Sitting of 9 May 1870

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Pawnbrokers, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Parliamentary Elections [120]; Magistrates in Populous Places (Scotland)* [121]; Sale of Poisons, &c. (Ireland)* [122].
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* [117].
Committee—Irish Land [29]—R.P.
Third Reading—Bridgwater and Beverley Disfranchisement* [98]; Norwich Voters Disfranchisement* [99]; Felony* [103]; Mortgage Debenture Act (1865) Amendment* [78], and passed.

NAVY—NEW ZEALAND MEDAL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why the Medals for service in New Zealand have not been issued to the Officers and Men of the Navy employed on that service in a similar manner to that in which the Officers and Men of the Army were employed, and who have for some months been wearing this decoration?
  MR. BAXTER: The delay, Sir, in issuing the medals in question arose from a difficulty experienced in obtaining correct lists from the ships' books; but all the names were last month sent to the Mint, and the first instalment of medals for distribution was received at the Admiralty on Saturday. I may add that, in this instance, it was natural that the Army medals should be distributed first; but the general question of the order of distribution requires looking into, as previous complaints have been made on the subject.

COMPENSATION TO FOREIGN OFFICE AGENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true, as stated in the public papers, that a Memorial has been presented by the Foreign Office Agents praying for compensation on the abolition of their agencies; and, if that is the case, whether he will give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the subject before the sanction of the Treasury is given to such compensation?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, in the absence of his right hon. Friend, he would beg to state that the Treasury had received a communication from the Foreign Office, urging the claims of the clerks who had been obliged to give up Foreign Office agencies to compensation. The Treasury had considered the subject, and had replied to the Foreign Office that, in their opinion, there was a claim for compensation. In making that communication, they said it must be understood that no payment should be made, and that no right should be assumed to have resulted from the Treasury concurrence with the Foreign Office view, until the proposed compensation had been presented in a Supplementary Estimate, and decided by the vote of the House.

REVISION OF THE LECTIONARY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid, he would bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take an early opportunity of introducing a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations on the subject of a new Lectionary contained in the Third Report of the Ritual Commissioners, there being reason to believe that the present uncertainty as to an approaching revision of the Lectionary had deprived of employment many persons connected with the printing and publication of prayer books?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, when the Ritual Commission made their Report upon the subject of the Lectionary, it was obviously desirable and necessary that some time should be given to those interested in the subject to consider that Report, because alterations of that kind once made ought not to be subject to early re-amendment. A pledge also was given to the late Archbishop of Canterbury that an opportunity should be given to the clergy to consider that Report, which we thought a very reasonable promise to make. That time has now been given, and the Report has been favourably received by the clergy and, in general, by all who have considered it. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, therefore, to introduce a Bill forthwith, for the purpose of asking the sanction of Parliament to
  394
  the Report. I hope, with my hon. Friend, that the effect of asking for such a measure may be to remove or diminish the stagnation which undoubtedly does prevail in that branch of trade connected with the preparation of prayer books.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE CENTRAL HALL.—QUESTION.
MR. A. SEYMOURasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What instructions, if any, have been issued to Mr. Poynter, or any other artist, with regard to the mosaic decoration of the Central Hall; and, whether he sees any objection to the Cartoons already executed, and which are now exhibited at the Royal Academy, being returned to Mr. Poynter, the Government having no further use for them?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have to state, in reply, that Mr. Poynter has been apprised that he will be employed for the purpose of effecting these decorations; but he has been requested by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works to wait a decision, which has not yet been arrived at, with respect to the best method of carrying them into effect. With respect to the cartoons on exhibition at the Royal Academy, I understand they are the property of Her Majesty's Government, and will be employed for some public purpose; and, therefore, they cannot, on that account, be returned to Mr. Poynter.

WAR IN CUBA.—QUESTION.
MR. GILPINsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the sacrifice of life in Cuba, where, while two large armies are contending together and desolating the Country, it is stated that no prisoners are taken and no quarter given; and, whether it would not be practicable, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, in the interests of humanity, by friendly communications in concurrence with other Powers, especially with the Government of the United States, to stop the sacrifice of life, or at least to mitigate the horrors of civil war?
MR. OTWAYreplied, that the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been for some time directed to the state of affairs in Cuba, and the fierce-

395
ness with which, the contest had been carried on in that island. The Spanish Government had expressed themselves confident of being able to put down the insurrection; and, certainly, the insurgents had never succeeded in occupying any place of importance. The intervention of Her Majesty's Government in this contest would, under any circumstances, be difficult, and in the present state of things would be inopportune. Her Majesty's Government would, however, gladly avail themselves of any occasion which might appear favourable for rendering the services to humanity which the hon. Gentleman had suggested; and he need scarcely add that it would be very agreeable for Her Majesty's Government, should such an occasion arise, to receive the co-operation of the Government of the United States in such a work.

ARMY—THE WHITWORTH GUN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURY-TEACYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If the Ordnance Council have yet come to any determination in reference to the proposal to construct a 35-ton gun out of Sir Joseph Whitworth's new metal; and, if so, whether it is still his intention to propose a Vote in Committee of Supply to carry out this object?
  CAPTAIN VIVIAN: The question whether a 35-ton gun of Sir Joseph Whitworth's new metal shall be constructed has been very recently considered and reported on by the Ordnance Council. But the Secretary of State for War, having only just received that Report, has not yet had time to consult with the First Lord of the Admiralty, whose Department it likewise concerns, or to come to a final decision in the matter.

IRISH LAND BILL— [BILL 29.]
(Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Mr. John Bright.)
IRISH LAND BILL— [BILL 29.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 6th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 6 (Compensation in respect of payment to incoming tenant).
  DR. BALLsaid, that the clause provided for the cases where a person had
  396
  not claimed under Clauses 1, 2, and 3, and where he had, to obtain possession of his holding, paid money, or money's worth, and where he had the expressed or implied consent of the landlord to his coming into the holding. The clause was just, so far as it related to the case of tenants from year to year; because, if such a tenant had the expressed or implied consent of his landlord, it amounted to an assurance that he should continue in possession unless he did something objectionable. Where, however, a man purchased a lease for a certain term of years he paid for nothing more than the lease, and had no right to expect to hold on or receive compensation. With a view, therefore, to limit the operation of the clause to yearly tenants he moved in line 41, after the word "tenant," to insert the words "from year to year."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he saw no objection to the proposal.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he must oppose the Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he hoped his right hon. Friend (Dr. Ball) would withdraw his Amendment for the present, on the understanding that the matter would be considered by the Government.
  DR. BALLsaid, he was very reluctant to persevere after receiving such an assurance; but he feared he must press his Amendment, because the difficulty that might arise was very much felt.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that though very desirous to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, he must ask him to afford sometime. With respect to the past, leases entered into in Ireland were for a term of years, at the close of which the interest of the tenant would have expired. Consequently, if the tenant had given any money to an outgoing tenant it was only fair to assume that the interest which he had purchased had died out. But, looking at the matter prospectively, the character of leases shorter than 31 years would now be altered, for at the end of a lease for seven or 14 years a certain interest would remain, provided for in the 3rd clause, with respect to which the tenant ought to be protected.
  DR. BALLsaid, with respect to the future it was not so material; he had spoken with reference to the past.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there would be no difficulty as to the past.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made.
  Other Amendments moved, and negatived.
  MR. PIMsaid, he would beg to move, in Clause 6, page 7, line 21, at end, to add—"Provided always, That this section shall apply not only to farm and agricultural holdings, but also to town parks and holdings in towns and villages." The object of his Amendment, in accordance with the intentions of the clause, was to afford the same protection to the rights of tenants in respect to town plots as was given in respect to agricultural holdings.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, he must urge on the Government the propriety of considering that proposal. He had received communications from persons in towns in Ulster who were afraid they would suffer if the Bill passed without some such Amendment as that now before them.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could not admit that the Amendment was in accordance with the intention and the principle of the Bill. The Government did not undertake in that Bill to deal with town property in any way. It was the intention of the Bill to exclude all questions of town property, and once they began to deal with town property they could not possibly stop with that clause, but must deal with it throughout.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 6, page 7, at end of clause, to add—
  "Provided, That out of any moneys payable to the tenant under this section, all sums due to the landlord from the tenant in respect of rent, or of any deterioration of the holding, arising from non-observance on the part of the tenant of any express or implied covenant or agreement, shall be paid to the landlord, and also any sums payable by the tenant for taxes due in respect of the holding and not recoverable from the landlord, may, if not deducted under the provisions of section of this Act, be deducted by the landlord."—(Mr. Bruen.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, he thought he was justified in his opinion that the effect of this clause would be to create a tenant-right throughout Ireland. He repeated that he had no doubt that the
  398
  compensation would be paid by the tenants themselves.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Compensation in respect of crops).
  Amendments made.
  MR. C. S. READsaid, the clause provided that the tenant of every holding which is not proved to be subject to Ulster tenant-right custom or such usage as aforesaid should, on quitting his holding, be entitled to all his away-going crops, or, at the option of the landlord, to be paid the value of the same. The custom in Ireland was that the outgoing tenant sold off his straw, &c.; but on some of the best-managed estates the English custom had been introduced, and the incoming tenant, upon agreeing to certain covenants, had his straw given him gratis. Would a tenant coming in under this clause be entitled to all his away-going crops even if there had been an agreement to the contrary?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he thought words should be introduced to meet the case put by the hon., and lie thought he might add learned, Member for South; Norfolk (Mr. C. S. Read). He proposed to introduce the words "in the absence of any agreement to the contrary."
  MR. SYNANsaid, he would suggest that the words "in writing" ought to be added after "agreement."
  Amendment altered and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Limitation as to disturbance in holding).
  DR. BALLsaid, he proposed in page 7, line 31, after "rent," to insert "or for breach of any condition which the Judge before whom the action is tried shall consider reasonable." It was only reasonable that the landlord should be allowed to re-enter when the tenant either assigned without licence, or became bankrupt or insolvent. All ordinary leases contained a covenant, empowering the landlord to enter in any of these specified cases.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 31, after the word "rent," to insert the words "or for breach of any condition which the Judge before whom the action is tried shall consider reasonable."—(Dr. Ball.)
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he trusted that the Government would not assent to the proposed Amendment, which, if adopted, would give rise to endless litigation.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, this question had been already disposed of on the 3rd clause, and the Amendment, if carried, would amount to an absolute forfeiture of an important privilege which the House had conferred on the tenant. Of course, the Court would be entitled to take into consideration all matters of the character referred to by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Under these circumstances, it was impossible for the Government to agree to the Amendment.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, which was a proposal to permit the landlord to take advantage of his tenant's misfortune.
  DR. BALLexplained that he merely proposed to give the landlord the benefit of the covenants usually inserted in all leases. The question was, whether the landlord should be deemed a disturber, because he enforced a positive contract. An enormous load had already been imposed on the Equities Clause—the 14th—by the number of questions held over to be solved by it. With all respect, therefore, to his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the arguments he had used, he must press his Amendment. It would do no injustice to that large class for whom the Bill was principally framed—tenants from year to year.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he could assure his right hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Ball) that the Equities Clause would be well able to bear all the burden that was laid upon it. He hoped the Committee would not sanction the Amendment. There was a provision in the Bankruptcy Act which would meet one case provided for by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. When a tenant became bankrupt the landlord had the power to serve notice, calling upon the assignees to elect whether they would continue the tenancy or not. If they considered it would be to the advantage of the creditors they accepted the burden of the lease; but if they did not elect to become tenants within a certain time then all benefit from the lease was lost, and the land reverted to the landlord. There would be no disturbance
  400
  in a case of that kind, for the tenancy would be simply put an end to. Any number of conditions might be inserted in the lease, and if the landlord put them in force fairly, that would be taken into consideration by the Court in awarding compensation to the tenant.
  MR. WESTsaid, he thought it would be hardly fair in the event of a tenant leaving his farm through bankruptcy, that the landlord should receive the benefit of the lease, and not the tenant or his creditors. He hoped the Committee would not assent to this Amendment.
  DR. BALLsaid, he would beg the Committee to remember that the Amendment would only relieve the landlord from the damages for eviction, not from liability for improvements.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 194: Majority 81.
  MR. CORRANCEproposed, in page 7, line 32, after "landlord," to leave out to the end of the clause, and insert—
  "And any person who is ejected for non-payment of rent shall, if the Court so decide, stand in the same position in all respects as if he were quitting his holding voluntarily."
  In moving his Resolution, the hon. Gentleman said: It would seem to be the object of this clause to define, with some amount of precision, the limits elsewhere set to the power of the landlord to recover his right of property. No one can doubt the propriety of such a clause, nor do I think that in terms it should leave any doubt upon such a matter. The base of all such contracts obviously depends upon the due discharge of such an obligation, and so long as society is governed by law instead of by force, you are bound, to give its full protection to the injured party. This certainly will be the landlord, in this case, and so long as ownership in such property is permitted at all, or its transfer for valuable consideration, so long you are bound to provide the means and machinery through which a landlord may recover possession. It is not merely a question of debt, but subjects such an one to far greater injury. I need scarcely, indeed, argue this point—it has never been questioned; nor am I aware of a single instance in which it has been challenged. Even those who

