    224
    too much. Resting the cases of existing tenants on implied contract, I cannot but think liberal compensation might have been awarded to them without the slightest shock to the rights of property, or the slightest risk of establishing dangerous principles for the future. Leaving that point, however, I desire to call your attention to the provisions of the Bill with respect to tenancies hereafter to be created. Upon that question it appears to me that those who have gone through the evidence given before the various Committees of Parliament, can hardly fail to come to the conclusion that a great part of the difficulties of Ireland have arisen from the fact that the tenants have equitable rights which they cannot enforce, and that this is attributable in no small degree to the defects of the Law of Contract, which makes it difficult, if not altogether impossible, for the parties to enter into contracts of the kind most desirable. True, a very large proportion of the holdings in Ireland are now held under agreements from year to year; but that has not always been the case. Not more than two or three generations ago the greater part of the holdings were held under leases of quite sufficient duration to exempt tenants from the large proportion of the evils from which they are now suffering. Considering the unfortunate state of the Law of Contract, I think it speaks very highly of the fairness of the great body of the Irish landlords, and also of the great body of the Irish tenants, that there have been so few disputes, and that they have not been much more serious than they have been. Why has this been changed? It seems to me, partly in consequence of the indirect operation of the laws relating to other matters, and especially to Parliamentary elections; but chiefly from the fact that the law of Ireland regarding contracts for land is at this moment in a most thoroughly unsatisfactory state. It, therefore, appears to me that the very first object to be effected in improving the law is to give facilities to parties to make contracts of a fair and reasonable character, and without expense or difficulty. This was the object of the Bill introduced last year, by the noble Marquess on the Cross Benches (the Marquess of Clanricarde), and, if passed, it would have provided a cheap and easy mode of recording such agreements, and of

    225
    enforcing them, and would also have given every inducement to the landlords to grant leases on advantageous terms. These are improvements required above all things in Ireland, and with respect to them the present Bill is a perfect blank. It attempts to remove some of the evils resulting from the present Law of Contract as it affects existing tenants; but it offers no facilities to parties to make agreements according to their interests for the future. On the contrary, it subjects the power of landlords and tenants to make contracts with each other to new and onerous restrictions of the most complicated character, and calculated to lead to litigation. It attempts to guard the tenant against abuses of power not by aiding parties to enter into arrangements with facility, but by laying down certain arbitrary regulations to prevent those abuses which, it seems to be assumed, that every Irish landlord is habitually guilty of. It has been stated by the Prime Minister that "freedom of contract is the foundation of every wholesome state of society;" yet the present Bill proceeds on the very opposite principle. This is defended on the ground that the condition of Ireland requires exceptional legislation; and it is said that this necessity for exceptional legislation arises from the excessive competition for land, and the dearth of employment other than agricultural in Ireland; that the landlord has practically the power of exacting any terms he may think fit, and the occupier, if he be turned out of his holding, has—as has been repeatedly stated in this debate—no alternative but the workhouse and America. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) the other evening, and the noble and learned Lord to-night have shown the extreme danger of saying that this was good ground for interfering with the acknowledged rights of property. For my part, I totally deny the correctness of the statement, and also the inference that if these facts were true the exceptional legislation would be calculated to correct it. No doubt there is intense competition for the land in Ireland; but all who have been in Ireland concur in saying that the Irish peasant is exceedingly shrewd and exceedingly hard in driving a bargain with his landlord, and that it is not very easy to get him to consent to unreasonable terms. And that he is not very
    226
    unsucessful is proved by what was stated by the noble Earl (Earl Granville), that the average rent of land in Ireland was, in proportion to its value, lower than in any other country in Europe. With regard to the allegation of the dearth of employment in Ireland, I would remind your Lordships that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), who has made such an admirable criticism on the Bill, has stated most truly that the evidence was undoubted that, at the present moment, a man of character and industry can support himself by independent labour even in the South of Ireland. No doubt there are fewer branches of industry than we could desire; but it is unquestionably not the case that there is the scarcity of employment in Ireland which is asserted. But, granting that the allegations as to the deficiency of employment for labour and as to the excessive competition for land were correct, I contend that a law such as that which you are asked to pass will increase the competition for land, and will be of no benefit whatever to the labourers. You may, no doubt, by passing a Bill of this kind, do something for the actual tenant; though I am perfectly convinced that in the long run even these persons will not find themselves much affected by the change you propose; but, at all events, with regard to the future you do nothing of any value. In fact, in passing a law of the kind now proposed, you are reverting to the old and exploded principle which led to the passing of the law to prevent usury. As the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) showed you the other night, the provisions of that law were always evaded, and the only effect of the enactment was to make the borrower pay more for the money he required. In like manner, the laws which sought to make food cheap by forbidding the forestalling of grain were found to produce the precisely opposite effect. No man can doubt that all real improvement in the general condition of the people of Ireland must be effected by increasing the productiveness of the land and the means of employment for the people. Now, it is acknowledged that the agriculture of Ireland is in a most backward state, and calculations have even been brought forward to show that a given amount of labour applied to the soil of Ireland does not produce more than a fourth or

    227
    fifth of what it produces in England. I cannot believe the difference to be so great, but it is certain that it is very large. It is also certain that the failure of agriculture to yield a proper return is the fault of the inhabitants of the country rather than of the soil or the climate; for, although it has been argued that the soil and climate are not fitted for the production of corn, this is only true with respect to parts of Ireland and applies chiefly to wheat, other kinds of grain and other crops Ireland can produce so well as to insure large returns. With respect to the Irish population I am, and have always been, altogether incredulous as to their being indolent by nature, for I have observed that Irish labourers in this country often show very great industry, and I rather ascribe the unproductiveness of Irish labour to want of skill, and ignorance of the people. Instruction is what they want, and this they have been gradually gaining; for some years past improvements have been going on in Ireland, which have raised the agriculture of that country much above the low point at which it was not very long ago, and a still further advance seems to be promised. And it is an important fact that the improvement that has now been going on for some years in Ireland has been most conspicuous on those estates which are owned by enlightened landlords and managed by able agents, who direct and encourage the people to adopt improved systems of cultivation. On estates where the tenants have been left to themselves, they have in general blindly followed their old traditional and ignorant customs, and have tilled the soil according to the wont of their forefathers. If these things are so, is it not obvious that a law which directly tends to deprive the landlord of a fair power of dealing with the land according to his own judgment, and which prevents him making contracts with his tenants according to what will be best for their mutual interests, must tend to discourage improvement? Attempts have been made by some enterprizing landowners to effect improvements on their estates; they have overcome the difficulties that they had to encounter, and successful results have been achieved by their efforts; but the power possessed by such landlords will be entirely destroyed by the clauses of this Bill, owing to the extent to which it interferes with
    228
    the free action of both parties. I very much object to have the time laid down for which a landlord must give a lease. In Scotland and in the North of England it is held that leases of 19 and 21 years are the best that can be selected. It is thought that if a lease were granted for a longer term the tenant would cease to feel any interest as to a renewal, and there would be no stimulus to exertion to improve the holding; but the great inducement of the landlord is that, having the choice of a tenant on whose character he can depend, and knowing that he will have full possession of the land at a definite period, he trusts that the tenant will so improve the land that at the end of the term he may let it for a higher rent, and generally that expectation is not disappointed It is under that system that the fields now in such high cultivation, and covered with magnificent crops, which are the pride of my own county, have been converted almost since the commencement of the present century to what they are from having been, in many cases, unclothed, and unimproved common. But in this Bill you absolutely prohibit the landlord and tenant, however much they may desire it, from entering into such arrangements, which have been proved by experience to be so successful.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that agreements were only prohibited between landlords and tenants whose holdings were valued at less than £50.
    EARL GREY: But how large a portion of Ireland does that provision include? In confining liberty of action to large farms, there is great danger of giving an unnatural and artificial stimulus to the process of consolidation. And although I have no doubt it is for the interest of Ireland that small holdings should gradually be got rid of, and that the farms should be made of sufficient size to give occupation to men of intelligent and cultivated minds; what I object to is that you interfere artificially with the natural progress of society, and with those processes which will induce men to occupy land in that manner which is most for their own advantage. You introduce a new system of arbitrary restriction, which is sure to defeat itself; and one of the great dangers of which is the tendency to promote litigation. This Bill is founded upon the principle of endeavouring to perpetuate the Ulster cus-

