Sitting of 15 August 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) [No. 400].
Resolutions in Committee—NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1879–80.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Leases for Schools (Ireland) * [252].
Second Reading—Royal University of Ireland [247]; Pollen Fishing (Ireland) [248].
Referred to Select Committee—Solent Navigation [207].
Third Reading—East Indian Railway (Redemption of Annuities)* [244]; Consolidated Fund (No. 4)*, and passed, with a new Title. Withdrawn—Married Women's Property (re-comm.)* [106].

QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—PHŒNIX PARK.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, By whose authority intakes are made in the Phoenix Park to the exclusion of the public; and, if he will state the name and number of the clubs or institutions for which enclosures and ground have been granted, the dates at which the permission was granted, and the acreage from which the public are now shut out in each case?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, as this Question relates to the Board of Works, I have to answer it on behalf of the Treasury. Intakes in the Phoenix Park are made by the authority of the Lord Lieutenant and Treasury. The clubs for which inclosures have been granted are the "Phoenix," the "Civil Service," and the "Garrison" cricket clubs, at the respective dates of 1837, 1863, and 1877; and about 13 acres altogether are inclosed for them. Some land has also been set aside this year as a cricket ground for working men; this is not inclosed, but the public are requested by notice not to injure it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—CONDUCT OF SOLDIERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the following paragraph from the "Limerick Reporter":—

  1909
  "In this city on Saturday evening, July 30th, a quarrel arose between some soldiers, and one of them, Private Ratcliff, of the 9th Regiment, lost his cap. He said he should have a headdress, and rushing at Fathers Hammersley and O'Flaherty, of the Dominican Order, who were walking down Henry Street, he knocked the hat off the head of the latter clergyman and kicked it about;"
  and, if he can state how the soldier has been dealt with?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member I have to state that I have inquired into the facts of the case. It appears that two soldiers of the Norfolk Regiment were taking a third, who was not sober, to barracks. They took his cap and stick from him, on which he went up to two Roman Catholic priests who were passing and snatched Father O'Flaherty's hat off. On this he was set upon by some bystanders, and with difficulty rescued by the two priests. The commanding officer at once wrote to Father O'Flaherty expressing his regret, and that gentleman called the next day at the barracks and requested that the man might be let off, saying that he thought the man intended no insult to his sacred office, and that in a drunken freak he would have taken anybody's hat. The commanding officer very properly declined to let the man off, and punished him with fine and imprisonment.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to a riot which occurred between the military and the people in New Ross, on the evening of Monday August 8th; whether he has inquired into the origin of the disturbance; whether it is true, as stated in the "Standard" of August 9th, that it arose in consequence of a number of soldiers publicly insulting the Pope in the streets of New Ross; and, what steps he has taken in the matter?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member I have to state that I find that two men in a public-house in New Ross were, on the 8th instant, attacked by a mob of roughs, who stoned them through the windows and beat them with the publican's bottles. They were knocked down, badly kicked, and. with difficulty rescued. Several of the mob are about to be prosecuted, and I would, therefore, rather say no more on the subject at present, except that, according to the report of the command-
  1910
  ing officer, the men gave no provocation. Two other men on their way home to barracks were also set upon and beaten. With respect to the charge of publicly insulting the Pope, I can only say that when I read the hon. Member's Question, I directed special inquiries to be made, and that the commanding officer assures me that he can find no trace of the supposed occurrence, or even of such a charge having been made before the attack on the soldiers. If they were guilty of it they would have committed not only a military, but also an ecclesiastical offence, as they are all four Roman Catholics.

  POST OFFICE—WAGES OF LETTER CARRIERS (IRELAND).
  MR. DAWSONasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will raise the wages of the letter-carriers in Ireland to the same standard as that which exists in England for corresponding duties?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that in consequence of memorials he had received not only from Ireland, but from all parts of the country, the whole question of the remuneration of letter-carriers was under careful consideration, and that until a general decision had been arrived at he was not prepared to give any promise on the subject.

  STATE OF IRELAND—PROCESS SERVING, CO. GALWAY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has seen the statement that a bailiff, with a force of over one hundred police, under command of a resident magistrate and a sub-inspector, assembled at Ballinamore Bridge, county Galway, on Monday last, for the purpose of serving writs for rent for a landlord named Synnott; if it is true that no writs were served, as no such landlord has an estate in county Galway; and, what was the expense of the expedition?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the facts appeared to be correctly stated in the Question, except that 60, and not 100 police, were employed. The cost of the expedition was £21 19 s. l0 d. The police were endeavouring to find out who the solicitor in the case was.
  MR. BIGGARasked whether the whole thing was not a hoax upon the authorities?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: That is exactly what we do not know yet, and what we are endeavouring to find out.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877—SUPERANNUATION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN AT CARRICK ON SHANNON GAOL.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, under the Prisons Act of 1877, the Reverend Thomas Fitzgerald, Roman Catholic chaplain for seventeen years of Carrick on Shannon Gaol, was entitled to a superannuation allowance of two-thirds of his salary as chaplain, or a sum of £26 13 s. 4d., and whether, as a matter of fact, he has only been granted £5 by the grand jury of the county Leitrim; whether this sum is proportionate to the superannuation granted to other prison officials; and, whether the Government will take any steps to remedy the grievance?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the facts were correctly stated; but the matter was one which rested with the Grand Jury, and the Government had no power of interference. If the Grand Jury wished to charge the county with a larger pension, the Treasury would, no doubt, entertain any recommendation they chose to make. He found that augmented pensions were awarded to two other officials, in one case in consideration of long and faithful service of 17 years and eight months; and in the other, in consequence of the officer having served 13 years and 10 months, and having been disabled in the discharge of his duty.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND).
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Postmaster General, If it is a fact that daily postal communication has recently been established between Buckode, county Leitrim, and other parts of the said county; and, if it is likewise a fact that a far greater correspondence passes annually through the Post Office at Glenade, county Leitrim, and, if such is the case, if he will explain why the repeated request of the inhabitants of Glenade to have a daily postal commu-
  1912
  nication to other parts of the county Leitrim has not been granted?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that arrangements had been made for daily postal communication in the districts in question.

  STATE OF IRELAND—MAIMING OF CATTLE IN CO. KILKENNY.
  MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Report appearing in the "New Ross Standard" newspaper of a Land League meeting held in Innistrogue, in the county Kilkenny, and presided over by the Rev. John Lynagh, C.C., whereby it appears that Mr. Henry Miller and Patrick White, of that locality, had been arrested under the Coercion Act for an alleged "maiming of cattle;" that, subsequently thereto, a yearling bull, the sole subject-matter of the alleged injury, was examined by a competent veterinary surgeon, viz. Mr. A. S. Jones, M. R. C. V. S., who has given his opinion, as per formal certificate furnished, that the alleged injury was not caused, as set forth in the informations, by any sharp instrument, but most probably was the result of an accident; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will have these arrests reconsidered, and the parties, respectable men, discharged from prison?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had seen the report referred to. He found that the examination of the veterinary surgeon was made after a period of three weeks from the date of the offence. He did not consider that the report would lead them to make any difference in dealing with the case.

  BOROUGH OF GALWAY (IRELAND)— THE FREEMAN'S ROLL.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, When the Keeper of the Freeman's Boll in the Borough of Galway last held a court for the admission of Freemen; and, whether any notice of holding such a court has been given by the recently appointed holder of the office?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in reply, said, the Keeper last held a Court for the admission of Freemen in January, 1876. The present Keeper proposed holding a Court on the first Thursday of next month.

  CHELSEA HOSPITAL—BURIALS.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that all pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, whether they be Wesleyans, Presbyterians, or other Nonconformists, Roman Catholics or Episcopalians, are, when they die in the hospital, buried according to the rights of the Church of England; and, whether, if it be the case, he will take steps to secure henceforth for pensioners the right of burial according to the forms of their own religious denominations, as is the case in the Army?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I believe that some misunderstanding on the subject of the Burial Service over Presbyterian pensioners at Chelsea Hospital has arisen between the Commissioners and the gentleman who is doing temporary duty for the Presbyterian chaplain on leave. On the return of the latter, I will look into the matter; and, no doubt, the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital will act on my advice. I have, as my hon. Friend probably knows, no official control over them.

  CHARITABLE TRUSTS—BURKSTONE- LE-WILLOWS CHARITIES.
  MR. BURTasked the Vice President of the Council, If he can state whether it is a fact that in February last the Charity Commissioners were asked for a copy of the balance sheet of the Burk-stone-le-Willows (Lincolnshire) Charities; that the Commissioners replied that no balance sheet had been received for many years, though application had been made to the clergyman for one; that no balance sheet can be obtained, from the Charity Commissioners, or from anyone else; and, if the facts be correctly stated, whether he can compel obedience to the Law, which makes it imperative that these returns shall be published annually?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, no accounts of the Charities in this parish having been received at the office of the Charity Commissioners for several years, they caused an application to be made for them to the rector and churchwardens on the 26th of February last. Accounts for the years 1876, 1877, 1878, and 1879 were received on the 21st of March, 1881, but, being imperfect, were returned for the purpose of amendment.
  1914
  They have not since been received back; but the application for them has been renewed, and their production will be required by the Charity Commissioners.