  401
  advocate fixity of tenure make the payment of the rent a condition. It is possible that the execution of the law in recovery may have been harsh, or that, in exceptional instances, it may have been exercised with severity; but there are things which public opinion will limit, and. that, too, in proportion to the security you give to society for its just exercise. It is the absence of such security that will lead to severity. If I say that this is the least you can do, I do not say so alone for the landlord. Throughout this whole discussion my first object avowedly, and, in fact, has been, the tenant; and assuming him to be an honest and thrifty man, I do not believe we can confer a greater boon upon the landlord than to assure his position. I believe this Bill has not always dealt wisely with such interests. In this instance it will not be so if you introduce any element of uncertainty. What will be the procedure of the landlord if you do so? Why, he will exact every possible security. He will grant no time, extend no grace—perhaps require deposits. The right he gives to the tenant over his property is an act of confidence which you ought not to weaken. Now, in this clause, the words I propose to leave out are of this objectionable nature, they raise an uncertainty. Not, perhaps, in the mind of the excellent but overburdened barrister who is to decide whether the rent has been fairly set; this is a matter he will probably decide according to his judgment and knowledge of land questions, not purely legal. I will not question that judgment or practice; though it seems to me about as reasonable as if a jury of landlords or some typical agriculturist I were to tax lawyers' bills at their own estimate of value. But the question is, what construction will be put upon it by the tenant? Not, indeed, the deserving man, who, under the provisions of the Amendment I am anxious to introduce, would receive far larger amount of compensation in the power conferred upon him, to claim his full rights as a tenant voluntarily dispossessed—who would as such receive the full amount of any improvements and the power of selling even his good-will to another tenant—no inconsiderable boons, one would think. But by the tenant, deeply indebted, with everything forestalled, to whom no compensation would do good, I say, to such an one
  402
  —sliding down into the gulf of misery, perhaps the victim of dissipation and vice—you will convey hopes which mock. He will seek to avoid a present evil, and, to his fancied purpose, he will seek; the refuge of your Court, sanctioned by the ambiguities of your Act. Is this your wish? For such an one we may feel pity or compassion; but it must not mislead our judgment in this case. A great wrong is being committed against society by such an one, and no less than the bad landlord. Such an one brings evil upon his class. Ultimately the law will no doubt enforce justice, and the man driven to desperation will have played his last stake. Will you pacify Ireland by such means as this? Now, if by airy indirectness of language you produce such circumstances, you will inflict upon the agrarian interests the gravest ills. You will destroy credit—you will shake confidence. Between landlords and tenants you will encourage mistrust, for no man will place his property in the hands of another without, at least, the full protection of the law to enable him to receive it back under such circumstances as these. It is under this strong conviction that I ask the consideration of Her Majesty's Government to this point—to withdraw an ambiguity of language, and even seeming inconsistency, to avoid an apparent want of confidence in admitted principles which this Bill too often betrays, and for the real advantage of improving landlords and deserving tenants, to leave upon record, upon this most important point, no stamp of hesitation or of doubt.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 32, to leave out from the word "landlord" to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "and any person who is ejected for non-payment of rent shall, if the Court so decide, stand in the same position in all respects as if he were quitting his holding voluntarily."—(Mr. Corrance.)
  MR. CHICHESTER, FORTESCUEsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corrance) that the Government had already carefully considered the Amendment. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman was under the misapprehension that the present clause applied to all tenancies. The clause, however, had no reference to tenancies created after the passing of the Act, but was entirely confined to the past. The Government had resolved to leave the question of rent for the future

  403
  to the arrangement or contract entered into by the parties themselves; but, on looking back to the past, an unwholesome and unsatisfactory state of things was found to exist, under which many Irish tenants, being entirely without protection by law or custom, had submitted to exorbitant rents, those rents being very often based on improvements executed by themselves. Therefore, the Bill proposed, leaving out the question as regarded the future, that the Court should not be debarred from considering any case of that kind with respect to the past; but should have power to award compensation for disturbance, even though the tenant had been evicted for non-payment of rent, provided the Court was satisfied that the rent was such as the tenant could hardly be expected to pay. Independently of the question of ejectment for non-payment of the immediate rent, arrears, dating as far back as the year of the Famine, were in some cases held over the heads of the tenants; and if ejected for the non-payment of arrears it would be impossible for the tenants to receive compensation under Clause 3 if the Government had not framed this provision for their protection. The Government thought it right to meet such cases as those.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had raised a tremendous question, for he said that because there were some exceptional cases in Ireland of excessive rents—some cases of tenants having arrears of rent held over their heads, therefore every landlord was to be liable to be taken into a Court of Law if he evicted his tenant for non-payment of rent. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that, with respect to the future, ejectment for nonpayment of rent would not be a disturbance, and why, then, should it be proposed to interfere with all existing engagements? He did not think this was a question in which a Court should be called upon to interfere at all; there was nothing for a Court to decide. It had been admitted that the question of what was or was not a fair rent was not one for a Court to solve, but was one which should be left to the two persons concerned; and why compel a landlord to enter into a new contract or arrangement with his tenant in order to free
  404
  himself from the liabilities of the clause? If any one was to suffer it ought to be the person who had made a contract against himself. It might be he had done so without freedom, yet the arrangement existed, and we were taking things as they were. He hoped, however, his hon. Friend (Mr. Corrance) would not press his Amendment in the form in which it had been brought forward, because he thought that the object aimed at would be better attained by an Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Surrey (Mr. Brodrick).
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, the Amendment did not propose that the Court should exercise any such function as was contemplated by the clause; it was not the question of ejectment, but simply the amount to be paid, which he proposed to submit to the Court.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) was very broad; but, to a certain extent, it did not conflict with the view of the Government. They were desirous to bring about a strict observance of the conditions of contracts in Ireland, and in order to get it they thought it requisite to have a fresh starting point. The state of things in Ireland was one for which the Legislature and the owners of property were mainly responsible, for competition among tenants had been promoted and stimulated in the most reckless manner, and rents had been agreed to out of proportion to the tenants' probable means of payment. In addition, a number of new purchasers had gone into Ireland and had raised the rents of the tenants, often upon their own improvements, to such an extent that it would be impossible for them to meet their engagements. This was the state of things to be dealt with; and the question was, whether it was to be met by any legislation? They would on no account propose anything that should apply to the future; and, with respect to the past they desired to put words into the clause that should show that what was proposed should be applied only under circumstances of a very exceptional character, and that the Court could allow no excuse in case of non-payment of rent. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corrance) said the only offence of the landlord would be re-entering upon property for which he was getting no rent. That would not be the

  405
  case at all; nor would it be one which the Court would be justified in taking notice of, though, of course, if rent were due it would be deducted from the damages for eviction. If a man were subjected to an exorbitant rent, wholly out of rational relation to the value of the land, he would have to mate the offer of a reasonable rent. If any re-adjustment of the terms of a tenancy had been made after the passing of the Act, that fact would take it out of the category of the cases contemplated, for it was intended to give warning that hence forward every man must enter into such covenants as he could fulfil; and to meet the objection which had boon raised, he would suggest the insertion of words to render the clause applicable only to tenancies which existed at the time of the passing of the Act, and which had continued without any alteration of their terms and conditions.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, such an Amendment as that proposed by the First Minister of the Crown would no doubt mitigate considerably the force of the objections which had been taken to the clause, Nevertheless, he would point out that the introduction of such words would offer a premium to landlords to disturb all existing tenancies, and thereby to increase annoyance and vexation.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, that whilst agreeing with the Prime Minister in thinking that something ought to be done to reach the cases of exorbitant and monstrous rents which were exacted in some instances in Ireland, he was of opinion that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was open to the objection made to it by the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) that discontent and suspicion would be created by new arrangements: there was nothing which Irish tenants disliked so much as new arrangements made by their landlords. What he feared from reading this clause in conjunction with Clause 17 (Restriction on eviction of tenant) was, that the result would be fixity of tenure without any payment of rent.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he did not think the Amendment suggested by the Prime Minister would improve the clause. He thought that the Bill should be so framed as to affect the bad as well as the good landlord.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Suffolk?(Mr. Corrance) included that which stood in his (Mr. Brodrick's) name, and the question he wished to raise was, whether the Court was to act in the matter of rent as an arbitrator or not. He understood from the Prime Minister's statement in introducing the Bill that he wished the Court to be exonerated from that unpleasant duty. It appeared to him that the words "special grounds" would place on the Judge the duty of deciding whether the rent was excessive. He thought that in the interests of the landlord, of the tenant, and of the Court itself, it was undesirable that the Court should act as an arbitrator on the question whether rent was excessive or not. Rent was not frequently excessive in Ireland. Rent was not necessarily unfair because it was high; and, looking at the question broadly, having some practical acquaintance with the letting of land both in England and Ireland, he believed that Ireland was not so highly rented as the corresponding area of soil, with, corresponding agricultural conditions, in England. It was doubtful kindness to continue a tenant in occupation after the rent had fallen permanently into arrear. He did not say that allowance should not be made for bad seasons; but when a tenant had fallen into a state of impecuniosity, he first got rid of his stock, he could, afford to buy no manure, the land became over-cropped, and it was true kindness to say to him—"You have failed in this occupation; you must seek some other." To say that there was no choice between farming and the workhouse was rather a strong statement. He himself knew instances in which men who had ceased to be tenants had become prosperous, thriving agricultural labourers, or, being able to retain a horse and cart, had obtained profitable employment as carman. He ventured, therefore, to say that in the interest both of the tenant and the landlord, it was not desirable that the tenant should be encouraged by any uncertainty to raise questions whether the contract was a fair one, or whether the rent was, or was not excessive, when he had ceased to pay it; nor was it desirable that so onerous a duty should be imposed on the Court as constituted under this Bill. The question as to the value of the land under peculiar circumstances and

  407
  at a particular time was not one which could be submitted with advantage even to what Sydney Smith called "that favourite animal of the Whigs"—a barrister of seven years' standing. There were in Ireland assistant barristers of learning and ability whose opinions commanded great respect; but others owed their appointments to purely political considerations, and their decisions carried no weight. They must be assisted by assessors, and he doubted whether, in Ireland, the supply of competent men would equal the demand. At all events, his opinion was, that to raise questions whether there were not special circumstances making the rent excessive, and special circumstances which raised a bar to the ejectment, would be to do an injury to all concerned, and impose on the Courts duties which they were wholly incapable of fulfilling to the satisfaction of the parties and of the country. He was afraid the result would be to drive landlords to short cuts, and the Committee might depend upon it that there were short cuts in the Bill; and in driving them to have recourse to commercial principles as their guide Parliament would destroy the last semblance of confidence between these classes, the principal sufferer being, not the landlord, but the tenant.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he wished it to be clearly understood that the Government of this country were now for the first time proposing to fix the prices of an article. ["No. no!"] Land was an article, and rent was its price. Hitherto rent had been regulated by the laws of supply and demand; but the Government proposed by this clause that the Courts in Ireland should lay down the price at which it was to be held; and that was the question distinctly at issue.
  SIR JOHN ESMONDEsaid, he would point to the case of a poor woman on his own property. A middleman had raised the rent of her holding from 23 s. an acre to 40 s., the Government valuation being only 16 s. Now, if the proviso under the notice of the Committee were left out of the clause, a case of that kind would be left completely untouched.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, no doubt the clause required attention and consideration, but in reply to the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), he must maintain that the Go-
  408
  vernment were not proposing by the Bill to undertake anything like a regulation of prices. Even if they did so, it would not be the first time that such a thing had been done in this country. The clause as it stood was very simple in its wording. It provided that—
  "For the purposes of this Act ejectment for non-payment of rent shall not be deemed disturbance of the tenant by act of the landlord, unless the Court decides that it ought on special grounds to be so deemed in the case of a person claiming compensation on the determination of a tenancy existing at the time of the passing of this Act."
  If it were not for that provision the determination of a tenancy by an ejectment, founded on non-payment of rent, might be a disturbance by the act of the landlord, which the clause declared it should not be, except in particular cases; and there were cases which even the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire would, he was sure, admit ought to be considered by the Court as cases of disturbance, though the proceeding happened to be a question of ejectment for non-payment of rent. There were many tenancies in Ireland in which there was what was called "the hanging half-year's" rent, and tenants who did not hold on estates where "the hanging half-year" was known were spoken of as English tenants—that is to say, tenants who were made to pay their rent up to the last gale day. In the cases of "the hanging half-year," when the rent was paid on the 1st of May this year, that was the rent not for the half year ending that date, but for the half year ending 1st November, 1869. Some landlords gave a receipt accordingly, but others gave it in general terms leaving it to the tenant to find out up to what date it was given. Then there were the "hanging gales," or rents, due from the famine time. In some cases the arrears had been written off by the landlord, but in others they were kept in reserve, and the result was, that a tenant might be evicted technically in the eye of the law for non-payment of rent when, in accordance with justice, such really would not be the case. Such instances were, he admitted, few in number, but it should be recollected that the Committee was engaged in making a law to meet hard cases of that kind. Now, it was said that hard cases made bad law but one of the most distinguished Judges who ever sat in Westminster Hall had given