    229
    torn without defining what that custom is. Those who listened to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's explanations of the Ulster tenant-right will admit, I think, that it is a very questionable system. You say that you cannot define the Ulster custom in the Act because it is impalpable—it varies so that you cannot grasp it, and, therefore, that any attempt to define it must fail. On this ground it is proposed that Parliament should throw on 33 Assistant Barristers in Ireland the duty of defining a right which it is entirely unable to define itself. Can there be anything better adapted than that to increase litigation and bring parties whose relations they desire to improve into a position of mutual hostility? Moreover, when you consider the nature of the Courts to which those questions, so deeply interesting to the population, are to be referred for decision, the prospect is most alarming. In dealing with those cases the Assistant Barristers will be exposed to intimidation and other kinds of undue influence, and the most mischievous results will ensue. Again, by this legislation, while you wish to diminish the excessive competition for land, you are directly encouraging those notions in the minds of the Irish people which make them look to the cultivation of the soil as their sole means of support, and you grant them exceptional legislation because they say that unless you give them land they must starve, or go to the poor-house, or to America. While you want to diminish excessive competition for land, you establish regulations which directly tend to encourage these notions in the minds of the people, and to make them look forward still more to the cultivation of the soil as their sole means of support. That is dangerous as regards the present, and still more dangerous as regards the future; and I fear that under the operation of these clauses you may produce a relapse into the condition of things which culminated in the horrors of the famine of 1847, when the land of Ireland was occupied by a population in immense excess of that which could be maintained in comfort by the land they cultivated. In spite of these opinions, however, I think your Lordships have no alternative but to agree to the second reading of this Bill, throwing the responsibility on the Government. You have no prospect, if you reject this Bill,
    230
    that a better measure would be passed; and the disappointment of the expectations that have been raised on this subject in Ireland would have a most fearful effect. I am the more reconciled to the second reading of the Bill, because, while I regard as its most dangerous part that which relates to future tenancies, the passing of the measure will not tie our hands in regard to the establishment hereafter of freedom of contract between landlord and tenant in Ireland. Indeed, the Government themselves have recognized the insufficient manner in which that subject is dealt with in the Bill; and, therefore, the effect of your present legislation in respect to the future may be corrected by wiser measures hereafter. We may trust that it will not be long before Parliament will be called upon to adopt sounder and more wholesome principles with reference to future tenancies; and in that hope, although I think the manner in which the grievances of existing tenants are sought to be remedied by the Bill is rough and imperfect, I am prepared to accept the second reading of the Bill.
    LORD ATHLUMNEY: My Lords, I am not willing that a debate on a subject so important to the country with which I am more immediately connected should come to a close without saying a few words. The noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies and other Peers have been pleased to allude to the part I have taken in years past on this question; but public opinion with reference to it has advanced since then with rapid strides. Principles which 20 years ago would almost have been thought revolutionary are now accepted as a matter of course; and it would be an idle waste of time for me to go back and trace in detail the history of the various previous attempts made at legislation on this subject. I have always taken the liveliest interest in the question, because it is one that has excited the fears, the hopes, and, I may say, the passions of Ireland; and even so late as last Session I was associated with a noble Marquess on the Cross Benches (the Marquess of Clanricarde), in submitting to your Lordships' consideration a Bill upon it which was drawn up with great care, and, as many of your Lordships knew, with great skill, and which would have afforded an effectual remedy for many existing evils. But when that Bill stood

    231
    for Committee, the noble Earl (Earl Granville), speaking on behalf of the Government, said that, though many of its provisions were excellent and well-considered, yet under the existing circumstances of Ireland, and in the position in which that question then stood, those provisions did not go far enough. My Lords, in a question of this kind there is no retreat. Once you have taken a step you must go forward; you cannot remain where you are. I saw, after the declaration of the noble Earl, that it would be useless to proceed further with that Bill. But having said in my place that it was better not to proceed with it, and to leave the entire responsibility with the Government, I ventured to press my noble Friend (Earl Granville) for a declaration that he would not be a party to any measure subversive of the rights of property; and my noble Friend gave that pledge. Bound up as I am with the interests of Ireland, your Lordships might suppose with what anxiety I awaited the Bill promised by the Prime Minister in the other House. As soon as the Bill appeared I studied it most diligently, and I feel bound to say that I found nothing in it which raised my apprehension or alarm, and I am quite satisfied that its operation will not be subversive of the rights of property. I accept the principle of the Bill, and I consider that there is nothing in it which a just, humane, or kindly-meaning proprietor in Ireland, such as I am happy to say the great majority of the Irish proprietors are, would not cheerfully accept. I have been struck in the course of this debate by the fact that it has been conducted with a total absence of party feeling. I am glad of that, because I believe from that circumstance that if it can be shown that there is any portion of the Bill which would work injustice, or which might require amendment, the suggestions which may be made will be considered in a proper spirit. I will not go through the different provisions of the Bill. I will only say that though defects have been pointed out, yet not a single noble Lord, with one exception, has said that he would do otherwise than vote for the second reading. Under these circumstances, am I to be the one to take upon myself the responsibility of remitting this question to another winter's agitation? And if anything that I, as an Irish proprietor who wishes well
    232
    to his class, can say will have any effect on any noble Lord on the other side, I would humbly urge the necessity of giving this Bill a second reading, and not to throw this question once more into the seething cauldron of Irish politics. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) has taunted the Government with this—that their Irish Church Bill, which was to have produced such peace and happiness in Ireland, is a failure. The man who expects that peace and happiness can be produced immediately from any measure, whether connected with the Church, the land, or education, would be insane. We must wait for the progress of events. We have offered this Bill to the people of Ireland in a kindly, friendly, and conciliatory spirit, and you may depend upon it it will not be thrown away. You may depend upon it that a measure offered in such a spirit will produce its due reward. I was sorry to hear the noble Duke opposite talk of the Bill in a purely economic spirit. The noble Duke talked of Scotland and England, and asked, why not apply the same principles as were acted upon in these countries to Ireland? But this Irish land question is more than an economic question. I have always so considered it, and have acted upon that conviction. If I may be permitted to allude to anything personal in a debate of this kind, I would say that I know the system which I have pursued on my own estate, and which has descended from father to son, and from generation to generation, economically speaking, would be condemned in England and Scotland. But that is not the question. If I were to alter it, my tenantry would say—"Why so? Here is a system that has gone on from father to son, from generation to generation, and we have all been happy and contented under it. Why this change?" I hope my tenantry will not think that I would do anything that would be unjust; but their suspicions might be roused, and for no economic advantage that any House of Parliament could confer would I lose that kindly, friendly, sympathetic feeling that so long has existed between my tenants and myself. There are some points in the Bill which are open to improvement; but upon those I will not enlarge. One of the main objects of the Bill is to protect the smaller tenants. There are, however, some provisions in it as to

