Sitting of 27 June 1870

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Kirkman Daniel Hodgson, esquire, for Bristol.
PUBLIC BILLS—Report of Select Committee—Juries * [Nos. 306, 307].
Committee—Elementary Education [167]—R.P.; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) * [171]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Post Office * [144–183]; Cattle Diseases (Ireland) * [174]; Medical Officers Superannuation * [70].
Report—Juries * [32–182].
Considered as amended—Liverpool Admiralty District Registrar * [164].
Third Reading—Sligo and Cashel Disfranchisement * [139], and passed.

IRELAND—REPRESENTATION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.—QUESTION.
MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he can state what course the Government are going to take with reference to the vacancy in the Representation of the City of Dublin?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that the Government had come to the conclusion that the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Dublin freemen, while amply justifying the issue of that Commission, was not in respect of the last election sufficiently strong to justify the Government in bringing in a Bill for disfranchising the freemen of Dublin as a body. He might add that, in accordance with precedent, a Bill would be introduced by the Solicitor General for Ireland for the purpose of disfranchising those freemen who had been reported by name in the Schedule as having been guilty of corrupt practices. As soon as that Bill became law a new Writ would issue.

THE LATE EARL OF CLARENDON.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR HENRY LYTTON-BULWERsaid, he was sure the House must deeply regret the loss the country had sustained by the death of the Earl of Clarendon. In consequence of this sad event, he would postpone the Question he had intended to ask with respect to the International Commission on Consular Jurisdiction in Egypt.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, for the same reason he would postpone his Question concerning the convention lately concluded with China by Sir Rutherford Alcock.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KENNAWAYsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether, in the case of a district separated for ecclesiastical purposes from a parish and possessing sufficient school accommodation of its own, it is intended under the Bill that such district should

  999
  be obliged to contribute to an Educational Rate that may be required to be made by the parish of which, for civil purposes, the district still forms a part; also, whether under Clause 48, section 2, it is intended to create in parts of parishes or in district parishes an independent rating authority over their own area as occasion arose under the Bill?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied that it was not intended under the Bill that a district separated for ecclesiastical purposes from a parish should have a rate of its own. He was well aware of the argument by which the hon. Member would support his proposition, and in Committee on the Bill he (Mr. W. E. Forster) would state why he could not adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. The second section of the 48th clause would not have the effect contemplated by the hon. Gentleman's Question. It was to the effect that if there were a part of a parish outside of a borough, for example, a provision should be made for that part of the parish.

ARMY—DEATHS FROM SUNSTROKE ON MARCH.—QUESTION.
MR. DENTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to two paragraphs in "The Times" of the 24th of June, stating that a soldier of the 9th Regiment died from sunstroke on the march from West Ham to Kingston, and a corporal of the 94th from the same cause on the march from Guildford to Alder-shot; that both these deaths occurred on Wednesday last, and that the troops were marching during the middle of the day exposed to the extreme heat of the sun; and to ask further, by whom the marches of troops are regulated; and, whether during hot weather arrangements might not be made for the march to take place in the early morning or in the evening?
LORD ERNEST BRUCEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that a private in Her Majesty's 9th Regiment dropped down dead on the march on entering Kingston on Wednesday last, the 22nd instant, and that a sergeant in the same Regiment is also reported to have died from the extreme heat of the weather on the march on the 21st instant; and, whether, if the removal of a Battalion of
1000
Infantry from Warley in Essex to Alder-shot by Railway cannot be arranged, it would not be better to change the quarters of Home Regiments at a cooler period of the year, so that the men may be spared the intense suffering of a four days' march in heavy marching order in the heat of the day?
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the statement is true that the 2nd battalion of the 9th Regiment, or that portion of it quartered at Warley Barracks, having received orders to proceed to Aldershot, were on Wednesday last marched to that camp in heavy marching order, a distance of some 15 miles; whether there were not two separate remonstrances made to the Quartermaster General or other department of the Horse Guards by the officer commanding the detachment, or other officer on his behalf, against marching the troops such a distance under a tropical sun, and in heavy marching order, which suggestion represented that the men's kits might be conveyed by railway or other conveyance; whether the officer in command did not earnestly suggest that his men should not be unnecessarily subjected to a march under a tropical sun; whether the billeting arrangements were neglected to such an extent that many of the soldiers of the 9th were obliged to sleep under hedgerows adjoining Stratford le Bow; whether the result of the neglect of the commanding officer's suggestion has not been suffering and consequent dissatisfaction in the Regiment, accompanied by the fact of the death of one soldier on the line of march from exhaustion, and of another being affected by "coup de soliel." Also, to ask who is responsible for the marching of those troops in heavy marching order, against the wish of their commanding officer; and, whether similar complaints have reached the War Office relative to the route of the 94th Regiment on the same day?
MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that three cases of sunstroke, one of a very serious character, occurred on Wednesday last in the town of Alton during the march of detachments of the 46th and 96th Regiments from Winchester to Aldershot, in the hottest part of the day, and that the effect of the march generally was

1001
distressing to the troops in the highest degree; whether it is a fact that the detachments in question were unaccompanied by any surgeon, so that the cases referred to were treated by a medical gentleman of the locality; and, whether there is any reason other than motives of economy to prevent these soldiers from being conveyed by the railway which communicates directly between Winchester and Aldershot?
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he wished to know who had the responsibility of ordering these marches?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I have gone fully into the particulars of this lamentable occurrence with the Field-Marshal, Commanding-in-Chief and the Quarter-master General, and will state the circumstances to the House. Two men have died; one from the effect of the heat, and the other from causes which I shall explain in the course of what I have to say. The circumstances have; been as follows:—It was the period of the usual moves of troops for the summer drill at Aldershot, which, as the House is aware, are made when the Militia Regiments depart and leave the quarters vacant. The 9th moved from Warley, the 94th from Woolwich, and the 46th, with two depôt troops attached, from Winchester. Two men have died—Malone, of the 9th, and M'Ewen, of the 94th. The sergeant of the 9th, reported in the newspapers to have died, has recovered. The routes are issued from the Quartermaster General's Department some days before. The hours are left to the commanding officers; the Queen's Regulations, par. 1,087, say, "All marches are to commence at as early an hour as the season of the year will admit of." The route of the 9th prescribed four days, beginning on the 21st—namely, to West Ham, 14½ miles; Kingston, 18; Guildford, 19; Aldershot, 11. Malone died on arriving at Kingston on Wednesday, the 22nd, the heat of which day all who hear me will remember. The medical account is—
"He fell down suddenly on arrival at Kingston, at 5 p.m., and died of heat apoplexy at 10 o'clock that night. I may add that he did not come under my observation previously, but marched the whole way and carried his pack."
Tuesday's march began at 9 a.m., and ended at 5 p.m., resting two hours in the middle of the day. Wednesday's began at 6 a.m., and ended at 5 p.m.,
1002
resting three hours in the middle of the day. For the 94th the route prescribed three days, beginning on the 20th—from Woolwich to Kingston, 18 miles; Kington to Guildford, 19; Guildford to Aldershot, 11. The march on Monday began at 8.15 and ended at 3; on Tuesday it began at 8.15 and ended at 5.25; on Wednesday it began at 9.15 and ended at 1.45. M'Ewen, who died, was carried in the ambulance two days, and would have been carried the third if he had reported himself unable to march. He had only marched three miles when he was put into the ambulance. He died on arriving at Aldershot, and this is the medical report—
"I have no hesitation in saying that his death may be ascribed almost altogether to drink, which rendered him unable to bear the effects of a march in hot weather; and from inquiries made by me I find that this man had been drinking hard on the previous day and upon that morning."
Of the 46th, which marched from Winchester, the route prescribed, to Alton, 18 miles; to Aldershot, 13. The battalion moved in three detachments, and as it has only two surgeons belonging to it, no doubt one detachment was without a surgeon. I have not heard anything of the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) except from himself; and, as I only heard that this morning, I have not yet received replies to the inquiries which I have instituted in consequence. The reports from the Regiment dislose no sickness. I will now answer the several questions which have been put. The 9th had their knapsacks carried for them the last two days. The 94th never carried them at all. The men had no ammunition in their pouches. No remonstrances from commanding officers reached the Quartermaster General directly or indirectly. The billeting arrangements at Stratford are reported to have been good, but the houses widely dispersed; and, so far as my information goes, one man only failed to find his billet and slept in the open air. I am informed that there is no dissatisfaction in the Regiments, but that the men are in an excellent spirit. The 9th and 94th have now very moderate hospital lists, and the only sickness to be traced to the march is three men footsore in the 9th and one in the 94th. Economy has not been the object of these marches. General officers have complained that the troops got out of the

1003
way of marching, and the authorities have been desirous, when the distances have been suitable, to accustom them to it. In conclusion, I may say that the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief will take care that attention is drawn to the Regulation which requires that marches shall begin at as early an hour as the season of the year will admit.

NAVY—RETIREMENT OF SIR S. ROBINSON AND MR. REED.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that Admiral Sir A. Spencer Robinson has resigned the Office of Comptroller of the Navy; and, if so, on what grounds?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer, Sir, to my right hon. Friend, I am glad to have to state that it is not true that Sir S. Robinson has resigned his office of Comptroller of the Navy. But as it is true that the question of his resignation was raised, I will endeavour to state the grounds on which the communications in respect to it were based. The House is aware that an Order in Council was passed in 1866 with regard to naval retirement and another Order in the present year. The latter Order in Council has already been the subject of discussion and Division in this House. The Comptroller of the Navy approved, on the whole, the Order of February last; but he objected on two grounds, which appeared to him to be very strong, to one portion of the Order, namely—that which omitted the provision in the Order of 1866, to the effect that the employment of a Flag officer at the Admiralty should be considered as equivalent to sea service with reference to the purposes of retirement. That which was admitted in 1866 is no longer admitted as equivalent to sea service in the Order of 1870. Sir S. Robinson thought, in the first place, that it was not just to himself and to other officers standing in a similar category for the same purpose, and he likewise thought, in regard to the question of general policy, that it was not desirable for the interests of the service that the change should be made. He considered it to be for the public advantage that an officer holding an office such as his should continue to hold his place on the active list in the
  1004
  Navy, and that if he were removed from that list it would be a change in his position affecting his authority in the discharge even of such an office as that which he fills. These are the grounds on which Sir S. Robinson based his opinion on the subject; but he never desired, as he has stated—and I am sure implicit reliance may be placed on any statement which he makes—to treat the question as one purely personal to him, or to found his objections on the retrospective action of the Order of 1870 with regard to service at the Admiralty. But when he found himself on the 1st of June actually on the retired list, he then, probably owing to the joint action of the motives I have described, was of opinion that it was his duty to tender his resignation, and communications passed between him and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and between him and myself, on that subject. We informed Sir S. Robinson that it was not possible for us to make any alteration in the Order in Council to the effect he desired. We stated to him that we deemed it necessary to the policy we had adopted, both on account of our view of that policy itself and because we feared that any alteration of it would virtually compromise the authority of the Crown with respect to the power of making regulations for the Navy according to its own sense of what the interests of the service demanded and what was consistent with public exigency. We had, at the same time, no hesitation in assuring Sir S. Robinson that nothing was further from our desire than that the office which he filled should in any manner be lowered in the eyes of the Navy. Thus much we said, not only on account of the office itself, but particularly because of its being held by an officer like Sir S. Robinson, whose services are most highly appreciated by the Government, as, indeed, they are by all those who have an opportunity of passing a judgment upon them. It was, therefore, most agreeable to us to meet his feelings by giving him this assurance, as was done by me in the first instance in private, and, in the second place, in answer to the Question of my right hon. Friend in this House, I do not hesitate to repeat that which I have already said to Sir S. Robinson that, for the sake of the public advantage, it was desirable he should continue to give his best ser-

  1005
  vices to the public by holding his present office. That, I think, is the whole of the case as it occurred. I do not understand Sir S. Robinson to have altered his opinion with regard to the measure taken by the Government, and the Government have felt it to be their duty to adhere to that measure. But Sir S. Robinson, after the assurances which he received from the Government, still continues to serve the public as he has long done with great advantage to the State.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: According to public rumour Mr. Reed, the Chief Constructor of the Navy, has also sent in his resignation. I should like to know whether that is the fact?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have heard the rumour to which the right hon. Baronet refers. But no communication to the effect that Mr. Reed desires to resign has been made either to the First Lord of the Admiralty or myself. I may add that I have no reason whatever to anticipate any such communication.

POOR LAW—RETURNS OF PAUPERISM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KEKEWICHsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he is of opinion that a very erroneous impression exists as to number of able-bodied paupers receiving in-door and out-door relief on account of want of work and destitution; and, if so, whether it is not caused by the mode in which the Returns are made to the Poor Law Board; whether it would be desirable to separate the Return of those receiving relief on account of the sickness of the head or a member of the family from that of paupers relieved on account of destitution from want of work; and, whether he has any objection to state the number of that class receiving relief on the 1st of this month not including vagrants?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, I am of opinion that an erroneous impression exists as to the numbers of able-bodied paupers receiving out-door relief on account of their want of work, and I think the form in which the Returns are presented to the public has contributed to that result. Arrangements have been made by which, in future, the Returns will show more accurately the various classes to which the paupers belong. I should have no objection to state the number
  1006
  of the paupers relieved on account of destitution on the 1st of this month, if it were not the case that the Returns giving that information are made up only for the 1st of January and the 1st of July. I should estimate the total number of adult able-bodied male paupers in receipt of out-door relief to be less than 3 per cent of the total number of out-door poor.

THE NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If he will consent, pending the decision of the Government upon the plans for the appropriation of the site, to open a temporary thoroughfare for foot passengers from Carey Street to the Strand, over the ground which has been cleared for the proposed Palace of Justice, in lieu of the thoroughfares which have been closed under the authority of the Courts of Justice Building Sites Act?
  MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, as far as he could judge, the excavations for the foundations of the new building would be begun at so early a period that it would be impracticable to open a thoroughfare across the site, in lieu of those which have been closed, from Carey Street to the Strand.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 167.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 167.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 24th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Definitions).
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the clause contained a definition of a parish as "a place for which a separate poor rate is or can be made." His own parish contained no fewer than ten townships, each of which was a civil parish, and there were many parishes in the North of England in a similar position; and, as it was impossible for small townships to form separate school districts, he thought that definition required amending.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that was so in his own parish; but the supposed difficulty was provided for by the subse-

  1007
  quent clauses—33 to 40—which related to the combination of parishes, and which could be amended if they did not meet all cases.
  MR. LIDDELL MR. LIDDELL moved the postponement of the clause. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to his Motion, as he believed it to be inexpedient to adopt some of the proposed definitions until questions involved in some of the clauses had been decided.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the definitions could be altered afterwards, if it were necessary to amend them in consequence of alterations in the provisions of the Bill. He was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood).
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he knew of instances in which there were townships of 40,000 inhabitants in the midst of parishes; and, in such cases, subdivisions would be desirable. He thought the power to subdivide should, therefore, be taken in the Bill as well as the power to unite.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, there were parishes divided into as many as 13 townships; for example, the parishes of Heartburn and Cambo, in Northumberland, the population of which were 746, and 780 respectively. According to the 5th clause, the local district would be one of the townships into which the ecclesiastical parish is divided; and there were as few as four inhabitants in some of these subdivisions. He thought it would be better to leave out the definition of parish and insert it afterwards.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the clauses could be most conveniently debated if the definition was first admitted. If the necessity should arise the definition could be considered afterwards.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that hereafter the Committee should not be bound by the terms of the present definition.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he rose to move the omission, from the definition of elementary schools, of the words "at which the scholars are boarded or clothed." Such a definition would exclude some ragged and other schools, at which food was given to the children;
  1008
  and he was sure this could not be the intention of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster). He moved, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from "at" to "or," in line 10, inclusive.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that in accepting the Amendment, he did not prejudge the question raised by the clause which his hon. Friend had given Notice of. It was a serious point whether they should consider a boarding school as an elementary school.
  Amendment agreed, to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (School district to have sufficient public schools).
  MR. DIXONsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment of which he had given Notice, providing for the creation of a school Board in every school district, in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter).
  MR. WALTERsaid, his Amendment was one of considerable importance, because not only would it enable some very important provisions of the Bill to be carried out which, without it, there was no machinery for carrying out, but it would also lay the foundation of a municipal system of education throughout the length and breadth of the land. The principal reason which influenced him in bringing forward the Amendment was to be found in Clause 22, which provided that—
  "The managers of any elementary school in the district of any school Board, with the assent of such number of their body, if any, as under their constitution is binding on them, or, if there is no such number, of a majority of those members who are present at a meeting of their body duly constituted, may, with the consent of the Educational Department, make an arrangement with the school Board for transferring their school to such Board, and the school Board may assent to such arrangement."
  Now, he did not know whether it occurred to his right hon. Friend or not, that such arrangements were very desirable and were very likely to be carried out. But he was of opinion that a great number of schools would be disposed to enter into such arrangements, if the requisite machinery for doing so were provided; but, as the Bill now stood, such machinery was not provided, because no existing school could be transferred until

  1009
  a local Board was called into existence for the purpose of receiving the transfer. Now, if the Bill worked well, the managers of a good many schools would not be inclined to think that the privilege of teaching the Church Catechism on week days, under the operation of the Conscience Clause, was an adequate compensation for the loss of the benefit which they would derive from relieving themselves to a great extent of the burden they at present very unjustly bore; and many gentlemen who, up to the present time, had maintained schools single-handed, would be inclined to think that their neighbours should be called upon to contribute their share. He wanted to provide those gentlemen with facilities for carrying out this very desirable and obvious arrangement, especially in schools in the country districts. When no local Board existed, how was the transfer of an existing school to be effected? How was it to become part and parcel of the national elementary school system of the country, founded by local Boards, and supported partly by local rates, until the manager had shut up his school, thrown the educational machinery of the district out of gear, and left the children meanwhile destitute of education? Then the Education Board would come down, declare that no elementary education of a proper description existed in that parish, and for the first time the local Board would be called into being. Now, he wanted to prevent that most mischievous waste of time. There was another reason in favour of his Amendment which would be appreciated by hon. Gentlemen on his right, and that was its effect in enabling the compulsory provisions of the Bill to be carried out. There was no machinery for carrying into effect the compulsory clauses of the Bill without the creation of local Boards. Section 65, which referred to the attendance of children at school, provided that every school Board exercising powers under the Act might, from time to time, make by-laws, among other things, requiring parents to send their children to school. If, however, you had no school Board and no local Board, how were the compulsory provisions of the Bill to be applied? Were you to throw the duty upon the existing manager, or on the overseer and churchwardens? Those persons might reasonably object to any increase of their
  1010
  present reponsibility. Besides, in carrying out a principle of so novel a character as that of compulsory education, which in the first instance required to be worked with considerable care, it was much more likely to work smoothly and effectively if the Board which administered it were elected by the district. His right hon. Friend might say—"What would be the relations of local Boards to the managers of existing schools?" If they had very little to do, he could congratulate them upon being placed in so agreeable a position; but that was no argument against the existence of such a body. He did not for a moment contemplate that a local Board so created would have any right to interfere with existing schools, or that the managers of existing schools should be ex-officio members of the Board. Probably, as a rule, they would be members of it; the energy and zeal with which they had carried on the existing schools would lead to the placing of these gentlemen upon the local Boards; but their power and influence would be considerably increased by the addition of a few other Members, and he hoped that in no case would a local Board consist of fewer than six members. Although a local Board, however, would have no immediate control or influence over existing schools, it would have the responsibility of enforcing attendance at those schools, and it would also be in the position of a body ready to receive any complaints from parents that their children were unfairly treated by the existing school authority. For these reasons, which the Committee would admit constituted a strong primâ facie case in favour of his Amendment, he moved, in Clause 5, line 28, to leave out all the words from the beginning to the word "defined," for the purpose of inserting the following words:—
  "A school Board shall be formed for every school district, as hereinafter provided, and it shall be the duty of school Boards to provide for their respective districts a sufficient amount of accommodation in public elementary schools, as hereinafter defined (except where such accommodation already exists, or as occasion may require)."
  In case the Amendment were adopted, the last three lines of the 5th clause, after the word "made," would be surplusage, and should, therefore, be omitted. The clause amended as he proposed would read as follows:—