  409
  it as his opinion that bad law very often made hard cases. The hon. Member for Mid-Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) had passed a deserved eulogium on the Civil Bill Judges in Ireland, who were, he believed, without exception, most competent men, those being not the least so who had been appointed by the late Government. Those Judges would not be over-burdened with work, and they would, he had no doubt, discharge their duties well. They would have no difficulty in deciding what constituted "special grounds," and the clause, modified in the way suggested by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government by the insertion of the words, "and continuing to exist, without any alteration of rent, to the time of their determination," would work satisfactorily. The result of the whole clause thus amended would be that an ejectment for nonpayment of rent would not be deemed a disturbance of the tenant, unless in the case of a person claiming compensation on the determination of a tenancy existing at the time of the passing of the Act, and continuing to exist up to the time of its determination without any alteration of rent. In that shape the clause would apply only to a limited class of cases, and to those only in the event of special grounds being shown.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that he knew large estates on which a year's rent was always left in arrears, and he would put it to the Committee whether a tenant so situated was not very much in the power of his landlord. His objection to the clause was, that not one of the Judges of the Civil Bill Court, if the clause was passed, would consider himself at liberty to enter into the question whether the rent was excessive or not, though there might be many cases where it could be clearly proved. He knew of a case where the Government valuation of the holding was 11 s., but the tenant was charged 30 s. In such cases a Judge ought to have power to interfere.
  MR. BRUENsaid, the "hanging gale" was deemed a great privilege in the part of Ireland from which he came, and the tenants were doing all they could to retain it. It might not be desirable to establish such a custom in new tenancies; but with regard to the old ones great dissatisfaction would be expressed if the "hanging half-year's" rent were
  410
  abolished. In point of fact, the landlord allowed the tenant to remain in possession during the first half-year for nothing at all, in order that he might have some capital left in his hands.
  Question put, "That the words 'unless the Court decides that it ought on special grounds to be so deemed' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 55: Majority 77.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, the words which the Solicitor General for Ireland was about to introduce would, to a great extent, meet his objection to the clause, and he would, therefore, not press the Amendment which stood in his name.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he would now move, in page 7, line 35, after the word "Act" to insert the words,—"and continuing to exist without any alteration of rent up to the time of such determination."
  DR. BALLsaid, that until now he had not been able to understand the phrase "on the determination of the tenancy" as moaning "by the ejectment for non-payment of rent. No person, on first reading those words, would imagine that they referred to an ejectment. When he first read them they conveyed to his mind a totally different impression. Therefore, it would be better to make the meaning plainer.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, that the clause throughout referred to the ejectment. He confessed that the meaning attributed to it by the right hon. Gentleman had not occurred to him; but then, he had only a simple mind.
  MR. C. S. READasked whether an increase of rent by the landlord would be deemed an alteration or a determination of the tenancy?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he might answer to that question—Emphatically, no.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he feared that the words would offer an inducement to landlords, in some cases, to increase their rents, and so to get from under the operation of the clause. But in another point of view he approved the clause, for it met the point about which

  411
  the Member for Cork County (Mr. Downing) was anxious.
  Words inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Derivative title of tenant).
  Clause agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 10 (Partial exemption of certain tenancies).
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESOUEsaid, it was unnecessary to ask the Committee to discuss the first part of the clause, as the Government intended to give perfect freedom of contract to parties above the line of £50 valuation. To all tenants below that line the protection which the Act gave would be extended; but above that line parties would be at liberty to make contracts, no matter in what respects these contracts might differ from the basis of the Act. It was, accordingly, unnecessary to enact special provisions relating to tenancies above the line of £50. He proposed to omit the first part of the clause, down to the words "landlord. And" inclusive.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Exemption of certain lands).
  COLONEL BARTTELOTproposed in page 8, line 29, after "or" to insert, "any holding commonly known as town parks." These town parks had existed for centuries, and they consisted essentially of land used by people living in a town, the extent being from one to five acres, and the occupancy changing excessively often.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, it was never intended that town parks should be included under the general provisions of the Bill; but he proposed, in place of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Barttelot), to insert words taken from the Bill brought in by Mr. Napier in 1852—
  "Any holdings ordinarily termed town parks adjoining or near to any city or town which shall bear an increased value as accommodation land over and above the ordinary letting value of land occupied as a farm, and which shall be in the occupation of any person residing in such city or town or the suburbs thereof."
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, this Amendment would affect a large number of persons living in small towns, or rather agricultural villages, whose farms of 10, 15, or 20 acres lay just outside. He would rather leave it open to
  412
  the Court to decide what was a town park.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEpointed out that, according to the Amendment, these must be town parks, with the further condition that they should be above the common agricultural value, and should be accommodation land used by persons resident in the town.
  DR. BALLsaid, he would suggest that the words "shall bear an increased value as accommodation land, &c." might be omitted. The words "town parks" carried all that was wanted.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he did not understand the exception of these holdings, unless the land at some time or other were wanted for building purposes, and with a view to make the Amendment more definite, he would propose to introduce after "accommodation land" the words "for building purposes."
  MR. SHERLOCKsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Synan) seemed to think that what was meant by "accommodation" land was land for building purposes; but almost every one knew that butchers used these lands for feeding their cattle, and that dairymen also rented fields for their own purposes. But these lands were used rather with a view to temporary accommodation than as regular holdings.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, what were called "town parks" were not used for building purposes; but often for growing cabbages or providing grass for cows. They were almost always attached to houses in the adjoining town, and when the houses changed their occupiers the lands changed them too.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 29, after "or," to insert—
  "Any holdings ordinarily termed town parks, and adjoining or near to any city or town which shall bear an increased value as accommodation land over and above the ordinary letting value of land occupied as a farm, and which shall be in the occupation of any person residing in such city or town or the suburbs thereof."—(Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)
  MR. SYNANproposed after the words "accommodation land" to insert "for building purposes."
  MR. MAGUIREappealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) agreed to.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESOUEsaid, an addition must be made to this exemption clause to meet the case of grass farms. He would, therefore, propose to insert the following words:—
  "Or any holding used for purposes of pasture only, provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the tenant of such holding from making any such claim as he would otherwise be entitled to make under section 4 of this Act."
  DR. BALLsaid, that where a farm was substantially a pasture holding, but by permission of the landlord a few acres were devoted to tillage, there was no reason why they should take it out of the exemption.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, his right hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Ball) was quite correct. In almost every one of these grass farms a portion of the land was given to the herdsman for the express purpose of tillage. It would, therefore, be well to introduce some qualifying words into the Amendment.
  DR. BALLsaid, he thought the words "pasture farm" might be used.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he thought if the Amendment ran thus, "any holding used wholly or mainly for purposes of pasture," it would be unobjectionable.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he understood that the great complaint was about the large graziers who paid, perhaps, £10,000 a year rent. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland state what was the extent of the farm to which his proposal would apply? He represented a county—Limerick—in which an occupier might have 20 acres for cows and only one acre for tillage, and, therefore, he protested against this Amendment, unless it was qualified by a statement as to the extent of tillage.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, the intention of the Government was to exclude pasture lands from the effect of the operation of the 3rd clause, and when the First Minister of the Crown made an announcement to that effect there was a general expression of assent from both sides of the House. Many hon. Members who had put no Amendments at all on the Paper were exceedingly anxious to have an Amendment of this kind proposed. His hon. Friend (Mr. Syrian) spoke of small pasture farms of 20 acres; but, for his part, he did not see where the line could be drawn. Would his hon. Friend suggest where it could?
  MR. SYNANsaid, he accepted the challenge, and he would suggest as a limit 100 acres of bonâ fide pasture. The occupier of such a farm was as much entitled to compensation as any other class of agriculturists, for he and his predecessors might have laid out their money in improving it.
  MR. C. S. READsaid, if a tenant had expended capital in the improvement of pasture land, he would under another clause receive back every penny to which he was entitled. He would suggest a valuation of £50 as the limit.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, there was certainly a difficulty in the matter. There was no doubt in the world that in Limerick, and some other counties, there were small pasture farms such as his hon. Friend (Mr. Synan) had described, which it would be a hardship to include among the exemptions. He would propose, as an exception, that these words should be inserted, "where the tenant does not actually reside on such holding."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he thought the limit proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. S. Read)—namely, £50 valuation—if there was to be a limitation at all, would be the best to adopt. If they took residence as a test, they would be involved in very considerable difficulty.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he also believed the best guide they could adopt would be a valuation not exceeding £50. He did not think the large graziers were much entitled to be considered; they had done a vast amount of injury, and were of little use in the country in giving employment.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, the large graziers in Meath and some other counties, who had swallowed up the small farmers, had no claim whatever; and it would be the best policy to except them from the operation of the Bill. The small men ought to have the advantage of the measure.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the Amendment he wished to have inserted was to this effect—"Where the holding is not less than one hundred acres, on which the tenant resides."
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, it would be utterly impossible to adopt the limitation of a certain number of acres, because 100 acres in the county of Limerick might represent a very high rental, while in the county of Cork

  415
  it would represent a very low rental. The only equitable way of doing what they desired was by fixing upon a certain valuation.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he would move to amend the Government Amendment, embodying the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. C. S. Read), and instead of "£50" to insert "£200, and on which the tenant does not reside." This would meet the case of those extensive graziers who had got together a great many acres of land in a manner involving a great sacrifice on the part of the smaller occupiers. It would be a perfect protection to those who required protection, and would do justice to all parties.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he hoped that the hon. Member (Mr. Synan) would not press his Amendment. It was well known that the valuation was not a correct index to the rent, and the Amendment just moved would require a rental of £300. The Government were willing to accede to the proposal made by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. S. Read), and to insert £50, and that would meet all the justice and equity of the case. The residential test was quite illusory.
  Amendment (Mr. Synan) negatived.
  Amendment (Mr. C. Fortescue) agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 12 (Proceedings by tenant).
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, that, in consequence of the withdrawal of the Amendments which he had proposed to introduce in previous clauses, and the object of which was to facilitate the purchase by the landlord of the tenant-right on his land, he felt bound to withdraw the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name on the present clause. He wished, however, to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland to be kind enough to define clearly the Ulster tenant-right, and the powers which would be given to the tenant under the clause. He would move his Amendment pro formâ in order to give the hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity of answering his question.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 12, page 8, line 39, after "entitled" leave out to end of Clause, and insert—
  416
  "To the payment of any sum under any of the usages mentioned in the first section of this Act, and about to quit his holding, may within the prescribed time make a requisition in writing on his landlord for the payment of the sum he claims under the usage applicable to the land he is about to quit, and thereupon the landlord, if there is no dispute as to the amount, may either pay the same to the tenant, and thereupon the land shall be freed and discharged for ever, or the landlord, without raising the rent, may allow the tenant to sell his occupation to any solvent tenant, to whom the landlord shall not make reasonable objection, and thereupon the land shall continue liable to such usage, but all claims of the outgoing tenant shall be deemed satisfied."—(Mr. Headlam.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) had refrained from pressing his Amendment, because it appeared to be open to every objection which could possibly be made. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, he had to reply that the Ulster tenant from year to year would have an estate equivalent to an estate in fee-farm in his occupancy, which he would be entitled to sell to an incoming tenant and to convey by deed. The Bill proposed to legalize, but it did not propose to define the Ulster custom; and it also legalized all the incidents of that custom. If the Ulster landlord chose to break through the Ulster custom and evict his tenant, the Ulster tenant would be able to bring him into Court under the provisions of this clause, where he would be compelled to pay such compensation as the Court might think fit, after a careful consideration of all the circumstances attending the individual case. If the landlord allowed his tenant to sell to some incoming tenant, there would be no occasion to come into the Court at all, and he believed that would be the way in which matters would usually be settled; but if they did come into Court, this clause provided the machinery for proceeding, not only with regard, to compensation under the Ulster custom, but for compensation in all other cases whatever where compensation was provided for in this Bill.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he objected to the clause, because by its provisions no man could make a claim until he was about to quit his holding. Now, the Ulster tenant-right did not mean that a man was to be compensated for being evicted from his holding; but that he was to have a right of continuous occupation, with power to sell his interest

  417
  therein whenever he pleased. There was no such provision in this clause, which did not contemplate either fixity, security, or stability of tenure, or the practice of Ulster, which was not to evict, but to obtain from the tenant such an improved rent as the circumstances I of the case might warrant. That custom was legalized by the 1st clause of the Bill; but this clause did not provide for that continuity of occupation which was the essence of the Ulster tenant-right.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would not criticize the hon. Member's (Sir John Gray's) definition of tenant-right, it not being his business to do so at this stage of the proceedings; but he maintained that there was nothing in the Bill which would diminish the Ulster custom by one hair's breadth. The Bill would enforce that custom, neither adding to it nor detracting from it. This clause was not confined to cases of eviction, but would apply to all cases in which there was a change of tenancy. It merely related to procedure—to the form by which the other clauses of the Bill were to be put into force.
  DR. BALLsaid, he was of opinion that by the Bill a landlord could only; interfere with the Ulster custom by; ejecting his tenant, which he would do subject to certain penalties. The Bill legalized the existing custom; but, in addition, gave to the tenant a remedy which he did not now possess.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he was afraid he had been misunderstood. He meant that the custom of Ulster was that of continuous occupancy; but giving a man compensation after eviction was not an enforcement of that custom by which a tenant had a right either to transmit his occupancy, or to transfer it to a third party for a money (or another) consideration.
  SIR JOHN SINCLAIRsaid, he thought that the Amendment would be entirely inoperative. It was not likely that the Ulster landlord would buy up his tenant's right, because if he did so he would only bring himself in relation to his tenants under the operation of the 3rd clause. He believed that any landlord, having regard to his own interest, would find it very much more to his interest to leave a tenant in possession than to evict him. But he wished to ask how the tenant-right was to be pre-
  418
  served if a landlord chose to increase the rent? Suppose a tenant under the Ulster custom wished to go to America, and sold his right to a stranger, the landlord might say—"I have allowed you to hold your farm at a low rent, because you and your ancestors have held it for generations; but now you are about to bring in a perfect stranger, and I will, therefore, raise the rent to a fair and full value of the holding." Would the Court allow this increase of rent? He understood that tenant-right was proportionate to the rent, and therefore the increase of rent would decrease the value of the tenant-right.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, the Committee were not discussing the principle of compensation, but merely directing by what mode a tenant who was entitled to compensation should enforce his claim before the proper tribunal. To return now to discuss the principle of compensation would be very inconvenient, as that had been settled by the previous section of the Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, in answer to the question how it was proposed to deal with the Ulster custom when the landlord raised the rent and thereby made the custom of no avail, it was not proposed to legislate on that point at all. What the Bill proposed was to lake the facts of the Ulster custom as they existed and to make them legal—that was to say, to render that which was now morally binding on the Ulster landlord legally binding. As far as the custom allowed the tenant to sell his estate, there was no occasion for him to go into Court at all; but if the landlord by any proceeding deprived the tenant of any right, then the tenant could go to the Court and get compensation, or have fully carried into legal effect any right which the law gave him.
  MR. SYNANsaid, that Section 12, as originally framed, was defective; but he considered that, as amended by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it was much improved.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, in reference to the present clause, taken in connection with Clauses 13 and 14, it was important that everything should be made as specific as possible, both in regard to the claim made by the tenant