    233
    which I doubt very much whether they will have the desired effect, and if in Committee it should be shown that they will rather promote the eviction of the smaller tenants, I hope the Government will be prepared to amend them. I will not detain your Lordships much longer: there is, however, one point upon which I will say a word. Your Lordships have heard in one or two instances, what I will not call prophecies but surmises, as to the mode in which the landlords of Ireland will act when this measure becomes law. For my part, I believe that the landlords of Ireland will behave under the provisions of the Bill as the great majority of them behave at present—with kindness and forbearance; and if that is the spirit in which the Bill is carried out, I augur from it the very happiest results. If I could only see peace restored to Ireland; if I could only see a better state of things prevail, I should think such a result cheaply purchased at the price of any concession. Indeed, were I called upon to make sacrifices ten times greater I would most cheerfully acquiesce, if by so doing I could contribute in the slightest degree to the restoration of peace and order—for without peace and order all our endeavours to promote the prosperity of the country or to further the progress of agriculture would be made in vain. For these reasons I shall support the second reading of this Bill.
    THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it is not my intention to trouble your Lordships for more than a few minutes, and I ought, perhaps, to apologize for troubling you at all, for I will frankly acknowledge that a great part of the arguments that I had intended to address to you have been anticipated by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) in the able and powerful speech which he has addressed to you on the subject this evening. I am not going to waste your Lordships' time by repeating with less authority and less force that which you have already heard from my noble and learned Friend; but as the views which I hold upon this great Irish land question—though perhaps unpopular, are decided—are views which have not been recently formed nor likely to be lightly abandoned, I am anxious that the Bill should not go to a second reading without my having an opportunity of explaining why I am prepared to ac-
    234
    quiesce, so far as its general principles are concerned, in a measure which contains several provisions I cannot approve. In what I am about to say, I shall refer almost exclusively to that part of the Bill which refers to disturbance of holdings. Now, my Lords, with regard to the compensation to be given to the tenant for improvements made by him, I think the general principle is accepted by both sides of the House. If there be any difference at all, it is a difference solely with regard to the scale of payment, which may be altered in Committee. I say further, speaking of the South of Ireland, I cannot help expressing my belief that the practical importance of this question of compensation for improvements effected by the tenants has been enormously overrated. The theory which, has been propounded, that all the improvements made upon Irish estates have been made by the tenants, is one which I do not believe to be at all justified by the facts. As far as my experience goes, in the South of Ireland it is ludicrous to speak of any improvements at all having been made by the small cottier tenants; almost all the improvements have been made by the landlords, and as a general rule the landlords in that part of the country would be very well pleased if they could in every instance get the material only back. Then, I do not propose to enter upon the question of those provisions which are ostensibly made for the purpose of enabling the tenant, with the aid of the Government, to become the purchaser of his holding. I have some doubt as to whether this is a wise policy to adopt; but I do not object to it for two reasons—one is, that the objections to it on economical, on moral, and on political grounds have been powerfully set forth by a Member of the present Government; and the other is, that the sum which the Government proposes to apportion to this object is so ludicrously small that I cannot believe the proposition is one put forward with any serious intention of carrying it into execution. It looks rather as if this scheme had been put into the Bill to save somebody's honour and to satisfy somebody's feelings, and as if it were the result of a compromise arrived at on the other side of the House, by which the scheme was to figure as part of the Ministerial Bill, and yet would, on the other hand, be on

    235
    so small a scale that if it did not do any good, it could, at any rate, not do any considerable amount of harm. If you really mean to create a large number of peasant-proprietors—if you really mean to afford assistance wherever the landlord is willing to sell and the tenant is willing to buy, you will require not £1,000,000, but £50,000,000, £60,000,000, or even£100,000,000. Now I come to what is the real and novel principle in the Bill, and that is, the compensation granted to a tenant for a term of years for disturbance of his occupation. And I cannot help being struck with the fact that both in this House and "elsewhere" those who have dealt with this subject on the Ministeral side have given us no argument at all to show on what legal or equitable grounds they consider this principle ought to rest. It cannot be on the ground of improvements, for they are dealt with under a separate clause. It cannot be on the ground of legal right, for no legal right has been attempted to be shown. I do not say that the principle is not defensible; but the only ground upon which it is defended is, that in Ireland so far is the class of landlords from being harsh and cruel in the manner in which they have dealt with their property, their chief fault has been the culpable laxity and carelessness with which they have treated their tenantry. They have not exercised proper discipline, and by their easiness and laxity in enforcing their rights they have allowed a race of tenants to grow up around them, who entertain a vague and not easily to be defined feeling that they have in some sense a right to perpetuity of tenure. There is another ground which I fear is less creditable to the tenants—that, as a rule, they are so helpless and unhandy, so little used to help themselves, that if they are put out of their farms it is not easy to find any other employment for them. It is only on these two grounds, as I conceive, that any claim for compensation on disturbance can be allowed. I agree with the reasoning of the noble and learned Lord who opened the debate to-night (Lord Cairns), who said that this Bill did no injury to the good landlord, for he was in the habit of allowing his tenants all that this Bill claims for them. But I agree with him, too, that there is a wide difference between conferring benefits through kind and liberal considerations,
    236
    and having them enforced by Act of Parliament. Private charity is one thing, Poor Law relief is another. But, my Lords, what is meant by kindness? There is much apparent kindness that is not kindness in reality. If I were asked which class of landlords had done most harm in the country—those who have dealt sharply, and it may be harshly, with their tenants, and have reduced their numbers, and those who, by their easiness, have allowed any number to multiply on their estates till they became like rabbit warrens—I should say that the misjudged kindness of the one had caused much the greater mischief in the country. Then, I confess, the objection I feel is more to the principle of the Bill than its actual operation. I do not see any escape from the argument of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), who said the other night that if you were to compensate a man for being turned out of his holding, because he had no refuge except to go to America, the same argument would apply to the case of every labourer or artizan who was employed at the will and pleasure of another. Some years ago, when there was a sudden cessation of work, it was proposed that manufacturers closing their works, without full justification, should be liable to compensate those whom they thus deprived of their daily work. At the time, I thought this one of those wild and extravagant propositions which sometimes appear in the writings and speeches of men fond of treating social subjects in a speculative manner. But I begin to take a different view, and I am afraid I shall have considerable difficulty in evading the precedent now proposed to be set. Well, my Lords, admitting, as I do, that to some extent, in regard to this question, we are pressed upon by a force of circumstances which we cannot resist, I turn from the unpleasant topic of having to acquiesce in a principle which I cannot approve, and I come to the more immediately practical part of the question—what will be the probable result of adopting this principle? I must say, plainly and freely, although it may be, and I dare say is, a very unpopular declaration, especially in Ireland—that if I believed the object—I will not say of this Bill, I will not say of the Government, for I do not know what their object is; but if I believed the object of those who support this Bill in Ireland