  CRIME (ENGLAND AND WALES)—RETURN OF ASSAULTS WITH VIOLENCE.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will cause to be prepared and lay upon the Table, early next Session, a Return, showing, for the years 1880 and 1881, the number and description of assaults with violence in England and Wales, and the punishment awarded in each case?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he thought the hon. Member would find what he wanted in the judicial statistics, where assaults were classified.

  IRELAND—REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c, BELFAST.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be true that the registration of births, deaths, and marriages, in the districts over which Dr. Martin and Dr. Torrens are appointed registrars in the electoral division of Belfast, has been, for the past five or six years, and at present continues to be, conducted by Robert Humphrey, publican, of 41, Grosvenor Street, Belfast, who is ineligible by Law from holding the office of deputy registrar, he being a person engaged in the retailing of wines, spirits, and beer; if it be true that this disqualification has been made known to Dr. Martin, Dr. Torrens, and Mr. Boyce, Superintendent of the Belfast Union Registrations, and that they, or neither of them, have taken any steps to discontinue these illegal registrations; if it be true that two-thirds of the registrations are recorded in the public-house, of which Humphrey is the owner, and in which he resides; if it be correct that the said public-house is outside either of the districts for which Humphrey is appointed deputy registrar, thereby forming not only a source of inconvenience but of absolute illegality, and in every respect at variance with the rules laid down for the guidance of registrars of births, deaths, and marriages; if it be true that, when Inspector Mitchell required the books for checking

  1915
  purposes, they were found to contain a large number of incomplete entries; if it be true that a report of this circumstance was made by Inspector Mitchell without any subsequent action being taken thereon; if it be true that the Registrar General has been made acquainted with Humphrey's legal disqualification to act as deputy registrar; if it be true that the Registrar General was personally interviewed by Humphrey on the subject, when he (the Registrar General) consented to give him three months to sell his public-house, or otherwise to forfeit the office of deputy registrar; if it be true that, although this alleged compact was entered into more than twelve months ago, the public-house not having been yet sold, Humphrey still remains in office; if, upon the whole of these serious charges, he is prepared, on behalf of the Executive Government, to institute a rigid inquiry into the conduct of the said several officials; is he able to say how far the registrations effected by Humphrey are legal; if he will not consider it necessary to have fresh legislation on the subject in order to legalise what has been illegally executed; is it a fact that the public-house of Robert Humphrey is carried on in the name of Rachel Kennedy, being the name of his wife before she was married to Humphrey; and, whether it is true that he requires a fee varying in amount in accordance with the condition of the parties on the occasion of the registration of marriages?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he would answer the hon. Member's 14 Questions together. On inquiry, he found that Robert Humphrey held the office of Deputy Registrar of the two districts referred to in the Question. In 1875, he married a widow who held a spirit licence. That licence, even if held by him (Humphrey), would not constitute a legal disability in reference to the office of registrar; but it was contrary to the regulations. Up to May, 1880, the fact of his marriage was unknown to the proper officials; but, in consequence of a letter addressed to the Registrar General, inquiries were made, and the fact of his marriage ascertained. Directions were, therefore, given to remove Humphrey from office. However, after having had a personal interview with the Registrar General, he was allowed to continue in office on his under-
  1916
  taking to dispose of his wife's licence within a month. He obtained a transfer of the licence on the 28th June, which he exhibited to the Registrar General; but it now appeared that on the 22nd December last, the Recorder refused the transfer, which fact was not reported to the Registrar General. Having now ascertained this fact the Registrar General had given orders for the immediate removal of Humphrey from office. Courts for the purpose of registration were held within the bounds of the districts, and though, in 1878, incomplete entries were discovered on the part of Humphrey, their legality was not affected by the fact that his wife held a spirit licence.

  INDIA—THE NIZAM.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for India, If he will cause a selection of Papers for a long series of years connected with the Government of the Nizam to be laid before Parliament, in order that the real state of the relations of that State with the Government of India may be made known, and that the animadversions on the honour and character of the Indian Government and of Indian officers may be cleared away, or substantiated by the publication of these official documents? He had put the Question on the Paper, because he believed the time had come when the Government of India ought no longer to maintain silence on this matter. He hoped that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India would be able to give a satisfactory reply regarding these proceedings.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, that as these Papers would take some time to get ready, he should like to know whether the Secretary of State or the Indian Government had the slightest suspicion that any of these allegations could be verified?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that with regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Guild-ford (Mr. Onslow) he could not add anything to the statement he made on Thursday last. In reply to a Question which his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) put to him on Thursday without Notice, he said that he felt certain that the greater part of these Papers were of so confidential a character that it would be absolutely impossible, con-

  1917
  sistently with the public interest, to lay them on the Table. Further examination of them had convinced him that that was the case, and that although it was quite possible to procure some of them, the great bulk of the Papers, and these the most important, could not possibly be produced. It was, however, possible that the Government of India, or the late Resident at Hyderabad, might think it necessary to make some statement with reference to the animadversions referred to. If any such statement should be made, supported by the Correspondence, he should, of course, consider whether these should be laid on the Table. He could not give any further reply without communication with the Government of India.

  PERU—REPORTED ROBBERY OF JEWELLERY AND MONEY FROM THE BRITISH VICE CONSULATE AT LIMA.
  MR. ALEXANDER M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a reported robbery of jewellery and money deposited at the British Vice Consulate at Lima for safety on the approach of the Chilians; and, what is the nature of the information on this subject which Her Majesty's Government have received; and, if the report be true, whether a searching inquiry into the matter will be made?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; the incident has not been reported to the Foreign Office.

  THE CAPE GOVERNMENT—PETITION OF RIGHT.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If the Law Officers have yet given an opinion as to a Colonial Government being a Corporation that cannot be sued except by petition of right, and as to whether that remedy is excluded in the case of the Cape Government; and, if they have confirmed that opinion, whether Her Majesty's Government have any steps in contemplation to put an end to a state of matters so unsatisfactory?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the case referred to in previous answers in this House as being the subject of an appeal before the Privy Council has now been decided; but the decision does not touch
  1918
  the question whether the Cape Government can be sued by Petition of Right in the Courts of the Cape Colony. The matter is one of considerable delicacy. It is proposed to address a despatch to the Governor of the Colony to inquire whether, in the opinion of the Colonial authorities, the Cape Government can be sued by Petition of Right in the Courts of the Colony; and, if not, to suggest the propriety of taking steps with a view of supplying an apparent deficiency.

  ARMY—THE VETERINARY DEPARTMENT —PROMOTION.
  MR. GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the rule regulating the promotion of officers in the Veterinary Department of the Army; and, whether promotion is habitually given according to seniority or otherwise?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the Regulation governing the promotion of veterinary surgeons is in these words—
  "Promotion shall be solely by selection on the ground of ability and merit, due consideration being given, however, to length of efficient service."
  In the case of equal merit, preference is given to length of service.

  THE IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSIONERS —TORY ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. LEAasked the President of the Board of Trade, The reason of the delay in the improvement to the lighting of Tory Island Lighthouse by the use of gas as recommended by the Irish Lights Commissioners; and, whether he would endeavour that the new light on Tory Island should be displayed before winter?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that he had applied to the Irish Lights Commissioners, and had been informed that the delay was caused by the number of other works having a prior claim, with which the time of the engineer of the Commissioners was fully occupied. For instance, a great deal of time had been occupied in the erection of a fog signal. On the Commissioner's engineer being free from other important works, he would take in hand the plans and specifications for Tory Island; but, having regard to the lateness of the season, and the difficulty of access to

  1919
  the Island, the Commissioners would not be prepared to undertake any works at this lighthouse before the ensuing Spring.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—EXTENSION OF THE NEW CODE TO SCOTLAND.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Vice President of the Council, If he will extend the benefits of the new Code to Scotland not later than next year?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, there are considerable differences between the Education Codes of England and Scotland, arising, to some extent, out of the difference in the Education Acts of the two countries. We proposed to ourselves to deal with the English Code first, and later on to apply the same principles to Scotland. If, however, there should be evidenced a general desire that the Scotch Code should be dealt with at the same time and on the same lines as the English Code, we shall be prepared to meet the wishes of the Scotch educational authorities in the matter.

  EGYPT—THE MILITARY FORCE.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in view of the continued insubordination in the Egyptian Army, and of its now wholly unnecessary numerical strength, Her Majesty's Government has considered the expediency of advising the Khedive to disband that force and replace it by a simple gendarmerie, sufficient for all the mere police wants of the Country?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government believed the Khedive and his Advisers were fully alive to the importance of the maintenance of discipline, and the advisability of not burdening the Egyptian finances by keeping up any larger force than was required for the preservation of order in than county.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he had got nothing that amounted to an answer. The question was urgent, and he would repeat it on another day—perhaps tomorrow.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that as the hon. Member pressed the Question, he was obliged to make a reply which he had not made since his holding
  1920
  the Office he at present held—namely, that the gravity of the circumstances which lay behind one part of the Question forbade his making any further answer than he had done.

  ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT—RETIRED PAY.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is a fact that some of the oldest and most experienced officers serving in the Army Pay Department, having some forty years' service or more, and holding the vested interests of purchase combatant commissions, the value of which they have not been allowed like some other paymasters to realise, will be compulsorily retired within the next eighteen months on £400 a-year, losing use and interest of their combatant commission money, whereas other paymasters who have either sold their combatant commissions or hold no vested interests, never having served as combatants, can, after thirty years' service only, retire on £450 and £400 a-year, with higher rank and pension to widow than the former; and, whether it is intended to let these old officers receive their regulation and over-regulation money on retirement, or accord them some increased retirement above other paymasters, in accordance with the precedent established in the grant of retired pay and gratuities to combatant officers, under the Royal Warrant of 21st June 1881, section 2?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the Question of the hon. and gallant Member appears to be based on the supposition that the addition of £50 to the retired pay of certain combatant officers is given because of their purchase rights. This is not so; and there is, therefore, no analogy whatever between their case and that of the combatant officers who elected to become paymasters. As a matter of fact, I have improved the scale of pensions which I found in force for the Pay Department; and I see no reason for any further change in the arrangement for their retirement.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)— MR. HONE.
  VISCOUNT CRICHTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that great dissatisfaction exists in Ireland at the narrow

  1921
  and limited nature of the inquiry made into the circumstances attending the death by poisoning of Mr. Hone in Limerick; and, whether he will cause steps to be taken to have a further and more searching investigation set on foot?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in reply, said, his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had given Notice of a Question to him on the same subject, and, therefore, in reply both to the Question of the noble Viscount and that of his right hon. and learned Friend, he had to say that he had called for a Re-port into the circumstances attending the unhappy occurrence referred to. Until he had received the Report in question he could not say what course would be taken.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any statement on the Irish National Education system of a similar character to that of the Vice President of the Council on the English and Scotch systems will be made to the House; and, whether the similar aid to that given to voluntary denominational schools in England and Scotland will be extended to Ireland where such schemes are very numerous, highly approved of by the people and recommended for aid by the Royal Commission on Primary Education which reported to Her Majesty in 1870?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he should be glad, when he brought on the Irish Education Estimates, to answer any Question on the subject; but he could not promise that a statement should be made corresponding to that made by his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella). He thought, however, he could show in debate that aid was given as in England, and to a larger extent.

  ARCTIC EXPLORATION—THE NORTH POLE—COMMANDER CHEYNE'S EXPEDITION.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, consi-
  1922
  dering the loading part England has hitherto taken in Polar research, and the active energy now displayed by other maritime nations, the Admiralty are prepared to assist in any way the persevering efforts made by Commander Cheyne to organise another attempt to reach the North Pole, especially as the Premier of Canada, Sir John Macdonald, has expressed himself ready to co-operate if the Home Government will support Commander Cheyne's proposed attempt to reach the Pole?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, towards the close of 1880 a Committee, which had been formed to advance Commander Cheyne's project of Polar research, applied to the President and Council of the Royal Geographical Society for countenance and assistance. The details of the scheme were considered, and the reply expressed regret—
  "That the scheme, as explained by the statement, did not commend itself to the Council, nor, even were it feasible, did the means proposed to be adopted for encountering the great dangers and difficulties necessarily attendant upon such an enterprise appear sufficient."
  Naturally, the Admiralty are much influenced in such a matter by the opinion of the Geographical Society, and they see no reason to depart from the unfavourable opinion which they have, in concurrence with the Geographical Society, formed of Commander Cheyne's proposals with regard to Arctic exploration.

  INDIA—THE PAUMBAN PASS.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for India, If he will state what progress has been made in the works for deepening and improving the Paumban Pass, and what appropriation will be made for these works in the current financial year?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, his attention had not been called to this subject until the Question of the right hon. and gallant Member appeared on the Paper. He found that no Report had been received at the India Office as to the progress of the works referred to since 1873. He would take care that information on the subject asked for should be communicated at once. He could not find any appropriation made for the works in the current Estimates.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—SALARIES OF IRISH SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  MR. BARRYasked the Postmaster General, Whether he intends taking any steps to increase the salaries of Irish Sub-Postmasters (whose income varies from twopence to sixpence per day); how many memorials he has received, in reference thereto; whether the hours of business might not be reduced to something less than twelve hours, as at present; and, whether it be unlawful for Irish Sub-Postmasters to memorial for redress of grievance, as well as any other class of Her Majesty's subjects?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, there was no difference whatever in the position of sub-postmasters in Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom. In addition to their pay, they received a commission on stamps, on registered letters, and on the number of savings bank and money-order transactions. It must be remembered that sub-postmasters did not devote the whole of their time to Post Office work. They, as a rule, had their business to attend to. It was in no respect illegal for Irish sub-postmasters to memorialize for redress of grievances.

  WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE —THE COLCLOUGH STAMP FRAUDS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any inquiry would be granted into the Colclough stamp frauds; and, whether it would be conducted independently; and, if so, by whom?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, all the facts of the Colclough stamp frauds have been fully elicited in the long trial which has terminated in the conviction of Colclough. No further inquiry appears, therefore, to be necessary. The Board of Inland Revenue are taking every precaution to prevent the recurrence of similar frauds in the future.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the Estimate for the Department in which these frauds occurred had yet to be discussed?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH, in reply, said, that the salary for this official was included in the Inland Revenue Department Vote, which had been taken.

  LICENSING ACTS—TRANSFER OF A LICENCE.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the magistrates of Oxford did, on April 26th 1881, sanction the transfer of a beerhouse licence to Stephen Peedell, who, on the 10th of July 1880, was sentenced to four months' imprisonment for bribery committed at the last Oxford Parliamentary Election; and, if this be the ease, whether such crime, conviction, and sentence does not disqualify him from holding a licence for the sale of drink?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that, as to the second part of the Question, the disqualification which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had in his mind did not arise upon a conviction for misdemeanour, but on a conviction for felony; therefore, the action of the magistrates in granting the licence was not absolutely illegal. If, however, the hon. Member wished his (Sir William Harcourt's) opinion as to whether it was an exercise of wise discretion on the part of the magistrates to grant the licence to a man who had just come out of prison, he would say it was not. If he wanted to know what the view of Her Majesty's Government was on the connection between public-houses and electoral corruption, he would find it in the provision of the Bill introduced that Session by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF EDMUND GALLEY—COMPENSATION.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in conformity with the general feeling expressed by the House in the late Debate, Her Majesty's Government will award the same amount of Compensation to Edmund Galley as was awarded to Habron on a former occasion?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that, in accordance with the undertaking which he gave the other day, he had put himself in communication with the Treasury on this subject, and he hoped to be able to let the hon. Member know the result in a day or two.

  LAW AND POLICE—CRUELTY TO ANIMALS PREVENTION ACT— CRUELTY TO A DONKEY.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a case tried before Mr. Mansfield at the Liverpool Police Court on Monday last, in which a man named Mahony was convicted of having driven a four-pronged stable fork five or six times into the side of a donkey, the last time with such force that the prongs of the fork were so bent that it could not be withdrawn, and was, therefore, left in the animal's side all night; and, if the facts are correctly reported, he will express to the magistrate his condemnation of the sentence of three weeks' imprisonment with hard labour, for such atrocious barbarity?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had already more than once, in answer to Questions, stated it was not within his province to review the gradation of sentences, and if he might be allowed to say so, he did not think it was a function the House could undertake with any great advantage.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— MURDER OF DR. BARBER,
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the present position of the proceedings for the discovery and punishment of the murderers of Dr. Barber; and, what steps have been, or will be, taken to obtain compensation for his family whether the actual murderers are brought to justice or not?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, in reply to the first part of the right hon. Baronet's Question, I have to say that Sir Evelyn Wood telegraphed, on the 1lth instant, as follows:—
  "Two persons apprehended on the charge of murder of Dr. Barber; hut evidence conflicting and undecided. Harristnith Landdrost committed both prisoners for trial on the 14th of September, accepting bail—£5,000—but observed, except for the special circumstances, he should have dismissed the case."
  We have heard nothing since on the matter. In reply to the second part of the Question, I have to say that the Transvaal Government have agreed
  1926
  to become liable to a certain moderate amount of compensation to widows and orphans in cases like Barber's.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will any steps be taken to enforce it, and to ascertain the amount of compensation which ought to be paid to the family of Dr. Barber?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, there can be no doubt as to the payment of the amount for which the Transvaal Government is made liable. As to the distribution, that will depend on circumstances.