  1011
  "A school Board shall be formed for every school district as hereinafter provided, and it shall be the duty of school Boards to provide for their respective districts a sufficient amount of accommodation in public elementary schools, as hereinafter defined (except where such accommodation already exists, or as occasion may require), available for all the children resident in such district, for whose elementary education suitable provision is not otherwise made."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 28, to leave out from the word "There" to the word "defined," in line 30, in order to insert the words "A School Board shall be formed for every school district, as hereinafter provided, and it shall be the duty of School Boards to provide for their respective districts a sufficient amount of accommodation in public elementary schools, as hereinafter denned (except where such accommodation already exists, or as occasion may require.")—(Mr. Walter.)
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would support the Amendment, and for this reason, in addition to the others stated by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter)—that a school Board, whenever established under the Bill, would be enabled to remit the fees of children and to pay them out of the rates, and it was desirable that that power should exist. It was also desirable that, as far as possible, there should be school Boards all over the country, and there ought to be some mode by which, on the application of ratepayers, a school Board of this kind might be established. There were many districts where there was sufficient school accommodation, and where the managers of schools would be desirous to insure the attendance of the children by compulsion.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he thought it would be quite unnecessary for a school Board to be elected every year in places where, when elected, it would have nothing to do. There was already in the Bill sufficient power to elect a school Board wherever it should be found necessary; for, by the 3rd subsection of Clause 29, the Education Department might cause school Boards to be formed wherever they chose; but it would be ridiculous to force the election of school Boards on places where there was nothing for them to do. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) raised a large question, for, in giving his reasons for supporting the Amendment, he had implied that a rate could not be levied in every place without a school Board. But, if it were meant to establish a rate for the purposes of the
  1012
  Bill in every place in the country, such a proposition as that should be brought forward in an open manner, and no attempt to effect an object of that kind should be made in an indirect mode.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he wished to ask what the words in the Amendment, "as occasion may require," meant?
  MR. WALTER: From time to time, as more accommodation might be required.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that the clauses of the Bill empowered, the Education Department to provide school accommodation where necessary, and the proposed Amendment seemed to transfer the power from the Education Department to school Boards.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that as yet the Committee had no sufficient information as to the contemplated extent of a school district. It seemed to be the general feeling that in the country the parish would for the most part be too small an area. His neighbours and himself had been obliged to combine four parishes in order to form a district. There might be other cases where the parishes were too large and subdivision might be necessary; and he thought it would facilitate progress not only with this, but with other clauses of the Bill if some indication were given of the extent of area the school district was intended to be.
  MR. DENTsaid, he trusted the Amendment would be accepted by the Committee. There was, or soon would be, an absolute necessity for the compulsory attendance of children at school, and without school Boards he saw no provision in the Bill for giving effect to its compulsory provisions. He could not see that existing managers of schools had anything to fear from being associated with a body of ratepayers. He thought that the existing schools which received no aid, and accepted no inspection, would be advantaged by the establishment of school Boards, inasmuch as the Boards would cheek the proselytizing spirit which pervaded some of these schools.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he should support the Amendment. He thought the principle of permissive compulsion wrong; but if it were adopted, it should extend to all schools recognized under the Bill. He had no great faith in local

  1013
  Boards; but if this scheme was to be under the direction of local Boards, and if there was anything good in them, he thought they should have local Boards everywhere.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) had rather anticipated Clause 6, under which the universality of school Boards would more appropriately be discussed; but that was a mere matter of order, and it might be convenient that he should at once state what the Government were prepared to do. Clause 5, he thought, was rather a declaratory than an enacting clause. The great object of the clause was to fasten on a school district the duty of providing sufficient school accommodation. In stating the view he took of the question raised by his hon. Friend he must remind the Committee of what was the main principle of the Bill. It was to enforce provision where provision was necessary, but not to enforce it where it was unnecessary. Provision was to be enforced by a rate. There was no wish to oblige people to be rated unless it was necessary. Consequently, power was taken to inquire if there was sufficient provision; if there was not sufficient provision in quality and quantity there must be a rate; if there was sufficient in quantity and quality there would be no rate. Would they not, by the Amendment of his hon. Friend, be forcing some districts to be rated which did not require a rate? After all, the object of school Boards was the rating. There were other duties for them to perform; but that was the one thing for which they were called into existence. His right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had asked whether they could give any idea what ought to be the area of country districts. In towns the district was denned by the borough limits. But in country districts they had taken considerable powers for uniting parishes, where small into districts, reserving, however, to those who felt aggrieved, the right to appeal. It was almost impossible for them to define the exact area. Now, the difficulty that would arise if the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire were carried was this—He would suppose they had a school Board everywhere in country districts. Many united districts would be composed partly of parishes
  1014
  already supplied with sufficient provision, and partly of parishes that ought to be rated. There would be considerable difficulty in forming that Board of representatives, some of whom represented districts that had to pay rates and some that had not. Those who had not to pay rates would, he thought, rather dislike being put in a position of having in any way to bear the burden of those who had to pay rates. On the other hand, he saw the difficulty raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire. He (Mr. Forster) had always looked forward to many of the existing voluntary schools being willing to transfer themselves to the school Boards, and he hoped that that would be the case. Then there was the case put by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) of ratepayers being desirous to pay fees for poor children. There was also the compulsion question. He was aware that it was a blot in the Bill, that because a district had provided the means of education, therefore it was not to have the same power of compelling attendance as a district that had not provided the means of sufficient education. He was perfectly aware of that—he foresaw this difficulty even before the Bill was introduced. That was only acknowledging the great difficulty of the question. But, on the other hand, there would be a great deal of jealousy excited if power was given to the managers of existing schools to compel attendance. After carefully considering all the difficulties of the case, the Government were prepared to take this step—while they would not force a district to provide a school Board unless it was proved deficient in school provision, they were willing to allow such district to do so; and he proposed to introduce words to enable a school Board to be formed at once on application being made by those who, if a school Board were necessary, would elect that Board. If in a borough a Town Council wished a school Board they would only have to apply to the Education Department for it; and there would be the same power in the rural parishes. That provision would really extend permissive compulsion all over the kingdom, because even a district already educationally supplied, would be able to obtain a school Board if they wished for compulsion, and the school Board would, of course, subject to the

  1015
  discretion of the Education Department, obtain the compulsory power. Now that the voluntary schools were not to be interfered with, he saw no objection to a district, if it liked, having a school Board. But, in addition to that, they proposed to meet another point raised by his hon. Friend. There might be cases in which the managers of a school, finding the principle of compulsory rates enacted, would be unwilling any longer to bear the very heavy expense of keeping up the school. It was quite possible there might be cases in which clergymen who, with great self-denial and with a very small income, had been keeping up a school, feeling that the neighbouring landowner was not bearing his fair share of the burden, might wish to shift the burden to the rates. It was quite true that might be done under the Bill as it stood, though only by a circuitous process; educational destitution would have to be created in order that the relief of the rate might be obtained. He proposed, therefore, to introduce words to this effect—that if the managers of any school convinced the Education Department that they were either unable or unwilling to continue the school, so that destitution would exist if it were not continued, a school Board should be formed. Those persons who, if there was a deficiency, would elect a school Board, should be able to ask at once for a school Board. There would be this advantage in these alterations, that the Bill would come into much quicker operation in towns. Educational destitution did undoubtedly exist in the majority of them; and they would be able, if they chose, to set to work at once to remedy it. That was the way in which the Government proposed to meet the case put by his hon. Friend.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he regretted that the Government had given way upon this point. He had thought that the Bill was a supplemental Bill designed to supply existing deficiencies; but the concession just announced by the right hon. Gentleman, insignificant as it might appear, was a concession of principle, and in reality changed the whole character of the Bill, and made it one for superseding the present system. He failed to see the necessity or wisdom of those Amendments. Why should school Boards be called for when schools were already
  1016
  supplied; and why should the volunteers be supposed unwilling to continue? The power of compulsion might as well be given to the managers of existing schools as to the school Boards which would be created under the Bill. There was, therefore, no necessity to make school Boards in order to introduce compulsory attendance, if that was desirable. He should be glad to know whether, since Town Councils were to have the power of obtaining school Boards by asking for them, it was proposed that the application should be made by the whole Council or only by a majority of its members. When the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were willing to concede school Boards to all such managers of existing schools as wished for them, that was, in fact, offering a bribe to the upholders of the voluntary system to relieve themselves of a duty which they had so ably and for so long fulfilled. This proposal exhibited impatience on the part of the Government to see the end of the present system, and was tantamount to changing the policy of the Bill. He believed that if the Government would be content to stimulate the present system no such Bill as this would be necessary at all He was, therefore, not prepared, on the contrary, to stimulate an inroad in the present system, to render the Bill the more necessary.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the precise terms of the course the Government proposed to pursue would be put upon the Table of the House almost immediately. He might add that the proposal would be carried out by adding words at the end of Clause 10. The Amendment would be consistent with the object of the Bill, which was to make use of existing agencies.
  MR. DIXONcould by no means coincide in the contention of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Sir Charles Adderley) that impediments should be placed in the way of those managers of existing schools who might wish to retire from their labours when the Bill had passed. That would be but a poor acknowledgment of the great services which they were universally admitted to have rendered to the country. He was sensible of the value of the concessions which the right hon. Gentleman had just announced; but he hoped that the Committee would, not be satis-

  1017
  fied with them. They could not provide for the case of parents who might still be required by the school Boards to pay school-pence for the education of their children, although their circumstances were such as to make the payment difficult if not impossible; but he believed that it was the wish of the Committee that such parents should be relieved from everything that would act as an impediment to their children's education. In Birmingham it had recently been determined to pay the school-pence for all parents whose means were so small as to make them really poorer than paupers—that was to say, in the receipt of a smaller wage than would be allowed for the maintenance of the family if it was dependent on the parish; and the result was that no less than 6,000 applications for school orders were received. In regard to compulsory attendance, he wished just to observe, that it might be so gently and gradually introduced as to occasion no disgust or dislike in the minds of the people. If the principle, for example, were applied to children between the ages of five and eight, or five and ten, no pecuniary hardship would be inflicted on the parents, for children of such tender years could not earn wages. If they had not a school Board they would have no means of enforcing compulsion, however necessary it might be. He, therefore, hoped that, notwithstanding the concession made by the Government, the House would still urge upon them the great advantages of making the school Boards universal.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must point out that his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) was under a misapprehension as to the effect of the alteration proposed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think it would not put the districts throughout the country in the same position as the school Boards in regard to school fees. It would, however, be seen that the 23rd clause placed them both in precisely the same position.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he did not wish to enter upon a discussion of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Forster's) concession till he had the words before him. But he thought it highly undesirable to empower a Town Council to bring the Bill into force without preliminary inquiry, as he believed such a proceeding
  1018
  would be productive of much acrimony. The Amendment pointed to the establishment of a Board compulsorily in each district; but he did not object to it so much on that account as because it proposed to make it compulsory upon the Board to provide a sufficient amount of accommodation in elementary schools without preliminary inquiry.
  MR. WALTERsaid, his Amendment had no such intention at all. The preliminary inquiry was supposed to have been already conducted by the Government.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, that in that case he apprehended the Amendment was unnecessary, because the clause as it stood made it imperative that sufficient accommodation should be provided, and the subsequent clauses created the machinery for carrying out that object. He believed the majority in the country and the majority in the House desired to preserve the present voluntary system, and to supplement it only when it was absolutely necessary to do so.
  LORD HENLEYsaid, he was of opinion that the proposed alteration was a most serious one, as it would extend compulsion, which, in his judgment, was a very great evil. Indeed, he hardly knew how in the rural districts a system of compulsion could be carried out. It would be very hard if a parish, already well provided with voluntary schools, were thrown into a district in which rate-supported and compulsory schools were necessary.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was quite out of the power of the Government to accept the Amendment; but in making that announcement he wished to explain by what means they expected to be able to remove many of the objections raised by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter). It was only proposed that a school Board should be formed either where there was a deficiency or where the ratepayers wished it.
  SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Berkshire, whether he accepted the proposal of the Government; or, whether he intended to press his Amendment to a Division?
  MR. WALTERsaid, he was much obliged to his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) for going as far as he could towards meeting the proposals embodied in the Amendment. It would,

  1019
  however, be the most straightforward course for him to say at once that he proposed to press his Amendment to a Division. He did not think the concessions his right hon. Friend had made really met the difficulties of the case, especially with regard to compulsory powers. He might, perhaps, be allowed to lay more stress on this point, because he had never been a strong advocate for compulsion. Still, what was good for one parish in regard to compulsory powers was good for another, and he could not conceive on what ground some 10,000 or 15,000 parishes which were provided with schools, at which the attendance was unsatisfactory, should be left without the means of having a local Board. It appeared to him that a local Board was a natural appendage to every district. If it did not exercise very active powers it would do no harm, and it would be available for the specific purpose referred to in Clause 22. It must be remembered that the voluntary system, which all so much admired, was merely the result of a very long course of public negligence. Certain people, who were not called upon to do so, had taken upon themselves to educate the people of this country; but it did not follow that they should go on doing so to the end of time. There would be great difficulty in getting a voluntary system to work side by side with a rate-supported system, for the one would tend to absorb the other and to supersede it. He spoke on this subject from some knowledge, and after corresponding with a vast number of poor clergymen who had been great supporters of schools. Some years ago a multitude of them expressed their preference for a rate-supported system, which they thought would only be just; but until such a system could be established they were willing to bear the burden that they had hitherto borne. The Committee, however, might depend upon it that that would not go on much longer, and his impression was that if the religious difficulty were got over a large number of the schools of this country would be gradually transferred to the national system.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had spoken of the necessities and the difficulties of poor districts, and then proposed to throw upon them the addi-
  1020
  tional burden of the school rates. He (Lord Robert Montagu) was afraid of a Liberal Government when it began to make concessions to its supporters below the Gangway. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. The Bill which the Committee were discussing this evening was in fact the third that had been before the House this Session; that was to say, there had been two sets of changes introduced into the Bill to please the Members below the Gangway. Yet before any of its clauses were considered the Vice President of the Council said he had an Amendment which would meet the views of hon. Members below the Gangway; and the vague terms in which that announcement was made were such as to cause him to fear that there would be another total change in the essential character of the Bill. The Vice President said at Bradford that the Bill would not meddle with the existing schools, but would only make good the gaps in the present system; yet now it was sought to supersede the present system altogether; and he thought it was not fair that the Committee should be called upon to divide on the proposition of the hon. Member for Berkshire, when it was not known what was to be the proposition of the Government, of which the Vice President had given only a vague notice. Did the Vice President propose to form a school Board for every district without any previous notice or inquiry?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, his object was to enable the inhabitants of any district who wished to form a school Board to do so without any inquiry. He must disavow having any intention to alter the principle of the Bill, which really was intended to supplement the present system of education, and he contended that the inhabitants of a district in seeking to establish a school Board were not at all interfering with, the voluntary principle, or injuring the existing system. The Government could not accept the Amendment.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, he thought the discussion had shown how wide was the line which separated one side of the House from the other. The object of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) was to prevent the wreck of those principles of education which many hon. Members supported—namely, free admission and compulsory coercion. School Boards ought

  1021
  to be formed in every district to carry out those principles of the Bill which were supported by all.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he did not think it would help forward the Bill if they indulged in political recriminations. He had no complaint to make of the other side of the House, and he had no reason to think that they were not as honestly anxious for a good measure of education as those on his own side. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Montagu) said the object of the Amendment was to supersede the existing schools. If that were so, he would not support it; but he did not think it was so. The presumption of the Government Bill was that there were districts of the country which did not need additional education. If that was not correct, then school Boards would become necessary everywhere. Now, where was there a district in the country where the means of education were sufficient? ["Oh, oh!"] They might say "Oh!" but the records of education and the marriage registers showed that there was not sufficient education in any county in England. The existing schools did not secure education, and there was nothing in the Bill giving authority to anyone to bring children to the school, except the local Boards. He believed that the Amendment would render the Bill more effective, and he regretted that the Government opposed it.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he thought that under the Bill as it stood there would be a great number of school Boards established throughout the country, and that in many rural districts such bodies would be looked upon, at all events at first, with something like suspicion; while, as soon as their advantages became apparent, they would be very generally adopted. He might mention that in a parish in his neighbourhood which was partly manufacturing and partly agricultural, the parishioners had occasion some time ago to elect a schoolmaster. Three candidates presented themselves for election—one being a very decent man, the second a drunken tailor or shoemaker, and the third a tolerably decent man. Well, a very exciting contest occurred, and it resulted in the election of the drunken shoemaker. Taking such cases into consideration, he was in favour of having school Boards introduced gradually, instead of having them universally forced on the country.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he was of opinion that all those hon. Members who were opposed to universal compulsion were bound to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter). The proposal of the Vice President of the Council he looked upon as a very wholesome one, as it would meet the case of those wealthy persons in a parish who now left the burden of providing education to be borne by one or two managers.
  MR. BARROWsaid, in reply to the remarks made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, he would point out that it was not the occupants of the Opposition Benches who had prevented the House for four nights from going into Committee on the Bill. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), he should vote against it, because he deprecated any proposal which would have the effect of preventing a fair trial of the voluntary and the ratepaying system side by side. In the rural districts, he might add, there was no disinclination, so far as he was aware, shown to provide the means of education.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he regretted the Government did not mean to accept the Amendment; for, as the Bill now stood, we should have not only permissive compulsion, but permissive school Boards. He could not concur with the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Buxton) that everyone who was opposed to universal compulsion was bound to vote against the Amendment, because the hon. Member for Berkshire merely proposed to destroy an anomaly and not to apply general direct compulsion—of which, indeed, he believed he was not in favour—at once throughout the country. As to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, he could corroborate his statement as to the provision made for education in the rural districts in the shape of schools. It would be found that no deficiency of school accommodation existed in the rural districts. What they required was, not schools so much as a larger attendance of children in the schools which were already provided, chiefly by the enthusiasm of the clergy.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he desired to thank the Government for the concession they had already made, and he hoped they would go a little further.