    237
    was likely to be realized—if I believed that the effect of this legislation would be the placing upon the Irish soil in perpetuity of the present small holders—men who occupy six, eight, 10, 12, or 15 acres of land, which they have not capital, skill, or, in many cases, physical strength to cultivate—if I thought the effect of this Bill would be to perpetuate such a class in Ireland—I hardly know any consideration of prudence, of expediency, or of public policy, which would induce me to refrain from opposing a measure which, I believe, would be one of such unmitigated evil. Now, let us consider what is the position of these very small holders. Of course, there are exceptions, for there are everywhere men who rise above their class; I am saying nothing against them personally, for they do the best they can; but, as a class, it will not be denied that they are unimproving, and I believe that their circumstances make them unimprovable. In good seasons they can just scramble on and pay their way; in bad seasons they are in difficulties; and if there comes a general failure of the potato crop, on which I am afraid they still to a very considerable extent rely, they find themselves exactly in the position in which the whole agricultural population of Ireland was in the famine years of 1847–8. Their holdings do not give them the means of support; they have no prospect of raising their children to a better position than their own; and, that being the case, how can you wonder that, as a class, they are socially and politically discontented? I say that there is no hope of permanently disposing of the agricultural difficulty in Ireland—there is no hope of placing Ireland, in regard to agricultural matters, upon the same footing as that upon which England and Scotland are now—excepting by getting rid, in a gradual, gentle, kindly, but yet effectual, way of that class of infinitely minute holders, and consolidating the farms until you create holdings of such extent as to give the occupiers a reasonable prospect of comfortable subsistence. This is often misunderstood on this side of the water, because, in talking of large and small farms, we are apt to forget that large and small are relative terms. It is not a question of farms of 1,000 or 500 acres against farms of 100 acres; but it is a question of holdings extending to 100 or 50 acres, against other holdings of 20,
    238
    15, or 10. If I could really believe that this Bill would hinder the process that has been going on, sometimes more rapidly, sometimes more slowly, for many years—I mean the process of consolidating these small holdings—I say, again, that I would oppose it at any cost. But I do not believe, on the whole, that that will be its work. I do not think that it will give to the one class what they hope for, or that it will inflict upon the other what they fear. It will not give the undisturbed possession which is the dream of tenants; and, whatever we may say against the principle, I do not think it would operate as harshly upon the landlords as many people are inclined to think. I know this was not my first impression, nor do I think it would be that of anybody else, and therefore I may be allowed to explain why I think these results I have indicated would follow. In the first place, you are going by your act to place a premium—a high premium—upon the consolidation of small holdings into farms of a rental of upwards of £100 a year; and the owner of an estate who has foresight enough to evict his small tenantry and consolidate their holdings into farms of that size is entirely free from all restrictions, litigation, or annoyance which may be inflicted under any of the clauses of the Act. I may just notice, in passing, that it is not very consistent with your policy of protecting small farmers that you have given the most effective retrospective justification to those who in their own interest clear out their estate by evictions on a large scale. The freedom from restriction to which I have just referred is one strong ground for consolidating farms; but there is another. Looking at the graduated scale of compensation proposed, it is clearly an unbalanced gain to any landlord to throw two 10-acre farms into one of 20 acres, or three of 20 acres each into one of 60, because of the possibility of his finding himself under the necessity, or of his conceiving it to be to his interest, to remove the existing tenants. He would have very much less compensation to pay for one large farm than for the two or three small ones, and that would be a powerful stimulant to consolidation operating steadily from I year to year. This being my opinion in reference to large as opposed to small farms, and as to the way in which the Bill would work, I must say that the

    239
    tendency of the measure is, in that respect, in the right direction; but I venture to think that those innocent persons who in Ireland conceive that the object and the result of this measure will be to create a small cottier tenantry throughout the country, will find themselves considerably disappointed before the end of this legislation is seen. By the operation of this same principle of increased compensation to the smallest holders, and no compensation at all to the tenants of holdings above a certain size, you are making it absolutely penal—and I use the words advisedly—upon landlords to spare any small tenant who may be unfortunate enough to fall into arrears with his rent; because, if he is obliged upon that ground to give up his holding, the landlord re-enters without any compensation to pay, and he thereby frees his estate from heavy contingent liabilities; but if he allows that opportunity to slip by, he finds himself again saddled with the necessity to pay compensation from which, if he had taken the opportunity, he would have found himself relieved. If you want to establish thoroughly cordial relations between landlords and tenants, and if you wish the stock phrase at agricultural show dinners to come true by making landlords and tenants believe their interests to be one, I do not think the best way to accomplish that end will be to inaugurate a state of things under which, so far as pecuniary interest goes, the landowner is advantaged by the bankruptcy of all his small tenants. The landlord would lose one, or perhaps two, years' rent by such a contingency; but he would be free to remodel his estate, and when his farms were reduced in number and brought up to the requisite size, he would be free for evermore from the liability to pay compensation. There is another point of view to which I do not think attention has been drawn, and with respect to which I entertain a strong feeling—and that is that the moral effect of fixing, as you propose to do, a strict pecuniary value of a tenant's claim will be exceedingly important; and I am very much mistaken if it does not operate in a direction exceedingly different from that which you anticipate. The question stands thus:—Except in some very rare and exceptional instances, when some clear and indisputable ground for such action on the part of the landlords can be shown, there is no denying that
    240
    the removal from his holding of a tenant who pays his rent steadily and does not misconduct himself, is in Ireland generally considered as a harsh and summary proceeding. I do not say whether that idea is just or not, but the fact is so. Long custom has created a kind of vague expectation in the minds of tenants of a permanent tenure, and anyone who breaks through that expectation is generally considered to have done something of which the tenant has a fair cause to complain. The state of the law as regards eviction has been that there has been a total absence of legal restraint upon the landowner; but that absence has called into existence a strong and cogent moral restraint. My belief is that this moral restraint will be wholly lost under the operation of this Bill. The Legislature has undertaken to fix the pecuniary value of the tenant's interest in the land, by a scale carefully adjusted—a scale we shall have to deal with by-and-by; but if the Bill with that scale—or with the scale altered, for scale of some kind there must be—passes both Houses, you will have a solemn declaration by the Legislature of what, in their judgment, is the maximum of the tenant's interest in the land. When that maximum is fixed, it is perfectly clear that hereafter there will be no shadow of injustice, or harshness, or iniquity—or any of those big words that have been so freely used when this subject was discussed—if in the future the landlords of Ireland exercise the right which the Legislature will have given them, and upon the terms it has itself fixed. The Bill is one that is professedly, and, no doubt, sincerely, framed in the interest of the tenant, and there can be no pretence of injustice if the landlord values the tenant's interest as the Legislature has valued it, pays him the money, and says to him—"Now, you may go." The landlord will be able to do that with a perfectly clear conscience as far as justice is concerned, and he will then be able to remodel his estate in such a manner as he may think fit, though it is a thing he would have shrunk from doing under the existing system. I cannot think that, in that respect, the operation of the Bill will be good for Ireland. Allowing 20 years as the average value of land, and allowing five years as probably the average value of the tenant's interest, it appears even with that that the scale is far below the value of land