  FRANCE AND TUNIS (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a French Consul or Consul General has been appointed at Tunis in lieu of M. Roustan; and, whether M. Roustan is invested with any diplomatic or consular function, or is merely the Minister of the Bey of Tunis; also, whether French Diplomatic and Consular Agents claim jurisdiction over Tunisian subjects resident in Ottoman territory; and whether the Porte and other Governments having Diplomatic and Consular Agents in Turkey concur in such a claim?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, that the Government had received no official information as to the appointment of a French Consul at Tunis in lieu of M. Roustan or otherwise. Her Majesty's Government had pointed out to the French Government the inconvenience which was likely to arise from the double functions of M. Roustan; and from the manner in which their representations had been received they had reason to believe that a Consul would be appointed, if he was not now appointed. Her Majesty's Government were not informed as to the change of M. Roustan's functions. He had already substantially answered the latter Question, in reply to an hon. Member a few days ago. Papers had been laid before Parliament—Tripoli, No. 1, 1881—showing that the French Consular authorities in Ottoman territory had issued notices calling upon Tunisians to register themselves at the French Consulate. In a Parliamentary Paper recently issued—Tunis, No. 7, 1881, No. 44—would be

  1927
  found recorded the view taken by the Porte on this matter and other Papers; and the hon. Member would see what passed on the subject of the protection of Tunisians in Egypt, and at Paris between Lord Lyons and M. St. Hilaire. Her Majesty's Government could not undertake to say what view other Governments took on this matter.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL, CLAUSE 25 —PURCHASES.
  SIR WILLIAM PALLISERasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he would explain whether sub-section 3, Clause 25 of the Land Bill, confers power on the Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury, to grant a reduction of interest, upon the money due by a purchaser, in consideration of a prepayment, e.g., assuming the cost to the State of the money, inclusive of expenses, not to exceed 3¼ per cent.; and, whether the Commissioners would have power, with the consent of the Treasury, and in consideration of a pre-payment, to reduce the rate of interest to 3¼ per cent.?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in reply, said, that as he understood the Question, it was whether, under the section as it now stood, the Commissioners would have the power to make special terms with a purchaser as to the amount of interest to be paid for advances? He was of opinion they would. They would, in fact, have the power to deal on any terms that the Treasury might sanction.

  RUSSIA—CONDITION OF FOREIGN JEWS—EXPULSION OF MR. L. LEWI-SOHN, A NATURALIZED BRITISH SUBJECT.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that Mr. Lewisohn has been granted a new passport by the Foreign Office, and that such passport has been viséd with the words "Bon pour la Russié" by the Russian Consul General in London; whether Mr. Lewisohn, who is obliged to proceed immediately to Russia on urgent business, will be allowed, on the strength of such passport and visa, to stay there for such time as he may find necessary
  1928
  for the transaction of his business, and during his stay there be accorded the protection enjoyed by all other British subjects travelling in Russia; and, whether the Correspondence which has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia relative to Mr. Lewisohn's illegal expulsion from St. Petersburg will now be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, it was the case that Mr. Lewisohn had been granted a new passport which had been viséd by the Russian Consul General. Her Majesty's Government would, of course, continue to claim for all British subjects their Treaty rights. The question what were the rights of foreign Jewish subjects had been under discussion between Her Majesty's Government and the Russian Government, as it had long been the subject of correspondence between the Russian and the United States Governments. The Correspondence on the subject was not yet complete, but the first portion of it was put on the Table a week or two ago, and the remainder would be published as soon as complete.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS, in consequence of the answer of the hon. Baronet, said, that, being in hopes that the representations which had been made and which he trusted would be made to the Court of Russia on behalf of Mr. Lewisohn would have the effect of insuring to that gentleman the protection to which he was entitled, he would postpone the Motion of which he had given Notice on the subject until next Session.

  CONFISCATED ESTATES (IRELAND).
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will cause to be prepared and laid upon the Table of the House, a Return showing the number of the Confiscated Estates of £5,000 acres and over now held in Ireland by proprietors whose ancestors obtained the same from the English Government in the form which appears on the Notice Paper?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in reply, said, there would be great difficulty, if not impossibility, in complying with the request for the Return indicated. In the first place, the Government had no

  1929
  power to trace the title down from the remote period to the present day in order to see whether the present owner was the descendant of the first grantees. He had himself had considerable experience in tracing titles in Ireland, and there was hardly an estate which had not been the subject of repeated purchase, so that the present possessor was not the descendant of the original grantee. Besides, nearly all these Crown grants had been printed 50 years ago, and were accessible to everyone under the direction of the then Record Commissioners.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870—THE ROYAL COMMISSION —THE REPORT AND EVIDENCE.
  SIR WILLIAM PALLISERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Bessborough Commission, having received and considered the evidence of the Irish tenants, issued a circular inviting the Irish landlords to send in statements in reply; whether Her Majesty's Government, towards the close of last year, called upon the Commission to forward their Report with the least possible delay; whether the Commissioners framed and signed their Report without having considered the landlords' statements in reply; whether Her Majesty's Government were to a considerable extent guided, in framing the Land Bill, by that Report; whether they were aware, at the time, that that Report was based, as regards evidence, upon the ex parte and unrebutted statements of the Irish tenants; whether the mistaken assertion in the Report, that the landlords' replies were printed in the Appendix, confirmed the Government in the belief that those replies had been considered by the Commission; whether the landlords' evidence was published for the first time upwards of two months after the Report had been signed, and with the dates of the replies expunged therefrom; whether, owing to the suppression of those dates, Her Majesty's Government were ignorant that the landlords' replies had not been considered; whether the Land Bill had been practically settled before the mistake was discovered; and, whether, in consequence, the Land Bill, as well as the Report of the Bessborough Commission was based, as regards evidence, upon the ex parte
  1930
  and unrebutted evidence of the Irish tenants?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I will endeavour to answer the Question as far as the Government are concerned. In the first place, it is quite correct that the Government pressed the Bessborough Commission to forward their Report with the least possible delay. It is also true that that Report was published without certain replies of Irish landlords to evidence which was given before it. But as to the degree to which the Government was guided by the Report in framing the Land Bill, that is a matter of opinion, and everyone can form his own judgment on it by comparing the Report with the Land Bill. We were quite aware that, at the time when that Report was published, it did not contain the counter statements of the landlords; but those counter statements were received about March 10, and the Government had not at that time concluded the consideration of the Irish Land Bill. Perhaps I may here explain, as it is a matter in which interest is taken in the House, that of the 22 editions of the Land Bill to which reference has been made, by far the greater number were unknown to myself. They really signified a wise practice on the part of the draftsman, that whenever an alteration had been made, to put it in print with a view to a more close and accurate estimate of its effect. But I believe there were about four of those editions which went to the Cabinet. The consideration of the Land Bill was not finally concluded until some time after the replies of the Irish landlords had been received and considered. I ought also to say that the consideration of the Land Bill was commenced before the Report of the Richmond Commission was received, with the very important recommendation it contained; but that Commission also made its Report while the plans of the Government were under consideration.
  SIR WILLIAM PALLISERsaid, the right lion. Gentleman had not answered his Question, whether the Government were aware that the replies of the landlords had not been considered by the Commission?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Government had not received these replies at the time when the Government commenced consideration of the subject, but

  1931
  received them while the subject was under consideration. With regard to the Question as to when and how far the replies were considered by the Commission, that is a question which had better be put to the Commission itself.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL—THE LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  MR. MACDONALD: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask you, whether it is competent to any hon. Member to move the rejection of the Lords' Amendments as a whole at once, and so save the House the trouble of considering them again?
  MR. SPEAKER: On the Order of the Day being read for the Consideration of the Lords' Amendments, the hon. Member, if he thinks proper, may move that those Amendments be considered three months hence. The hon. Member is at liberty to do that; but I think it only right to inform him that, if the Motion were carried, it would involve the loss of the Land Bill.

  NAVY—THE POSITION OF NAVIGATING AND WARRANT OFFICERS.
  In reply to Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF,
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the Naval Lords of the Admiralty watched the fortunes of the old navigating officers, who would not suffer by the ultimate abolition of their service beyond the regret which that abolition naturally caused them. With regard to the warrant officers, the Admiralty were quite determined that that service should always be made sufficiently attractive to bring to it the best men in the Navy.