  419
  and in respect to the objections urged to it by the landlord, so that the Judge might be enabled to determine the point without going into collateral matter. He thought that the requisition to the landlord by the tenant for payment of the sum claimed by him should state the amount as well as the particulars in respect to which compensation was claimed.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view would be effected by Amendments about to be proposed.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 12, page 9, line 2, leave out, "in respect," "which," and "compensation is claimed," and insert—
  "Claim, and where such claim or any part of his same is in respect of compensation under the provisions of section three of this Act, the number of years' rent claimed shall be specified."—(Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he thought that the amount should be stated.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the Ulster custom was a right to sell, and it would be impossible to state any amount.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, his object was to get the claim stated distinctly, so that the Judge should have something to determine.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he wished to do everything that possibly could be done to make the claim specific.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Proceedings by landlord) agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 14 (Equities between landlord and tenant).
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESOUEproposed, in line 14, to leave out "in respect of compensation."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, he had placed on the Notice Paper an Amendment for including in the subjects of consideration by the Court the length of the tenant's occupation and the rent paid. He desired to substitute for this Amendment words proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Ball) upon Clause 3, but not pressed by him. The clause allowed either party to make any claim, urge any objection to the other's claim, or plead any set-off he might think fit—
  420
  "Including in the case of a landlord any moneys paid on account of the purchase of the right of the tenant under the Ulster tenant-right custom or such usage as aforesaid."
  The Amendment he desired to move would follow these words, running thus—
  "And including the terms and conditions subject to which the tenant originally obtained possession of his holding, the period of actual enjoyment by the tenant, the rent payable by the tenant during such his period of enjoyment as proportioned to the fair letting value of the holding, and any special circumstances connected either with the cultivation of the holding or with the mode or incidents of the termination of the tenure."
  Having regard to the fact that this was the only provision upon which the landlord could, rely for the purpose of meeting his tenant's claim, the landlord might fairly ask that the Judge should be specially directed by the Act to take these points into consideration. The Amendment would, therefore, define the rights of the landlord more completely than the clause now did.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must complain of the production of an Amendment of such importance without any Notice, and when it was almost impossible to give a decided opinion respecting it. He saw that one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration by the Court was the period of actual enjoyment by the tenant. Which way was this to tell? Was it to increase or reduce the damages? Again, with regard to the rent, was a low rent to increase or diminish the damages? He did not think that, upon the terms of this Amendment, the Committee were in a position to say "aye" or "no" to those questions. The clause was the result of much consideration. He did not say that it might not be improved; but he had hitherto heard no suggestion which seemed to him to be an improvement. The clause was so widely drawn that anything of real urgency might be considered by the Court, and if any specifications were introduced, the result might be to narrow the subjects of consideration instead of enlarging them.
  DR. BALLsaid, that in discussing the 3rd clause he had stated the objections to his own Amendment, now proposed—namely, that, although it mentioned the subjects fit for judicial consideration, it did not indicate the direction in which the Court should proceed in considering them. But the objection to the mode in which, the Bill was framed by the Go-

  421
  vernment was immeasurably stronger. The Bill neither indicated the subjects to be considered, nor the views to be entertained respecting them. He had understood it was the intention of the Government to introduce into the Equities Clause some more specific indication of the subjects for consideration by the Courts in administering the scale. If it were only to preserve uniformity of decision, this was needed. There would, in the first instance, be 32 Judges to carry out the Act. From them an appeal would lie to the Judges at Assizes, who, again, would reserve certain questions for the Central Court. If you allowed 32 different minds to decide, without any guide, from the Act itself, upon the questions they were to consider, how could you possibly have uniformity? One Judge would say to a tenant—"You have occupied the land for 50years; you have, therefore, had a long-continued enjoyment, and I shall only give you one year's compensation under the Disturbance Clause." Another Judge would say to a man in the same position—"You have occupied the land for many years, and are, therefore, deeply-rooted in the soil; I shall give you seven years' compensation." So, again, as to rent. One Judge would say—"You have been allowed to live on the land upon very favourable terms; you must, therefore, have had three times over the benefit to which you were entitled;" while another Judge would say—"The rent is so low that this is a really valuable holding, and you shall have seven years' compensation." He knew of no instance in which a matter of this importance was flung so entirely to the uncontrolled discretion of individuals; and we should probably have to say of this jurisdiction, what Selden said of equity—that it varied with the length of the Chancellor's foot. It was quite clear that it was highly objectionable that 32 different Judges should be left to adjudicate on matters of such delicacy and difficulty, unguided and uncontrolled; and in respect of which, therefore, their views would necessarily be discordant. He was in hopes that the Government would have introduced words by which this objection would be obviated; but no standard was offered in the matter, and it was left wide to be the subject of arbitrary decisions. He had put on the Paper certain words, which he thought
  422
  would indicate, if adopted, to the Judges what were the intentions of the Legislature as to the subjects of consideration on which the fluctuating scale of damages was to be apportioned, and he must confess that, as things stood, he was quite at a loss to know on what grounds a Judge could justify his decisions to the public in cases of disturbance in giving the tenant in one instance three, in another seven, and in a third one year's compensation.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman supported the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman behind him (Mr. G. B. Gregory), and he was not surprised that he did not support it. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to compel the Court to take into consideration the length of the tenancy and the amount of the rent paid; but the Government were of opinion that they gave the Court sufficient discretion under the clause as it stood to take those and all other matters bearing on the question which they would have to decide into account. As to the time which a tenant might be in occupation of his holding, it involved considerations of a most difficult and ambiguous kind. The loss which he might sustain might not at all depend on the length of that occupation. A tenant who had been a long time in occupation of a holding might, for instance, not have so great a claim to compensation as one who had been for a shorter time. A tenant naturally looked forward with the expectation of unbroken occupancy, unless by some fault of his own he forfeited his tenure. The mere fact that a tenant was not long in occupation was not in itself a sufficient ground to ask Parliament to direct the Court to diminish or destroy the compensation due to the tenant; and the clause as it was framed being, in the opinion of the Government, calculated to give all that jurisdiction and discretion to the Court which it was advisable it should have, they could not agree to the Amendment.
  MR. GORDONsaid, he was surprised that no indication had been given on the part of the Government that they intended to introduce Amendments into the clause. During the discussions on previous clauses they had frequently stated that, when the Committee came

  423
  to the Equities Clause, they would take into consideration the Amendments which had been placed in the names of several hon. Members on the Paper; but now they declined to make any Amendment, so that many on his side of the House had been somewhat misled by their declarations. He was reminded by their conduct of an anecdote of a young counsel, who asked his leader what he should do in his absence, in the event of some difficulty being started by the Lord Chancellor, the answer of the latter being—"Just say you are coming to that question, and then, perhaps, it will never be again taken up." In the same way, the Government, when any hon. Gentleman was about to propose an Amendment, said—"Wait till you seethe Equities Clause." But seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland admitted that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, behind (Mr. G. B. Gregory) involved a difficult and ambiguous question, he could not understand why the matter should be left to the decision of 32 Judges and should not be settled by Parliament itself. He should suggest the postponement of the clause.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he believed that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) had been misled, he had no one but himself to thank for it. He (Mr. Gladstone) admitted that the clause under discussion had been frequently referred to in the previous discussions of the Bill, on the Government side of the House, and that they had suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) to postpone an Amendment of which he had given Notice on the 3rd clause, on the ground that the 14th clause was the place for it; but he must point out that the right hon. Gentleman had not thought fit to propose that Amendment; and the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had the boldness to find fault with the Government for not having adopted it and proposed it themselves. The Government approved the clause as it stood, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman disapproved it; yet he had no Amendment to propose while he blamed the Government for not proposing one. Though the Government had no modes of their own to suggest for improving the clause, they were perfectly ready to
  424
  consider any Amendments in it which might be moved by others.
  DR.BALLsaid, he was certainly under the same impression as his hon. and learned Friend near him (Mr. Gordon), that it was the intention of the Government, when the Committee came to the 14th clause, to propose alterations in it so as to indicate more distinctly to the Judges what it was they were to take into account.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when the question as to the length of a lease as connected with the claim for compensation was under discussion, to say that they would take some points relating to it into their consideration.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was quite true he had stated that, in his opinion, it would be impossible for the Court, in judging a claim for compensation for damages on eviction, not to take into account the length of the term for which the land had been held. Suppose a tenant were evicted at the end of a 14 years' lease, he should say that the Court would not give the same damages as to a tenant from year to year.
  MR. GORDONsaid, he thought he was not incorrect in saying that the Government promised some amendment in reference to this matter. He submitted that the clause ought not to be proceeded with at present, but reserved for discussion at a subsequent period.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must object to the postponement of the clause, which was absolutely necessary for the purpose of consolidating this portion of the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he wished to point out that the maxim—Expressio unius est exclusio alterius might operate in a manner not intended by those who wished the clause to be amended. The Government desired to do justice between both parties; and there was a danger lest, if a certain category of matters were specified, which were to be taken into consideration, the Courts might come to the conclusion that they were not at liberty to consider others. The Government thought it would be best to leave the clause as it stood; because, by enumerating all the particulars to which it should apply, they would be attempting a difficult if not an impossible task, while they would pro-

  425
  bably omit something which might subsequently turn out to be very material.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he had no doubt that the Government were right in vesting large powers somewhere for determining the equities between the parties. Still, unless there were some guidance given to the Judge, great difficulties would arise. Claim after claim would be adduced, the expenses would be enormously increased, and a proper decision would hardly ever be arrived at. This clause must be considered in conjunction with the two preceding ones. In his opinion, there ought to be a specific claim urged by the tenant and a specific answer made to it by the landlord, so that a clear issue might be presented to the Court. Indeed, he felt confident that unless something more specific was introduced into these three clauses, the measure would not be workable except at a great expense, a result which would clearly be for the benefit of the landlord.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Spencer Walpole) objected to the clause on the ground that it was too general in its terms. The words of the clause were as follows:—
  "The Court shall take into consideration any such claim, objection, or set-off, also any such default or unreasonable conduct of either party as may appear to the Court to affect any matter in dispute between the parties."
  His right hon. Friend maintained that these terms were too vague, and that the subjects to be taken into consideration ought to be distinctly enumerated. Now, without arguing the point in the abstract, he would take a practical analogy. This was a question of finding damages, and damages were found in England not by the Judges to whom it was proposed to leave the assessment of them under this Bill, but by juries. Did anyone ever hear, however, of an Act of Parliament which tied up juries to deal only with certain matters? On the contrary, was it not notorious that the observation of juries ranged over the whole conduct and dealings of the parties, and that they took into consideration every circumstance they thought proper? It was admitted that the administration of justice by juries was found satisfactory in this country; but if an attempt were made to tie up juries by special enactments as to the circumstances they were
  426
  to take into consideration, the institution of trial by jury would be deprived of all its value. The same observations applied to the County Court Judges. This, he thought, was a better answer than any abstract reasoning could be to the objection raised by his right hon. Friend.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that juries were strictly tied down in every species of action with regard to the measure of damages. If a jury gave excessive damages, their verdict might be set aside and a new trial granted. It was a rule that the damages must represent the money value of the plaintiff's right which had been infringed. His objection to the Bill was, that it conferred on the tenant no specific right or privilege, though it granted him the vague power of claiming compensation. Under the clause the tenant would either get a good deal or nothing at all.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) had, with an ingenuity he could not sufficiently admire, mixed up two wholly different things. His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) remarks had reference, not to the quantum or amount of damages, but to the misconduct or default for which the damages were to be awarded. The amount of damages was already limited by the scale of compensation, and consequently the limit the hon. Gentleman desired was already provided by the Bill. This was a distinct question, however, from that of allowing the Judge to decide what circumstances ought to be admitted as bearing on a particular claim. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that juries were strictly limited in the assessment of damages. Take, for example, the action at law, which was most similar to the case now under consideration. The Committee were considering the case of two persons who had entered into a contract which one of them put an end to, much to the disgust of the other. This was very much like a case of breach of promise of marriage. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman get up and define the exact scale of damages for such cases?
  MR. WESTsaid, he hoped the Government would not permit the insertion in the clause of any definition limiting