    241
    in England. Well, then, unless terrorism interferes—and if men are prevented by intimidation from doing that which both law and justice allow—alas, for the pacification of Ireland! but, if terrorism does not interfere, that may be the result. I am not saying that, after all, the issue will be unmixed evil—I have stated my views on that subject—but you say that retaining small tenants' holdings is the great object of your legislation. Well, then, I say whatever the immediate effect, the ultimate effect will be exactly in an opposite direction. There is another point on which some misapprehension exists. It has been much feared on one side, and much hoped for on the other, that the effect of limiting, by a pecuniary payment, the right of eviction will be to deprive the landowner of his present control over the estate. Now, I do not think, except in the case of a large estate and small holdings, that the control of a landowner will be, in any degree, appreciably diminished. If a small holder, under these circumstances, misconducts himself, if he violates the rules of the estate, and makes himself objectionable in any way, the landlord may, without impropriety, pay him out and have done with him—and, for the reason I have given, he will be able to do so much less unpleasantly than hitherto. Undoubtedly, no proprietor would serve the whole mass of his tenants in that manner; and no proprietor can possibly wish to do so. But, as it is said, a single man armed with a pistol is a match for a crowd, because, although he can only shoot one man, nobody in the crowd knows that that one man may not be himself: so it is with the power of eviction, even as you propose to limit it. It is a protection to the tenantry of an estate as a body; but, to any single tenant, it is no protection at all. No doubt, he gets a solatium for removal; but still, if desired to go, go he must. I have stated briefly—I have tried to state impartially—what seems likely to be the working of this measure, assuming it to be adopted. I do not think that it will produce either the good or the evil that is anticipated from it. The principle I accept for the reasons I have stated. As to the details, there are many points on which objections may be urged; but these can be properly discussed in Committee. But I will venture to say that what is most satisfactory in the measure is that—not
    242
    so much by what it says as by what it does not say—it practically involves a denial of that curious and fantastic delusion, which appears to have taken hold of some of the agricultural body in Ireland—that, in some vague unexplained way, the land belongs of right, or ought to belong to those who live on it—a claim which is about as reasonable as that of the cook who should assert his right to eat the dinner he has prepared, or the bricklayer to live in the house he has built. That delusion will be finally negatived by this Bill. I am very glad of it; and if any doubt mingles with the satisfaction which I should otherwise feel on the subject, it is only that I hope that those who have introduced this Bill as a final measure will have courage to stick to it as final. I do not like to be a prophet of evil; but I do ask the House not to indulge the delusion that because this Bill, if it passes as it stands, will give a certain degree of satisfaction to a certain class in Ireland, therefore you will see an end of agitation in that country. I am afraid that the trade of dilating upon the grievances of Ireland is far too profitable to be so easily abandoned. I ask you whether the Irish Church would not now have probably been still on its legs but for the Fenian agitation? I will also ask whether this Bill, in its present form, would have been likely to pass through both Houses of Parliament, if it had not been for long-continued agitation, supported by many most unjustifiable acts of violence? It is an unpleasant truth, I know; but it is the truth, and I name it for that reason—that I do not think we can reasonably expect people to give up playing a game which has hitherto been so eminently successful. You have a Press in Ireland that would lose half its circulation if treason ceased to be popular. There are other parties who have achieved immense influence out of the unfriendly relations between landlords and tenants in Ireland, which they would lose if those relations were to become cordial, and it is, therefore, only human nature to anticipate what their future tone will be. For the poverty and discontent existing in Ireland there is only one real remedy—the gradual reduction of holdings; and in the nature of the case that must necessarily be the work of time. But if I thought much worse of the principles of this Bill than I do—and I do not think particularly well of them—

    243
    I should still feel that I had very strong reason for supporting it. You are going before long to have, in all probability, a fresh agitation in Ireland—one quite as troublesome and violent as any that you have had to deal with in times past. Fenianism, they say, is played out. It may be so. But if Fenianism is gone, you will see, I am afraid, taken up by daring hands, and by a great proportion of the population, the demand for nationality, for self-government, for the repeal of the Union: I do not care by what name they call it; but, whatever its form that is what will be really demanded. When demands of that kind are made upon you—and made I think they will be within the next few years—it is absolutely necessary that they should be met by a decisive and peremptory answer; and in order that it may be decisive, it will be necessary that in England and Scotland men of all ranks, classes, and parties, should concur in giving it. If I may venture to speak as an Irish landlord, I will say that I think we are right in being willing to make large sacrifices not only of doubtful, but even of undoubted rights; not in the vain hope of conciliating those whose interest it is never to be conciliated, but in order to satisfy ourselves and the world that all that legislation can do has been done, that no real grievances remain, and that so we may be able to defend the English Government in Ireland without feeling in our minds a scruple or doubt as to the justice of our policy.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I should very gladly have given a silent vote upon this question—especially as there is no doubt about the second reading of the Bill—and have left the discussion of the measure to those noble Lords who are more particularly connected with Ireland, but that the declaration of my noble Friend the Colonial Secretary in introducing this Bill, that every Member of the Government had acted upon a deep sense of responsibility in respect of this Bill, makes me feel it to be my duty to state the grounds upon which I have come to the conclusion that this measure is just and necessary in itself; that it interferes unduly with no right of property, and that it is due in justice to the people of Ireland. I approach this question from a very different point of view from that of some noble Lords who have already taken part in this debate.
    244
    I am connected with that part of the kingdom where agriculture has thriven under an absolutely free system of contract. I value that system in the circumstances under which it exists above everything in the world; but I am satisfied that in the peculiar circumstances of Ireland the system which has succeeded in England and Scotland is not at present applicable, although I trust it will be applied to that country in the course of future years. I would first inquire what is the position of this House in regard to this Bill? We are agreed, it appears, upon the second reading; and my noble Friend who has just sat down has told us he is willing to accept what he conceives to be the principle of the Bill. But he did not himself attempt any definition of that principle; and I am compelled to gather from the diverse speeches of noble Lords opposite what it is they accept and what is the principle to which they object. What are the main admissions which I have heard from the Bench opposite? I have heard a hearty acceptance of two distinct things. First, I have heard the acceptance of the principle of retrospective compensation. I would ask noble Lords who passed so lightly over that, as a principle which is to be accepted without discussion or doubt, if they had defined to themselves and others what is involved in it? Do you not know that it is a principle which you have resisted to the death? ["No, no!"] I am speaking of Parliament, and not of men or parties. Has not the principle of retrospective compensation for improvements been resisted by Parliament up to the present Session, and especially by your Lordships' House? In 1854 a Bill was passed by the other House containing that principle; but I believe it was afterwards rejected by this House. And there is no question that the principle of retrospective compensation involves, in a strictly legal sense, a great encroachment on the rights of property. Precisely the same arguments might be used against it, which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) was occupied for nearly an hour in raising with regard to compensation for disturbance of occupation. Edmund Burke said—
    "I call that the right of property which every man has a right and reason to expect to be his by the laws of his country during his own life, and many previous generations."
    Apply that to the case of landlords in Ireland who have bought property in