  1023
  The necessity of a school Board in every district did not necessarily imply rating. A school Board elected by the district might do a great deal towards helping the managers of a school which satisfied the educational requirements of that district in getting the children to attend school. If a school Board were established in every district, it might work harmoniously with and very much assist the managers of existing schools. The Amendment would transfer certain powers from the Education Department to the school Board; and he would suggest the addition, at the end of the Amendment, of the following words:—"And according to the instruction of the Education Department."
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 303; Noes 112: Majority 191.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt), he would beg to move, in page 2, at the end of line 34, to add—
  "'Public school accommodation' shall mean such a number of elementary schools in each district as shall afford sufficient school room and adequate teachers for all the children of school age in such district, and shall provide for such children means of education efficient in its character, and offered on conditions fair and equal to all; and no school other than a public elementary school shall be deemed to afford suitable provision for such district, unless such school shall conform in all respects to the regulations and conditions made in this Act in respect of public school accommodation in public elementary schools."
  The object of the Amendment was to elicit from the Government their opinion as to what was a sufficient amount of public school accommodation.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he proposed to move to insert words, in line 31, that the education should be efficient and suitable. The intention of the Government had always been that the education should be efficient.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought the explanation only rendered it more necessary that he should press the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. His object was to insert in the clause a definition of what was meant by public school accommodation and efficiency.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. Clause 8
  1024
  really gave the interpretation required. Clause 5 was a declaratory rather than an enacting clause. Clause 8 provided that when the Bill was passed there should be an inquiry into the amount of accommodation in every school district. Every school in the district, whether public elementary school or not, would have to be taken into consideration in determining that question, and whether actually situated in the district or not. The effect of this Amendment would be to subject districts in which there was already a suitable supply of schools to the imposition of the rate. There could not be submitted better security as to the efficiency of the schools than the responsibility of the Government, and, with regard to the phrase "sufficient school room," used by his hon. Friend, it was very little more definite than "efficient;" and as to the words "adequate teachers," that was much the same as "efficient." What the Government had contended for was, that the teaching must be sufficient and efficient and suitable. By sufficient teaching he meant that there must be sufficient schools; by efficient, that there must be efficient teachers; and by suitable teaching he had always meant there should be no reasonable objection to be made to the religious teaching. When they came to Clause 8 he should be ready to add some explanatory words that should show that they meant "suitable" to have that meaning. He should be ready to accept the Amendments of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) to Clause 8 and also to Clause 9. The Government were always of opinion that public notice should be given of the efficiency as well as the deficiency of a school, and they wished to admit of the possibility of the efficiency of a school being contested.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some assurance with reference to schools that had no Government Grants, and in which certificated teachers were not employed, that the efficiency of the education would not be tested by that fact.
  MR.W. E. FORSTERsaid, that they would examine in every case, and would not be guided altogether by the fact of whether the teachers were certificated or not.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment, on

  1025
  the understanding that the discussion would be taken on the 8th clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Supply of schools in case of deficiency).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had to propose, in page 2, line 38, to leave out from "and" to "purpose," in line 39, both inclusive. They were retained by an error in the new draft of the Bill, and they were calculated to anticipate the discussion on the subject of the year's grace, which would more properly arise on Clause 9, at the end of which the Government had inserted the word "forthwith" instead of "within the period of 12 months after the date of such final notice." There were certain disadvantages in retaining the words establishing the year's grace, and the onus probandi rested on those who desired to keep them in the Bill, because their retention would certainly delay the operation of the measure. In large towns he did not think that much use would be made of the 12 months' grace, and he thought very little could be done in the country in 12 months in erecting new schools; while as the Government now looked forward to a revision of the Code, by which greater aid would be given to all elementary schools, he was of opinion that even in rural districts advantage would be taken of the proffered assistance to carry out without delay the objects of the Bill.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he objected to the word "forthwith" as being too vague. As an inquiry was to take place in every district throughout the country it must of necessity occupy much time, and after that there would be a power of appeal from the decision arrived at. When the matter was finally settled the Education Department would send to the district a request that their intentions should be carried out forthwith. But how could that be done? If additional buildings were required they would take time to erect and complete, and 12 months would not be an unreasonable time for such a purpose. In some instances the existing deficiency might be supplied by changing the master, which could not be done "forthwith." The retention of the words proposed to be omitted would not injure the
  1026
  Bill, but give confidence to those who undertook the management of schools and call forth a great amount of voluntary exertion. The onus probandi of taking the words out of his own Bill rested with the right hon. Gentleman and not with the Committee. He (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) thought they had been wisely put in.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the question proposed to be raised as to the year of grace did not properly arise on the clause. The Amendment had been rendered necessary from his omitting to strike out the words before reprinting the Bill. If the words were omitted, the question might again be more fairly raised on Clause 9.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he wished to know how schools were to be erected in poor agricultural districts? The Bill provided that in the event of a school Board not carrying out the objects of the Act the Privy Council should step in and find a site and the funds for the erection and maintenance of an efficient school; but he wished to know how it was to be done. When the Bill was first introduced it was generally supposed the Privy Council would continue the building grants, but that had now been given up.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Baronet's question could be better raised in another part of the Bill, and he should prefer giving an answer to the question when it came in order before the Committee.
  Words struck out.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he might state at once, although it anticipated a later portion of the Bill, that the position of a district, after "12 months" was struck out, would be this—educational deficiency might be discovered after inquiry, and that deficiency must be supplied. After giving time to appeal and for obtaining all the Returns—which, with every possible expedition, must take some months—a final requisition would be sent out to supply the destitution. If the school Board filled up the gap absolutely and entirely, keeping pace with the population, there would be no room for anybody else; but he had not that faith in human nature to suppose that that would be immediately and thoroughly done in every case, and wherever it was not done any person

  1027
  who was anxious to supply the deficiency would be in precisely the same position as at the present time, the Privy Council being open to all comers to give the aid required for public elementary schools to meet the educational wants of a district. The 83rd clause contemplated that state of things, because it gave the Privy Council power to refuse applications for assistance where they thought them unnecessary, obliging them to make a special Report of their reasons when they did so.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he thought the words of the clause would render it imperative on the school Board to supply the deficiency. Schools might actually be building at the time to supply the deficiency; but they would not be taken into account. The school Board must erect a new school out of the rate.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The order to the school Board would be to supply the deficiency.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, where an obligation was thrown by Act of Parliament upon anybody they might be compelled to perform it by mandamus.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he would suggest the introduction of words to postpone the issuing of the notice, after the Education Board had satisfied themselves by inquiry that a deficiency existed. It would be absolutely necessary that the school Board should be formed instantly the Education Department gave notice of the want of accommodation.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was quite satisfied some words were necessary to give notice to a district. If a district appealed it would not be necessary that a school Board should be formed till the appeal was decided.
  MR. DICKINSON MR. DICKINSON moved to insert the words—"if such deficiency is not supplied as hereinafter required" within the time limited.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 7 (Regulations for conduct of public elementary school).
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, it was admitted that this Bill had made no inconsiderable demands on their forbearance; but he thought hon. Members opposite might have judged, from reservations
  1028
  that had been made, and from a still more significant silence, that there were parts of the Bill which could not fail to give rise to serious remonstrance in Committee. Such an one was the question he now raised by his Amendment. Although a Conscience Clause might be involved, he was not about to enter upon what was termed the religious difficulty. Perhaps he did not believe in the religious difficulty. Perhaps he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Council that it was a Parliamentary difficulty. Perhaps he agreed with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham) that to talk of a Conscience Clause as a great and propitiatory sacrifice was simply ridiculous. At all events, each such view of the subject would seem to him sufficient to establish upon a logical basis the Amendment to this clause which he offered. Now, what were the facts he had to deal with? Since 1839 there had been schools built, founded, and endowed, with partial assistance from the State, and under certain and known conditions. To very few of these was there any condition imposed as to the nature of the instruction; their vocation was to teach, and they taught according to their knowledge. Most of them were founded and endowed by men out of rather religious than educational motives. He did not ask whether it was right, or proper, or enlightened; but they did so, and, as statistics proved, they prospered. They were still admitted to have been of great utility, and even now to be a great educational power. How were they going to deal with such schools and persons? In the first draft of their Bill the Government gave them their former advantages, slightly curtailed. By their second thoughts they were totally deprived of them. By the definition of a public elementary school under this Bill, they imposed an obligation general in its character, and to those schools they restricted absolutely the public grants. What was this but to deprive at once the whole of these schools of their grant? It was true they might come under this Act by the acceptation of new terms; but it was equally evident that those terms might be such as they could not accept; if so, they deprived them of their grant. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Council said that the difficulty it was supposed to meet

  1029
  was not an educational difficulty, but a Parliamentary difficulty. Well, then, they arrived at this fact—that this Conscience Clause was nothing to be very enthusiastic about. It placed some difficulties in the way of teaching, and some disadvantages; but it was otherwise objectionable and mischievous in effect. It was, then, only as a necessity tolerable, and it should not go at all beyond that point. Where did this stop? Clearly at the point where the difficulty existed—the Parliamentary point. Now, the present application of this Act went far beyond this. It raised questions of the past, and most needlessly raised the most formidable obstacles upon their path. What claim had been made upon them? By whom? What injustice was stated—of what? Those existing schools were unobtrusively doing their own proper work, and surely there might in common prudence have been a policy of non-interference in such respects. It was not even a question of an increased grant, for this they would have considered as a question apart, and without any new condition they would have dealt with this. Why, then, should they tie their own hands by such a clause as this? Lastly, did no real and actual difference of condition exist as regarded those newly-created schools? Why, of this they found evidence in this Act. By the present provision of the 14th clause they established that distinction at once, and, under an obvious necessity, they prescribed the conditions under which such children should be taught. In this there would, at least, be no hardship, no breach of faith; and he asked them, in this Amendment, to recognize this principle. He begged to move, in page 3, line 4, after "school," to insert "constituted from and after the passing of this Act, or subject to any school Board or rating authority."
  MR. BAINESsaid, he could assure the hon. Member (Mr. Corrance) that there was an entire agreement on that side as to the absolute necessity of a Time Table Conscience Clause, and he (Mr. Baines) had understood that the Leaders of the Opposition and the dignitaries of the Church were prepared, to accept it.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he would beg to urge the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment. He liked the Time Table Conscience Clause better
  1030
  than the old form, because there was in it a direct intimation that a purely religious teaching should be given, at least once, or at most four times a day. Yet he believed that it was a mistake to allow the (Ecumenical Councils of Vestries and municipal authorities to determine what religious teaching should be given during that time.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn. The practical working of the Conscience Clause in the schools at Manchester and Salford had shown that the religious difficulty was almost a myth; but, at the same time, it was absolutely necessary that such a clause should exist.
  MR. DIXONsaid, the Members below the Gangway, so far from being dissatisfied with the Time Table Conscience Clause, were of opinion that it did not go quite far enough. He was unable to support the Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Corrance) would I not go to a Division.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he would beg to move, in line 5, after "regulations," to insert "a copy of which regulations shall be conspicuously put up in every such school." He trusted hon. Members would not object to this Amendment, as they seemed disposed to make the Conscience Clause a bonâ fide one.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he trusted the Committee would accede to his hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, in the absence of the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. Talbot), he would beg to propose, in line 6, after "No child," to insert "whose parent shall object to the requirement." These words were in the Bill as originally framed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he objected to the Amendment. The clause, as it stood, would enable the schoolmaster to require a child to attend the religious instruction in school if the child's parent requested him to do so; but it would not enable either the schoolmaster or manager to make such attendance a condition of a child being admitted to the school.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he feared that, in the absence of the Amendment, any child might rebel against his teacher whenever religious instruction was imparted during the ordinary course of teaching.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had carefully worded the clause, so as to prevent its having such an effect.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he wished to know what was to be done in the event of a child refusing to attend school lessons which his parents wished him to take?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the child would be compelled to attend. In sub-Section 2, which related to withdrawal from the religious teaching after the child had been admitted, the word "parent" had been introduced.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that deeming the explanation which had been given by the Vice President of the Council a fair one, he should not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he would beg to move, in line 10, after "elsewhere" to insert "or to attend school on any day or on any occasion objected to on religious grounds by the parents or guardians of such child." His object was that the attendance of children at school should not be required on days which were regarded by them and their parents as sacred. Without the introduction of such words there would, he contended, be no sufficient protection for Jewish or Roman Catholic children, with whom certain days were set apart for religious observance—as, for instance, the Saturday, which was the Jewish Sabbath, and the saints' days in the Roman Catholic Church.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the object was covered by sub-Seection 1; but as it was quite possible that might not be so, he should not decline to consider the matter with the view of meeting his hon. and learned Friend's views.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he rose to move, in page 3, line 13, to leave out "either at the beginning or at the end, or at the beginning and the end of such meeting, and shall be." A practical inconvenience
  1032
  would arise if these words were retained in the Bill. In some of the schools with which he was acquainted, where the children had to come long distances, and were frequently late, the beginning of the day would be a bad time for giving religious instruction, and there was an obvious objection also to the end of the meeting, when the children were thinking chiefly of tops and marbles. The clause had reference both to the old voluntary and to the new schools. He was personally acquainted with schools on the British and Foreign system containing 3,000 children, and, after diligent inquiry, he could not find that, during 13 years, a single child had been taken away from these schools on account of the religious instruction given there. That was the experience of most persons engaged in teaching with regard to the religious difficulty. He did not want to do away with the safeguard of the Conscience Clause; but he wanted the clause so framed as to be easily worked, and that every school should be allowed to take its own time for giving religious instruction, a time table being hung up, stating when religious instruction was given, so that the parents should know at what hours to withdraw their children if they objected to the religious teaching.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 13, to leave out the words "either at the beginning or at the end, or at the beginning and the end of such meeting, and shall be."—(Mr. Pease.)
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council not to press the Time Table Conscience Clause in the shape in which it was proposed by the Bill, entirely on the practical ground that it would be productive of great embarrassment and inconvenience. Both the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) and himself were prepared to propose the Amendment now before the Committee; and they were supported by a Petition which had been presented to the House, signed by 2,000 teachers, who objected only to the limitation of the discretion of managers as to the time at which religious instruction should be given, but did not object to a time table, to be settled by managers, subject to the approval of the Education Department, to be exhibited in the school, and not to be changed

  1033
  without some public notice. This was, in substance, the proposal contained in a Bill introduced in 1857 by Lord Stanley, Mr. Cobden, the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam), and himself. A Memorial had been received from Leicester, signed by both Churchmen and Dissenters, objecting that the Bill unnecessarily fettered the discretion of managers; and a question having been submitted to a great number of schoolmasters in South Wales with respect to the proposal of the Bill, the majority of them returned such answers as "impracticable," and "would create confusion."
  MR. MELLYsaid, that the greatest importance was attached to the Time Table Conscience Clause, and he hoped the Committee would maintain the concession made by the Government in this matter, which he thought should apply to all schools.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he supported the Amendment because he wished as much liberty to be allowed in the management of the schools as was consistent with perfect liberty to any parent to withdraw his child from a religious instruction to which he might object. It was the practice of the British Society's schoolmasters to take religious teaching into their own hands, and teach one class after another, and not to leave it to the junior teachers.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he trusted the Government would not assent to the Amendment, the practical effect of which would be to make the secular instruction of a school available only to those children whoso parents approved the religious education given in it.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, as this was merely a question of convenience, the selection of the time should be left to the school managers. It would be practically impossible in a very large school for the master, who ought to be responsible for religious teaching, to give it at the beginning and end of the school time alone. A paper circulated that morning showed that the Presbyterians of Belfast advocated freedom in this matter.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he conceived that the more easily understood the provision respecting the Time Table Conscience Clause was the better, and by the proposal of the Government ample opportunity would be afforded for religious in-
  1034
  struction. Though many persons thought that a Time Table Conscience Clause could not easily be worked, he was confident that religious instruction might advantageously be given either at the beginning or the end of the schooling, and, therefore, he was strongly opposed to the Amendment.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the existing Conscience Clause had been in operation for many years, and not a single instance had been shown of injustice or inconvenience to Dissenters arising from it. He thought that if they were to have a Time Table Conscience Clause it should not be of the stringent and odious character proposed by the Government, but rather of the more reasonable and easy form suggested by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). There were between 5,000 and 6,000 Church of England schools which received no Government aid and were not under Government inspection. One great object of this Bill was that these schools should be conciliated and induced to come under Government inspection. By the vexatious Time Table Conscience Clause of the Government they would diminish the temptation of the managers and teachers of these schools to come in; and he feared they would also induce some of those schools that at present received aid by Government Grants to throw up those grants rather than submit to this new restriction. If they were to have a Time Table Conscience Clause it should be in the simplest form in which it could be proposed.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) because it made the Time Table Conscience Clause still more vague, while it was much too vague already.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had appealed to hon. Members to deal with this subject as practical men. He (Mr. Liddell) appealed to the right hon. Gentleman as a practical man to deal with it as such. It was desirable that religious teaching should be given by the master. Now, he would put the case of a school where the daily attendance was to his knowledge between 800 and 900; would it be possible to give efficient religious instruction without dividing the pupils into several classes, and how in such a case

  1035
  could they stereotype the times when religious instruction should be given?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he admitted that this was a very important question, and he was not surprised at the difference of opinion that existed upon it. The Government had found great difficulty in making up their minds; but they had formed a very strong opinion after having fully considered it. The practical argument had been appealed to, and he could only state that he had done his utmost to obtain practical opinions on the subject. It was very true that many schoolmasters had given their opinion in favour of complete discretion, and it was quite natural that they should. But he had taken the opinion of gentlemen who had been most actively engaged in the daily work, management, and teaching of large schools, both in town and country, and they assured him that the arrangement proposed by the Government could be easily worked. When there were four distinct times given in the course of the day for religious instruction, there was practically hardly a school in the kingdom that would not be able to act upon the Time Table Conscience Clause. The reason for fixing a limitation to the times when religious instruction should be given was on account of the strong feeling that existed that religious and secular teaching should be separated. It was that chiefly which originated the necessity of a Time Table Conscience Clause. In the interests of religion the Government were unwilling that the religious teaching should be given as an extra, out of school hours, or that words should be introduced to prevent the possibility of any allusion to religious subjects during the ordinary hours of instruction; but they felt also that the desire of the country would not be met if religious instruction might be spread all over the ordinary hours of teaching. In Ireland, originally, religious instruction was allowed to be given at any time before or after the ordinary school business; but, at the request of the Roman Catholics, that was altered, and to meet special requirements religious instruction or exercises were allowed at not more than one intermediate time, between the commencement and close of the school business. In New South Wales, where a Conscience Clause was tried, they were obliged to
  1036
  provide that the secular instruction should be consecutive. He was as anxious as anyone that all the existing, and not only the existing, but other voluntary schools should be thoroughly incorporated in the national system, and accepted by the public generally as part of the public system of schools. In order to provide for that care should be taken that the Bill contained no provision which would run counter to any strong principle in the public mind. For instance, the feeling in favour of compulsion was growing apace, and in all probability compulsion would be accepted throughout the kingdom in a comparatively short time; it was, therefore, advisable to provide that in case a child was compelled to attend school it could not be said that child was also compelled to accept religious instruction not approved by its parents. He thought that hon. Gentlemen who were anxious for religious education in the country would feel with him how necessary it was that they should remove any cause of offence or objections in the minds of the working classes. For the sake of clearness in respect of existing schools he was very anxious this concession should be made, and also to insure, in the interest of those who were more particularly anxious about secular instruction, that it should be continuous and not split up by religious teaching.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman's argument was founded on the fallacy that the circumstances and convenience of all localities were similar; but in some places it would be deemed most inconvenient that religious instruction should be imparted when the children were either thinking of dinner or drowsy from the effect of it, or that it should be given at a time when the children came dawdling into the school behind time. In the interest of those who would prefer other times than those named in the Bill he asked for a wider margin.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he preferred regulating the hours of religious teaching by the question, how can the secular instruction be best given? The Government were to contribute 50 per cent of the expense, and he thought he had a right to know when the secular education should be given. On this ground he thought there was a serious objection to the Amendment. As far