  427
  the manner in which compensation was to be assessed. He thought that the fears of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), as to an increase in litigation, were illusory. It was said that there was no precedent for this legislation; but the Act known as Card-well's Act, which prevented railway companies from making contracts with carriers, was of an analogous character. It was predicted at the time that that Act would lead to endless litigation; but although there was some increase of litigation at first, that ceased, and the Act was generally acquiesced in, and had proved one of the most beneficent Acts which had been passed for many years.
  SIR GEORGE COLTHURSTsaid, he understood the First Lord of the Treasury to say that if the landlord had offered the tenant a reasonable lease, he should be able to cite the fact in Court as an answer to a claim for compensation. He hoped that proposition would be embodied in the Bill.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that this clause would be further considered.
  In reply to Lord St. LAWRENCE,
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, the Court would have power to enter into all questions respecting the position of the tenant, and all circumstances connected with his claim.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he had given Notice of an addition at the end of the clause, and its object was simply this—Compensation under Clause 3 was intended to provide only for cases of improper and capricious eviction; and he considered that it would be desirable in the Equities Clause to fix that point, which was one of principle, in a manner clear and unmistakable. So far as the object he had in view was concerned, some encouragement had been given to him by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government; the principle was recognized, and favourable consideration was promised for the substance of the Amendment. His right hon. Friend, however, was not satisfied at present with the words of the Amendment, and was desirous that it should be postponed till a later stage, in the
  428
  hope that in the meantime some words would be suggested which would avoid difference of opinion. He therefore felt it his duty to defer to the wish of his right hon. Friend; but unless some other words were moved, he should undertake to move upon the Report, a clause in the same words or to the same effect.
  MR. GLADSTONEbegged to thank his hon. and learned Friend for postponing his Amendment. So far as he understood the object, they were completely at one; but whether it was best expressed in the clause as it stood, or in such words as might be devised, there would be great advantage in more prolonged consideration.
  MR. SCOURFIELDasked the Government to explain the meaning of the words "unreasonable conduct." If two tenants could not agree, and the landlord ejected one of them, would it be taken into account in the assessment of damages?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, if such "unreasonable conduct" had a prejudicial effect upon the estate, it would clearly come within the meaning of the words of the clause.
  MR. BRUENsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment of which he had given Notice as to the judgment of the Court on a case of liability to a claim for compensation being a bar to all such claims arising before the date of such judgment. His intention was to move it on the Report.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he would now move to insert words having the effect of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Dr. Ball) in an earlier part of the clause. He moved to add—
  "The Court shall have jurisdiction at the hearing of such dispute to ascertain what sums, if any, are due by the tenant to the landlord under Sections 3, 4, and 6, or any set-off for unliquidated damages under the said sections or any of them."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LOCHsaid, he would beg to move at the end of the clause to add the following proviso:—
  "Provided, That when a disturbance of occupation takes place by reason of the infraction or non-observance by the occupier of any rules or regulations established for the management of an estate, the Court may, in determining the amount of compensation, take the same into consideration in discharge or reduction of such claim:

  429
  Provided always, That the Court shall deem such rules and regulations to be in themselves just and reasonable, that their observance is conducive to the well-being of the tenantry on such estate, that the existence of such rules and regulations is known generally to such tenantry, and that due notice has been given in the particular case to the tenant so refusing or neglecting to comply with them."
  The principal object of the Amendment was to prevent overcrowding, which was attended with the greatest possible mischief, and which ultimately reduced the people to the condition of pauperism.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he did not think the Amendment was founded upon much knowledge of the ordinary system of land management in Ireland, or the relations of landlord and tenant in this country. With respect to the object in view, the Amendment added nothing to the power of the Court. That was complete without the Amendment. If a tenant deliberately violated some reasonable rule of an estate to which he had consented, that would unquestionably be unreasonable conduct within the meaning of the clause; and the Court would not fail to take it into account. But he did not think it necessary to impose these special considerations on the Court as being more deserving of its attention, or more imperative than others that might be suggested by the ingenuity of any hon. Member. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JOHN SINCLAIRsaid, he wished to know if a landlord wished to increase his tenant's rent 60 per cent, and the Court considered it exorbitant, and the landlord afterwards withdrew his demand for increased rent, whether he would thereby escape the payment of compensation for eviction?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, that would not be an eviction or a disturbance. If, however, a landlord served his tenant with a notice to quit for refusing to pay an exorbitant rent, and proceeded to turn him out, he hoped the Court would impose the highest amount of damages that could be inflicted upon him.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Lease in lieu of compensation).
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEmoved that the clause be omitted.
  MR. BAGWELLasked for an explanation of the course proposed by the Government?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he should have thought that his hon. Friend (Mr. Bagwell), after all that had passed, would have been sufficiently enlightened on the subject. The Government withdrew this clause, because they did not think it right to impose on one party at the will of the other the alternative tenure which was contemplated by its provisions. If the landlord chose to propose a lease containing such terms as the tenant would accept, then the alternative tenure would have effect. But the Government had made up their minds that simply to enable a landlord, by the mere offer of a lease, to set aside the provisions of this Bill, would be going too far, and would not be carrying out cither their own views or the views of Parliament.
  DR. BALLsaid, he thought that the bonâ fide offer of a lease by the landlord should go, at least, in reduction of damages; and if it did not operate as a bar, it ought, at any rate, to place the landlord in an advantageous position before the Court.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was overlooking the Equities Clause which had just been passed.
  DR. BALL: There is not a word about a lease in it.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: The lease is referred to in the proper part of the Bill—one of the earlier clauses that the Committee have passed. If a tenant were unreasonably to refuse a lease, that would be conduct upon his part which would be taken into account. But the Government feel that the clause under discussion is not necessary, and accordingly move its withdrawal.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: As the Government are about to withdraw their own proposal, it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would now state the reason why this clause was originally inserted in the Bill.
  Question put, "That Clause 16 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 250: Majority 102.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to procedure at Parliamentary Elections, said: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I shall have to occupy the attention of the House for a longer time than I should wish; but I assure the House that at this early hour of the morning, I will not trespass upon its time more than in my opinion is absolutely necessary in order to explain the motives of the Government and the provisions of the Bill which it is my duty to move for leave to bring in. The Bill is founded mainly, but not entirely, upon the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat during the present Session, and over which. I had the honour to preside. In one particular, I must begin by acknowledging the Bill is directly opposed to the recommendations of the Committee. I believe that this House has never considered itself to be absolutely bound by the decisions or recommendations of any Committee it has appointed, but has always reserved to itself complete liberty to reverse, alter, or modify any recommendations which such Committee may have made. But in this instance, I take it, the Committee on Parliamentary and Municipal Elections appointed last year was appointed rather for the purpose of collecting information, sifting opinions, and examining the subject generally than of establishing any fixed or definite conclusion, and therefore I, as Chairman of that Committee, do not feel so much hesitation as I otherwise might in proposing a measure which in one particular is decidedly opposed to the recommendation of the Committee. Now, the point on which the Bill and the Report of the Committee differ is, that of public nominations. I will at once proceed to state what was the recommendation of the Committee, and what is the proposal of the Government on this subject. The passage in the Report of the Committee which deals with this subject, is as follows:—
  "At some places of election, both in counties and boroughs, the addresses which are delivered are rendered inaudible by noise, tumult, and wilful interruptions; and occasionally serious disturbances, begun on the nomination day, are continued throughout the election."
  432
  That is by no means a too highly coloured statement of the case. In fact, I should be rather inclined to say, in the language used by some of the witnesses who were examined, that too often a public nomination is nothing but an expensive, a mischievous, and a useless farce, which tends to bring the Constitution of the country and representative institutions generally, into contempt, and which tends also to disgust the most peaceable and intelligent portion of the constituency with everything connected with elections. Sir, the Committee proceeded to give reasons which I shall ask the House to consider for the retention of the practice, but I will first state what is the plan which the Government propose. We propose that it should be the duty of the returning officer to announce publicly, as now, that on a certain day he will proceed at a specified place to the nomination or election, as the case may be, of the Member or Members to serve for the particular county or borough. He will name a period of two hours within a certain number of specified hours—that is to say, two hours between the hours of one and five—as the time during which he will receive nominations. Candidates will be nominated by the personal delivery, not the sending in, of nomination papers. These papers will have to be signed by the proposer and a seconder and eight other electors of the county or borough. The House will see by-and-by that there is an object in retaining a proposer and seconder as now, but in all cases the papers will have to be signed by 10 electors of the constituency. The delivery of these nomination papers will be made either by the candidate himself personally, or by the proposer or seconder of the candidate. The candidate will be permitted to withdraw his nomination paper, or in his absence the proposer and seconder may withdraw the candidate at any time within the two hours specified. If, at the conclusion of the two hours, no more candidates remain in nomination than there are vacancies to be filled, the returning officer will announce the result and publicly advertise it in the manner prescribed by the Bill. This operation will take place not altogether, but comparatively speaking in private. The persons who may be present at this nomination will be the candidate, ac-

  433
  companied by one of his friends, who may be his legal adviser, the proposer and seconder, or any of the electors who may have signed the nomination papers, but no other person will have a right to be present, unless by the special permission of the returning officer. The advantages which will result from this plan, in contradistinction to others which have been adopted in places where public nomination is not in force are these—It will be necessary that the candidates, their proposers and friends, should meet face to face. They will know before the expiration of the specified period who are their opponents and who are in nomination, and they will have an opportunity of deciding there and then whether they will make up their minds to go to the poll, or whether they will withdraw in favour of some other candidate who has been nominated, and whether they may consider it worth while to incur the expense of a contest. Now, it is necessary, I think, that I should very briefly glance at the objections stated by the Committee to the doing away with public nominations, and see how far the system I have suggested will meet those objections. The objections stated by the Committee are five in number. In the first place they state that—
  "On the other hand the abolition of the present system would, as it seems to us, tend to fetter the free choice of the electors, and would deprive a candidate of an opportunity of setting himself fright with a constituency, in the event of misstatements as to his opinions or his character; and it would make it extremely difficult to prevent the putting forward of persons as candidates for mere purposes of annoyance, or the fraudulent withdrawal of others who were in favour with the electors. Again, it must not be forgotten that, in the majority of cases, proceedings at nominations are conducted in an orderly manner, and without any attendant evils, and that in the case of an uncontested election the whole proceedings are concluded and the return is made on the day of nomination."
  Now, the first objection of the Committee, that it would tend to fetter the free choice of the electors, appears to me entirely opposed to one of their subsequent objections—namely, that it would make it extremely difficult to prevent the putting forward of persons as candidates for mere purposes of annoyance. I cannot myself see how the free choice of the electors would be fettered if, as I think is provided, ample opportunity be given to any 10 electors to bring forward
  434
  a candidate of their choice, and if also ample opportunity be afforded them to demand a poll on behalf of that candidate. That it would deprive a candidate of an opportunity of setting himself right with the constituency in the event of misstatements as to his opinions or his character, is a statement which I must admit; and that, I think, is the one solitary objection I know of to the abolition of public nominations. I do believe there is an advantage in certain cases in public nominations, in enabling candidates to meet face to face before the whole constituency, and to challenge his opponents in public to repeat the misstatements which may have been made, and thus to give him an opportunity of refuting them. That there is some advantage in that I do not deny; but hon. Members must be aware that in the great majority of cases where such public explanation is necessary and desirable, the opportunity for it practically does not exist at public nominations, and that where such misstatements and reckless and unfounded assertions have been bandied about, and where, probably, a state of great excitement prevails, the candidate might just as well talk to the winds as try to "set himself right" at a public nomination. Again, as to the objection that it would be difficult to prevent the putting forward of persons as candidates for mere purposes of annoyance, it might be so if the system we proposed was that of merely sending in nomination papers, without personal attendance, and if the poll followed as a matter of course upon the sending in of those nomination papers. But I think that when the candidates and their supporters are brought face to face, and have an opportunity of seeing whom they are going to meet, and also of considering how hopeless will be the contest in which they are are about to embark, that will very much tend to check the practice of bringing forward persons as candidates for the mere purposes of annoyance. This is also the proper place for me to state to the House that the Government do not intend to propose to make any alteration in the existing law as to the incidence of the necessary expenses of elections. The candidate, or, failing the candidate, his proposers and nominators, will, according to our proposal, be still held to be liable for the necessary ex-