    245
    the Encumbered Estates Court. They have bought their land under the laws of the country and under a Parliamentary guarantee, and with the land the improvements which their tenants had made upon it: and yet by retrospective compensation their property in the improvement so purchased under the guarantee of an Act of Parliament is confiscated. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), in order to frighten noble Lords behind him, said—"If I am compelled to submit to this principle of compensation for occupation I shall do it with my eyes open, and declare that I know I am interfering with the rights of property." But the same might be said of retrospective compensation. But not only have noble Lords opposite failed to draw the proper inference from this proposition, but they have not fully treated another great concession which, I rejoice to find, they are willing to make—that is, the legalization of Ulster tenant-right. Have noble Lords opposite considered what that means? Possibly the noble and learned Lord may get out of it by saying that the customs of a country are part of its laws; but he cut the ground from under his feet by affirming, in the course of his able speech, that the Ulster custom had none of the incidence of a legal custom. In that case to legalize the custom would be to impose a burden upon property in the North of Ireland which it has not hitherto borne by force of law. In the words of Mr. Campbell, my distinguished friend the Chief Commissioner of the Central Province of India, who has written a very able book upon Irish land, from much of which I totally dissent—the noble and learned Lord will transfer from one to another that which belongs to the property of one. The noble Earl who last spoke (the Earl of Derby) approved of the legislation of the Ulster custom, yet he objected to another part of the Bill, which obliges landlords to pay what they had hitherto given only in accordance with custom and good will. Does not the noble Lord know that the Ulster tenant-right is not only compensation for improvements, but in a very large degree gives compensation for disturbance pure and simple? But the noble and learned Lord, who assents to the Ulster custom, protests violently against the 3rd clause of the Bill, which gives compensation to tenants out of Ulster on precisely the
    246
    same grounds as to tenants in Ulster. What, then, is the common sense or the policy of legislation which will legalize such a custom in Ulster, where there is no discontent, and will not allow persons to be compensated for disturbance of occupation in the rest of Ireland, where there prevails the discontent in consequence of which we are called upon to legislate? Does the noble and learned Lord really mean to say, as a Member of your Lordships' House and as a statesman, that he is prepared to admit the necessity for legislation on the land question in Ireland, and yet will exclude from compensation all the Provinces where discontent exists? It is a reductio ad absurdum. My noble and learned Friend said he had never heard any justification of the 3rd clause. That seems to be a strange complaint after the full statement of my noble Friend who introduced this Bill, as to the propriety of protecting the smaller tenantry in Ireland; and which was so fully accepted by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) who made so fair a speech on the occasion. The noble and learned Lord objected to compensation on account of disturbance as a gross violation of the rights of property; but how is that consistent with the admission of the noble Duke? There is another ground upon which I would claim protection for the smaller tenantry not in Ulster only, but out of Ulster. It is perfectly true that out of Ulster the customs are in a ruder state; but there is ample evidence that those customs exist over all Ireland not exactly in the Ulster form, but in a form that has acquired a certain amount of permanence and consistency. Frequently, it is in the form of bequests made by tenants on their death-beds with the full knowledge of the agents of the estates. That is of itself sufficient to show that the people, at all events, entertain at least an expectancy of occupation. I remember a speech made in this House by the late Lord Derby, in which that noble Earl said he had found in the Reports of the Poor Law Inspectors passages which were astonishing and absurd to the ears of English or Scotch proprietors, and hardly credible to them, and yet familiar to all owners of property in Ireland. Mr. Hamilton said, with respect to the South of Ireland—
    "Tenants frequently, by will or agreement (in the nature of marriage articles), charge their

    247
    farms with portions for their widows and younger children, irrespective of their tenure. It is a common practice. In some instances such charges are very considerable, and cripple the successor; but, as a rule, they are rigidly carried out. Though such arrangements are sometimes detrimental to properties, they are very rarely interfered with. Indeed, it is, I believe, more common for the landlord and agent to assist and advise than to throw any obstacles in the way, provided the farm be not subdivided."
    With such evidence as that before you, your Lordships must feel that both inside and outside of Ulster a custom has grown up by means of which tenants have by their landlords been encouraged to look forward to continued occupancy. You must therefore, in some degree, give some security to this expectancy, outside as well as inside Ulster. Briefly, I would say that the principle of our Bill is this—We legalize the Ulster custom, where it can be proved to exist; and where its existence cannot be proved we supply a new rule of compensation containing all the equities of the Ulster custom without its abuses and extravagances. And yet noble Lords opposite base their chief opposition to this part of the measure, because, as they say, it interferes with the rights of property—though, in fact, it gives nothing to tenants out of Ulster but what equity gives to those tenants within Ulster. One noble Lord, indeed, told us that we are about to stereotype this mischievous Ulster custom. Now, I must confess that no one came to the consideration of the land question with greater prejudices against tenant-right than I did, nor did anyone see more clearly the economical objections to which it was exposed; because it looked as if it prevented a large amount of capital, necessary for the cultivation of the farm, being in the hands of those who were alone interested in its proper cultivation—namely, the owners and the occupying tenants. That is the theoretical objection. But, on the other hand, paying full heed to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland—remembering that this tenant-right is the natural growth of the soil of Ulster, whether as a cause or as a consequence of prosperity—remembering also that it is the result of dealings between man and man, who have sought remedies for the evils of the existing law, and remedies for the injustice which that law inflicted upon the tenant—remembering, I say, these things, we felt that political necessity was laid
    248
    upon us to legalize this custom. I deny, however, that our Bill, while legalizing this oustom, will also stereotype its evils. Nay—as regards the continuance of the custom itself, we have left every natural cause in operation that will lead to the extinction of the custom; and have moreover provided an artificial one, by means of which the landlord will be able to buy up the right, and thus release the estate from its operation. Having said this, let me now refer to the substitute which we provide where there is no Ulster custom. I have already stated that if you legalize the Ulster custom you must also legalize the others. Noble Lords opposite have complained that the scale of compensation which we have provided is extravagant and unreasonable. That, however, I altogether deny. If you will read the evidence taken upon this subject you will find that the tenant-right under the Ulster custom is valued at an average of about £10 per acre. I know, moreover, of one particular estate where the landlord was at great expense for improvements, where six years and a half rental—or within half-a-year of the maximum proposed in cases where the tenant has made all the improvements—was the rule of compensation to every tenant who was removed. Can it be said that that is exorbitant as compared with the Ulster custom? I maintain, with all confidence, that we have taken an eminently Conservative course in resting our Bill upon the great principle of legalizing the Ulster custom. I hold that it is both unwise and unsafe to introduce customs into countries of which they have had no former experience; it is better to legalize those customs which have arisen from the natural operation between man and man. The noble Earl who has just sat down (the Earl of Derby) complains of our increasing the scale of compensation as we go lower down. There is no concealing the fact that by doing this we are adopting a principle of what may be called eleemosynary compensation for poor people. But, besides that, it must be remembered that the principle is embodied in the existing law of Ireland. There is a statute which provides that in certain cases of evictions below £5, the expense of emigration of those evicted is thrown upon the county rates. That is a distinct recognition of the principle that, as regards the smaller class of tenancies,

    249
    pecuniary compensation ought to be granted. As regards another point, I do not fear that our policy will lead to the consolidation of farms in Ireland; for, although it does not prevent such a course, it offers no temptation to the eviction of the smaller tenants. On the contrary, I believe that the general relations between landlords and tenants will continue as heretofore, and that consolidation will only occur as opportunity allows. One of the main objections which has been urged to the Bill is its interference with the liberty of contract. I wish to direct the attention of the House to the great difference in the operation of this Bill upon existing tenants and those who may become occupiers after the passing of the measure, for I admit that its operation will be very powerful as regards all existing tenants, as it will immediately place them on a higher level in dealing with their landlords. But as regards future tenancies, let me ask what is the extent to which the Bill will interfere with the freedom of contract? The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) said the other night that he believed the instances were becoming fewer and fewer in which Parliament interfered with the freedom of contract.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the tendency was not to interfere except moral and social interests were involved.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I quite agree that it is only where moral and social interests are concerned that Parliament is inclined to interfere. But can it be said that great social and political questions are not connected with the state of the land question in Ireland? Is not that the whole ground on which we propose to interfere? I am not arguing that Parliament ought to interfere with the freedom of contract. I quite admit that such interferences ought to be exceptional, and that the onus probandi rests upon those who propose such measures. But I venture to maintain that if we are to legislate upon the land of Ireland at all we must admit that there are great social and political considerations connected with the occupation of land in that country, which justify and call for exceptional legislation in respect to contract. Now, my Lords, what I want to ask is this—what is the extent to which we interfere with freedom of
    250
    contract? There is no compulsion in this Bill compelling Irish landlords to convert tenancies-at-will into leaseholds. There is merely an indication of a particular lease, of which Parliament has approved; but there is no attempt to force it on landlords. And, my Lords, although I myself hold most strongly that a leasehold is the best form of agricultural tenure, because I have seen its happy effects in Scotland, yet I think it would be a great mistake to force leases on the Irish tenantry, who have never been accustomed to them, and who, in many cases, would feel as great and greater security under landlords to whom they have been used than under that lease. What the Bill does is simply to indicate a period of occupancy that will satisfy its provisions. My noble Friend on the Cross Benches (Earl Grey) has actually spoken as if the Bill interfered with the freedom of contract between man and man, and he said—"Look at Scotland, where you have the finest agriculture in the three kingdoms, with only 21 years' leases." What is the course I would take if I was an Irish landlord after the passing of this Bill, and I desired to give a 31 years' lease, or no lease at all? Suppose the man who wanted my farm replied to my inquiries as to what rent he would pay, that he would give me 25 s. an acre. I should say—That would have been a fair rent last year; but an Act has been passed by the Legislature which will give you at the expiry of your tenancy a certain charge against me; the tenancy is, therefore, worth more to you than it would have been before, and therefore you must give me a somewhat higher rent for the advantages which will hereafter accompany that particular form of tenure. This would be no evasion of the Act. ["Oh, oh!"] I am speaking of no attempt to evade the clause, but simply of its natural and necessary operation. It is simply this—that a new value has been given to a particular kind of tenancy, and with that I may go into the market. And, therefore, I approve of what the noble Lord said, that one of the effects of this Bill would be to increase the rent in Ireland. If it produces peace in Ireland, there can be no question that it will raise the rent. But when it is said that in that case it would be as broad as it is long, you should remember the political effects.