  1037
  as his experience of schoools went there would not be the least difficulty in working the Conscience Clause as it stood in the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to keep to the Conscience Clause at present in force, and did not see how it could be improved by a time table. He admitted that if there were a time table a specific one ought to be mentioned in the Bill. If the element of time were eliminated it would be necessary to fall back on the existing Conscience Clause. The present system worked well, and the existing Conscience Clause, in his judgment, was better than the one proposed to be substituted for it, which would give parents the power of withdrawing their children from the school at particular times instead of withdrawing them from a particular subject.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) would not persist in his Amendment, which, if successful, would be regarded by the country as a breach of faith. It had gone forth to the country, and was believed by a very large number of nonconforming and beneficed clergy, that a Time Table Conscience Clause was to be adopted. Since March last the managers of four Church schools with which he was acquainted, and which taught upwards of 1,400 children, had adopted a Time Table Clause by way of experiment. Copies of it were sent round to the parents. It stated that religious instruction would be given at the beginning and end of the school hours. The result was that, although half the pupils were the children of Dissenters, only two persons availed themselves of the Conscience Clause. One working man stated that he had never seen a Church Catechism, and on a copy being sent to him he replied—"There are a good many things in it which I do not agree with; but you may teach my child as much of it as you like, for I will take care that it does him no harm." A poor woman expressed her opinion that her child had not received enough religious instruction, and that a little more would do him good. He sincerely hoped the Committee would not in any way alter the clause.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, all that hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side asked for was that when the proposed
  1038
  times for religious instruction were not convenient to the managers they should not be insisted on. Surely this was a demand which they were justified in urging in the name of liberty, and he thought it hard that the whole of the Liberal party in the House, with the exception of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), should be arrayed against it. When the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) affirmed that, by assenting to this Amendment, the Committee would be departing from a covenant, he ought to have remembered that the Conservative party had made great concessions with respect to the measure. Instead of this being a Conservative Education Bill, he and many of his hon. Friends only accepted it with great reluctance, some of its provisions being opposed to their most cherished convictions. They had, indeed, made large concessions in their anxiety to promote the object aimed at by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council—the education of the people. To say that all managers should be obliged to confine religious instruction to the end or the beginning of the school course would be an infraction of civil and religious liberty. He had not sufficient confidence in human nature to suppose that if they placed religious instruction on the one side and the charms of the playground on the other, the former would be embraced in preference by school children.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, it was impossible for a Conscience Time Table to be effectual unless the religious instruction were given at the beginning, not at the end of the school.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he would support the Amendment. A large majority of the House had decided that there was to be religious teaching in the schools; there must, therefore, also be an examination in religious subjects; but, according to the Bill, the examination in religious subjects was not to be conducted by the Government Inspectors. That duty would consequently devolve on the diocesan Inspectors, who, if they could only conduct the examination during the first or the last half hour, would have to remain idle during a great part of the day.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, the Presbyterians were in favour of a Time Table Conscience Clause. The Report of the

  1039
  Committee of the General Assembly was in favour of limiting the hours of religious teaching in schools to the beginning and end of the day.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, this question ought to be looked at broadly. The general scope of the Bill was to establish rate-aided schools; but the Government had resolved to recognize voluntary schools, if they were sufficiently elastic. He had himself established Church schools in a district in which there were a great many children running wild, but in which district there was a large attendance at chapels. He had adopted almost identically the same principle as that proposed by the Government. It was arranged that religious instruction was to be given only at the commencement and end of the school hours, in the morning and evening. Many of the children were soon attracted to school, and the system worked extremely well. If a fixed time were laid down a considerable amount of discussion at the local Boards would be avoided. If the religious instruction were found to be insufficient it would be quite open to extension.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he must entreat the Government to consider very carefully the course they were going to adopt with reference to the question at issue. He would remind the Committee that not a single case had been adduced in which it had been shown that oppression or interference with religious convictions had been resorted to by the managers of schools, even under the existing system. In a school of 1,400 children, the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had instanced only two cases, which really did not touch the question. He understood the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to have said on a former occasion that the principle of which he was in favour was, that there should be freedom of religious instruction and liberty of withdrawal. He now asked the right hon. Gentleman to carry out that principle. We had at the present moment schools which had been brought into existence and maintained at great cost, and in which, in reference to the question of the Conscience Clause, it had been almost unanimously conceded to the managers that they should fix the time for religious teaching which might seem to them to be most appropriate to their particular schools. Now that, he
  1040
  contended, was a concession which it was perfectly reasonable to ask; and he would add that, instead of secular instruction being continued all day without interruption, it would be better that the teaching should not be kept in a consecutive groove. He quite concurred with the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) in the opinion that in a great number of cases the beginning and the end of the school hours would be found to be the time most suitable for giving religious instruction; but in many instances it would be quite the contrary. The great object was to secure that the religious teaching when given should be of the best character—that it should, if possible, be given by the clergyman, and in his absence by the schoolmaster himself, and not by monitors or pupil-teachers. Now all that must be very much matter of arrangement, and it was but very little to ask that the teachers and clergymen, having reference to the Department of Education which was placed over them, they should, so long as they did not infringe on the rules laid down by that Department or the conscientious scruples of parents, be allowed to fix the time for religious instruction at the hour which was found to be most convenient. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to suppose that they who sat on the Conservative side of the House, in supporting the Amendment, wished to make a mockery of the Conscience Clause which they had accepted; but that was far from being the fact. Not one instance of oppression could be pointed to in the past; and, as they had not hitherto betrayed the confidence of Parliament, he hoped their minds would not be alienated by what they would be likely to regard as a tyrannical Amendment. He believed that there would be very few withdrawals; and it was for the advantage of the children that the managers should fix the time, so that they could make the withdrawal convenient to themselves, the teachers, and the clergy of all denominations.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had asked for the hundredth time that cases of abuse, if they existed, should be produced. He would, however, remind him that the whole question resolved itself into a struggle for power, and that no cases of abuse were heard of, not improbably, because the whole power

  1041
  was in the hands of the clergy and gentlemen who founded the schools, who took credit for the long silence, because the poor people said nothing on the subject. For his own part, he had endeavoured to induce the Church to yield the point for a considerable time. He had, he might add, been appealed to by a Baptist in a small country town with which he was acquainted, who stated that some children who went for admission to the only day school of the place, a Church of England school, were required to pay double fees or to be baptized. The result was, that the children were not admitted to the school because they could not, as Baptists, conscientiously consent to baptism. There were many cases, he believed, of that kind.
  MR. J. HOWARDsaid, in answer to the challenge thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), he could state that in one village in his neighbourhood the children of Dissenters who attended the Church of England school were called upon to pay double fees. If this Amendment were agreed to it would not last for 12 months, and it would be no settlement of the question at all.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the Committee would not go into particular cases. It was possible to quote many of them; but they almost all applied to particular religious observances outside the schools, like those which had been, mentioned, or to the attendance of children at the Sunday schools. They were all agreed that it was necessary to give some protection to the parents. He did not complain of this point being raised, and he was sure that the conduct of hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side had evinced an earnest desire for the settlement of the question during the present Session, and that they really felt the objection they now urged. He could, however, honestly say that, looking at the whole question from both points of view, he was convinced that it was for the interest of the existing schools to adopt the clause as it stood.
  MR. DIXONsaid, he must protest against the notion that silence proceeded from an inability to mention instances of the nature alluded to. He knew of one case, but after the appeal just made he would not quote the particulars, in which a man who wrote complaining of oppression, begged that his name
  1042
  might not be made public, for fear of the consequences which might ensue to himself. There were a great number of cases in which silence was solely attributable to fear.
  Question put, "That the words 'either at the beginning or at the end, or at the beginning and the end of' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 222; Noes 122: Majority 100.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he would propose, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 14, to leave out "such meeting," and insert "the daily school course." He believed that two services a day would meet all cases, and that there was an intention, under the words of the clause as they stood, to defeat the object of the Conscience Clause by giving religious instruction in the middle of the day.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. How would it operate under the half-time system?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH moved an Amendment to the effect that the words requiring the time table to be approved by the Education Department should be omitted. He supposed the object was to secure that sufficient time should be devoted to secular instruction, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council whether the security could not be taken in another way, for managers objected to be controlled in such a matter, and objected to the correspondence which the provision would involve?
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he presumed that that security was obtained indirectly by requiring children to pass a certain standard in secular subjects, so that the matter might be left to the pecuniary interests of managers.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Collins) had practically answered the question of the noble Lord, but at present, under the Code, it was required that each attendance, in a morning and an afternoon, should be for two hours; and it would now be probably necessary to say that that two hours should be devoted to secular teaching.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that what he objected to was that the time table should have to be approved by the Department.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, now that the period for religious instruction had been fixed, he thought that, within the limits prescribed, the rest might be left to the discretion of managers.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not consent to the omission of the words requiring the approval of the Department. It was important to do nothing to diminish public confidence in the Conscience Clause; and if there was an honest intention to give a full measure of secular education, and not to abuse the Conscience Clause, there was no reason why managers should not send their time table to be approved by the Department.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, if the Amendment were agreed to it would be open to managers to make the proportions of religious and secular instruction just what they liked.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he thought it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of masters and managers.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that although his noble Friend (Lord. Frederick Cavendish) had held out a bribe to him, inasmuch as the examination of the time tables would involve great additional labour at the Privy Council Office, yet he thought it would be better to retain the words. If he were to assent to the Amendment, he must afterwards propose to fix a certain minimum time for secular instruction. He preferred the provision in the Bill; but if the noble Lord proposed his Amendment on the Report, there would then be an opportunity for reconsidering the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. BREWERsaid, he would beg to move, in page 3, sub-Section 2, line 18, to leave out all after "room," to end of sub-section, and insert—
  "And no scholar shall be privileged to attend the instruction in religious subjects or any religious service held within school hours except at the request of the parents or guardians of such child, such request to be conveyed to the managers or school teachers in the following form:—I, A. B. [parent or guardian], hereby request that C. D., now a scholar in [designate the School], may be admitted into the class for re-
  1044
  ligious instruction, and may attend the religious service conducted in the said school [here state at what time and by whom].
  Signed A. B.
  Name of school.
  Date of application."
  The object of the Amendment was to obviate the objection urged to every Conscience Clause—that it placed in an invidious position the child whose parent withdrew him from the duty or privilege common to all of attending religious instruction, and that it took from the parents the natural responsibility in the matter of the religious education of their children.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member (Dr. Brewer) would not press his Amendment. Under the Conscience Clause, as it originally stood, a written notice was required; but a good deal of objection was made to a notice. The great advantage of the Time Table Conscience Clause was, that it would be self-working, and would require neither notice on the one side nor claim on the other. He thought that would be best both for the schoolmaster and parent. It would also prevent a good deal of denominational canvassing. He was perfectly sure his hon. Friend had brought forward the Amendment in the interest of religious teaching, but he could not but think it would be disadvantageous to it.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he thought the Amendment involved an important principle, and would do a great deal to secure religious liberty, especially in rural districts.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that the religious difficulty existed only in the minds of theorists, not of practical men. He hoped the Committee would not listen to the Amendment.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he was of opinion that no child should be placed under religious instruction without the previous assent of his parents.
  MR. DENTsaid, that if the schoolmaster were required to go about to get the parents of children to sign a requisition a great portion of his time would be wasted in so doing.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. DIXON MR. DIXON moved an Amendment to render the meaning of the clause more clear. He proposed to insert the words "the school during" in line 19, and then the clause would stand thus—

  1045
  "And any scholar may be withdrawn by her or his parent from 'the school during' such observance or instruction, without forfeiting any of the other benefits of the school."
  His object was to carry out what he had always understood to be the intention of the Government, and the interpretation usually put on the statement of the Prime Minister on the second reading. Unless this were done the Time Table Conscience Clause would not be self-working.
  Amendment proposed, in line 19, after the word "from," to insert the words "the school during."—(Mr. Dixon.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the Committee would keep the clause as it was. It had been drawn with very great care and thought, and the object was to meet what he considered the real wish of the Committee—that whoever objected to his child's religious instruction or presence at religious observance should be able, without forfeiting any other benefits of the school, to withdraw his child from that instruction or observance. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) seemed to have put the same construction on the Time Table Conscience Clause as his (Mr. W. E. Forster's) son, who said—"Oh, I wish we had that at Rugby! Would not we all turn Dissenters and cut first lesson?" That was not the intention of the Government. It was not desired to break into the discipline of the schools. [Mr. HORSMAN said, he wished to know where the children would be withdrawn to for secular instruction?] He could not positively say where they would be withdrawn to, for the reason that he did not know the circumstances of every school in the kingdom. In most schools—certainly in most Government schools, there were class-rooms, and wherever there was a class-room it would be perfectly easy to put the child to secular instruction during the time set apart for religious instruction. Where these were not, the matter must be left to the managers to make the best arrangements to carry out the intentions of Parliament under the supervision of the Government Inspectors. He saw no reason why the child should have less teaching than the other children because his parents objected to his receiving religious instruction.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, being quite satisfied with the explanation of the
  1046
  right hon. Gentleman, he would not press the Amendment he had upon the Paper bearing on this subject, the only object of which was that the discipline of the school should not be interfered with.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 379: Majority 344.
  MR. DICKINSONsaid, he would beg to move, in page 3, line 21, after sub-Section 2, to insert the following subsections:—
  "3. That it be not incumbent to teach some religious catechism or religious formulary in such school.
  "4. That no person be or be disqualified from being a manager or teacher of such school by reason of belonging or not belonging to some religious denomination, or holding or not holding some office.
  "5. That no person other than the teacher shall have any superintendence or authority in such school, unless authorized by the managers."
  He wished to abolish tests as regarded these schools, which ought to be, not the minister's or the clergymen's schools, but the parish schools.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Amendment was unnecessary. Purely secular schools were already admitted under the Bill, just the same as denominational schools which accepted the conditions of no denominational inspection and a Time Table Clause. If it was meant that it should be a condition of aiding public elementary schools that no catechism was to be taught in them, the Committee would hardly agree to such a proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DIXON MR. DIXON moved an Amendment, providing that "the religious instruction shall not be given in a room where secular instruction is being carried on." In large schools there would be more than one room, so that the Amendment could be easily carried out. But what he wanted to meet was the case of the small schools, where there was only one schoolroom, and where if the religious and secular instructions were to be carried on together there would necessarily be some confusion. He wished in such schools to prevent those children who wished to avoid the religious instruction from hearing and taking any part in it.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, one would suppose the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon) had never been to school. If he had been, his experience would probably coincide with his, that different classes might be going on in different parts of a room at the same time; and did the hon. Member suppose that children who were being taught, for instance, writing or sums, were so very-anxious to imbibe some other lesson that, instead of attending to the things which they had been set to learn, they would keep their minds and ears and eyes open for other subjects?
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he must object to such points being raised without Notice, and he would suggest to the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon) to withdraw his Amendment, and bring it up on the Report.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, on the part of the Government, he could not accept the Amendment. It would, he thought, be absurd to lay down the rule that, however large a room might be, secular and religious teaching might not be carried on in different portions of it at the same time. He must again entreat the hon. Member to repose some confidence in the Inspectors, as well as in the good feeling of those connected with the schools, to see that the conditions of the Government Grant were complied with.
  MR. DIXONcontended that one set of children might be in one corner of a room engaged in writing, and that religious instruction might be given within a few feet of them, so that they would hear everything that was said.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had asked what possible harm could come from religious instruction being carried on in the schools, considering that the children would not understand what they overheard, and consequently could not carry it away. But it had been found in this country, and in other countries, that the teaching of religion was inconsistent with education in the proper sense of the word. The professors of religion, as distinguished from religious people, had always maintained that their interests were inconsistent with education. The Roman Catholics, for instance, endeavoured, as far as possible, to prevent the minds of children from being so enlarged upon secular subjects as to reject the
  1048
  teaching of the Church on religious subjects.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that it was important for the Committee to bear in mind that denominational inspection did not mean inspection in the religious teaching. Newspaper writers had laboured hard of late in spreading this confusion of terms. The next sentence in the clause of the Bill proved that they were two distinct things, for after abolishing denominational inspection it went on to enact that there should also be no inquiry into religious instruction. The latter he did not wish to retain; the former he desired to preserve. The cardinal rule of the Privy Council, passed on September 24, 1839, was that the Government Inspectors should not interfere with religious instruction; they only examined in secular subjects on the part of the State. This was still the rule; as might be seen by Clause 14 of the Revised Code, and by the "Instructions to Inspectors upon their appointment." In 1844, however, as the result of a good deal of correpondence, they were allowed to examine Church schools in the Bible, the Liturgy, and the Catechism; but they did so not on the part of the State, but for the Archbishops. That had been fully explained by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1862, when he introduced the Revised Code. What was the force of the words in the Bill which he proposed to limit? The Bill would allow the Queen's appointment of Inspectors to be absolute and unfettered by the vetoes of the various religious bodies. In other words, the Bill made the will of the Education Department become omnipotent. As the result of a solemn compact, after the severe controversy on the Management Clauses, the denominations were allowed a veto on the appointment of the Inspectors who were to examine in their schools; and this right was embodied in the trust deed of each school. But, according to the Bill, this compact was departed from, and the Privy Council would have a right to send down a Roman Catholic to inspect the Protestant schools and a Protestant to inspect the Roman Catholic schools. Why was the denominational inspection done away with? Why was the national faith to be broken? Why were these