  THE PATRIOTIC FUND—MR. HAMILTON.
  In reply to Sir HENRY HOLLAND,
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had hoard, to his regret, though not officially, that Mr. Hamilton, the Accountant General of the Admiralty, had ceased to be a member, not of the Commission, but of the Committee which was appointed by the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund. When the Bill now before Parliament received the Royal Assent the Government would then consider the question of the appointment of another Commissioner.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS REASONS AND AMENDMENTS.
    Order for Consideration of Lords Reasons and Amendments read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Reasons and Amendments be now considered."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to ask the Prime Minister whether, considering that the House had already once considered the Amendments, he proposed, before dealing with the Amendments seriatim, to make any general statement to the House as to the course which he recommended the House to take with reference to the consideration or rejection of the Amendments?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we have endeavoured to weigh with care the question to which the hon. Member has just referred, and indeed we did weigh it with care on a former occasion, when first the Amendments came back from the House of Lords, and we came to the same conclusion on both occasions. The main reason for that decision is this—that it would be unsatisfactory were I to make a selection from these Amendments of what I might think most material, for I might convey a very untrue impression by leaving out Amendments which other hon. Gentlemen might deem equally material. On the other hand, if I were to endeavour to go through the whole of the Amendments and state the course to be taken by the Government upon each of them, I should, in the first place, a good deal bewilder the House by the intricacy of details, and likewise occupy a good deal of its time. I should not like to do that if it can be avoided. So we propose to take the Amendments seriatim upon their merits, and to ask the House patiently to accompany us through them in a task which, at any rate, is one of diminished scope and labour. The first Amendment of the Lords—
    MR. SPEAKER: The Motion is, that the Lords' Reasons and Amendments be now considered.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, before that Motion was put to the House, he

    1933
    wished to ask whether it was not a fact that in 1870, when the House was in the same position as at present—namely, considering the Lords' Amendments to the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill—the Prime Minister did not, at the request of Mr. Disraeli, make a general statement upon the Amendments before the House?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I think that is very likely so; but the Amendments which were in question between this House and the Lords in 1870 were by no means of the same character and of the same complexity as on the present occasion.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he supposed there was no use in an Irish Member putting further questions; but he must express his regret that the Prime Minister had not felt it within his power to make a statement. The conduct of the Government in this matter would tend to embarrass the action of those Irish Members who were particularly interested with the care of the tenants' interests, and would lead to the impression that the Liberal Party had preferred surrender to dissolution.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was sorry to trouble the House; but he and many others had not troubled the House at all on the Land Bill, and he did think it right, therefore, to say a very few words on the present occasion. They had been heretofore almost silent in connection with the passing of that important measure. They had been, in consequence, he might say, exposed to suspicion on the one side among their own Friends, and on the other to the taunts of their Opponents, because of the silent attitude they had assumed. They had been charged with treason on the one hand, and on the other they were told they were blind followers of the Government. They had not noticed these charges, and they had not noticed the taunts. They were willing to sit there, under those imputations, and give a silent and frank support to the Government in pressing on that great measure; but they did that, not out of any indifference to the Bill, not from indifference to the clauses it contained, but from the conviction that Her Majesty's Government had a most important, and most solemn task, he might say, before them, and that their best and first duty was to support frankly and cordially
    1934
    the Government, at the head of which was a Minister in whom they had entire confidence, in passing the measure which he had just now described. They had done so, and their labours, after a long time, had almost been set at naught, as it appeared to them, in "another place." They, the Representatives of the people, supporting the Government of that country, after a long series of discussions, had come to resolutions which had been set at naught by those who were not the Representatives of the people, and those who were not the Government of Her Majesty in that country. They felt deeply grieved at the issue—he did, at all events, for one—and he rather regretted, in accordance with what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell), that they had not at once, before entering on any part of that discussion, had a preliminary statement from Her Majesty's Government. They looked to Her Majesty's Government still pursuing the course that would uphold the main principles of the measure that they had so well brought to a conclusion, as far as they were concerned; and so long as they continued to do so he, for one, should give them his full and cordial and silent support, as he had hitherto done; but he did hope, and hoped most sincerely, that no material concession or change would be made in response to that irresponsible Body he had spoken of. If the Government did make such concessions—he was only speaking for himself, he could not speak for others, although he had been in communication with a large number of hon. Members—he did not think they would receive the cordial support which up to that time had been accorded to them from Radical Members below the Gangway.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that, in his opinion, the House had good reason to thank the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) for the remarks which had just fallen from him. He (Mr. Healy), on his part and that of his hon. Colleagues, however, felt bound to express his dissatisfaction with the course taken by the Government. That course inspired the Irish Members with a great amount of distrust. He and his Colleagues had found, upon all former occasions, that when the Government had taken a course of the kind which they were then taking, and compromises had been arrived at, the Irish tenant

    1935
    was always the sufferer. That was the course pursued in 1870, and it now appeared that the Prime Minister did not propose to make any statement. They, of course, could imagine why he did not. If the right hon. Gentleman had to make a statement satisfactory to the general body of the House, it would simply be that the House of Commons should send back the Bill to the House of Lords. The Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords' Amendments were in black and white, and the Government should simply insist upon retaining that disagreement. But the Government had chosen another course, in which might be plainly seen the germs and beginnings of surrender.
    MR. D. GRANTsaid, that he should think those who represented large constituencies would best fulfil their duties by stating their opinions in the situation where they now found themselves. He should feel it his duty, if any large concession were made in the Bill as it now stood, to vote against the Government. He was quite sure that those who, on the opposite side of the House, might be intending to urge Her Majesty's Government to surrender, were preparing for themselves a pitfall which they could not at the present moment realize. There were conditions underlying this question and this state of affairs which, if the matter were forced to an issue, would bring about consequences such as hon. Members little dreamt of. They would find that consequences would recoil upon themselves, which even those who might desire so to do would find it impossible to control.
    MR. ANDERSON: After some of the remarks made by some of the hon. Gentlemen on this question, I feel bound to say a few words, if possible, to deprecate the violent counsels that we have just heard. I do venture to hope that, whatever happens, the labour that has been expended upon this Bill will not be thrown away. The Bill is, to a large extent, a very good Bill; and if it were carried, even in its present form, it would be a most valuable measure for Ireland. It gives you your Court; you can start that Court immediately, and have it in operation; and, if you refuse, what better will you get and when? I do not wish to accept all the objections that the Lords take; but I say that it is essentially a case for compromise. The two Houses seem
    1936
    to have arrived tolerably near each other, and I do hope that the labour that has been given to the Bill will not have to be gone over again. If you want to fight the Lords—and I am quite as ready to fight them as anyone—it will be quite as easy to fight them upon a Supplementary Bill next Session as upon this one. What I would advise would be to press for all you can possibly get, but do not throw over the Bill. If you cannot get all you want, bring in a Supplementary Bill next Session, and fight upon that.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, as I have only answered the question of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) as to why I did not, upon this occasion, offer a few general observations upon the matter as a whole, perhaps the House will allow me to say one or two words upon what has fallen from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and the one or two other hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this very short discussion. Now, Sir, the principle which we have adopted on the present occasion is that which we likewise adopted on the former occasion. We have gone through the Amendments on their merits, and have endeavoured to consider them on their merits, one by one. I have heard the word "compromise" made use of. Now, that, I must say, is a word I should not wish to apply to our proceedings in the consideration of the merits of the Amendments, with an earnest desire to draw a distinction between real differences in principle, and cases where there may be some motive, some object to be served, not by us yet felt, yet fully understood, and yet not in itself illegitimate as involving any principle. This we consider to be a very important portion of our duty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford has stated that there should be but one satisfactory method of dealing with the subject, and that would be to make a general statement which should involve a universal negative on the Lords' Amendments. Well, Sir, I do not agree with that. I know not what it may be, whether it is parental instinct on the part of Her Majesty's Government, or whether it be an enlightened view of public policy; but, undoubtedly, I think there is in our minds a much greater desire to keep alive the present Bill, and to carry it

    1937
    into law, than appears to suggest itself to the mind of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman refers to the proceedings which were adopted in 1870, and, at the same time, when he says that he considers it an evil omen that the Prime Minister has foreborne to trouble the House with a general statement, he also says that in 1870, in like manner, we compromised the interests of the tenants by the concession we made to the House of Lords. But, at any rate, I think the hon. Member ought to infer, rather hopefully than unhopefully, from our forbearing to make a general statement on this occasion; because, in 1870, when, as he said, we compromised the interests of the tenant, we did commence the operation with a general statement. With regard to what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), it is not necessary for me to repeat the expressions of gratitude, which I ventured a few nights ago to lay before the House, with respect both to the amount and the nature of the support which has been afforded to the measure in various quarters of the House, especially on this side of the House, and which alone has enabled us to overcome the great difficulties presented by the subject and the circumstances of the case; but my hon. Friend has told us, with perfect frankness, that if we departed from the essential principles and structure of the Bill, we must expect him giving votes adverse to our own. I am not surprised at that declaration. It will not be any part of our duty to repeat the announcements made at a very early stage of these discussions with regard to the nature of the obligations incumbent upon us. I do not think it is the course most befitting either our own dignity, or the relations between the two Houses of Parliament, to indulge incessantly or repeatedly in declarations which, I think, once made, if they are believed, are sufficient. That is, perhaps, all that it is necessary for me to say on this occasion. I believe, upon the whole, the House, if it is satisfied with the general spirit in which we have endeavoured to conduct our part of the deliberations and of the decisions on this Bill, will be inclined, having trusted us thus far, to trust us to the end, and not to refuse to enter upon the detailed considerations of the Amendments to which we now respectfully ask the House.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Reasons and Amendments considered.
    Lords Amendments to Commons Amendment to Lords' Amendments in page 2, lines 5 and 6, read a second time.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, there are embraced in this paragraph two Amendments which probably I may be allowed to consider as one, in consequence of their entering into the same sentence, belonging to the same subject, and virtually forming a unity. The first is, that the Lords have struck out our words "substantially maintained," and have inserted "or acquired and have in the main been upheld." The other is that they have left out the word "and" and have inserted the word "or." Now, Sir, with regard to the first of these Amendments, we are not able to concur in it, and for this reason. It divides itself into two parts. The Amendment as it stands—"acquired and have in the main been upheld"—first directs us to the sense of the word "acquired." Well, Sir, the introduction of that word, it appears to us, would, by a strange process, introduce into the category of English-managed estates, estates or holdings which have never had the smallest pretension to that character, but which, notwithstanding, having passed into the hands of the landlord by the total extinction of the tenancy—as, for instance, upon an eviction—do correspond to the term that the landlord has acquired the improvements. For, in that case, undoubtedly, he has acquired them. But, at the same time, these are cases which in no manner enter into the spirit of the original proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), or in the steps the Government have taken to give effect to the spirit of that proposal. So also with regard to the words "in the main upheld." These are proposed to be substituted for the words "substantially maintained," on the ground that the words "substantially maintained" might be construed to exclude cases to which it is the apparent intention of both Houses that the clause should apply. Now, Sir, we are totally unaware of what these cases are; and, believing that we understand our own words, and believing that they give a just effect to the intentions