    251
    The more economical objection may be brought against the Ulster custom. The tenant, no doubt, gets no more than he gave when he came in; but he goes away a contented man. It is not true to say that the mere discounting of these advantages in the terms of the lease will cause the law to have no effect on the tenantry of Ireland. If a man gets money when he goes away, even though he may have paid the money, he departs a contented and happy man compared to the sullen and mutinous man who has been evicted and gets nothing. I do not wish to weary the House; but I cannot refrain from alluding to certain passages in the speech of my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), which I heard with great regret—those passages in which he stated that this Bill would put a premium on agitation in Ireland. It is all very well to say that every concession which you have made to Ireland has been a concession made to agitators and a premium on further agitation. But I confess I heard these sentences with great regret, considering what I myself heard from the illustrious father of the noble Earl, speaking on the same spot on which he spoke. It is now 25 years since the late Lord Derby in this House described the evils under which the occupiers of land in Ireland lay as "intolerable evils." I heard him, with my own ears, use this expression, and I have since verified them by looking up the speech. But with this acknowledgment—that the occupiers of land in Ireland were suffering under intolerable grievances—and adding to this that it is an unquestionable fact that Parliament has not removed them, I say, with all respect and admiration for my noble Friend, that it does not come well from the son of the late Lord Derby, who made that declaration in this House and never retracted it, to accuse the Government, which brings forward a Bill to remedy those grievances, with merely making concessions to the agitators of Ireland. And what is the meaning of this assertion, when from that Bench one noble Lord after another has risen in his place and admitted that there evils in Ireland which require to be remedied? Take that most monstrous of all evils—that for many generations the law has declared that all permanent improvements made on the land belonged to the
    252
    landlord, in a country where the rule is that the improvements are not made by the landlord. ["No, no!"] Can I believe my ears when I hear that denial? What are the documents on which I rely for the statement I have made? My noble Friend talked about improvements as a mere screen for obtaining compensation, not for improvements, but for occupancy. Were the Devon Commissioners great agitators when they set up a claim of this kind? What did they consist of? Of landlords, and landlords only. They asserted that proposition which is now greeted with shouts of "No, no," in the most absolute manner. They said—
    "It is admitted on all hands that, according to the general practice in Ireland, the landlord builds neither dwelling-house nor farm offices, nor puts fences nor gates, &c, in order, whether he leases his land to a tenant or not. The cases in which the landlord does any of these things are the exception."
    These are the words of the Devon Commission, and I must refuse to be met by an absolute negative, even from Irish landlords. I admit to those Irish landlords that, during the last 20 years, a practice has been growing up of dividing the outlay in certain proportions between the landlord and tenant. But this does not tell against, it makes in favour of our Bill. What is the law of England? It has been held that if in England a landlord lays out part of the money expended on improvements in conjunction with the tenant it is a proof of contract, and gives a tenant a stronger claim for reimbursement than if he laid out all the money himself; for in the one case he might lay it out without the landlord being cognizant of it, whereas the contribution made by the landlord clearly showed that these improvements must have been made with his knowledge and consent. Therefore, the principle of either giving the tenant compensation or granting him a term of occupancy sufficient to recoup him for his improvements, is strengthened rather than weakened by the practice which has grown up in Ireland during the last 20 years. How can you then say this is a premium on agitation, when the late Lord Derby and you yourselves have admitted that there are great wrongs to be remedied? We know that for many generations the rule has prevailed in Ireland that all the improvements belong to the landlord, al-

    253
    though, to a very large extent, they could be proved to belong to the tenant. Conceive, then, what must be the effect of that contradiction between the law and the facts of the case. It would be bad enough if it had lasted a short time; but when the system has existed for many generations, when father and son have succeeded each other under it, and have effected almost all the improvements, I ask whether such men have not an irresistible claim to fair compensation—a claim as great, or greater, than if you had put in an English or Scotch farmer by free contract? One word with regard to the expectations I have had as to the operation of this measure. I agree entirely with the remark made by a noble Lord behind me, that neither from this Bill nor from the Bill which we passed last Session, have we any right to look for any magical change in the social or political condition of Ireland. The evils of Ireland have arisen from a long series of years of atrocious misgovernment. We have been endeavouring of recent years conscientiously to retrace our steps, and to remove the evils which our legislation has inflicted; but there is a Scotch proverb that "what is bred in the bone will never out of the flesh," and there will be a lapse of time, of longer or shorter duration, during which you will continue to inherit the evils which have come down to you from your ancestors. But I, for one, refuse to believe that there is anything either in the religion or in the race of Ireland which refuses to lend itself to such remedies as we are now proposing to apply. There are Catholic countries in the world with small occupiers who are a contented, a happy, and a loyal people; and there are Celtic races existing under conditions of tenure precisely like the Irish, who are also a perfectly contented, perfectly peaceful, and a perfectly loyal people. I deny that her religion or race condemns Ireland to the monstrous evils under which she has been suffering for so many years; and I have myself a full conviction that when the Irish people are convinced that Parliament are determined to act on equal principles and to acknowledge in Ireland customs which would have been acknowledged years ago in England, giving them the sanction and protection of law, you may laugh to scorn any agitation which
    254
    might be raised for the repeal of the Union.
    THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I wish to discuss this subject on its own merits and without any party spirit; I will not, therefore, follow the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) into the question which party it was that initiated retrospective legislation. I admit that a settlement of the land question in Ireland is absolutely necessary; but, while I fully admit that, I must say that the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government, both previous to and since they came into Office, has been such as to make it a more difficult task than heretofore to satisfy the demands of reasonable men in Ireland. No doubt a Land Bill effecting considerable changes in tenure has become absolutely necessary, and I will proceed to consider the present proposal with the utmost impartiality. Among the main principles of the Bill there is one in which I entirely concur, and that is the principle of discouraging capricious and arbitrary evictions, of making them difficult and expensive, so that, without debarring a landlord from the free exercise of his just rights, it will make eviction what I may call an expensive luxury, not to be undertaken without due consideration and forethought; while you ensure for the tenant that he shall not be cast out unprovided on the world at the mere whim and caprice of his landlord. Looking to the circumstances of the Irish tenantry, to their want of capital, and to the comparative small outlay made by landlords—though of late years they have done much more than formerly, but still much less than is done in England and Scotland—I believe that this principle, if carried out with moderation and with wise and salutary regulations, will not disturb the security of property, though it may affect some of those abstract rights of which, in many cases, the breach is better than the observance. I concur, then, in this principle, because it is one upon which every just and generous landlord acts in the management of his estate, and because it will prevent a harsh landlord from exercising a power which a humane man would shrink from employing; but while concurring in the main principle of the Bill, I believe that the machinery by which it is proposed to be carried out is in many respects objectionable, will,