  1049
  concordats to be forgotten? Why were 16,000 trust deeds to be set at nought by the absolute fiat of the State? The Vice President said, in introducing the Bill, that it was done in order to prevent the Inspectors from crossing each other's paths. This was, therefore, a question of money. Let the Committee see how large a question it was; let them consider for what saving they were asked to break faith. An Inspector's salary rose to £600 a year; and he got £250 of "personal allowances," which covered travelling expenses. No reduction could be made for existing Inspectors; but what would be the ultimate saving? These personal allowances amounted to £6,468 a year. There were 73 Inspectors—of whom 11 were Scotch, and one was both Scotch and English. The travelling expenses of the 62 English Inspectors amounted to £5,494. Now, of these 62 Inspectors, 48 were Inspectors of English Church schools, and their districts did not overlap; 11 were lay, and 3 were Roman Catholic Inspectors. The districts of these 14 were those which overlapped. Now, if the expenses of these were reduced by one half (which would not be the case), the saving effected by the change would amount to no more than £620 a year. For this sum they were to break all the solemn concordats and override the trust deeds of 16,000 schools. He should, therefore, move, in line 21, after "Inspectors," to insert, "appointed in accordance with the Orders in Council at present in force in that respect."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not consider this clause a violation of the compact referred to. It did not follow that the conditions made with the various denominations were conditions which were always to remain. It was a mistake to suppose that the trust deeds required denominational inspection. Opinions varied from time to time, and certainly many acceptors of the grant were now strongly of opinion that it was an advantage not to have this denominational inspection any longer. The change involved not only the saving of money, but another and greater advantage in the shape of a much bettor organization of the work of inspection.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, it was only human nature that teachers should neglect a subject on which their pupils were not be examined.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. M'ARTHURsaid, that as the clause stood it was open to any Inspector voluntarily to examine in religion, or to accept an invitation to do so. He (Mr. M'Arthur) desired their examinations should be confined to secular subjects, and he would move in page 3, sub-Section 3, line 22, to leave out "it shall be no part of the duties of such Inspector to," and insert, "no such Inspector shall."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the words of the Bill and those of the Amendment practically came to the same thing, for it might be taken for granted that a Government official would not do that which it was declared was no part of his duty. At the present time it was the duty of a Church of England Inspector to examine in religion. The words of the clause were not so arbitrary as those of the Amendment, which he hoped would not be passed.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he preferred the clause as it stood. Examination in religion, as distinct from denominational inspection, was of service to the State; in proof of which he might refer to a passage from the "Instructions to Inspectors upon the administration of the Revised Code," issued by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was at the Education Department, to the effect that an examination in religious knowledge "affords the best means whereby to test what general effect their teaching had upon their minds."
  MR. DIXONsaid, he had heard of Inspectors undertaking examinations vo luntarily.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, they were encouraged to avail themselves of opportunities of examining schools which, although they did not receive aid, had yet received building grants. This was not a matter which the Government would be pertinacious about; but, as a matter of courtesy to the Inspectors, he trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. J. HOWARDsaid, that the terms of the clause, while apparently in the imperative mood, were really permissive. He had certainly understood that there was to be no examination by the State into the religious instruction. If, as he hoped, it were intended to preclude examination, it would be better to adopt the Amendment. If there was so little difference between them he hoped the Government would give way.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Amendment would preclude an Inspector, in his own holidays, from examining a school in his personal capacity on the invitation of a friend. The words of the clause, which were adequate for their purpose, were only intended to apply to that portion of an Inspector's time during which he was acting as a public servant. He was sure they would not wish to employ words which would amount to an invasion of private liberty.
  MR. MIALLsaid, there was no doubt the House intended that there should be no examination or inspection of religious instruction; and he was sure that Dissenters generally had been reconciled to the Bill, so far as they were reconciled to it, by that consideration. Surely, therefore, an Inspector, in his capacity of Inspector, should be prevented by clear words from doing that which the House did not intend him to do.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would suggest that the following words should be substituted for those proposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur)—"and no such Inspector shall as part of his duty," &c.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would be content with the suggestion of the Vice President of the Council.
  MR. REEDsaid, the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) seemed to create a greater difficulty than the words in the Bill. The Government had stated most distinctly that the Inspector shall not in any sense make any examination into the religious instruction, and if they meant that the strongest words ought to be used.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he thought the introduction of the words "on the occasion of his official visit," would be better.
  MR. M'ARTHURsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, and propose, instead, the words, "and no such Inspector shall in his official capacity," &c.
  Amendment withdrawn: the Amendment to add the words—"and no such Inspector shall in his official capacity,"agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Benefices Resignation * (119–161); Irish Land (122).
Committee—Report—Turnpike Trusts Arrangements * (132).
Third Reading—Sequestration (145), debate adjourned; Felony * (90), and passed.

THE LATE EARL OF CLARENDON.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of asking the noble and learned Lord (Lord Westbury) to postpone the Motion which stands in his name. It would only be in accordance with my own wishes, and I am sure with the general feeling of your Lordships' House, if I move the adjournment of the debate on the Irish Land Bill—indeed, if I consulted my own feelings, I should take the course of moving the adjournment of all business this evening. Your Lordships are aware of the loss which the Sovereign, the people, and the family and friends of Lord Clarendon have this day sustained. My Lords, I had known him from a boy; he was one of my dearest and most intimate Friends; and I have had an opportunity in political life and as a political Colleague, of observing his singular ability, his great sagacity, his vast experience, the moderation of his views, and those brilliant conversational powers which were almost exclusively used for the purposes of conciliation, and which gave him such, personal weight, not only with his own countrymen, but with all the Sovereigns of Europe with whom he came into contact, with their political Ministers, and with all the diplomatic representatives of the whole civilized world. I feel that your Lordships would gladly pay any mark of respect to the memory of one lost to us so recently. I believe there is no Member of this House who has so

951
many warmly attached friends as Lord Clarendon had. I am quite sure he had no enemy here, and I believe there are very few of your Lordships who had not feelings almost of personal friendship towards him. It was decided on the occasion of the death of Lord Campbell that your Lordships should adjourn as an expression of regret at the loss of one who occupied so high and responsible a position; but in the case of other illustrious Members of the House it was thought undesirable that you should adjourn business, on account of the difficulty of creating a precedent, and of drawing a line where you should pay that great compliment and where you should not. If we are on any occasion to adjourn, I feel there could be no fitter occasion than on the death of the great man whom we have lost, dying under the weight of affairs, in the very act of trying to arrange a matter necessary with regard to civilization in Europe—but I also feel that he who, though he enjoyed life, socially and domestically, as much as anybody I ever knew, would postpone everything to Public Business and his duty to his country—would himself have preferred that we should not adopt an unusual course, whatever our feelings may be.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without expressing the very deep regret which, in common I am sure with, your Lordships, I feel at the melancholy event which has deprived this country of one of the most esteemed Members of your Lordships' House. Lord Clarendon's connection with the diplomatic service and with the Foreign Office is too well known, too widely spread through the inhabited globe, to require from me any remarks. Though, on some occasions, I might not fully agree with the views which he held, I am convinced that on all occasions and at all times he was only actuated by the sincerest desire and wish to uphold and maintain the honour and credit of his country. How little could we imagine during last week, when we saw him occupying his accustomed seat and taking that part in public affairs which it was his habit on all occasions to do—how little could we have imagined that we should so soon have to lament his loss! Though politically opposed to Lord Clarendon, I have for many years enjoyed his personal friendship,
952
and I can say in all sincerity that I sympathize most deeply with his Colleagues and his numerous friends at the irreparable loss which they have so lately sustained.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, as it was my fortune to precede Lord Clarendon in the Office which he held, and having been connected with him by ties both of personal regard and of family, I may be allowed to add my humble tribute to that which has been paid to his memory by the noble Earl opposite and by the noble Duke beside me. This is an occasion when the voice of political criticism is necessarily silent, and when no sentiment can be indulged, no language employed, except that of private sympathy and public respect. I am sure I am only giving utterance to feelings which are in the minds of all your Lordships when I say that in Lord Clarendon England has lost an experienced and sagacious statesman, and the Foreign Office a chief whose heart was in his work; and that society will long and deeply deplore the loss of one who, more than any man I have ever met, knew how to disarm criticism and to conciliate sympathy by the charm of his manner and the warmth of his heart. To the Members of this House—and not to us only, but I may venture to say to all the upper class of this country—Lord Clarendon set the example of a life of indefatigable industry in a career passed in the service of the State. He has died in harness. Never again shall we be privileged to listen to that conversation in which counsels of the maturest wisdom were conveyed in language at once so simple, so unaffected, and so full of point. But by his many friends, his memory will long be cherished; and even in these days of rapid change and restless moments England will not lightly forget a character so remarkable and a career so brilliant.
EARL COWLEYattempted to add his tribute to the memory of the deceased statesman; but after a vain attempt to utter more than a few words, he resumed his seat.
LORD WESTBURYexpressed his willingness to postpone the Motion on the arrears of Business before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

SEQUESTRATION BILL—(Nos. 145.)
(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
SEQUESTRATION BILL—(Nos. 145.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD CAIRNSstated that he should not persist in his Amendment for the rejection of the measure, as the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Winchester) had met his greatest objection to it—the forfeiture of a benefice by decision of the Bishop, with an appeal to the Archbishop—by consenting that the inquiry by the Bishop should have a judicial character, and that there should be an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Though still deeming the provisions of the Bill too harsh, he would, not propose the rejection of a measure which their Lordships had received with so much favour.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he regretted the concession of his right rev. Brother—it seemed to him to alter the principle of the Bill. An inquiry by the Bishop with an appeal, passing over the Archbishop, to the Privy Council, would involve such an enormous expense that many right rev. Prelates would shrink from putting the measure in force.
  LORD PORTMANobjected to the vesting of such authority in the Bishop, and to affording so mischievous a power to a spiteful creditor. He trusted that the Bill would be rejected in "another place."
  LORD WESTBURYapproved the provision enabling the Bishop to appropriate a larger portion of the revenue of a sequestrated living to the spiritual necessities of the parish; but objected to those clauses which deprived the creditors of their rights, and imposed on an embarrassed clergyman the stigma of passing through the Bankruptcy Court.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that while he admitted that the concession of the right rev. Prelate would materially injure the Bill, nevertheless he hoped the measure would be accepted as a decided step in advance, for it declared almost for the first time that the clergyman existed for the parish and not the parish for the clergyman, and made a breach in that freehold position which had been carried so far as to pro-
  954
  duce much harm. It would remove the scandal of a clergyman pledging the income of his benefice to his private creditors, which no naval or military officer or civil servant was allowed to do.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, that the members of the Episcopal Bench could particularize cases, were it not invidious to do so, in which very large funds were alienated from the parish. He could not concur in the concordat of his right rev. Brother and the noble and learned Lord, for it would not only entail great expense, but, by passing over the Archbishop, would reverse the present principle of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETbelieved the result of the Bill would be that clergymen who borrowed money would have to pay 8 or 10 per cent, instead of 4, the security of the revenue of their benefices being withdrawn.
  EARL GRANVILLEsuggested the adjournment of the debate, it having been the wish of both sides that no business giving rise to discussion should stand in the way of the Irish Land Bill.
  Further Debate adjourned to Monday next.

IRISH LAND BILL—(No. 122.)
(The Earl Granville.)
IRISH LAND BILL—(No. 122.)
  House again in Committee (according to Order).

  PART I. LAW OF COMPENSATION TO TENANTS.
  Clauses 1 to 12—Claim to Compensation.
  Clause 4 (Compensation in respect of improvements. Exception of certain improvements. Exception of certain tenancies).
  LORD CAIRNSproposed the substitution of "his immediate" landlord for the term "the landlord," on the ground that compensation could not be justly claimed from the head landlord if the tenant occupied under a middleman.
  Amendment moved, line 21, leave out ("the") and insert ("his immediate").—(The Lord Cairns.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought that in the case of a middleman whose lease had expired the sub-tenant would, under

  955
  the Amendment, have a difficulty in determining on whom to come for compensation. The Court would deal with the contingency cited by the noble and learned Lord according to the equities of the case.
  LORD CAIRNSsuggested that on the Report an Amendment might be made giving the head landlord a right to take the farm in order to recoup himself against the middleman.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXthought the difficulty would be met by providing that the compensation should be paid by the person entitled for the time being to receive the rents and take possession of the holding.
  EARL GRANVILLEpromised to consider the question before the Report was brought up.
  Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved an Amendment in the 1st subsection, barring compensation
  "In respect of any improvement made 20 years before the passing of this Act, except permanent buildings and reclamation of land"—
  by omitting the words ("the passing of this Act,") and substituting ("the claim of such compensation shall have been made"). As the clause now stood, a tenant would be prohibited from claiming compensation in respect of certain improvements made only 20 years before the Act came into operation, and thus if he delayed his claim for the future he would be unable to obtain any compensation for improvements, which, when he at length made his claim, might have been in existence for 40, 50, and even 10 0 year s. The object of the Amendment was to make the Act more uniform in its effect, by limiting the exception to improvements made 20 years before the tenant sent in his claim.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment made accordingly.
  Another Amendment made, in line 29, by leaving out ("and reclamation of waste land").—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEasked for an explanation of the sub-section barring compensation for
  "An improvement prohibited in writing by the landlord as being and appearing to the Court to be calculated to diminish the value of the land-
  956
  lord's estate, and made within two years after or during the unexpired residue of a lease granted before the passing of the Act."
  Amendment moved, line 30, leave out from first ("In") to ("the") in line 36, both inclusive, and insert the following paragraph:—
  "The case of tenancies existing before the passing of this Act in respect of any improvement prohibited in writing by the landlord, and which shall appear to the Court to be calculated to diminish the general value of the landlord's estate, or in the case of a lease granted before the passing of this Act in respect of any such improvement made during the unexpired residue of the lease, or in the case of a tenancy commencing after the passing of this Act in respect of any such improvement made or begun within two years after."
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he could not understand how any improvement could diminish the value of an estate. The clause would really compel the landlord to pay for every improvement, although he had prohibited it.
  EARL GRANVILLEreminded the noble and learned Lord that what would be an improvement to a small holding might be calculated to affect the value of the whole estate materially.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHdesired an explanation of the two years limit.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexplained that after the two years the holding would come under another subsection, which related to improvements made in contravention of a written contract.
  LORD DUFFERINsaid, the object of the Proviso was to meet cases where the landlord stood by passively while the improvement was being made by the tenant, and then stepped in and appropriated to himself the benefit of it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the clause would affect tenants from year to year, or under a lease. If tenants in the first-named class refused to contract not to make improvements objected to by the landlord, they could be removed; but those under a lease would be able to go on until the end of the lease, the landlord meanwhile placing in writing his prohibition of the improvements. In cases where tenants were removed under these circumstances, he could not think that the Court would give large compensation.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDobjected to some parts of the Amendment.
  Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD CLONCURRY LORD CLONCURRY moved an Amendment, in line 8, after ("time,") to insert ("or in respect of any improvements made with moneys advanced by the Board of Works"). The necessity for this Amendment lay in the circumstance that in all cases of such advances the land had been the security for the money borrowed.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas at a loss to understand the object of the proposed Amendment. The improvements in question were landlords' improvements, and he did not nee how in any event the tenant could claim compensation in respect of them. The words proposed were therefore wholly unnecessary.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexplained that the improvements adverted to in the Amendment were improvements which must be effected by the landlord, because under no Act was the tenant authorized to borrow money from the Board of Works, for the purpose of effecting improvements upon the land of his landlord. Under these circumstances, the Court would decline to award compensation to the tenants for such improvements. There would be not the slightest difficulty in ascertaining by whom such improvements had been made, because officers of the Board of Works were bound to enter the particulars of such transactions in their certificate, certifying to the completion of the works executed with the sums advanced.
  LORD CAIRNSthought that the words would clear up any doubt that might exist as to the real meaning of the Bill upon this point. In many instances where the money had been borrowed by the landlord to make improvements, the interest had been met by a charge on the land, which was paid by the tenant from year to year. It was quite possible that, as the tenant would pay the annual charge upon the estate which was applied in payment of the principal and interest of the sums borrowed, a presumption might arise that he would be entitled to be compensated for the improvements, although they had, in fact, been made by the landlord. The Amendment was intended to prevent any error of that kind.
  After a short conversation,
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would take the proposed Amendment into consideration.
  Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD DUNSANYproposed, in subsection 3, to insert the words ("the life of the occupying tenant, or of"). The object of the Amendment was to make leases for such a life come among those the granting of which by the landlord relieved him of payment of compensation, except for permanent buildings, reclamation of land, and for tillages or manures, the benefit of which was unexhausted at the time of the tenant quitting his holding.
  Amendment moved, line 18, after the words "for a term of" add ("the life of the occupying tenant, or of").—(The Lord Dunsany.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the lenses for two lives, or 31 years, had been introduced in the Bill by the Government, and accepted by Dr. Ball, on the principle that two lives were equal to 31 years; but a lease for one life would be on the average much shorter.
  LORD CAIRNSthought that leases for lives were not a sort of tenure that ought to be encouraged in future; but, as many such leases were now in exist-once, it might be well to introduce the words suggested, but to limit their application to all existing leases, and to a term of years in all future cases.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, it often occurred that a man preferred a lease for his own life to one for a term of years. This, perhaps, was owing to each person's belief that he himself was likely to live a long time.
  LORD DUNSANYobserved, that giving a tenant a lease for his own life was a good way of restraining him from committing waste.
  Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved an Amendment, providing that tillages and manuring, in respect of which compensation is to be given, must have been effected within two years previous to the tenant quitting his holding.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought it would not be well to insert such a limitation. The clause already provided that compensation should be given only when the benefit of such tillages and manuring was unexhausted.
  Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, page 6, line 3, to omit the paragraph—
  "Any contract between a landlord and a tenant, whereby the tenant is prohibited from making such improvements as may be required for the suitable occupation of his holding and its cultivation in a due course of husbandry, shall be void both at law and in equity; but no improvement shall be deemed to be required for the suitable occupation of a tenant's holding, and its cultivation in a due course of husbandry, which appears to the Court to diminish the general value of the estate of the landlord."—(The Earl of Leitrim.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORopposed the omission of the paragraph, which was necessary to the very principle of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsuggested that the words of the provision referring to cultivation in "a due course of husbandry" should be omitted, and that the provision should be confined to improvements suitable to the occupation of the holding. The words "cultivation in a due course of husbandry" might lead to the breaking up of grass lands.
  EARL GREYthought the clause put too great a restraint on the freedom of contract. It prevented landlords and tenants from coming to agreement as to how the land should be cultivated.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the very purpose of the Bill was to protect small tenants who were not able to make contracts for themselves, and but for this provision in the clause those tenants might find themselves in the position of having agreements pressed on them prohibiting improvements that were essential to the cultivation of their holdings. The improvements contemplated by the clause were such as must not diminish the general value of the estate, but would be for its advantage; and he could not, therefore, see how the landlord would be in the least degree damnified by this provision.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, he could not conceive anything more absurd than this Proviso about contracts. It clearly supposed that a tenant in Ireland was utterly unfit to hold land, by assuming that they could not understand the nature of the contracts they might enter into. He thought this was an insult to the tenantry of Ireland, and he hoped his noble Friend would press his Amendment to a Division if necessary.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could not support the Amendment of his noble Friend on the Cross Benches, as it would be at variance with the principle of the Bill. But there was a point to which he wished to call attention—namely, that under the provisions, as it now stood, a tenant might cut down the timber upon the estate on the ground that the farm would be better without it, and the landlord, under the section as it stood, would not be able to prevent it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that could not be, because the timber added to the value of the landlord's estate.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the holding was better without the timber as far as the tenant was concerned, but worse as regarded the landlord. If the noble Lord cut down every tree on his property he would undertake to get him a better rent for it.
  After further discussion, Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Then paragraph amended by omitting "in due course of husbandry," and inserting "for the suitable occupation of his holding and its due cultivation."
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DUNSANY LORD DUNSANY moved an Amendment at the end of paragraph to add—
  "Nor shall anything in this Act contained authorize or empower any tenant or occupier, without the previous consent in writing of the landlord, to break up or till any land or lands usually let, occupied, or used as grazing or grass lands, or let expressly as grazing or meadow land."
  He thought it his duty to ask how such extraordinary words as those contained in the paragraph before the Committee could have found their way into the Bill. He felt no doubt that as the words stood they would transfer about £20,000,000 of property from the landlords to the tenants, and he would like to know who was responsible, whether through intention or through a blunder, for so extraordinary a piece of legislation. No one would doubt that husbandry meant tillage, and here was a Proviso which authorized a tenant to till old pasture lands, all covenants and conditions to the contrary notwithstanding. It was an unjustifiable transfer of property,