    1939
    of the House, we are very reluctant to agree to the admission of other words which we do not so well understand, and which we think that the Court would be apt to construe, from the very fact that they were introduced as an alternative to the words "substantially maintained," in a sense different to that which we understand and have fully expounded in this House, and which we think was generally recognized as reasonable in this House. Consequently, Sir, we do not agree to that Amendment. With regard, however, to the introduction of the word "or" in lieu of the word "and"—[A laugh]—though it excites hilarity, I am bound to say that the case was stated with perfect accuracy by the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), that in strictness the word" and "applies to one of the two alternatives "acquired and maintained," and the word "or" to the other; and when we come to that word we shall propose words to give effect to that portion of the Lords' Amendment, so far as it is embraced in the description of the noble Lord. I, therefore, propose, in the first instance, to disagree with the Lords' Amendments.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendments."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. GIBSON: Sir, the Prime Minister has very clearly given us the reasons why he asks the House to dissent from the Amendments which the Lords made in the present instance. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to acquiesce in the proposal of their Lordships, for the grounds upon which the other House stated that the Amendment was made were to the effect that the words "substantially maintained" would exclude many cases to which the clause was intended to apply. Those grounds are founded upon this reasoning, that many people who have English-managed estates would be unable to satisfy the requirements of the Court, and to show that every single improvement had been maintained by them, and therefore lose the benefits of the provision. The way in which it now stands is that the House of Lords, although they omitted the words "substantially maintained," have endeavoured, in another form, to present, in a mitigated extent, the ori-
    1940
    ginal idea of the House of Commons. I admit it is extremely difficult, once the element of substantial maintenance is retained in the Bill, to present it in any form which will not be open to a great deal of criticism. I have criticized it, and there will always be to the end of the chapter criticisms upon the idea intended. I myself would have been very glad if the Prime Minister had seen his way to agree to the drafting sent down from the House of Lords, because, as I believe, it would have carried out the declared intention of the Government, and would, to some extent, have met the objections which I took to the earlier drafting.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved to amend the Amendment by leaving out the words ("or acquired and have in the main been upheld") and insert in lieu thereof the following words:—("By the landlord or his predecessors in title, and have been substantially maintained"); and in the next line to leave out the word ("or") and insert the word ("and").
    Motion agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, further Amendment made by leaving out the words ("made or acquired").
    Lords Consequential Amendment in page 2, line 18.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law)moved to agree with the Lords' Amendment, explaining that the alteration was of an unimportant nature.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he should consider it a very prejudicial Amendment to the interests of the tenants, and one that should be resisted, if a landlord were to be allowed to claim in respect of improvements which were not made or acquired by him or his predecessors in title.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)admitted that the Amendments were becoming some-

    1941
    what difficult to follow, and pointed out that as it was required that all the improvements should be made by the landlord or his predecessor in title, it was quite clear that left nothing to be made by the tenant.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that although their Lordships appeared to have had no difficulty in dealing with the Amendment, they had returned it in such a muddled condition that no one could understand it at all.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment in page 2, line 28, disagreed to by the Commons, read a second time.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, this is an Amendment of a somewhat wider scope than the first one with which we have had to deal. Although not, after all, of a very wide scope, it has been the subject of very strong feeling and lively interest on both sides of the House, because each side has thought that considerations of justice were deeply involved in the particular view which they took. It is only fair that I should make this admission—that the House of Lords has, by a recent change in the form of their Amendment, greatly limited its effect as compared with the shape in which it left the Commons. Her Majesty's Government have considered the Amendment in its new form with very great care, entirely with the view of ascertaining what will meet the justice of the case; and I am bound to say that although I give very great credit to the House of Lords for the motives that have induced them to propose this new form of the Amendment, the alterations which they have made in it do not meet the objections in principle which lie against it. It has even, by a strange chance, probably increased the strength of some of those objections. I admit that there is one case, which some hon. Gentlemen have put hypothetically, and which, if it really existed, and was the subject of anxiety, would not fall within the scope of the observations I am about to make. I mean the case in which the landlord is supposed to have purchased the tenancy without a change of tenant. Where that case exists, I freely admit the observations I am about to make will not apply to that particular case; but the case the Government have before them is the
    1942
    ordinary case where the landlord purchases a tenancy upon a change of tenant. Now, Sir, I wish, without distinction of Parties, to put to the House this very commanding consideration, which, I think, does not admit of reply; and, I may say, I am glad to see the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) in his place, because no one has paid greater attention to the provisions of the Bill than he has done, and no one more thoroughly understands its principles than he does. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the Amendment, as it now stands, appears to throw overboard one of the main principles of the Bill. It throws overboard the case of three-fourths of Ireland. I will not speak of the usage, somewhat corresponding to the Ulster usage; but it throws overboard everything except the purchase of the tenant right in the case where the Ulster tenant right prevails, and it provides that the Court shall have a general authority, according to what it may think just, to award to the landlord upon the first sale of a tenancy, after the passing of this Act, such consideration in money out of the price realized by the sale of the tenancy as it may think fit and such as will recoup him for the amount he has expended in the purchase of the tenant right. Every care has been taken by the Lords to limit the amount of that claim; but their Amendment, of course, implies that the landlord has a legitimate claim upon that consideration money, and that is an admission which, after very careful consideration, we cannot bring ourselves to make. And the first and main reason for our objection is this. The purchasing Ulster landlord has placed himself, and has placed his incoming tenant, in the exact legal position of the landlord and tenant all over Ireland, and by law his relation to his tenant, after he has purchased his tenant right, is precisely that of the landlord in Ireland to his tenant where no tenant right ever prevailed, or, at least, was ever recognized. That being so, it seems to the Government to follow inevitably from this, that if the legal postion and relation of the Ulster landlord and the Ulster tenant is equal to those of landlord and tenant all over Ireland, the Government cannot consent to introduce a distinction to the prejudice of the Ulster tenant. It would be

    1943
    to the prejudice of the Ulster tenant, because the Amendment, as it stands, imposes upon the tenant who may sell his tenancy a liability that does not attach to the price of the tenancy in any other portion of Ireland. I frankly own we think that is a conclusive objection to the Amendment. There are certainly other objections—many other objections. For example, it is proposed to give to the Court a discretion in this matter without any indication of any sort whatever how it is to proceed, or without any guidance from previous practice in Ireland, or from the practice of neighbouring estates. It is not said whether the Court is to consider the price that the landlord may be paid, or the price that the tenant has to get; and we do not think it right to give to the Court this discretion without, at the same time, applying some standard or indication for its exercise. I said just now that other landlords purchased the tenant right, and the landlord and the tenant were placed in the same position as every other landlord and tenant all over Ireland legally; but actually the Ulster landlord is placed in a better position, for this reason, because he knows, and his tenant knows, that every improvement upon the farm up to the date of purchase of the tenant right belongs to him, and him alone; whereas the other landlords in Ireland have no such certainty as to their title to this or that improvement upon their farms. Then, Sir, it must always be borne in mind that when the Ulster landlord purchases the tenant right, the main thing he purchases is these very improvements, and these very improvements are there in his hand. They are not handed over to the tenant for him to sell and pocket the price. They are absolutely the property of the landlord; and by the 8th sub-section of the 1st clause of this Bill, the Government have carefully endeavoured, as they were bound in justice to do, to secure that they shall remain the property of the landlord, unapproachable by the tenant. It may be said that if the landlord, as is perhaps the case in certain instances, has purchased up the tenant right, and has made no addition to his rent, the then tenant has, up to the present time, had the benefit of improvements for which the landlord has paid, without being called upon to pay any rent in respect of it. That may be
    1944
    perfectly true, and so often as it is true it is unquestionable that the tenant has sat at a rent lower than fair rent. No doubt at all about it. But can we go back upon the rent? The Government think not. If we were to go back upon a rent lower than the fair rent, we should be compelled to go back in the case. But there is another inference that can be drawn, and which would be quite irresistible, and it is this—that if we are to go back upon cases where the tenant has sat at a rent lower than the fair rent, we must be prepared to go back upon cases where the tenant has sat at a rent higher than the fair rent; and the consequence of that investigation we were not prepared, nor would it be at all politic, to encounter. On those grounds, and with that understanding of the matter, I am compelled, while I admit the spirit in which the change was made, yet, in deference to what we think the reason in the case, to move to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. GIBSON: Sir, the Prime Minister said no more than was just when, in comparing the present Amendment with that which was previously sent down, he said that it was largely modified, and was confined to a very limited number of cases. Really, this Amendment seeks in the most moderate way, subject, as far as possible, to all the restrictions which justice could suggest, to meet what is a special case, and of course a case of not very wide operation over Ireland. There are a limited number of landlords who have purchased up their tenant right in Ulster, and a few other places in Ireland where an analogous custom prevails, and this provision merely seeks to give to the Court, not a power of paying back to those landlords the purchase money that they gave, but merely the power of considering all the circumstances. I should be glad if the Prime Minister saw his way to accept the Amendment in its present form, or if he would suggest Amendments upon it which would bring it into harmony with the requirements of the case. I do not think the Amendment would operate to the prejudice of a single tenant in Ireland—in Ulster