  435
  penses of the election; and this also, in my opinion, will, if it does nothing else, at any rate act as a considerable cheek on the putting forward of candidates merely for the purpose of annoyance. Another objection stated by the Committee is, that abolition of public nominations will render it extremely difficult to prevent the fraudulent withdrawal of candidates who are in favour with the electors. That I own I am unable to see. Of course, corrupt compromises may be made between candidates in future, as they are made now. But the corrupt compromise is not made now upon the hustings; it is made, and must be made, always behind the scenes; there are ample opportunities now, if candidates and their supporters are disposed to make them, for making such compromises; and I do not see how the system we propose will tend to encourage them. The last objection stated by the Committee is, that in the majority of cases the nominations are orderly, and that in the case of an uncontested election the whole of the proceedings are concluded and the return is made on the day of the nomination. Well, if I have made clear to the House the system which the Government propose, it is evident that those advantages will also attend our system, and if there are not more candidates than there are vacancies to be filled the return in that case will likewise be made on the day of the nomination. That, I think, is all that I need trouble the House with on the subject of nominations. Of course it is hardly necessary to say that if there are more candidates than there are vacancies to be filled, it will be the duty of the returning officer to announce that a poll will be taken, and to make the necessary preparations for the poll. I must now explain to the House what are the views of the Government as to the mode of conducting that poll. I have alluded already to the evils which too commonly attend the public nomination of candidates; but those evils are, I believe, small compared with those which are reserved for the polling day. On the nomination day there is riot, there is disturbance, but it is generally mere senseless, purposeless, objectless rioting. It is for the polling day that is reserved the violence with an object and intention. It is for the polling day, or the day immediately preceding it, that are
  436
  reserved the of the briber, the violence of all kinds, whether of moral intimidation or of the intimidation carried on by an armed body of men. It is scarcely necessary—the facts are so well known and so patent—for me to accumulate proof; but I think the House will allow me to read one or two extracts from the Report of the Committee on these subjects. And let me say here, that although the Committee were considerably divided upon certain points in in their Report, and certain recommendations were only made by a bare majority, in regard to all that part of their Report which contains statements of existing facts the Committee, I think, were tolerably agreed; and although the draft Report was considerably altered, the Report as it stands was agreed to after consultation, and without any very great difference of opinion on the part of the Committee. The Committee state—
  "The Returns in the Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary and Municipal Elections in the last Session of Parliament show that both in former and in the last elections various corrupt practices, of which bribery and treating were the chief, have prevailed, and to such an extent as to invalidate many elections; and it cannot be supposed that either now or formerly have the whole of such practices been brought to light."
  With respect to the intimidation in boroughs, they say—
  "It is certain, at least, that whether intimidation is extensively practised or not, the fear of it widely prevails among that class of voters who are liable to its influence. There exists during the the canvass in most boroughs a system of working upon voters through, private considerations, whether of interest, hope, or fear, for political purposes, and this system enables undue influence, in a modified form, to be constantly practised."
  Then, as to intimidation in counties, there is this passage—
  "It is certain, however, that an influence, exceeding, in a greater or less degree, the legitimate influence which a popular and respected landlord must always exercise in his neighbourhood, is often brought to bear on tenant-farmers, and other voters in agricultural districts. The agent frequently holds language which the landlord would shrink from using, but which the latter does not think it necessary to disown. An instance was given where tenants who had signed the requisition to a candidate all voted with their landlord against that candidate; another, where no tenant on the estate would promise the same candidate a vote until they had received an assurance from their landlord that they might vote as they pleased, on receiving which they all both promised and voted for the candidate opposed to the landlord's politics. The inducement to vote

  437
  with the landlord may frequently proceed rather from the hope of future advantages to be conferred than from the fear of injury to be inflicted; but, of whichever character the inducement may be, we think that the influence so exercised comes under the description of undue influence, and, as such, ought, if possible, to be checked."
  One more extract. After referring to the evidence as to elections in Ireland, and stating at some length the opposite views of different parties the Committee state—
  "We cannot doubt that there is some truth in the assertions made by both parties; and we are convinced that, under the present system of conducting elections, there exists in many boroughs and counties of Ireland no real freedom of election. We consider that some change is urgently required."
  These are the statements agreed upon, I think I may say almost unanimously, by the Committee, and I think, without going further, I may confidently say the statements of the Committee are a sufficient proof that there is something in the present mode of conducting elections which imperatively demands a remedy. What are the remedies proposed? There are three remedies, and I believe only three proposed—namely, the use of voting papers, an increase in the number of polling-places, and vote by Ballot. Now, the use of voting papers, I think, I may dismiss as shortly as the Committee do in their Report—
  "A few witnesses have recommended the system of voting papers. Their chief recommendation is that the risk of riot on the polling day would be diminished. In our opinion, they would tend to aggravate some of the evils of the present system, by the facilities which they would give for bribery, for fraud, and for certain forms of intimidation."
  I quite agree with this view; I think that such a remedy would be no remedy at all. Well, Sir, as to an increase in the number of polling-places, probably that may be a very desirable thing; but I do not think that any hon. Members will say it would be anything like an adequate remedy for the evils I have enumerated; besides which, I believe, there are at present ample powers in the hands of the magistrates to increase the number of polling-places, if they think that necessary. Then comes the third remedy proposed—that the votes be taken by Ballot. Sir, this is not the time nor the occasion for me to consider the abstract arguments for and against the Ballot; and if I should weary the
  438
  House by stating the objections urged against secret voting, it is not for the purpose of entering into an argument, but to show the House that those objections have not been overlooked, and to consider how far they can be provided against by this or any other measure. The Committee have very fully and effectively stated the arguments against the Ballot. I think I am justified in saying that they were framed by a hand no means friendly to secret voting—
  "The principal objections which have been advanced against the ballot as applied to our own elections are—that the act of voting is a public duty, and should involve a public responsibility; that it would lend to hypocrisy and deception; that it would do little to restrain the practice of treating; that it would increase bribery, by making it more difficult to detect; that it would be wholly inoperative in the case of spiritual intimidation such as that which is alleged to exist so extensively in Ireland; that it would afford facilities for personation."
  Now, as to the first objection—that the act of voting is a public duty. Of course, that is not only the first, but the main objection to the Ballot; and I confess it is one which I have always felt so forcibly that it has hitherto induced me to vote against the Ballot, and renders me reluctant to come to a different conclusion. I admit there can be no more worthy spectacle in a free and constitutional country than that of the constituencies returning Members of Parliament by an open, a pure, a tranquil, and, above all things, a free election. But I may say, Sir, that not one of those qualifications, unless it be accompanied by the others, will make an election satisfactory. An open election will not be sufficient unless that election is pure, tranquil, and, above all things, free. Freedom of election I take to be an essential characteristic of a satisfactory election. The other qualifications would be most desirable. The election ought to be open. It is very desirable it should be open, and very desirable that it should be pure—and purity I hope may be obtained. Certainly, it is desirable that the election should be tranquil; but I say again it is essential it should be free. This is, I believe, not a matter of opinion, but is laid down in the law of the country. I was very much struck with a passage in a judgment delivered by Mr. Baron Martin at the hearing of the Beverley Petition. He laid it down that when Parliament gave a man a vote it

  439
  imposed upon him the duty of using it honestly and without undue influence. He described a variety of conditions which would amount to undue influence, and stated that if it were proved before the Judge that a considerable number of votes had been given under undue influence, the election would be a bad one by the operation of the common law alone. According to the learned Judge such an election would be void without the operation of statute law. That, therefore, well bears me out in saying that, above all things, it is necessary that elections should be free. Can it be said that the system of open voting has hitherto given us either pure, or tranquil, or free elections? An overwhelming amount of evidence, familiar to every Member of the House, gives a full contradiction to that supposition. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us that we should not hesitate to adopt some system of voting which will render our elections pure, tranquil, and free. Neither am I without hope that these advantages may be secured while yet the openness may not be altogether lost. It is well known that in our own Colonies, where the Ballot has been in operation for some time, when the necessity for secresy has disappeared the secresy itself also disappears; and that, when no one is disposed to take advantage of the knowledge, every voter votes just as openly and publicly with the Ballot as without it. Therefore, I am in hopes that under a system of Ballot the day may come when not only our desires in respect of purity, tranquillity, and freedom of election may be realized, but openness of voting may be also regained. Then I have one or two words to say as to the hypocrisy and deception said to be encouraged by the Ballot. I really feel scarcely qualified to decide the nice moral point that appears to be involved in this argument, whether it is more wrong to act a lie or to tell a lie. Those who argue that the Ballot will encourage hypocrisy and deception assume, of course, that the voter has some object in telling some one that he is going to vote one way when he is really going to vote the other. If he has the desire under the present system of open voting to vote one way, and yet in order to fulfil some obligation to another person he votes the other way, that, in my opinion, is acting a lie, whereas in the case of secret voting
  440
  he will tell one. As I have just said, I do not pretend to decide in which case the greater moral guilt is incurred; but I do contend that the encouragement to hypocrisy and deception afforded by the Ballot will not be of very long duration, because when once the voting is proved to be perfectly secret no one will take the trouble to ask the voter which way he has given his vote. The argument that vote by Ballot will not do away with treating goes for nothing, unless it can be proved that it will tend to encourage treating. It is further objected that the Ballot will increase bribery and will afford facilities for personation. This objection, I admit, is one that requires careful consideration, inasmuch as it involves an examination into the different systems of secret voting. For my own part, however, I do not see that it necessarily encourages either bribery or personation. Under any system of either open or of secret voting, in order to establish either bribery or personation proof must be given that there has been a corrupt payment on the part of one person to another, or that some person has voted on behalf of another. These are facts that, under the existing system, must be established before some tribunal before any person can be punished for such an offence, and the proof of those facts does not appear to me to be necessarily more difficult in the case of secret voting than under the present system. I quite admit that under a system of absolutely secret voting, where it is impossible for any Court of Justice to ascertain how the vote has been given, some additional inducement might be held out to bribery and to personation, because, although the persons committing such offences might be discovered and punished, yet it would be impossible to strike off the vote in favour of the person bribing, because it would be impossible to identify the vote, and, therefore, the briber would obtain all the advantages he contemplated when he offered the bribe to the voter. Those making use of this argument do not, however, appear to be aware that there are systems of secret voting whereby it is quite possible, as has been clearly shown by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), to identify the vote when necessary. I am prepared to say that, under such a system, the detection of bribery and of personation is

  441
  quite as easy as it is under the open system of voting. It seems to me that under the system of secret voting the inducement to bribery is somewhat less than under the present system, because the person bribing will not have the same certainty that he has now that he will get the vote he purchased with his money. There are, however, objections to a system of possible identification of votes, the chief one being that if the Court can identify the vote other people may succeed in doing so, and that thus, in an anxiety to prevent bribery, the secresy which it was proposed to give the voter will have been taken away from him. Now, in my opinion, the test of a good system of secret voting is that it affords easy identification of the vote by the Court or Judge, while it renders it impossible or so difficult as to amount to practical impossibility that it can be identified by any other person. I will now state to the House what is the plan which the Government proposes, and how far it meets the objections to which I have alluded. Under the plan proposed by the Government it will be the duty of the returning officer to provide a sufficient number of polling stations—which word is intended to include all separate places where votes are taken, whether within the same building or not—to appoint deputy returning officers, who are to preside over each polling-station, and also to provide a sufficient number of polling papers for each station. He will not personally preside at any of the polling stations. They will be presided over by deputies. An agent, or some official like the present personation agent, may be appointed by each candidate—in writing—to represent him, to detect personation, and to watch over the candidate's interests. The polling papers will somewhat resemble cheques in a banker's cheque-book; they will have a counterfoil, on the face of which they will be numbered, either consecutively or in different series; but the counterfoil will bear on; its face the same number the paper will have on its back. On each voter establishing a claim to vote, the presiding; officer will give him a polling paper, at the same time entering the number of the voter upon the register on the counterfoil. The voter will then retire into a private compartment for the purpose of marking the ballot paper, and having
  442
  done so he will fold it up in such a way that the names of the candidates on its face will not be visible, though the number on the back will, and he will place it in the ballot box in the presence of the returning officer. At the close of the poll the presiding officer—always in the presence of the agents of the candidates—will open the ballot box and take out the ballot papers, which he will unfold, placing them on their faces in such a way that neither he nor those who assist him will see the names of the candidates, but only the numbers on the back of the ballot papers. He will make them up into packets, which he will seal in the presence of the agents, who also will affix their seals, and the packets will be transmitted to the returning officer, who on receiving all the packets of voting paper from the various polling places will, also in the presence of the candidates' agents, proceed to open them, placing them in the reverse way to that in which they were placed by the presiding officers—that is, the faces of the papers upwards, so that the names of the candidates only are visible, the numbers on the back not being seen. He will then, in the presence of the agents, count the votes which have been given for each candidate, and at the conclusion will announce the result, and advertise it publicly in the manner provided by the Bill. There are other provisions relating to manner of voting by those who are blind, or cannot read, or are in any other way physically incapacitated, but we do not propose to enter into those refinements which have been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), of printing the names of the candidates in different colours, or of using invisible ink, or anything of that kind, as we think it very desirable that the whole system should be as simple as possible. I may have failed to make this matter clear to hon. Members; but when they see the provisions as described in the Bill I think they will find this to be a very simple and easy way of taking the votes. We have only provided that the names of the candidates should be printed, and if the voter is blind or cannot read he must get the returning officer to mark the ballot paper for him. I should have stated that at the close of the poll the presiding officer will at once seal up and send to the Clerk of the Crown the counterfoils of the papers