  961
  and he would like to know who was responsible for it.
  Amendment agreed to: Words added.
  Words inserted, "or to cut timber without the consent of the landlord."
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELD, who had given Notice of an Amendment that all agreements between the landlord and tenant relating to improvements should be registered in the Court, said, it was perfectly clear that all improvements that might be made after the passing of the Bill would be recorded. There would be no difficulty on the part either of landlord or tenant in proving them. But in the case of improvements made before the passing of the Bill very great difficulty might arise 20 or 30 years hence. Since, however, the noble Earl below him (Earl Granville) was willing to concede that the improvements for which a tenant would be entitled to claim should be effected not 20 years before the passing of the Act, but 20 years before the claim was made, he was inclined to withdraw his Amendment. He was perfectly willing that the point raised by the Amendment should be considered in connection with the Motion shortly to be brought forward by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond), and therefore he would not propose his Amendment.
  LORD DUNSANY LORD DUNSANY moved an Amendment, at end of clause to add—
  "When the tenant of any holding claims compensation for improvements other than permanent buildings, it shall be a sufficient answer to such claims if the landlord shows that the tenant had at any time taken, or allowed to be taken, more than two corn crops in succession from the same land, or had on more than one occasion drawn off, or permitted others to draw off, from the holding for use elsewhere hay, straw, manure or root crops other than potato, or that he did not habitually keep live stock enough to manure one-sixth of the land in tillage annually, or supply the place of farmyard manure by other manure equally beneficial to the soil, or fallow the land every alternate year.
  "No tenant not being resident upon the holding in respect of which he claims compensation either for disturbance or improvement, and having another holding under a different landlord, shall be entitled to any compensation if he has, after the passing of this Act, drawn off the hay, straw, manure, or roots (other than potato) to the holding last mentioned, or has permitted others to draw off such produce."
  The noble Lord said his Amendment was in the interest of good farming, and, therefore, of the public. He wished
  962
  simply to provide that no man should be rewarded in Ireland for ruining his farm—a mode of proceeding which would in England procure him punishment. It might be said that the state of civilization, and, therefore, of farming, was much lower in Ireland than in England; but his Amendment was framed not in favour of high farming, but against barbarous farming—against claims for compensation compounded partly of joke and partly of injustice. It was too bad that a farmer, after taking three white crops off the land, should come and ask for compensation for improvements. His Amendment did not go the length of prohibiting or punishing barbarous farming, but simply of declaring that it should not be rewarded.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, for the reasons that in some respects it would work injustice to the tenants, and that it was unnecessary for the protection of the landlords, who would have power and opportunity under Clause 15 to plead any such damage as was mentioned in the noble Lord's Amendment as set-off against the tenant's claim for compensation.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsupported the Amendment, remarking that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) seemed generally ready to support any proposal that was against the landlord and in favour of the tenant. While Government was squabbling as to small points and acting generally in a see-saw manner, men's minds in Ireland were disturbed and the cultivation of the land was brought almost to a standstill. The use of manures was becoming less and less.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, the reason why so much land in the West of Ireland was under grass was found in the fact that the farmers took from it a potato crop and two or three white crops, and then allowed it to lie fallow until nature had brought it round and rendered it fit and ready for the growth of similar crops. Irish landlords had no objection to good tillage, but they could not get it, because they had no power to enforce covenants with their tenants; and therefore they asked for such protection as was enjoyed by landlords in England.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that under Clause 15 substantial justice

  963
  would be done to landlords and tenants alike; because it was expressly provided that if the tenant deteriorated the land, the landlord could plead it before the Court; while, if the Amendment were passed, it would have the effect of depriving a tenant of his right to compensation, though he did no more than remove a single cartload of manure from his holding.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwas understood to agree with the Lord Chancellor as to the injustice that tenants might suffer under the operation of the Amendment before the Committee.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment; but asked if the Government would not accept the second paragraph, which had been framed to meet extreme cases.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not assent to this proposition, as the ground of the whole Amendment would be amply covered by the operation of Clause 15.
  Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice, the object of which was to define the number of years' enjoyment which should satisfy and extinguish a tenant's claim to compensation. His conviction was that in case of improvements other than permanent buildings and reclamation of waste land, 20 years' enjoyment ought to extinguish the claim. Mr. Thompson, formerly President of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, in his clever book upon this subject, quoted the opinions of various witnesses examined before the Devon Commission; those, for instance, of Mr. Balfe, farmer, of the county Meath, who said that 21 years would be sufficient to compensate a tenant for any improvement on land, provided it was of a medium quality; of Mr. Johnston, landed proprietor of the county Donegal, that seven years would repay a man for the operations of trenching and thorough draining; and of Mr. Joseph Lambert, farmer, county Mayo, who said that a 14 years' tenure would operate as a sufficient encouragement to a tenant to improve, and that a man having that term unexpired should not have any claim to compensation.
  "In Scotland," as Mr. Thompson observed, "where agriculture is conducted in a more strictly
  964
  commercial spirit than probably in any other part of the world, and where the profit and loss of each operation are carefully calculated, 19 years' leases are exceedingly common. …. If a strictly agricultural improvement would not reimburse the tenant with a handsome profit in 21 years, it ought not to be undertaken."
  The Lord Privy Seal also would not fail to recollect the evidence given before the Select Committee presided over by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Clanricarde), in 1867, in which an opinion very strongly to the same effect as that which he had just quoted was given by Mr. Trench—and his noble Friend (Viscount Monck) had quoted him as a great authority on this question. Other gentlemen of authority and experience gave evidence to the same effect. Twenty-one years, therefore, seemed to him quite sufficient in the case of all ordinary improvements. For the reclamation of waste lands he was willing to allow 31 years, and in the case of permanent buildings 41 years' improvement. He certainly thought it very desirable that some time should be fixed in order to give the Court materials on which to forms its judgment. By agreeing to the periods named in this Amendment a sort of datum line would be laid down, by which the Court would be guided.
  Amendment moved, at end of Clause, insert—
  "The following periods of enjoyment by the tenant or his predecessors in title shall be deemed to satisfy and extinguish his claim under this section; that is to say,
  "In the case of all improvements other than permanent buildings and reclamation of waste land twenty years enjoyment:
  "In the case of permanent buildings forty-one years enjoyment:
  "In the case of reclamation of waste land thirty-one years enjoyment."—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  THE EARL OF STRADBROKEsaid, that it was once his lot to have property in Tipperary, which had been let upon 60 years' leases, and nothing could possibly be in a worse state. In the county of Waterford he had attempted, with some success, to bring into reclamation what were called waste lands, and found that a period of 20 years was quite enough to remunerate the tenant for his outlay.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not know any question connected with the subject of improvements more difficult than that of the time which should be allowed. The evidence before

  965
  the Committee of that House, of which he was a Member, was perplexing on this question, for there was much disagreement in the opinions and experiences of the witnesses as to the length of the lease. One witness contended that a 99 years' lease was required to fully compensate a tenant if he had built a house on the land, while other gentlemen thought 21 years sufficient. All this showed how one case must differ from another. Noble Lords who served upon the Committee would recollect the discussions which had been held, and the difficulty which was felt in coming to a satisfactory conclusion. The conclusion at which he had arrived was, that it was better not to fix any term; but that the tenant who made the improvement should have not the former value of the land or the house built upon it—not what the tenant had expended—but the value of it as it stood—for amongst other things, the tenant might have expended money injudiciously, and for that he ought not to have compensation. If the tenant had not made the improvement, the landlord would never have possessed it; and if the improvement was calculated upon the increased value which it added to the estate the landlord could not suffer. In spite of the authorities which the noble Duke had quoted, widely different opinions were held by persons very competent to judge. If, therefore, the House went into the question of the term which should be allowed, it would involve itself in endless difficulties.
  EARL GREYsaid, that if the principle laid down by the noble Earl who had last spoken were adopted it would put a stop to all those permanent improvements which were executed on the full understanding that, at the expiration of the term granted, they were to become the property of the landlord. The tenant should have a sufficient inducement to improve the land, while the owner should, after leaving the tenant in undisturbed possession for a proper number of years, be enabled to resume possession of his property. He thought the number of years which the noble Duke had suggested was fair to both parties, and he hoped the Amendment would be carried.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONpointed out that by one of the sub-sections to Clause 4 it was provided that a tenant
  966
  should not be entitled to any compensation—
  "In respect of any improvement made either before or after the passing of this Act in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, there was nothing in the clause to prevent landlords and tenants from making, in the future, arrangements similar to what they did at present. In Scotland landlords always made written contracts with their tenants in such cases; and in Ireland, by doing the same, they would prevent any evil consequences.
  LORD CAIRNSasked the noble Earl opposite (Earl De Grey and Ripon) how he reconciled the sub-section which he had read with the section of this clause, which said that—
  "Any contract made by a tenant, by virtue of which he is deprived of his right to make any claim which he would otherwise be entitled to make under this section, shall, so far as relates to such claim, be void."
  What was there to prevent a tenant at the end of his period of enjoyment turning round upon his landlord, saying that the contract into which they had entered was void, and making a claim for compensation?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the section provided for cases in which the tenant would not be entitled to compensation. A tenant might be at liberty to make a second contract, which would not be at variance with the Act.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that in the future landlords might make contracts, but the past was beyond their control.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEobserved, that if noble and learned Lords on either side of the House were not agreed as to the moaning of the clauses in the Bill, what could be expected except that the measure, when attempted to be carried into operation in Ireland, would produce a plentiful crop of litigation?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would be willing to withdraw the Amendments that stood upon the Paper in his name with reference to this clause, on the understanding that the Government would be willing to reconsider the whole of the clause.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had thought that the words of the clause accurately represented the meaning which

  967
  the Government intended to convey; but after the observations of the noble and learned Lord opposite he thought it would only be right that any doubt that might have arisen with respect to it should be cleared up. The clause would, therefore, be further considered.
  Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Presumption in respect of improvements).
  LORD DUNSANY LORD DUNSANY moved an Amendment, line 33, after ("passing of this Act") to insert—
  ("Where the maps known as the Ordnance Survey of Ireland show that the improvements existed at the time of making that survey").
  It would be most advantageous to have some kind of landmark, such as these maps would afford, to throw light upon the condition of lands at a certain definite period. It had been expressly enacted that these maps should not be deemed legal evidence; but he thought that that limitation to their usefulness ought to be removed, and that they should be declared to be evidence.
  LORD O'HAGANremarked that the maps to which the noble Lord referred were already allowed to be produced in Courts of Justice, where they were received in conjunction with parol evidence, and they were then of great value; but it would be unjust to make them conclusive evidence.
  EARL GRANVILLE, on the part of the Government, objected to the Amendment.
  Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendments made.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose to move an Amendment the object of which was to alter the whole scope of the clause. The clause, as it stood, was not only objectionable, but entirely repugnant to the sense of justice, and to every principle of law adopted in this and every other civilized country. What the clause would establish was not Socialism or Communism, but confiscation; for to transfer to one man the property of another, without compensation, was confiscation. It was said that nothing more would be done by this clause than had been done by the various Railway Acts. The two cases were entirely dif-
  968
  ferent. Where a man's property was taken for the purposes of a railway he received compensation; moreover, in the case of railways, the property was taken for the benefit of the community—for the good of the public. There was no such excuse here. The property which the clause would deal with was the undoubted right of the landlord, and was known to be so by the tenants. This provision was founded on an assumption contrary to the facts; for to assert that all agricultural improvements were made by the tenants, was to state what was not the fact. One might travel through whole districts of Ireland and find that by far the greater part of the improvements—he did not mean in measurement, but in value—had been made not by the tenant, but by the landlords. As a rule, the landlords either built the farm-houses from the foundation, or contributed materials to build them: the landlords in some parts of the country had made miles of boundary fences and of drains by means of their own immediate resources, or with the money which was lent to them, through the Board of Works, immediately after the famine of 1846. The farmers knew that; and if they saw the Parliament of England taking the property of the landlords in these works and handing it over to the tenants, would they not begin to think that before long the corpus of the land would be transferred in the same manner? It was impossible in many cases for the landlord to show all the assistance which he had given the tenant; and it would be infinitely easier for the small tenant to prove his improvements than for the landlord to prove his. The tenant could bring the evidence of his family, his friends, or his labourers, to show that he had put up such a fence or such a gate, or made such an addition to his house; whereas the landlord would have no such advantage. His Amendment, therefore, sought to give fair play between man and man. As the law at present stood, it worked injustice by presuming that all improvements were made by the landlord, when many of them had, in fact, been made by the tenant; but this Bill proposed to work equal injustice in the opposite direction, by declaring that all improvements were primâ facie made by the tenants. But he thought there ought to be no presumption one way or the

  969
  other; the matter should be entirely one of evidence. Whoever made the claim to an improvement, be it the landlord or be it the tenant, let him sustain his claim by evidence before the Court. That was the principle of his Amendment, which did not injuriously affect any of the main and good, objects of the Bill, while it avoided that confiscation which was wholly unnecessary as well as unjust.
  Amendment moved, at page 6, line 29, to leave out all the words after "usage," and insert—
  "All claims for improvements under this Act put forward either by the landlord or by the tenant shall be proved by evidence, and such evidence shall be subject to appeal as hereinafter provided."—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, the matter was not quite so simple as the noble Marquess seemed to imagine, and he hoped to show that the weight of facts, authority, and argument was against the view put forward by him in moving the Amendment. In approaching this question these two principles might fairly be taken into consideration—first, that a presumption, to be reasonable and just, must be founded on probability; that that probability itself must be founded on fact; and that the presumption, therefore, to be reasonable and just, must be founded on a continuity of facts. The second principle was that in discussing a question of evidence the onus of proof was properly allowed to fall on those who had the better knowledge of the matter and the better opportunity of giving evidence upon it. He thought those principles must commend themselves to their Lordships. Let them look at the facts of this question in the light of those principles. They could not do without a presumption in that case; they must have it either one way or the other. The old common law presumption, no doubt, was in favour of the landlord, and was to this effect—that whatever was on the land belonged to the land. But that old maxim had been departed from to a very large extent owing to the necessities of society and the progress of civilization. It had been departed from in respect to fixtures on the soil and agricultural buildings. Therefore, the old principle could not be held now to be as intact as in former times. If, then, it should appear on the
  970
  evidence that those improvements in Ireland were generally made by the tenantry, that general fact sustained the probability on which the presumption contained in the clause was based, and the clause, therefore, became impregnable. Now, what was the evidence on the subject? The Commission of 1845, presided, over by a distinguished Member of their Lordships' House, the late Earl of Devon, investigated the condition of Ireland, and in their Report gave an accurate description of it. The result of their inquiries, as far as this matter was concerned, was to this effect—that, while generally in England and Scotland before a landlord offered a farm to let he found it necessary to provide a suitable farm-house, with the requisite farm buildings for its proper management, to put the gates and fences in good order, and also to take on himself a great part of the burden of keeping the buildings in repair during the term, the rent being fixed with reference to that state of things. In Ireland, on the other hand, the case was wholly different. There the smallness of the farms, as they were usually let, together with other circumstances, rendered the English system very difficult, if not impracticable. It was admitted that the cases in which the landlord did those things were the exception; in most cases, whatever was done in the way of building, fences, or reclamation of land was done by the tenant. It was impossible to conceive evidence more persuasive or conclusive, as far as it went, than that taken by the Commissioners in 1845. No doubt, that was a long time ago; and it was a great misfortune that it was so, because if action had been taken on the recommendation of the Commission of 1845 such a Bill as the present would not now be before their Lordships. What the Devon Commission recommended was very much less in stringency than the present measure. A quarter of a century had since elapsed, Bill after Bill had been introduced by successive Governments, all failing, and all producing a greater stringency of the landlord interest, and a greater expansion of the tenant interest. It was a misfortune that a quarter of a century should have been allowed to elapse without adequate legislation. But had there in that period been any great change in the condition of Ireland? Fortunately they had evidence of a recent

  971
  kind given by persons of the greatest intelligence in connection with the Government of the country, several of whom he could say from his own knowledge were men of the highest integrity. He was now asking their Lordships whether there was such a difference between the state of things in 1845 and in 1870 that the evidence of the Commission of 1845 should be disregarded as irrelevant? One of the gentlemen to whom he had just referred—a man probably pre-eminent among them in character and intelligence, Mr. Burke, speaking upon the general subject of land improvements, said that it remained in much the same position as in 1845, when the Report of Lord Devon's Commission was issued; that though some advance had been made in cultivation, yet not much capital had been expended either by the landlord or tenant, and that the chief part of what had been done had been done by the tenant. It was only fair, for one arguing as he (Lord O'Hagan) was, to say that there had been some progress on the part of the landlords, and that the normal state of things in the old times, when the tenants were left utterly unassisted, had, during the last quarter of a century, been to a considerable extent altered. The landlords now often gave assistance in building cottages—they gave slates and timber, but the tenants did the rest of the work. By large drainage operations on large estates the landlords had made great improvements; but the drainage so effected had, at all events, been done by the assistance of the tenants, who paid the interest on the money expended. If their Lordships examined the evidence of the Poor Law Inspectors, they would find that these three things exhausted all the improvements made by the landlords, all the rest, such as fences, reclamation of land, and making of roads, being the work of the tenants. Dr. Roughan and other witnesses corroborated this statement; and Mr. Campbell, whose authority had been often quoted in this debate and never denied, stated that in the great majority of cases the buildings, &c., called improvements, were really put up by the tenant or others from whom he derived, and that when the landlord contributed it had always been in money which his accounts would show, whereas no such proof could be given by the tenant.
  972
  There was one other distinguished authority to whom he would refer—a noble Lord a Member of that House, whose name was held in the highest respect in Ireland, and whose intelligence and independent judgment he (Lord O'Hagan) admitted, though he differed from him in many points—he meant Lord Lifford. That noble Lord said—
  "The difficulty of distinguishing between landlord and tenant improvements should be got over by presuming that all improvements have been made by the tenant."
  Passing on to the second part of the speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) he came to the question, to which his noble Friend had addressed himself with much force, whether, having regard to the circumstances of Ireland, the burden of proof in reference to the making of improvements ought to be borne by the landlords or the tenants. The ordinary principle was that he who had the greatest facilities for obtaining evidence might fairly have the burden placed upon him. Now, what was the relative position of landlord and tenant? The landlords had, in the first place, organized machinery by means of which they were enabled to keep a record of their expenditure. It might be said that the landlord could not, without hardship, be required to furnish accounts with reference to a presumption that had not hitherto existed; but surely he was obliged to keep such a record for the behoof of his family affairs without reference to any such presumption. In the next place, they had agents and workmen who were actually engaged in the labour of making the improvements, and could give evidence in regard to them. If it were thought necessary to extend the rules of evidence, and so giving facilities for proof, he (Lord O'Hagan) would be prepared to agree to such an arrangement, or to one which would render available in the Land Court of Ireland all such evidence as was now accepted in Courts of Law or Equity. In this way provisions might be introduced which would remove the anxiety and apprehension which evidently prevailed in the minds of many noble Lords. Within the last seven years the Lord Chancellor had been empowered to admit as evidence books of accounts kept in the ordinary way, although there was nobody to verify them, and he was sure Her