    1945
    or elsewhere—because it must be remembered that the tenant came into possession of his holding free from the obligations of every other tenant—namely, the purchase of his holding. The right hon. Gentleman said that the remedy of the landlords would be found elsewhere in the Act. That may conceivably be so; but there is not in the Bill a remedy which I think many landlords in Ireland would readily see. I do not think that even under this Act they would, in pursuit of a remedy, gladly raise their rents.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had listened with great pleasure to the remarkably clear statement of the Prime Minister, in which he stated his reasons for opposing the Amendment. It must be noticed, however, that the Amendment only affected the Province of Ulster, and it had been rumoured that that Province was to be favoured in the compromise which had been arrived at with regard to the Lords' Amendments; but he trusted that the Government would adopt a similarly firm attitude when they came to the other Amendments affecting the Province of Munster.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHOOTE: Sir, I only rise to say that my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) has fully expressed the objections which we still feel to the course proposed by the Government. We are not satisfied at all with the reasons which have been given by the Prime Minister; but I do not think it would be advisable to enter into a prolonged discussion of the matter. Still, while reserving our opinion, we do not think it desirable to put the House to the trouble of a division.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Consequential Amendments in page 5, lines 10 to 13.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he thought the Lords' Amendments reasonable ones, and he would ask the House to agree to them.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendments,"—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland,)—put, and agreed, to.
    Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment in Page 5, line 43.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLwished to point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that this was a distinct concession that would be highly valued by many Irish landlords. By the Common Law the right of killing game belonged to the occupier of the land, though the landlords, when they gave leases, usually reserved the right to themselves; but most Irish holdings were subject to no such reservation, and the Amendment, therefore, gave the landlords a right that would be much esteemed.
    MR. HEALYconsidered the Amendment ought not to be agreed with, and as the Government had made three concessions to their Lordships, he thought it was time there should be a division. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland could not contradict what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), and he (Mr. Healy) did not see why they should accept the Amendment, and so deprive the tenant of what was his by law. He, for one, was not prepared to give way on this point, and should certainly divide the House on the subject.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment in page 6, lines 3 and 4, as since amended by The Lords.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that the Lords had assigned the following as the Reason they would give for this Amendment:—
    "Because it is essential that there should he no doubt that, during the continuance of a statutory term, mines and minerals, coals, and coalpits, are the exclusive property of the land-lord, and that the tenant should have express notice thereof."
    He (the Attorney General for Ireland), however, thought it an insufficient reason, because nobody except their Lordships supposed these things were included in a holding under statutory conditions. However, they wished to have it in this fashion, and, as the clause had at length been so altered as to enact nothing inconsistent with the rights that had been recognized as belonging to the tenant, he consequently did not object to the Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. PARNELLasked, whether in a case where the tenant, under his contract of tenancy with his landlord, had a right to work a coal or other mine on the holding previously, the tenant would not be debarred from the right by the acceptance of the Amendment?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that if such a case were to arise, no doubt there might be such a difficulty as was just suggested by the hon. Member; but he never yet knew of a yearly tenant having a lease of a coal mine. However, there could be no objection to adding the following words:—
    "Subject to such rights as the tenant, before commencement of the said statutory term, was lawfully entitled to exercise."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, said Lords Amendment amended, by inserting after the word "coalpits" the following words:—
    "Subject to such rights in respect thereof as the tenant under the contract of tenancy subsisting immediately before the commencement of the statutory term was lawfully entitled to exercise."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 8,
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in consequence of the peculiar nature of the action they were now engaged in, it sometimes happened that a Motion was made for the disagreement with an Amendment when the intention was to meet it, and vice versâ, and that was one of the cases he now had before him. In the Bill, as amended by their Lordships, hon. Members would find the words "consequent upon an increase of rent" had been inserted. He should propose to strike out those words, and after that was done he should propose to insert in the blank thus created the words "save as hereinafter provided." The real question at issue was this—whether they were or were not to maintain the security of the tenant against resumption by the landlord, for what he might call landlord's purposes, during the first statutory term. They were distinctly of opinion that they must adhere to the
    1948
    character the House had given to that statutory term. He did not say that no sacrifice of the landlord was involved in imposing that condition on his interest, yet he was quite certain that the sacrifice of the landlord was altogether immaterial as compared with that belief that would go forth in Ireland were they to destroy the idea which he believed so justly prevailed in the minds of the people, that for a certain moderate term they would be free from the landlord resuming possession. On that ground he adhered substantially to the original intention of the Government. The form of the Motion would therefore be to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, with the intention of having it amended as he had proposed. Though apparently agreeing to the Lords' Amendment in form, they were in reality rejecting it.
    Motion made and Question, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said Amendment be amended by inserting, in page 6, line 7, after the word 'tenancy' the words 'save as hereinafter provided.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, as explained by the Prime Minister, the Amendment involved only a verbal change, and did not make any substantial variation at that point. The words of their Lordships, even if they remained as they were, were only introductory to a change made in a subsequent clause in a different form.
    MR. CALLANasked the meaning of the substituted words "hereinafter provided?" The omitted words, "consequent on an increase of rent," were clear and specific. He thought the change was more than verbal, and he was very suspicious when he found the right hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-Attorney General for Ireland in so amiable a mood with reference to this compromise. This compromise was injurious to the tenant and to the Bill. It was a compromise made in the fell spirit of Irish landlordism.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the substitution of these words did not make a particle of difference in the effect of the sub-section. They referred by anticipa-

    1949
    tion to the 3rd sub-section of Clause 7, which created the statutory term.
    MR. O'DONNELLasked whether they were to consider that the objection of the Lords to the form of words was of such a character that it could be met by a merely verbal Amendment?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, at this particular place that was the case.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he could not help feeling that this was a concession of words where they had refused to concede principles, merely for the purpose of pleasing the Lords and soothing the Marquess of Salisbury. It ought not to be made, for it should be recollected that the Government passed this section through Committee and on Report without permitting any alterations.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that, as he understood it, there were two kinds of tenancies, which might be called first-class and second-class tenancies. As the Bill now stood it was to the effect that during the continuance of a tenancy of the first class there should be certain rights. The House of Lords had proposed to strike out the words confining it to the first class, so as to make the provision applicable to both classes. The Government proposed to disagree with that, thinking it would destroy the Bill, and they proposed to do it in this way—that there should be certain rights in all cases, except those of the tenancies of the second class, which was precisely the same thing. On their side he and his Friends did not agree to the substance of that proposal, as they thought the Lords were right, and that no preference should be given to one class over another. Still, they would not take a division on the question.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was a matter of great importance that the power of resumption on the part of the landlord during the first term of 15 years should not be conceded, and the Government had no intention of conceding that point. They thought the words now proposed were really better words for their purpose than the words that originally existed, because they pointed to an after provision which was to be the exception which they thought they ought to maintain.
    MR. HEALYcomplained that Members could not get copies of the Bill, and, therefore, were unable to follow
    1950
    the discussion. This was miserable twopenny-half-penny economy.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the re-printing of the Bill was by order of the House of Lords.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 37, as since amended by The Lords.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the question of compensation for disturbance had receded into a position of much less importance under this Bill than it occupied under the Act of 1870. At the same time, the Amendments made in the disturbance scale by the Government, and subsequently by the House, were made after much consideration, and he saw no reason for departing from them. He therefore moved that the House disagree to the Lords' Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he would venture to say that this was a clause which would be very rarely appealed to, and why the Prime Minister should have so resolutely stuck to it all along, was one of those things which would puzzle posterity. His (Mr. Gibson's) views were that the scale should be struck out altogether, for it was one he could not understand, being both illogical and unnecessary, both root and branch; but what was now in dispute was a small matter, the Lords having only made two modifications on the figures of the scale, and he therefore could not understand the hostility of the Prime Minister to the proposal.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment in page 8, lines 15 and 16.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, this was a case where substantially there was a great disposition to arrive at an agreement upon this point, and the Government, though wishful to insert words to meet the general views, were prevented from doing so by the Forms of the House. He therefore moved, in point of form, to disagree with the Lords—that was to say, to retain their own words, but to add words equivalent to the Amendment