    255
    in some cases, fail to bring about a satisfactory conclusion, and in others will lead to disputes and litigation between landlord and tenant; and I am therefore of opinion that many alterations may be introduced into the Bill with advantage. I will divide the consideration of the Bill into two heads—the first, which proposes to legalize the Ulster custom, and the second, which deals with the compensation to be awarded to tenants in the other Provinces of Ireland outside of Ulster. By the Ulster tenant custom I mean that which exists by the mutual consent of landlord and tenant. I have some experience of Ulster tenant-right, and I must say that though in theory it is contrary to all economical principles and commercial maxims, yet in practice it has been the means, if not of creating, yet of assisting to create a race of tenants exceptionally industrious, loyal, and well-conditioned. I cannot agree, however, with the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) that a Bill based on the Ulster customs can be introduced with advantage into other parts of Ireland. There are conditions peculiar to Ulster, and to Ulster tenants, to which the success of the Ulster tenant-right may be in a great degree attributed, and which are wanting in other parts of Ireland. In Ulster there is a race of occupiers generally of the same faith as their landlords, thrifty, industrious, self-denying to a remarkable extent—and there is also another important item in the success of the institution—namely, that the farms are small, averaging from £12 to £60 yearly value, farms of £100 and upwards being comparatively rare. From all these conditions it can be seen how it becomes possible for an incoming tenant who has to pay £300 or £400 for the goodwill, and has denuded himself of a great part of his capital, to become by thrifty industry and self-denial a prosperous and even wealthy man. I am not, therefore, inclined to dissent from legalizing the Ulster custom in a moderate form on estates where it has been allowed. But whatever advantages the Ulster custom may have produced in its relations between landlord and tenant, there is one which I must warn your Lordships not to expect from it—and that is highly improved and scientific farming. So far from that being the tendency of Ulster tenant-right, I consider that its tendency
    256
    leads to a low and comparatively inferior mode of cultivation. But if in Ulster you cannot have those magnificently cultivated lands described by the noble Duke, with all their display of extensive improvements and scientific agriculture, or those countless herds of cattle which may be seen in countries where the holdings are larger and more wealthy than they by possibility can be under the Ulster custom. You have, as I have already stated, an exceptionally thrifty, loyal, and industrious race, who live in great comfort, are imbued with feelings of the strongest attachment to the Throne, and are on the most friendly relations with their landlords and with their neighbours. Looking, therefore, to these results of the Ulster tenant-right, I cannot dissent from its legalization in a moderate and rational form. Now, as regards the question of compensation, though I am prepared to admit that the principle of compensation ought to be applied to the South as well as to the North of Ireland, I see great difficulties in the equitable application of the principle. There are certain peculiarities connected with the Ulster tenant-right which do not apply in the South of Ireland. In the South of Ireland the tenants do not share the faith of their landlords; the farms are, as a rule, much larger, and the tenants are not so energetic and thrifty. In establishing, therefore, in the South of Ireland a new system, which is said to be based upon the Ulster tenant-right, it will, I think, require very careful legislation to reconcile the difference that exists between the North and South of Ireland. There is no doubt whatever that the compensation made under this Bill by the landlord to the out-going tenant will ultimately have to be paid by the in-coming tenant either in the shape of tenant-right, as was the case in Ulster, in the shape of increased rent, or in the shape of percentage on the amount expended by the landlord. It is very desirable, therefore, that Parliament should not, in a moment of impulsive generosity to the present occupiers of the soil, lay too heavy a burden on those who are to become the future occupiers. The question of compensation is one, therefore, which, in the interests of future tenants, quite as much as in that of the landlord, should be dealt with carefully, and depends

    257
    for its success upon our fixing upon a moderate and reasonable amount, as well as upon the mode in which it is to be given. I am willing that compensation should be given in the South, as well as in the North of Ireland, because I think it right that every tenant in Ireland should have, and should feel, a reasonable amount of security in the continuance of his holding; but I cannot help thinking that the provisions inserted with this object in the Bill will lead to litigation and expense to the tenants, as well as injury and annoyance to the landlords. As provided by the Bill, the tenant can claim compensation for disturbance, for tenant-right paid by himself, and for undefined improvements; the landlord can make a counter claim for rent, breach of covenant, deficient cultivation, and for improvements made by himself. As, however, the right of free contract is debarred both parties by the Bill, litigation, with all its attendant delay and uncertainty, will be forced upon them. I will now say a few words upon the effect this Bill is likely to have in Ireland, and upon the influence it may have on the future improvement and advantage of the country. Upon this point I am by no means so sanguine as is the noble Duke who has just sat down. We have been told for more than 18 months, when the Bill for the disestablishment of the Irish Church was before the House, that the Land Bill was to be a healing panacea for the wrongs of Ireland, the means of bringing an influx of much capital into the country, a means of improving the agriculture and increasing the happiness of the people of Ireland. I am sanguine on none of these points. I believe that the Bill will give a temporary and partial contentment to the present occupiers of the soil, but that it will place those in the class below the occupiers in a worse and in a more dependent position than that which they now occupy. As regards the great influx of capital and the great improvements to agriculture, I believe that the Bill will cause little or no difference in those parts of Ireland where a tenant-right already exists; and I believe that in the South of Ireland the tendency will be rather to induce the farmers who possess surplus capital to buy the goodwill of fresh holdings, either from the tenant or from the landlord, than to invest it, as they have hitherto
    258
    done, in the improvement of the soil. But the position in which the Bill will place the agricultural population of Ireland—a class even more numerous than the occupiers—has, I think, been overlooked by the authors of the measure. Mr. Gladstone and his followers, in the furtherance of this Bill, have urged as a necessity for this Bill the entire dependence of the Irish people on agriculture for their support. No doubt this Bill will considerably improve the condition of the occupiers of the soil; but, while it leaves the agricultural labourer precisely where he was, the worst housed and the worst fed of the labouring population of Europe, its probable ultimate effect will be to consign him to a more permanent state of poverty and dependence. It requires little knowledge of Ireland to see that, by giving a certain prominence to the 600,000 holdings already located on the soil, the greatest part of which are unable to give proper wages and houses to their labourers, that you are consigning, in an equal degree, the labouring population to a permanent state of dependence and penury. I therefore look upon the Bill in that respect with great apprehension; because I fear that, if the Bill brings contentment and satisfaction to the occupiers of the soil, it will leave the labouring population in more hopeless dependence than they are now. Such was the condition of the labouring population of Ulster a quarter of a century since, and such, I fear, will be the effect of this Bill in the South of Ireland. Looking, however, to the principle on which the Bill is founded—a principle in which I concur, though I object to many of the details—I shall give my assent to the second reading, in the belief that what is wrong in the details may be rectified in Committee; and, whatever may be the nature of the measure ultimately passed by your Lordships, it is my earnest wish, as it is, no doubt, that of all your Lordships, that the measure, when passed into law, shall be one calculated to promote the happiness, security, and comfort of the people of Ireland.
    LORD LURGAN LORD LURGAN moved the adjournment of the debate.
    Further debate on the said Motion adjourned 'till To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock, A.M., 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.