  973
  Majesty's Government would have little difficulty in agreeing to the admission of evidence of the kind, where it was necessary, in cases arising under this Bill. If the clause passed as it was presented to the House, a provision of a similar kind should be made, and then he thought neither landlord nor tenant need fear injustice under its operation. With regard to the tenant, he kept no accounts; and if, when the work which he had undertaken was done, he was asked how many shillings and pounds he had expended on the improvements, an impossible burden would be put upon him. In framing this clause every possible care had been taken to guard against any evil which it was possible to avoid in the establishment of this presumption.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would endeavour to show, from conclusive evidence, that the presumption did not take the form described by the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord had quoted from and relied upon the Reports of the Commission which visited Ireland some years ago; but those who were acquainted with the state of Ireland at that time were well aware that the Report was not at all conclusive or satisfactory, as the evidence was not taken upon oath, and some of it which was clearly contrary to fact was included in the body of the Report, while the lucid and satisfactory contradiction was only found in the Appendix. He had been astonished to hear his noble and learned Friend address their Lordships in so strong a manner in favour of a decided invasion of the legal principle that a man bringing forward a claim should be compelled to prove his case by evidence; and he should regret the departure from the principle by this Bill. The noble and learned Lord said that the probability was in favour of the tenants having made the improvements, and therefore that they should belong to them; but this was a question not of presumption but of fact. The land belonged to the landlord, and when the tenant quitted his holding he was bound to give it up to the landlord; all that was on the land was a part of the land, and therefore the property of the landlord. The noble and learned Lord said, however, that the presumption was in favour of the improvements having been made by the tenant. Evidence given before the Committee of which the noble
  974
  Lord opposite had been a member was to the opposite effect. Mr. Trench, a gentleman of large experience, and who had peculiar facilities for procuring information on the subject, said—
  "There is no more frequent assertion made than that the landlords of Ireland do nothing and that the tenants do all—till, drain, and make every improvement that is made upon the soil of Ireland. It is impossible to conceive a more utterly false assertion."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: That only shows it to be "utterly false" to say that the landlords do nothing.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND? If that were so, why were they to assume that the tenant did everything? Yet the House was asked to presume that the tenants made absolutely all the improvements, and the passage he had quoted was intended to show the fallacy of such a supposition. He would quote the testimony of another gentleman well qualified to speak on this subject. Mr. Hamilton, who had the management of 56,000 acres of land, stated that it was the greatest calumny possible upon the landlords to say that all the improvements were made by the tenants. In another part of his evidence the same gentleman stated that in nine cases out of ten the tendency on the part of the tenant was to deterioration rather than to improvement. According to the old legal principle, what was done upon the land belonged to the land and hence to the landlord; but now this principle was to be reversed in favour of the tenant. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord O'Hagan) said, indeed, that in England and in Scotland the improvements were always made by the landlords—in which assertion he was mistaken; and he also said that the old presumption of law had been somewhat departed from in the Courts recently in the cases of agricultural buildings. But it would be found that agricultural buildings were never presumed to be the property of the tenant unless he could show that he made them. But unless the noble and learned Lord could say that the presumption formerly existing had been absolutely reversed in favour of the tenant, he had made out no case in support of the proposal in the Bill. Again, it was said by the noble and learned Lord that within the last seven years the Court of Chancery had obtained the power of allowing account-

  975
  books to be received in evidence. But this could not affect the case at all. How was it possible from accounts, however well kept, to identify the sums which had been expended on particular improvements? The accounts might be faultless, and yet, unless the agent were there to explain them, the Court would be unable to extract from them information really of value. It would puzzle a man even of the ability and acquirements of his noble and learned Friend to come to decide from a simple reference to the accounts what money had been expended by the landlord, and what had been expended by the tenant. Moreover, up to the present time, accounts had been kept by the landlords upon the presumption that all improvements would, ultimately be their own, and hence they had not detailed, with that minuteness which would in future be necessary, the sums expended on each particular field. To declare, therefore, as proposed by this clause, that all improvements should be presumed to have been made by the tenant, unless the contrary were proved by the landlord, was to do a gross injustice to every holder of a landed estate in Ireland. He could quite understand the Government saying that, having discarded all accepted principles in carrying out this Bill, they intend to go to the fullest extent, and to enact that improvements made after a certain date after the passing of this Bill should be presumed to be made by the tenant. To such a proposal, although he regarded it as unsound in principle, he should not, perhaps, offer any very great objection. But this was an entirely different matter. A violent inroad was here made upon the rights and property of the landlord, and an injustice would be done him, which in the great majority of instances he would have no means whatever of resisting. He should be quite content if the Government would consent to confine the operation of the clause under discussion to some future period after the passing of the Act; but unless that were done he should feel constrained to vote for the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, he had always been anxious to secure the tenants in their outlays, and it was quite true that he had declared his opinion that the only way out of the difficulty was to make the presumption in favour
  976
  of the tenant; but at the time he did so he had no expectation that his words would be brought before the House. When he gave the evidence which the noble and learned Lord had quoted, he believed what he stated; but since that time he had received such a mass of evidence on the other side of the question that he had altered his opinion, and he now thought it would be unjust to do so.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had attempted, to answer the speech of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Now, one point which the latter had much insisted upon was that, up to the time of the Devon Commission, it was the general practice in Ireland for improvements to be made by the tenants; and he proceeded to show by evidence—including that of the noble Lord who had just spoken, Viscount Lifford—that that practice, as a whole, had continued to the present day. What his noble and learned Friend had stated in favour of that presumption, the noble Duke had attempted to meet by referring to the law and custom of England, which was in favour of the landlord; but he forgot that the practice in England and in Ireland was so entirely different, that what was law and justice in one country would be injustice in the other. The noble Duke then proceeded to criticize the Report of the Devon Commission. Now, he submitted that it was too late for the noble Duke to throw any doubt on the Report of the Devon Commission as being too much in favour of the tenants, for à priori the presumption was the other way, because there was no representative of the tenant class on that Commission, nor anyone on behalf of the general body of taxpayers, the landlords being exclusively concerned. And what was the opinion of persons on whom the noble Duke relied. The late Lord Derby, in his speech upon the Compensation to Tenants (Ireland) Bill, said of that Report that—
  "If it did not contain anything of striking novelty it has, at all events, the merit of bringing together a large mass of unsuspected testimony from all parts of the country."
  That noble Earl had devoted great attention to the subject, and had then recently compared the circumstances of England and Ireland, which were so different, and he said—
  "Every tenant-farmer on taking a farm in England, and I believe in Scotland, looks as a

  977
  matter of course—not founded upon any law, certainly, but upon a custom which is rarely departed from—to the landlord to place the farm before he enters upon it in tenantable repair—that is, in regard to the fences, the drains, the dwelling-house and buildings, and, in short, in regard to all those things which in England are considered as the necessary accompaniments to a farm. But in Ireland the case in reference to all the various matters is not only dissimilar, but exactly the reverse."
  Beyond that, he thought he need not trouble their Lordships about the Report of the Devon Commission or the opinions of those who at the time were best able to judge of it. The noble Duke proceeded to question the evidence brought forward by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and read the testimony of three or four agents who superintended some of the largest and best managed estates in Ireland. But there was not any noble Lord who had the slightest doubt that there were good landlords in Ireland, and that those who owned the richest and largest estates were those who laid out most money towards improvements and directed how they should be carried out. Was that, however, any answer to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, who read passages from the Reports of the Poor Law Inspectors, in whose credibility every one believed, and whose Reports covered the whole area of those portions of Ireland to which they related? Now, these Inspectors reported unanimously that the great bulk of the landlords in Ireland did not act in that way. Reference had been made to the evidence of Lord Lifford, and he was satisfied with the complete explanation which that noble Lord had given. The noble Duke then wont on to show that the landlords' books would be useless to show what improvements they had effected—which sounded very singular after his speech on the second reading of the Bill, in which he said that the tenants would have no difficulty in proving their claim from their books and papers. The noble Duke appeared to forget that an educated person with servants and books—and if he had kept no books he ought to have done so—could prove what he had expended far easier than the ignorant man without any of these assistants. It struck him (Earl Granville) as extraordinary that tenants of 5, 10, or 20 acres of land in Ireland should come with ledgers and day-boots and written documents to
  978
  prove any matter relating to their farms, and he was not prepared for the noble Duke turning so completely round on that point. He thought the noble Duke was pleading for the strong against the weak. The noble Duke then quoted Mr. Trench, whose son had been asked by the Marquess of Lansdowne whether he could produce the books to show what improvements he had effected, and Mr. Trench's reply showed that he could give the information, but doubted whether the books would be received as evidence. The great principle maintained by the noble Duke was that you may not take the property of one man and give it to another; but, after the universal support which noble Lords on the opposite Benches had given to the proposition that it was necessary to take the presumption as to improvements from the landlords and transfer it to the tenants, it was too late to introduce the principle which the noble Duke sought to establish. As to the arrangement which the noble Duke had suggested, nothing was offered, but the noble Duke wanted everything given to him. Under these circumstances, he trusted that their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment.
  LORD DE ROSsaid, it had always been the practice in Ireland for the landlords to pay for a share of the improvements in order to stimulate the industry of the tenants; and in Ulster every improvement was effected by the landlord and tenant jointly. He denied that any weight of authority should be given to Lord Devon's Commission. That Commission was only issued for the collection of grievances, and its Report was based upon principles that nothing could justify. In his opinion the tenant-right of Ulster had not occasioned the prosperity of the North of Ireland, but was the result of that prosperity. As far as he could observe, the prosperity of Ulster had arisen from the enormous expansion of the banking principle in that part of the country. In the North of Ireland large banks had been established in every town, and the fact that the farmers could deposit small sums there with security and profit, had done more to develop the industry of the people than anything else.
  THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHsaid, that a presumption must exist that the improvements were either the property

  979
  of the landlords or of the tenants; and, from his knowledge of Ireland, and as an Irish landlord, he had no hesitation in saying that the presumption ought to be in the favour of the tenant. The landlords would not, in most cases, have any difficulty in proving that they had paid for the improvements they had executed. If the clause were to be altered in the way proposed by the noble Marquess, the greatest injustice would be done to the Irish tenant. Having made considerable personal inquiries into the subject, in anticipation of this Bill coming before the House during the present Session, he had found, to his great surprise, that the great mass of improvements, especially on small estates, were made solely and entirely by tenants. In the larger estates the tenants were assisted by the landlords in making the improvements; but upon the smaller class of estates, the improvements were almost always made by the tenants themselves.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he supported the principle of the Amendment, which, however, would require some alteration in the wording in order to carry out his noble Friend's intention. He had observed that, whenever an objection was taken to any clause of this Bill, they were told that Ireland furnished an exceptional case; that, therefore, the relation of landlord and tenant must be entirely changed; the tenants of Ireland were to be treated as minors who were incapable of contracting. The provisions of the Bill were adapted to this peculiar state of circumstances, and all the principles of law were to be violated, and the presumptions of law reversed. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor of Ireland) stated, in opposition to the Amendment, that originally the presumption of law was in favour of the landlord—ejus usque ad cœlum—but that this principle had been reversed in favour of the tenant in the case of agricultural buildings. With great respect to his noble and learned Friend, he was entirely mistaken, or he (Lord Chelmsford) had misapprehended his meaning. The law at present was that whatever was fixed to the soil belonged to the landlord; but if a tenant put up anything on the soil for the purpose of carrying on his business which, could be removed without injury to the land, that remained the property of the tenant. Questions
  980
  of property had arisen between the tenant for life and the remainderman, and between the heir and the executor, whether certain fixtures on the soil were, in fact, part of it and removable or not; and there had always been a distinction made between landlords' fixtures and tenants' fixtures—anything that was removable being held to belong to the tenant. There was no presumption at all in the case—it was a question of property, and whatever was fixed to the soil belonged to the owner of the soil. And let them recollect that this was a presumption of fact, and not a presumption in respect to property, for that was fixed and settled by law. The noble and learned Lord said that the presumption was in favour of the tenant. This was a violation of every principle of law. Every person who made a claim was bound to establish it, and the clause was in direct violation of this principle. This principle of presumption was a very dangerous one, and it would operate most unfairly and unjustly against the landlord, who would have more difficulty in proving what improvements he had made than the tenant would experience on his part.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he should like to ask for some explanation as to the improvement in the Law of Evidence referred to by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord O'Hagan); and he also wished to know whether, in the event of the death of an agent who had had the management of an estate for 20 years, evidence of all the improvements made at the expense of the landlord during that period could be produced on a sheet of letter paper—because on the second reading a noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) stated that the improvements made by the landlord on an Irish estate of his during the last 20 years could be produced on a sheet of letter paper? He was sure that every improvement which ought to have been made by the landlord had been made on that estate by the noble Marquess and his predecessors.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that the expression of which he had made use on the occasion referred to by the noble Duke was "that by return of post he could have a schedule containing a list of the improvements made on the estate during the last 20 years." However, whether he had used the words

  981
  "a schedule" or "a sheet of paper," he believed he might have said that he could produce the list in an hour or two, so regularly had the accounts of those improvements been maintained and transmitted each year by the agent. He should not again discuss the general question. He agreed with every word said on the subject by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland: he concurred also with his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies that the evidence given by Mr. Trench as to the improvements made by large proprietors ought not to be taken as showing that on smaller properties the improvements were not made by the tenants. He quite agreed, too, that the accounts of the owner of an estate, whether he were an absentee or not, would be most valuable evidence in substantiating a question of presumption. The character of the works executed by the landlord ought to be weighed by comparison with those done by the tenant. The works done by the landlord were put in hand at once and completed soon, and there was no difficulty in the way of placing them on record or in recognizing them afterwards; but the improvements made by the tenants extended over a considerable period; they were done in piecemeal and. during the slack time, and much of them consisted in work, such, for instance, as the removing of stones from the land, of which it would be very difficult to keep a record distinct enough to constitute reliable evidence in a Court of Law. He hoped their Lordships would not add the Amendment now proposed to the somewhat serious alterations already made in the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the change in the Law of Evidence alluded to by his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was one which had been long contemplated in this country—namely, the reception of well-kept books and accounts as primâ facie evidence of the matters to which the entries had reference. There was some difficulty as to the reception of these books and as to the competency of the Judge to admit them if he thought fit as primâ facie evidence; yet the difficulty as regarded the exercise of the power had been somewhat overstated. The agent's books, if properly kept, might not show what was done in each field, but they would certainly show what was
  982
  done on each holding, and therefore if they did not show what each tenant had done, they would show what set-off there was against what the tenant might claim. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) said they were going to invert the whole presumption of law. Of course they were. They were going to invert not only the presumption of law, but the whole title which the landlord had to everything that was fixed to his freehold. And why were they going to do so? Because they were going to turn a wrong into a right—and this step they were about to take with the consent of the whole of their Lordships. ["No, no!"] The whole House had agreed that the tenant must be paid for his improvements; and the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had in 1855 introduced a clause in a Bill giving retrospective compensation for improvements that, according to the old rule of law, had already become the property of the landlord. For 15 years those men had been kept out of their money; and the question now was whether those unfortunate tenants were to be made to prove in the first instance that they had executed these improvements, built their cottages, and the like, instead of its being left to the landlord, where he disputed their claim, to show from his books and accounts, which his agent must have kept, that he had made them.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, this was a question which concerned both the past and the future. As to the past, in regard to keeping the books of the estates, no doubt in the case of large absentee proprietors the improvements would be effected through the medium of agents, who must in most instances be in direct communication with the landlords, and whose accounts must show, at least in general terms, what money had been spent, and the nature and extent of the works on which it had been laid out. But even in respect to these accounts, if brought forward in a Court of Justice in a controversy with the tenants, they would be useless as far as showing who had made particular improvements on particular holdings went. As the law now stood they would not be evidence on that point; and if they were made evidence by this Bill, they would not be applicable to every case—they would not show the particular part of the holdings on which distinct improvements—

  983
  drainage, for instance—had been made. But, turning to those landlords who lived on their estates, and conducted their business either themselves or by their bailiffs and who had no agents—they were under no obligation to keep books or accounts specifically showing what improvements they had made themselves, or what improvements had been made by their tenants; and to tell them that if they produced the entries in their books and accounts everything would be allowed, was a simple mockery and delusion. Speaking of the past, when he heard a proposal made that the books and accounts of agents should become evidence of expenditure by their principals, all he could say was that if such a proposition were made to Parliament he should give it his most strenuous opposition. Nothing could be more unfair or unjust towards the tenants than that the books and accounts of the landlord or his agent should be evidence against them. As to the past, then, there had been no obligation on the part of landlords to keep books and accounts, even if they would be evidence by law, which they would not be; and, turning to the future, he repudiated the idea that the landlords' books or accounts ought to be evidence against the tenants. It had been said that the House had assented to the proposition that tenants should be compensated for past improvements, and that he had himself supported a similar principle. No doubt this was so. He had himself some years ago proposed that tenants should be compensated for their past improvements; but no one, except Mr. O'Connell, had ever proposed that tenants should be compensated without proving that they had made the expenditure—because that was the point. Their Lordships, by agreeing to the second reading of this Bill, had agreed that the tenant should be compensated if he showed that he had incurred expenditure on improvements; but they had never assented to its being assumed that he had made the improvements until he proved that he had done so. It had not been the duty of landlords to keep accounts with reference to that point, because the law told them that things which were fixed to the freehold became their property, without any proof on their part as to the person by whom they were made. On the other hand, he said it had been the duty of the
  984
  tenants, if they were intending to set up a moral claim to be compensated for those improvements, and were asking—as he thought, justly asking—for legislation on the subject, to keep a record from time to time of the improvements they effected on their holdings, in order that, when the time for legislation arrived, they might come forward and substantiate their claim to them. He could well imagine the difficulty which Members of the Government found in persuading each other on this matter. They had to console and support each other as best they could. Their Lordships were asked to do what had never been proposed in the judicature of any country on the face of the earth. Different countries differed as to the law in regard to the rights of tenants; but no country under the sun had ever allowed any tenant even the slightest right ever given in regard to fixtures until he had first discharged the obligation of proving what were the fixtures which he had put up. They were now asked to invert no presumption merely but the positive rule of law, and assume, without proof on the part of the tenant, that he and not the landlord had made the improvements. And what was the justification for that? Why, that in a great number of instances in Ireland the improvements had been made by the tenant and not by the landlord. Let him assume for the moment that to be so—but they knew as a matter of fact that in a great number of instances the improvements had been made by the landlord—they knew that £2,000,000 sterling of borrowed money had been spent by the landlords on improvements and repaid. What consolation was it to the landlord who had made the improvements on his property when his tenants came forward and by virtue of this Bill said they required the Court to presume that they had made all the improvements; that on some other estate in some other part of the country the improvements had been made by the tenant, and not by the landlord? It was the roughest sort of justice he had ever heard of to say that because on some one estate the tenants had made the improvements and not the landlord, they were to presume that on another estate, where the landlord had made them, they had been made by the tenant. That was the proposal and also the justification of the Government. But he would