  443
  that have been used; and it will be the duty of the returning officer, after he has counted the votes which have been given for each candidate, to re-seal the packets and to send them also to the Clerk of the Crown to be preserved. The advantages which we think belong to this system are these—everything is done either in the presence of the candidate himself or in the presence of his agent, and therefore any attempt on the part of the returning or presiding officers to defeat the object of the Act in any way will be immediately detected by an agent in the interest of one or other of the candidates. We further think that the identification of the vote, if necessary, in a Court of Justice, will be easy, for we propose to adopt one of the provisions of my hon. Friend's Bill—namely, that a vote shall not be identified unless it has been proved to be a bad one before a competent Court; but when a vote has been proved to be bad it will be easy, by a comparison of the counterfoil, inscribed with the number of the vote on the register, with the voting paper containing the same number as the counterfoil, to prove for whom that bad vote has been given. We think it will be impossible, or so difficult as to be practically impossible, for any other person than the Court to identify a vote which has been given. The counterfoil will immediately be separated from the ballot paper, and by the system which I have endeavoured to explain it will be impossible for any person, without an evidently fraudulent proceeding—which would be detected immediately by an agent—to see both the names of the candidates on the face of the paper and the number on the back, which would give a clue to the identification of the voter. The Bill contains some other and very important provisions, two of which are referred to in the Report of the Committee, and are rather in the nature of Amendments to the Corrupt Practices Act than alterations in the mode of proceeding at elections. There will be a clause providing that no room shall be hired in any public-house, either as a committee-room or for any other purpose than that of holding a public meeting, at which a candidate shall be present. Some Members of the Committee were of opinion that the use of public-houses should be absolutely prohibited; but it was thought by a majority of the Com-
  444
  mittee that there were many places where no room could be obtained except in a public-house, and, therefore, it was thought not right to prohibit the use of a room in a public-house for holding a public meeting, although the Committee were unanimously agreed, that rooms in public-houses should not be used for the purpose of committee-rooms. There is another provision inserted in the Bill in pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee; and I shall best explain it by reading the paragraph from the Report of the Committee relating to it. The Committee state—
  "We have received evidence to show that the present provision of the law, which requires a return of the expenses of candidates is insufficient for its purpose, and fails in many cases to secure a full statement of such expenses: and we think that any payment made by a candidate, or his agent, on account of the election, and not included in the return of his election expenses, should be declared to be a corrupt payment within the meaing of the Corrupt Practices Act."
  A clause to that effect is embodied in the Bill. It is, no doubt, a stringent clause, and would operate quite irrespectively of the nature of the payment, which might be one of the most innocent nature. Nevertheless, if it were not included in the return prescribed by law, the fact of making it would be sufficient to invalidate the election. Though the clause is stringent, and may lead to some cases to hardship and injustice, yet I believe that on the whole it would prove most useful and efficient. It would tend to reduce the expenses of the elections and operate as a great protection to candidates themselves. We know that frequently cases of the most painful description occur, when a candidate is drawn, contrary to his own wishes and determination, into corrupt expenditure. He knows nothing of such corrupt practices during the progress of the election, They have been committed by some injudicious friends, and he will not turn round on them; and often it is a most difficult point for a candidate to decide whether he should repudiate such corrupt expenditure. Under these circumstances I believe that the clause in question will greatly strengthen the hands of candidates, and cause them to announce that they will positively refuse to make any payment which is not included in the prescribed return of expenses. With regard to a Question put to me a short time ago with respect to the subject of the

  445
  expenses of returning officers and the possibility of placing some check on them, I have been in communication with several persons who I thought might assist me in reference to the matter, and I find that there is more difficulty connected with it than I imagined, and though I do not despair of having a clause to meet the case, I should be unwilling at this moment to pledge myself on this point. There is only another matter to which I will refer, and that is the case of municipal elections. The Select Committee was appointed, as the House is aware, to inquire into the procedure at Parliamentary and Municipal Elections, and in the course of our inquiries we found that the proceedings at municipal elections needed amendment as much or more than the proceedings at Parliamentary elections. In this Bill we have not attempted to deal with the question of municipal elections, because our inquiry showed us that a great deal more was necessary to be done in their case than in that of Parliamentary elections. The whole system of municipal elections requires a Corrupt Practices Act to be specially framed for itself, and we have not had time this Session to prepare such an Act so carefully as is thought desirable. Therefore, we do not deal with them by this Bill, but postpone the subject for another year. I believe I have now stated all that is necessary as; to what the Bill contains and does not contain. We are aware that these proposals are imperfect, and we invite the assistance of the House for the purpose of amending them and rendering them efficient. We know that no Bill which we can propose or the House can pass will be of any avail to check the monstrous evils which have grown up, unless it is supported and aided by the exertions and good-will of the people of this country. From what I have heard on the Committee, and from what I have seen in the country, I believe that there does exist among the most intelligent electors a sincere and earnest desire to put an end to these abuses; but, nevertheless, there exist a strange apathy and irresolution on the subject, and there appears to be an indisposition on the part of those who see and acknowledge the evils to exert themselves and grapple with the difficulty. I trust that this Bill, amended by the assistance of Parliament, will give to that large and, I hope,
  446
  increasing class the means, which they have hitherto lacked, of offering a firm resistance to the corrupt practices which they detest, and will enable them to make a stand for the freedom, the purity, and the tranquillity of elections.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to procedure at Parliamentary Elections."—(Marquess of Hartington.)
  MR. LEATHAMsaid, he rejoiced, in common with the great majority of Members on his own side of the House, that at last the Ballot had become a Cabinet question; but there his satisfaction ceased. First he regretted that other matters, however important, but more or less irrelevant, were dealt with in the Bill, for the Ballot was surely a matter great and distinct enough to have a measure to itself. Nor was the Bill a simple embodiment of the recommendations of the Committee which sat upstairs; and, indeed, as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) said, one of the main provisions of the Bill ran directly counter to one of the most emphatic recommendations of the Committee—he referred to the discontinuance of public nominations. Again, the Ballot was not proposed in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee, for they especially and emphatically recommended that the vote should be absolutely inviolable, except in cases of bribery, or in case the vote had been adjudged invalid. These were the proposals of his Bill, but not those of the Bill of the Government. He proposed to limit the scrutiny in the way recommended by the Committee; but the noble Marquess did not propose to limit the scrutiny in any way. The noble Marquess simply proposed what was well known as the Victorian Ballot; and in Victoria intimidation by landlords, customers, and employers, was all but unknown. He could easily understand that an imperfect system of Ballot like that proposed might work well in Victoria; but it was quite another question whether, in a country in which intimidation was so rife as it was in England, so imperfect a system would operate as it had operated there. He must also express his extreme regret that the noble Marquess had not attempted to deal with municipal elections, for on every side we heard that since the municipal

  447
  franchise tad been, so widely extended without the Ballot, and the municipal and Parliamentary constituencies had thus been made identical, municipal corruption offered so many facilities to Parliamentary corruption that enormous impetus was given to the corruption of constituencies; and, in another year, some of them might be beyond the reach of the Ballot, or any other remedy. For these reasons he felt great regret that the Bill of the Government had not been made more perfect. He had hoped it would have been his pleasing duty to announce that, in consequence of its completeness, any further action on his part would be unnecessary; but, as it was, the only alternative open to him was to postpone the second reading of his own Bill to the day named for the second reading of the Bill of the noble Marquess.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, after complimenting the noble Lord upon the distinctness and ability of his statement, said, it was not the manner but the matter which had fallen heavily upon the House. The Government proposals did not commend themselves to him. First, the House was asked to adopt secret voting, to apply to England and to Scotland a remedy which might be necessary for the miseries of Ireland, but which was not necessary for elections either in England or Scotland, and he must remind the House that physic, where not needed, was poison. He did not look forward with pleasure to the dose prepared for them. He had had some experience of noisy nominations, but what was the inconvenience of a little noise on such occasions compared with the advantage of informing a whole constituency at once, without priority of information, of those, who were candidates for their suffrages? Simultaneity of information was one great element in the fairness, and therefore in the freedom of election. The noble Lord seemed to consider every electoral contest was a species of open warfare. Military men spoke of some engagements as affairs of cavalry and artillery, and the Committee or rather the noble Lord seemed to intend to treat contested elections much in that sense; the nomination was to be an "affair of cavalry"—of newspapers, and the polling was to be an affair of artillery, an affair of agency; from the beginning to the end of an election, the
  448
  Bill proposed that that which formerly and still insured fairness and freedom, face-to-face publicity, was to be avoided. Electors were to learn through the newspapers who were the candidates; and the election was to be entrusted to agents who might be honourable men; but, at the same time, he was convinced that the people in England and Scotland would rather manage their own affairs than trust to agents, however honourable. Having always voted against the principle of the Ballot, having always followed Lord Palmerston into the Lobby against that innovation, he must withhold his assent from the Bill.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that he for one felt the greatest possible satisfaction at the prospect of the abolition of public nominations. He hoped, however, that there would be no interference with Parliamentary elections in any of the Universities, for he did not think that the evils which existed elsewhere existed there. A clause should, therefore, be inserted in the Bill exempting the Universities from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he thought many Members would be surprised and disappointed at one part of the noble Marquess's (the Marquess of Hartington's) speech. After all that had occurred, and especially after the statement made by the Prime Minister within the last month, the opinion was general that effect would be given to the views expressed heretofore by a majority of the House, and that the necessary expenses of conducting elections would be borne, not by the candidates, but by the constituencies. When the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) lately proposed the payment of Members, the Prime Minister fully admitted the justice and necessity of making the constituencies pay the necessary election expenses, and he supported the proposal when first made—a proposal which, in the Select Committee, was only lost by the casting vote of the noble Marquess. The argument used by the noble Marquess this evening was very extraordinary. It was in effect this—"We propose to abolish nominations; and it is, therefore, necessary that election expenses should be borne by candidates in order to prevent fraud." Now, one of the most plausible arguments against this plan was that it would encourage a large number of Candida-

  449
  tures by men who wished to indulge their vanity by appearing upon the hustings at nominations. But, in abolishing nominations this argument could no longer be used. It had always been proposed to hedge round the plan with securities, and the imposition of a fine of £100, £200, or £300 upon fictitious candidatures would give all the security that could be desired against such fraud. After the Prime Minister's declaration there would be great disappointment on this subject. Many a man upon the Treasury Bench had consistently and persistently voted against the Ballot. The arguments for the Ballot were just as strong five years since, when the Treasury Bench treated this question with contumely. How was it they had altered their opinion? He was afraid it was through party exigencies. It was hard that a scheme advocated by the Prime Minister should be thrown aside because there was not the same party exigency on the subject. If the Prime Minister did not support the plan now, it would show once more that this was an age of political inconsistency. In candour he was bound to add that he differed from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), and did not think that the Bill should be merely a Ballot Bill. All the proposals of the Government, except that to which he had alluded, seemed to be in the right direction. The country would welcome the abolition of nominations and the forbidding of committee meetings in public-houses. He believed the country would also have liked the extension of the prohibition to all political meetings, and some further restriction on the employment of paid, canvassers and agents. The House would never have done all they could do for the reform of the electoral system unless they dealt courageously with that growing scandal, the increasing expense of elections, and they could not do this unless they put some check upon the unlimited use of paid agents and canvassers.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he desired to tender his grateful thanks to the Government for having taken so early an opportunity of carrying out, as he thought most honestly, the recommendations of the Committee. It was, of course, very difficult for them to please all their supporters, as was sufficiently proved by the two speeches to which the House had
  450
  just listened. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) was angry with them for going beyond his propositions, and the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was equally angry with them for not carrying out his hobby. He, for one, regarded as of great importance the clause making every payment not included in the return of election expenses a corrupt payment, and the vote upon it would test the sincerity of the House as to whether they were or were not in earnest in endeavouring to put down corruption. The revelations after the last Election showed how many honourable men there were who had been led away by the fatal reasoning that because a devoted supporter of theirs happened to have spent a certain sum of money in seeking to promote their return, they were bound six months afterwards to recoup him for the outlay. Now, if such payment, whether within one month or a year, were made a corrupt payment the candidate would have a ground on which to stand in refusing to make it. His hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, he might add, complained of the exclusion of municipal elections from the operation of the Bill; but he must be well aware that the Ballot alone would not cure the evils by which those elections were attended. As to the machinery proposed by the Government, he had not made up his mind whether it or that suggested by his hon. Friend was the best, but that was a matter of detail which could be settled in Committee. He trusted that when the Bill came to a second reading his hon. Friend would be in a better frame of mind.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, the House will expect a few words from me after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett). But first, I wish to discharge the more agreeable duty of expressing my best thanks to the Committee, and to my hon. Colleagues, who have bestowed so much labour upon this subject, first of all, for the great exertions they have made in bringing towards its final solution the question of secret voting, and secondly, for the other important and very valuable suggestions they have made, and several of which are included in the present Bill. Further, I wish to state, in reply to the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) that there is a clause in the Bill which I believe he will

  451
  find will entirely exclude the Universities from the operation of the Act. With regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, I may say we are both fortunate and unfortunate. We are fortunate, inasmuch as there is nothing so dangerous to individuals or to a Government as too much adulation. It is fortunate, considering the imperfections of human nature and the many faults into which we may fall, that we have always got a friend at hand to remind us of our fallibility, and we are certainly indebted to my hon. Friend for not seeking to make our faults less than they are, either in number or intensity. We are unfortunate, however, in this, that while, as is perfectly natural, my hon. Friend finds fault with us on the points wherein he differs from us, he must also find fault with us on the matters wherein we agree with him; and when we come forward with a measure for secret voting can, in the largeness of his charity, find no better motive to ascribe it to than, sordid motives of our own political interests. However, it is always a great advantage to feel that we have touched the ground; and, on this occasion, I am glad to think that our opponents who sit opposite can say nothing more bitter of us, with regard to the considerations which have governed our conduct in relation to this Bill, than what has already been said, eagerly and without loss of time, by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton. With respect to the absence from the Bill of the provision for relieving the candidates of the expenses of elections, and transferring them to the constituencies who have a deep interest in the matter, and are naturally the parties on whom they ought to fall, I may state that the reasons which induced the Cabinet to refrain from making any such proposal are of the simplest character. I will not refer to some matters which might cause delay, because of the considerable difficulties which lie in the way of framing plans to give effect to what seems to be a sound and healthy principle. I will content myself with stating that we were most anxious to proceed with the important measure which my noble Friend near me (the Marquess of Hartington) has just asked for leave to introduce, but we felt that, in order to give it a chance of success, we must not overload the vessel by bringing into it matters which, al-
  452
  though they might tend to theoretical perfection, would, on the other hand, greatly diminish the prospects of passing the Bill this Session. My hon. Friend, in his sanguine view of the question, ought not to forget that his own proposal; when submitted to the House last year, did not survive a second reading, but was actually rejected at that early stage, though, I admit, only by a small majority. That circumstance indicated the marked division, of opinion among hon. Members on the subject, and the difficulties in the way of carrying such a proposal, and I would appeal to the House—I would almost leave it to my hon. Friend himself—to say, whether, as practical men, we did not arrive at a wise conclusion when we determined to postpone the consideration of a subject such as that, in order to obtain the very best chance we could secure for carrying into effect the important purposes aimed at by the present measure.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he was sure hon. Members did not desire to have a long discussion on the details of a Bill which was not yet in print; but he trusted he might be allowed to express his extreme regret that the Ballot proposed by the Government was to be deficient in its principal element, and, as many thought, its chief recommendation—namely, perfect and inviolable secresy. Many hon. Members believed that the Ballot contained but little abstract good, but regarded it simply as a necessary remedy for certain evils. It was the secresy of the Ballot that recommended it to many of its supporters, but under the present Bill, secresy would depend on the side upon which a paper was placed and a variety of accidental circumstances. This was not merely a question as to the amount of publicity which would, in point of fact, be so obtained; but, one as to the effect which the possibility of publicity would have on the minds of the voters. From the noble Marquess's (the Marquess of Hartington's) statement, it appeared that the element of secresy was to be sacrificed for the sole purpose of obtaining a scrutiny. He would not enter upon that subject now; but he hoped to have an opportunity on some future occasion of showing how the necessity for a scrutiny could be reduced to a minimum. He did not wish to place himself in opposition to the Bill; and if the principle of secresy could be discussed