  985
  ask—Was it the fact that even in the majority of cases the improvements were made by the tenants? He joined issue on that. If they took the cases in which the tenants made the improvements and also those where they were made by the landlord and the tenant together, they might find that those cases were in a majority as compared with the instances in which the landlords had made the improvements alone. But if they took the cases where the tenants alone made the improvements, and those in which the landlords alone made them, they would not find sufficient evidence to show that the former were the greater number. The most difficult cases, however, which the Court would have to decide were the mixed cases, where the tenant had given what was most convenient to him—his labour—and the landlord what was most convenient to him—the slates and timber. He had said all along, with reference to the future, that, although the policy was bad, yet it was only a question of policy or expediency, and there was no injustice, because those who were forewarned were forearmed; but with respect to the past, he would sooner cut off his right hand than vote for the proposal of the Government, because it would be the rankest injustice. And yet the Government were holding out for this little fragment of the past. Why was it that if there had been a sale in times past, the presumption was not to be in favour of the tenant? The tenant was to be compensated for his improvements just the same, whether there had been a sale or not; but where there had been a sale, the presumption was no longer to be in his favour—and why? Because the purchaser could not possibly know what dealings there had been between the former owner of the estate and his tenants. Let their Lordships apply that analogy to the case before them. How was the son or grandson of a landed proprietor, when his agent might be dead or gone abroad, to know what dealings had occurred between his father or grandfather and the tenants on the estate? Again, why was there to be no presumption in favour of the tenant holding under a lease? The truth was that these distinctions were wholly capricious and whimsical. He trusted, therefore, their Lordships would firmly and persistently resist the proposal.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) had alluded to a supposed difficulty of the Members of the Government in supporting this clause; but there was a difficulty of another kind which he believed insuperable, and to which no allusion had been made, and that was the difficulty of answering the speech of his noble and learned Friend behind him (Lord O'Hagan). The noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford), coming in at the close of the debate, delivered a speech which showed that he had not heard a word of the speech of his noble and learned Friend. When the noble and learned Lord asserted that it would be impossible to prove what money had been spent on particular drains or buildings it only showed that he had never had any practical acquaintance with the management of landed property at all. Now, he ventured to say that, upon any well-managed estate, a plan of the drainage made by the landlord at his own expense was kept. ["No, no!"] He could only recommend noble Lords who cried "No" at once to introduce an improved mode of management on their estates. Did anyone mean that upon a well-managed estate there were no accounts kept which showed the money which had been spent, not only upon drains, but even upon sheds? As to books being received as evidence in the Court of Chancery, he was informed, on very high authority, that it was so; not that such evidence was to be taken as conclusive, but simply valeant quantum. But why was the noble and learned Lord so squeamish on this point of the Bill? They had heard the noble and learned Lord say that he was strongly in favour of compensation for retrospective improvements. Now, when the noble and learned Lord, in the case before the House, took such extravagantly high ground on principle, he wished to point out that he was estopped from doing so by having advocated giving compensation for past improvements which no landlord could possibly suppose would be given, and by proposing an ex post facto law; which was one of the strongest things that a Legislature could do. He thought that, if the noble and learned Lord had only perused the Blue Book he held in his hand, he would hardly assert that only a small amount of the

  987
  improvements had been made by the tenants; and it would be very hard to inflict punishment on such a class of men merely because they did not keep the same evidence of their expenditure as their landlords did of theirs.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, their Lordships had heard one noble and learned Lord positively assert, and another as positively deny, what was purely a question of fact—namely, that the law of England did allow books to be received in evidence in the Court of Chancery. As it was a question of fact, perhaps the best thing to do would be to read the words of the statute. By the English Chancery Practice Amendment Act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 54, the Courts of Equity are expressly empowered
  "In cases where they shall think fit to direct that the books in which the accounts have been kept, or any of them, shall be taken as primâ facie evidence of the truth of the matters therein contained, with liberty to the parties interested to take such objection to them as may be advised."
  If there was meaning in the English language that was a clause which would enable any of their Lordships to bring into Court the books of his estate in answer to a tenant putting in a claim. This he could say—that in Scotland, where they anticipated no alteration of the existing law, and had no occasion to defend themselves against future legislation, he had a distinct account of all the money laid out in improvements on any particular farm.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the clause quoted by the noble Duke had not the slightest relevancy to the present controversy. It was intended to apply only to disputed partnership accounts, which had been accessible to both contending parties. He would challenge his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to point out an instance in the Court of Chancery in which books of account had been admitted as primâ facie evidence against a person to whom previously they had been inaccessible.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORadmitted that the clause had not been put in force so frequently as it might advantageously have been; but he denied that it was intended to apply solely to partnership or any other particular class of accounts, for he had the very strongest impression that it had been made use of in the case of an executor's ac-
  988
  counts, the executor having died before the matter came into Court.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he should vote for the Amendment, on the ground that the clause as proposed by the Government would do justice neither to landlords nor tenants; because, instead of settling amicably—either without or with valuers, and, if necessary, an umpire—what compensation for improvements the landlord conceded to the tenant, and what improvements the tenant admitted to have been done by the landlord, this Bill incited the tenant to make great demands, and to put the landlord to the proof of his improvements, which, but for this Bill, the tenant would have been ready to admit; and because the clause (5) obliged the tenant to go before a Court with a claim for improvements, and thus encouraged litigation.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEconsented to adopt certain verbal alterations in his Amendment, which was then put in the following form:—
  ("All claims for improvements under this Act put forward either by landlord or tenant shall be proved by evidence, and such evidence shall be subject to appeal as hereinafter provided").—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 83; Not-Contents 122: Majority 39.

  CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  York, Archp.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Devonshire, D.

  Torrington, V.

  Saint Albans, D.[Teller.]

  Somerset, D.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Chester, Bp.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Down, &c., Bp.

  Normanby, M.

  Exeter, Bp.

  Abingdon, E.

  Manchester, Bp.

  Airlie, E.

  Acton, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Belper, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  De Grey and Ripon, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Camoys, L.

  Granville, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Castletown, L.

  Lichfield, E.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Minto, E.

  Morley, E.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Spencer, E.

  Clermont, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Dinevor, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Dunning, L, (L. Rollo.)

  989

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Monson, L,

  Greville, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Harris, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Keane, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Penzance, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Kildare, L. (M. Kildare.)

  Robartes, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Leigh, L,

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Stafford, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Lurgan, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Suffield, L.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Methuen, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Wentworth, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Manchester, D.

  Rosse, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Selkirk, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Rutland, D.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Stanhope, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Wilton, E.

  Camden, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Winchester, M.

  De Vesci, V.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Gough, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Annesley, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  Aylesford, E.

  Hill, V.

  Bandon, E.

  Lifford, V. [Teller.]

  Bantry, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Strathallan, V.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Brownlow, E.

  Dartrey, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Derby, E.

  Ashburton, L.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Aveland, L.

  Erne, E.

  Blayney, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Boston, L.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Grey, E.

  Cairns, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Carleton, L. (E. Shannon.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Home, E.

  Chaworth, L.(E. Meath.)

  Huntingdon, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Kellie, E.

  Churston, L.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Clifton, L.(E.Darnley.)

  Macclesfield, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Morton, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Portarlington, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Powis, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Romney, E.

  Delamere, L.

  990

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Denman, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  De Ros, L.

  Ross, L. (E, Glasgow.)

  Digby, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Dunsany, L.

  Scarsdale, L,

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Grantley, L.

  Headley, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) [Teller.]

  Hylton, L.

  Kesteven, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Strathspey, L, (E. Seafield.)

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Templemore, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Zouche, L,

  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that after the decision at which the House had just arrived, he felt it right to move the Amendment which had been passed over at an earlier period of the evening—that providing for a permissive registration of improvements by either landlord or tenant in the Landed Estates Court. He trusted the Government would not object to the insertion of the clause, which he believed would prove very useful.
  Amendment moved, page 6, after Clause 4, insert the following Clause:—
  (Permissive registration of improvements.)
  "Any landlord or tenant who may be desirous of preserving evidence of any improvements made by himself or by his predecessors in title, either before or after the passing of this Act, may at any time (subject to the provisions hereinafter contained) file a schedule in the Landed Estates Court, specifying such improvements, and claiming the same as made by himself or his predecessors in title; and such schedule so filed shall be primâ facie evidence that such improvements were made as therein mentioned: Provided always, that notice in writing of the intention to file such schedule, together with a copy thereof, shall be given by the landlord to the tenant for the time being of the holding on which such improvements shall have been made (or by the tenant to the landlord, as the case may be) within the prescribed time before applying to the Landed Estates Court to file the same; and if the person receiving such notice shall dispute the claim made by such schedule, either wholly or in part, he shall be at liberty within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner to apply to the Civil Bill Court

  991
  to determine the matter in difference, and in such case such schedule shall not be filed unless or until leave shall have been given to file the same either in its original or in any amended form by the Civil Bill Court; provided also, that before filing any such schedule proof shall be made in the Landed Estates Court by statutory declaration that the notice hereby required has been duly given, and that no application has been made within the prescribed time by the party receiving such notice to the Civil Bill Court; or (if any such application has been made) that leave has been given by the Civil Bill Court to file such schedule.—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he deeply regretted the decision at which their Lordships had arrived, which took away what he considered as an act of justice towards the tenant. But he thought this clause would add still further to the injustice, because ignorant tenants would not be able to avail themselves of it.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he could not agree with his noble Friend. He thought the system of registration proposed would tend to prevent disputes in future.
  LORD ATHLUMNEYsaid, the clause was excellent in intention; but in practice he feared it would have a tendency to create preliminary and unnecessary disputes between landlord and tenant before any claim was made for compensation.
  EARL GREYsuggested that the clause should apply only to improvements which were hereafter to be effected.
  LORD CAIRNSreminded their Lordships that the proposition was to allow the tenants to make improvements without the assent or even the knowledge of their landlords, and to found on those improvements a claim for compensation. When they provided for the growing up of such incumbrances upon estates it would only be fair to give the owners the power of becoming acquainted with what they were; for if upon an estate each of 2,000 tenants effected improvements to only the extent of £2 per annum, in five years the very serious in-cumbrance of £20,000 would be created. This he thought was a thing which no reasonable Legislature would sanction. The proverb said that "short reckonings make long friends;" and the best way to preserve harmony between landlords and tenants was to provide that both should, at the earliest moment, know what each claimed in respect of the improvements that were effected. When fresh these claims could be easily in-
  992
  quired into; but if a period of 20 years were allowed to elapse, great uncertainty and conflicting testimony would arise and complicate the question.
  LORD PENZANCEthought their Lordships should give the clause a little more consideration before proceeding to adopt it; because—although he doubted it—circumstances might render it desirable to enact that in future a tenant should not be able to make a claim for any improvement unless he had registered it in some public Court and had given notice to his landlord. This clause, however, was open to the objection that it created a controversy before it was certain that there need be any, for a dispute might be caused about improvements in respect to which the tenant could not be able to make a claim. It seemed, therefore, to encourage litigation; while, on the other hand, it would provide evidence that there might be a difficulty in obtaining at some future time. Anyone who under this clause registered an improvement and met with opposition would be at liberty not to dispute the matter, which would remain unsettled, instead of being brought to the test, as it should be, at once.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDfelt that there was much force in the suggestion of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), and he therefore proposed to strike out a few words, so as to make the Bill apply only to improvements made after the passing of the Act.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that improvements could not be registered without the help of a lawyer, which would involve an outlay; so that in 99 cases out of 100 he believed improvements would not be registered.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that in his opinion the whole Bill was calculated to increase litigation.
  EARL GRANVILLEprotested against that assertion, and said that the Government wished to prevent all unnecessary litigation by providing a Court which should finally decide all disputes. He hoped there would be very little litigation under this Bill. He utterly denied any intention to put expensive legal difficulties in the way of the tenants.
  Question put, That this clause be there inserted? and noble Lords declaring themselves of opposite opinions, their Lordships were about to divide—
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that having sufficiently declared the opinion of the Government by declaring himself "Not Content," he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 6 (Compensation in respect of payment to incoming tenant).
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved to insert in line 5, after ("holding,") the words ("held under a tenancy existing at the time of the passing of this Act"), on the ground that the clause as it stood would create confusion in the affairs of numbers of estates, by enabling middlemen to create tenancies the holders of which the original landlord would be compelled to compensate.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble Earl was mistaken, as the word landlord was defined in the Bill as the "immediate landlord;" and, therefore, if the middleman was to create tenancies of this kind he would have to pay them out himself.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM THE EARL OF LEITRIM moved an Amendment, having for its object to provide that the consent of the landlord, to the payment of money by the tenant for the goodwill of a holding must have been "in writing," in order to give the tenant a claim for compensation by reason of such payment.
  After short discussion, Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendments made, in line 22, page 7, after ("respect") insert ("or as covering the value,") and in line 27, after ("tenant,") insert ("or his predecessors in title").
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved to omit, in line 35, the words ("made before the passing of this Act").
  After short discussion, Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Compensation in respect of crops) agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Limitation as to disturbance in holding).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that this clause was a very important one. It provided that ejectment for non-payment of rent should not be deemed dis-
  994
  turbance by the landlord, and he proposed to insert after the word "rent," in line 7—
  "Or for breach of any condition which shall appear to the Judge before whom the ejectment is tried to be a reasonable condition."
  He contended that there might be many things for which a landlord might reasonably eject a tenant besides non-payment of rent.
  Amendments moved, line 7, after "rent," insert—
  "Or for breach of any condition which shall appear to the Judge before whom the ejectment is tried to be a reasonable condition;"
  and, in line 8, leave out from ("unless") to ("determination").—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  EARL GRANVILLEopposed the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, this was an exceptional clause in an exceptional Bill. The clause would give the Court the power of revising the rent of every landlord in Ireland. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) had taken credit to himself that the Bill would not lead to litigation. Now, what would be the effect of this clause? Whenever a tenant was in arrear the only chance a landlord had of getting his own was to evict. Then the tenant would go to the Court and say—"I cannot pay my landlord one year's rent, and I come to you to decide that the landlord shall pay me seven years' rent." A more wholesale destruction of previous contracts, and of the arrangements of past generations could not be conceived. The tenant had obtained possession of his holding by competition, whether that competition was formal or otherwise, and now the Government came forward and said, that though the tenant had got the farm by offering a high rent, the landlord was to be deprived of that rent for which he had given the farm to the tenant. Some consideration ought surely to be shown to the landlord, who probably had entered into engagements on the faith that this rent should be paid and to those who were dependent on him. They should remember how many calculations this Bill would throw into confusion. There was no other country in the world where power was given to a Court to revise rents to which two parties had agreed. He disliked this clause for the same reason that he disliked the six

  995
  lines in the 3rd clause—because they negatived the rule of honesty that what a man contracted to do he should be made to do. They were interfering with these rents, on the ground, he supposed, of the parties being unable to take care of themselves; but the same inconsistency was shown in this as in other matters, because they did not interfere with regard to future rents. Why was the tenant who should have contracted last year less able to take care of himself than the tenant who should contract next year? He hoped the Committee would not consent to any such proposal.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, if the noble Marquess should move to extend the clause to all future tenancies, whatever view their Lordships might take, it would perhaps be the more strictly logical course. Under the Ulster tenant-right the tenant who might be in arrear was not deprived of his claims; but the landlord got paid what was due when the tenant-right was sold to the in-coming tenant. In establishing something analogous in the rest of Ireland, the Government thought to guard it so far that where a tenant was in arrear he would forfeit the privileges which he would otherwise possess under the Bill; but then to prevent cases of hardship that might arise, it was proposed to empower the Court to grant compensation under special circumstances.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMdenounced the Reports of Poor Law Inspectors as gross misstatements got up for the occasion. They took just six weeks in the concoction, and they were now used for the purposes for which they were ordered.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that to call this an exceptional clause was to apply to it a very mild expression. Now, what would be the operation of this clause? The tenant could claim compensation for improvements whenever he quitted the farm, even though there was no disturbance on the part of the landlord; but with regard to the goodwill of the farm, the provision for compensation was never to come into play until the tenant was disturbed by the landlord. Therefore, as long as the landlord did not disturb he was to be liable for no compensation on account of the goodwill. But, in this case, a tenant might break all the engagements which he was bound to fulfil—he might not pay his rent—
  996
  and what was a landlord to do? If there was a condition in the lease that the tenant should not break up the pasture-lands and he did break them up, was the landlord to say—"I won't disturb him, because if I do I shall have to pay for the goodwill?" He objected to leaving the Court to decide whether, under certain circumstances, the landlord should submit to the loss of his rent. If the tenant would not pay, on the ground that the rent was exorbitant, surely the landlord could not be expected to take no steps to recover it? But the only course he could take was that of ejectment; and when he did that, probably the Court would say it was disturbance. In that case the tenant would not only escape punishment for non-payment, but would insist upon living rent free, or on receiving the amount of several years' rent by way of compensation. Where the arrears of rent, in respect of which the ejectment took place, had not occurred within the previous three years, the Court might treat the case as exceptional; but he must protest against throwing open the whole system of payment of rent to the supervision of the assistant barristers of Ireland.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that with regard to the second clause of the Amendment, he hoped the noble Duke would consent to postpone it until the Report, when, if he would bring it up up again, it should, at all events, receive very careful consideration.
  EARL GREYsuggested that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) should wait for the completed Amendments of the noble Duke on this question, and then he could himself introduce a clause giving to the tenants security in respect to the breaches of covenant and the proposals whereby arrears of rent might be made grounds of ejectment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the 15th clause would meet all the requirements of justice, both with regard to landlords and tenants, and that the adoption of the proposed Amendment would merely afford an easy means of evading the most important provisions of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the words of the Amendment had been very carefully drawn. If some such provision were not inserted great injustice would be done. The exception would meet special cases, such as that of a

  997
  tenant becoming bankrupt—a circumstance which, he held, a landlord ought to be allowed to put forward as a "reasonable condition" on which to be relieved from the liability to pay compensation.
  Amendment in line 7 agreed to; words inserted.
  Amendment in line 8 withdrawn.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the Government had refrained from putting the Committee to the trouble of dividing merely to suit their Lordships' convenience, and not because they assented to the principle of the Amendment.
  Amendments made, line 14, after ("rent") insert ("or for breach of any such condition as aforesaid"); line 16, after ("voluntarily") insert—
  ("Provided that no tenant who shall have given notice of surrender, and afterwards refuse to give up possession, shall be entitled to any compensation under this section though evicted at the suit of his landlord founded on such notice").
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Exception in case of lands required for labourers' cottages).
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved in line 27 to leave out "a proportionate abatement of rent" and insert—
  "An abatement of rent equivalent to the value of the land taken; providing that, in estimating the value of land so taken, due regard shall be had to the situation of such land and to the general circumstances of the mode of husbandry practised on the holding."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed; and to be again in Committee To-morrow.
  House adjourned at One o'clock, A.M., till half past Ten o'clock.