  453
  in Committee it would, no doubt, be considered at that stage. If, however, it should be found that the principle was so blended with the Scrutiny Clauses that it could not be properly discussed in Committee, he should propose, on the Motion for the second reading, an Amendment to the effect that it was in expedient to sanction any form of Ballot which was not complete and inviolable in its secresy.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, that the differences of opinion existing among those who called themselves supporters of the Ballot showed the inexpediency of introducing a new Reform Bill after midnight. He hoped the Government would not force the House to give even a preliminary sanction to a Bill to which he, for one, entertained the most serious objections, irrespective of those already stated by the supporters of the principle of secret voting. Most sincerely did he trust that there would be no attempt to hurry the House into a preliminary assent to the principle of secret voting, by asking them to pass the Bill through its first stage at so late an hour, contrary to all the usages of the House. Silence was very often supposed to imply consent, and as he was strongly opposed to the principle of the Bill, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Lord Claud Hamilton.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) would not divide the House. He (Mr. Cross) was perfectly willing that the Bill should be introduced, though he objected to the measure in toto. In his opinion voting was a public duty, and ought to be public in order to secure its being performed honestly. He should therefore vote against the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he wished to ask the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) whether he intended to abolish the declaration of the poll as well as the nomination.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Marquess of HARTINGTON, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. JOHN BRIGHT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 120.]

  MAGISTRATES IN POPULOUS PLACES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CARNEGIE, Bill to enable the Chief Magistrate of populous places in Scotland to net ex officio as a Justice of the Pence and Commissioner of Supply for the county in which the said populous place is situated, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CARNEGIE, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, and Mr. ORR EWING.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 121.]

  SALE OF POISONS, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to regulate the sale of Poisons in Ireland, and to alter and amend an Act passed by the Parliament of Ireland in the thirty-first year of the reign of His Majesty King George the Third, chapter thirty-four, intituled, "An Act for more effectually preserving the health of His Majesty's Subjects, for creating an Apothecaries Hail in the City of Dublin, and regulating the profession of an Apothecary throughout the Kingdom of Ireland," ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 122.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Report—Inverness County, &c. (Boundary)* (48).
IRISH COLLEGE, AND ENGLISH COLLEGE, DOUAY, PARIS.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he desired to ask their Lordships' attention to a matter which, though of somewhat remote date, affected the character and honour of the British Crown and the British Government. It was a case which somewhat resembled that of
  386
  the Baron de Bode, with which their Lordships were formerly so familiar—at least in its primary elements; but there was this material difference, that the Baron de Bode was not a British subject, while the claimants in the present case were recognized British subjects. The Irish College at Paris was founded in the reign of Queen Elizabeth by an Irish ecclesiastic, and was from its establishment an essentially British institution. As such it was recognized, both by the British and by the French Governments, for in 1789, when the property of all ecclesiastical establishments was confiscated, the then head of the College presented a memorial to the French Government claiming exemption on the ground that it was a British institution and that its inmates were British subjects. That remonstrance was supported by the English Ambassador at Paris, and was successful, the property of the College remaining for a time untouched. When, however, the Reign of Terror set in all respect for property and privilege disappeared, the College was broken up, the Professors were treated as British subjects, arrested and sent back to this country, not being able to return and re-open the College till 1801. With the exception of that interval of four or five years, its existence had been an uninterrupted one, its object being to afford Irish Roman Catholics those means of education which the Penal Laws prevented them from enjoying in their own country. Now, in 1814 or 1815, claims were made by the British Government for the confiscation and loss of property sustained by British subjects, and a joint Commission was appointed to inquire into those claims by both countries; but ultimately the inquiry was conducted by British Commissioners exclusively, France having agreed to pay a lump sum estimated by the British Government for the claims then sent in. The claim of the Irish College was included in that estimate, and the British Government undertook to Liquidate out of that amount all claims. Some years afterwards the claim of the College was heard by the Commissioners, who decided against it. Claims were also made by the English Colleges which had existed at Paris, Douay, and elsewhere; but those institutions were on a totally different footing. They were not of the same antiquity as the Irish Col-

  387
  lege, and after the confiscation of their property they ceased to exist and were never revived. On their claims being rejected they appealed to the Privy Council; but the appeal was rejected on the ground that those Colleges were in the nature of French corporations, that they had no connection with England, and that their object was directly at variance with English law. After the lapse of some short time the Irish College also appealed; when the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Leach, instead of calling on the other side to argue the case, cut the matter short by ruling that it was concluded by the appeal of the English Colleges, and he accordingly dismissed it. Now, it was true that one objection—namely, that they were locally established in a foreign country—applied equally to the Irish and the English Colleges; for it was the very gist of the claim that they had property in a foreign country—namely, France—and had sustained injury which the British and French Governments had undertaken to compensate. The Irish College, however, had been supported by Irish funds, and had a clear right to be reimbursed. The decision of the Privy Council in 1825, delivered by Lord Eldon and other members, was based on a political principle, and Parliament had therefore a manifest right to review it. That principle was, that an institution for the education of Roman Catholic priests was contrary to British law—a strange doctrine, and one inconsistent with fact, considering that many years previously Maynooth had been established, and had continued to be supported by the British Parliament. Moreover, the Irish College had always been a loyal institution, and had sent forth, as it was still continuing to do, many eminent and learned men. In proof of this, he need only mention that an Irish. Prelate, known to many of their Lordships, and esteemed by all who knew him, Dr. Moriarty, was for four years its vice president. This would indicate the spirit in which it was conducted. On the re-establishment of the Bourbon dynasty in 1815, the French Government at once acknowledged its claim to exemption, as a foreign institution, from the financial superintendence of a Government administrator, which was obligatory on all French institutions, and a British subject, the Rev. Paul Long was appointed administrator
  388
  general. The decision of the Privy Council in the case of the English Colleges, by which that of the Irish College was governed, was given prior to Catholic emancipation, on the intolerant and persecuting principles which then prevailed; and now that the principle of religious equality had been adopted the English Government ought not to withhold the compensation paid by France of which it was still in possession, but to which it had no right. Nobody could doubt that if the institution had been a Protestant one the Commissioners would have made an award in its favour, or the Privy Council would, on appeal, have sustained the claim. He would now move for, Copies of the award of the Commissioners, of the judgment of the Privy Council, and of the judgment in the case of the English College at Douay, hoping that the matter would be considered by the Government, and that he should have no occasion to recall attention to it.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of the award made in the case of the Reverend Paul Long as administrator-general of the Irish College at Paris by the commissioners appointed for liquidation of British claims out of funds received from the French Government, and of the judgment of the English Privy Council in 1832 on the appeal from that award:
  Also, Copy of the judgment in 1825 in the appeal case of the English College at Douay.—(The Lord Somerhill.)
  THE MAEQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he would confine his answer to the history of the case, without following the noble Marquess into somewhat abstract arguments. In 1815 a Convention was concluded between this country and France, by which the latter created Rentes representing 3,500,000f. per annum, for the purpose of indemnifying British subjects who had suffered confiscation of property during the Revolution. In 1818 France created a further fund of 3,000,000f. for the same object. Out of these sums all sufferers were compensated who, in the first instance, established their claims before a joint Commission, and latterly before an English Commission. It was impossible that, as the noble Marquess had stated, the claims of the Irish College were not considered. All then existing claims were considered; a sort of rough average was made, and a round sum was claimed.

  389
  After this had been granted each case had to be decided, and the claim of the Irish College was brought forward and rejected. The noble Marquess was also incorrect in stating that the British Government were still in possession of part of this sum. In 1826, 700,000f. remained unaccounted for, which might have been appropriated by the Government; but they did not take advantage of the power they possessed under the 59 Geo. III.; and this residue remained subject to any claims omitted or made too late, till in 1845 Dr. Phillimore, the then sole surviving Commissioner, reported that the whole sum had been expended. Not a single penny of these Rentes, therefore, remained in the hands of the Government. He thought it was almost a pity that a matter decided by the Commissioners, and again by the Privy Council, should have been reopened. The Master of the Bolls in 1832 emphatically adhered to the judgment of Lord Gilford in the case of Douay College, and this, he should have thought, disposed of the case. Sir John Leach deemed himself bound by that analogous case.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICAEDEmaintained that Sir John Leach was in error in doing so.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the Master of the Rolls, in giving judgment, gave two reasons—one that the Colleges were opposed to English law, which he (THE MARQUESS of Lansdowne) regarded as a questionable reason, on account of the material difference between English and Irish law; the other that they were French establishments, having been founded by the authority of the King of France. He held himself, therefore, precluded by the Douay judgment from any further consideration of the matter. Now, after this conclusive decision there was no reason for re-opening the subject; but there was no objection to produce the Papers moved for.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEremarked that the English Colleges were affiliated to French institutions, and ceased to exist at the Revolution, whereas; the Irish College was always an independent one, and continued in existence.
  Motion agreed to.

NATURALIZATION BILL.

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that the Amendments made by the Commons in the Bill, as it was sent down by their Lordships, were only four, to which he hoped their Lordships would have no difficulty in agreeing. In Clause 2, enabling aliens to hold property, the Commons had struck out the proviso, empowering the Queen in Council to suspend its operation with regard to the enjoyment of property by aliens, subjects of any State at war with Her Majesty, during the continuance of such hostilities. This proviso appeared to him, when inserted, scarcely necessary, since, during a time of warfare, there would be ample power to deal with the subjects of an enemy who had settled or held property in this country. The aim of the Bill—though, as he had explained, it could not be thoroughly carried out—was to enable any person with a double allegiance to elect which country he would be a subject of. The 4th clause accordingly provided that any person who, by being born within the British dominions, became a British subject, but who also became at his birth under the law of any foreign State a subject thereof, might, if of full age and not subject to any disability, make a declaration of alienage, and cease to be a British subject. Now, the Commons had added the converse proposition—that a person born out of Her Majesty's dominions who by reason of parentage was a British subject, should, in like manner, be able to make a declaration of alienage and cease to be a British subject. This he thought an improvement, for it made, the position of both countries a reciprocal one. The term of three years' residence adopted by their Lordships as a qualification for naturalization had been extended by the Commons to five years—which was the period required in Prussia, and he believed at present in the United States. Considering that naturalization would confer the full privileges of citizenship, including a seat in Parliament and membership of the Privy Council, their Lordships, he trusted, would not be indisposed to assent to this. The Commons had also added a money

  391
  clause, enabling the Home Secretary to fix the fees payable on certificates and declarations, which could not properly have been inserted by their Lordships. He moved that the Commons' Amendments be agreed to.
  LORD WESTBURYexpressed a doubt whether the Government would have sufficient power over the subjects of a State at war with us, in the absence of the proviso which the Commons had struck out. The 4th clause having originated with himself, he should wish it to be good English; but the provision added by the Commons spoke of a person as "born of a father." Now, it was quite right to speak of a man as born of a woman, or born to a father, but "born of a father" was a singular expression, which he had not previously met with, even in the proceedings of a Reformed Parliament. It expressed, indeed, a thing physically impossible. He would propose an Amendment, making it read "any person born out of Her Majesty's dominions, the child of a father."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLreminded the noble and learned Lord that it was not uncommon, and, he believed, not incorrect to say—"born of English parents," which, according to his contention, would be as bad English as the expression used in the Bill.
  LORD WESTBURYremarked that the phrase "English parents" included the mother.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONappealed to his noble and learned Friend not to press his Amendment, unless he attached great importance to the distinction between father and mother. It was important that the Bill should become law as early as possible, as it would be the basis of a treaty giving effect to the Protocol signed by Lord Stanley and Mr. Reverdy Johnson. If passed tonight it could not receive the Royal Assent before Thursday, which would leave Friday for him to negotiate with Mr. Motley.
  LORD WESTBURYupon this withdrew his Amendment.
  Commons' Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.