    1951
    of the Lords which would leave exactly the same breadth of choice on the whole. The words he proposed to add were—
    "Or having otherwise failed to come to an agreement with the tenant as to what is a fair rent for the holding."
    It was quite the same thing. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] But he must add in fairness that the words were founded on what was substantially the sense of the House of Commons.
    Motion made, and Question proposed; "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. HEALYsaid, it was very evident that their Lordships had been encouraged to make this change in the Bill owing to the action of the Government the other night. The Amendment practically conceded all that their Lordships wanted. The Bill treated the parties on equal terms, and it would go to Ireland not in the shape of a message of peace, but in the shape of a threatening letter. Whenever the Bill passed, there would not be a landlord in Ireland who could not write a threatening letter to every one of his tenantry to bring him into Court. As now arranged, that was an unfortunate and miserable Bill, and every tenant would be shaking in his shoes the moment he had a disagreement with his landlord. He denounced the change in the Bill. It was one of the most disadvantageous changes that had been made, and it would result in making the Land Court one of the most unpopular institutions in Ireland.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he should be very glad if he could recognize the vital nature of the change; it required the acute ability of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to discover it. So far as he could see, the Amendment made, practically, but little change in the position of the landlord. He and his Friends had all along contended that the landlord should be able to go into the Court unfettered by any restriction, and on equal terms with his tenants.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the change seemed to him to be calculated to improve the relations between landlord and tenant. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was quite mistaken as to its probable effect. Her Majesty's Government thought it was undesirable
    1952
    that if the landlord wished to obtain a fixity for the first 15 years, the only road by which he could get it should be by demanding an increase of rent. It would be better that it should come by trying to make a bargain with his tenant; and if he could not do so, then he could go into Court. It would be an advantage to the landlord that he should be able to get fixity for 15 years, without demanding an increase of rent. There was no obligation put on the tenant to say what he thought should be the reduction. The Government had always protested against that, because of the different circumstances in which the tenant was placed as compared with the landlord.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYobserved, that whether the proposal would be oppressive to the tenant or not depended entirely on the expense. If the Court was constituted as cheaply as it ought to be, there would be no oppression at all. Until lately the tenants had only asked for equal right of access to and advantage before the Court with the landlords. The Assistant Commissioners, if they were employed properly, would be arbitrators going through the country, and would prevent the necessity of formal proceedings before the Court.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was in error in his statement, that the tenants were content to be placed on an equal footing with the landlords in regard to access to the Court. The hon. Member had himself voted for a Bill introduced by the late Mr. Butt, which provided that the Court should be open only to the tenant; and when the matter was brought up at meetings of the farmers, and when his Bill was criticized in the House, Mr. Butt always pointed out that it was most desirable that the Court should not get a bad name in the minds of the tenants as being a Court to which they could be forcible brought by the landlord, but should be a kind of refuge to which the tenant could resort whenever he wished. Mr. Butt said the landlord could always bring the tenant into Court by means of a notice to quit, or by trying to increase the rent. The position of the two parties was entirely dissimilar. The landlord had a great many other remedies; he could recover his rent in a variety of ways, and could sell the tenants' interest;

    1953
    and he thought it most unfair that now, at the eleventh hour, an additional remedy should have been given to the landlord. They, by such a proceeding, laid the seeds for the future choking of the Court, and would make the Bill completely unworkable. The significance of that Amendment derived additional weight by the Amendment on the 57th clause, by which the Government gave the Court power to stay the sale of the tenant's interest for arrears of rent for three months until the judicial rent had been fixed. The landlord would now be able to drive his tenants into Court, and so to clog the Court that it would be perfectly impossible to have the judicial rent fixed in three months with the result that he could bring an action for, perhaps, six months' arrears, and issue a writ to sell out his tenant's interest. He regretted that the Government had altered the character of their Bill, as it would make the tenants look upon the Land Court with the greatest distrust, and lead them to associate it with the other Courts where the law was administered entirely in favour of the landlord, and where they never could get justice. It would also give the strongest possible leverage to the Land League, if they wished to keep the tenants from going into Court, as they probably would.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was very sorry that there was a great misapprehension apparently, and, through that misapprehension, a considerable mis-statement of fact, with regard to that Amendment. The fact was that there was not one single landlord in Ireland who would be enabled to go into the Court by the Amendment as now proposed who could not have gone into Court under the Bill as it originally stood. The difference was simply this—that, as the Bill previously stood, he would only get into Court by demanding an increase of rent. Well, was it desirable to put upon him that odious and invidious duty in a case where he did not want an increase of rent, but only to have it judicially fixed? He might want to concede a deduction, or to obtain judicial sanction of the present rent. But, as the Bill stood, he could not obtain that sanction without demanding from the tenant an increase which the tenant was unwilling to pay, and then the tenant had no option, in defending himself against that increase on the rent, but to go into
    1954
    Court. It seemed a much fairer thing both to the landlord and to the tenant that the landlord should be able to obtain this fixity if he liked without going through that invidious course, and making a demand which he might not think just or necessary, but because it was the only means of getting the rent fixed.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLbelieved there was a little more in the Amendment than the Prime Minister seemed to think. Still, he (Mr. C. Russell) thought its importance had been greatly exaggerated by hon. Members opposite. He would vote against the Amendment if it was pressed to a division; but he did not think the effect of it, if passed, would be very appreciable. He hardly thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland's expectation that landlords would apply this clause for the sake of reducing a rent and of giving a fixity of 15 years to a reduced rent was well founded. He had very little hope of that expectation being realized.
    MR. WARTONthought the Amendment, as now proposed, did not provide for one case that might easily occur. The landlord might wish to have a rent fixed, which the tenant was willing to pay; but the tenant would not go into Court with his landlord to have it fixed for the statutory term. The landlord was then put in the disagreeable position of having to ask the Court for an increase of rent, which he did not really desire.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthought that the Government must feel, after the heated language which they had heard throughout the country against the audacity of the other branch of the Legislature, that they had hardly adequately recognized the benefits conferred by the House of Lords in that Amendment. The Prime Minister had fallen into a slight inaccuracy as to the form of the Bill as it originally stood. The landlord could only appear in Court as a defendant, or a prosecuted party. Then the Prime Minister made a concession, and allowed the landlord to appear as plaintiff; but only after doing an act which in Ireland would be generally looked upon as an arbitrary act. The House of Lords would enable the landlord to appear in Court without having the appearance of doing an injury to the tenant. The Lords' Amendment was a valuable one, and he was

    1955
    glad that their Lordships had been the means of bringing the Government to a better frame of mind and inducing them to yield on this point. In the event of a sale of an estate, it might be of great advantage to the landlord that he should have the power of going to the Court and obtaining a judicial valuation of his land, and get a statutory term imposed upon all the tenants.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the inconvenience of the course adopted by the Government was now becoming manifest. If the Prime Minister had made a general declaration, the Irish Members would have been better prepared for the change which had been so suddenly proposed. He was driven to what might appear to be a somewhat uncharitable conclusion, that either the Government were endeavouring to slip out of their original intentions with regard to this matter, or else that they did not understand the consequences of their action. He thought the Amendment was a fatal structural change in the Bill, and he must say he disagreed with the view taken by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). The clause, in its altered shape, enabled the landlords to go into Court under different circumstances and conditions. The hon. Member for Galway said very properly that if the landlord went into Court, having demanded an increase of rent, a certain amount of odium attached to him, and that the burden of proof was on his shoulders; but now he could go into the Court without the least odium, and that appeared to the hon. Member to be a representation of the tenant's interests. According to the hon. Member, it was a desirable thing that the landlord could now threaten the tenant with an action; the burden of proof that the rent asked was a fair one was not on him, and he could use the statutory term as a Damocles's sword over the heads of the tenants as a means of increasing rents in order to improve his property for the purpose of sale. Was it, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would ask, desirable that every landlord should have that power to use it at his will? That was a game at which it was easier for the landlord to play than the tenant. They were making litigation compulsory which was formerly optional, and were thereby arming the landlords with an additional power. His hon. Friend's (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment, that six
    1956
    months' grace should be given in pending ejectments, had been reduced to three months, and the result would be that landlords would commence so many ejectment proceedings that it would be impossible for the Court to fix the rents before the period had elapsed.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYexplained that his belief was that the more rents that were judicially fixed, the better for the peace of the country. He knew that what the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) wished was that rents should not be judicially fixed, but that there should be a loophole for agitation.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the Amendment was the beginning of a clear indication that the Irish tenants were being sacrificed to a compromise to be arranged between the Liberal and Conservative Parties. In the long run, injury would accrue to the Liberal Party, and to the Conservative Party also, from this sort of patchwork concession. Irish tenants would resent most bitterly the proposal to place this weapon of litigation in the hands of the landlords. An Amendment of this kind might pacify the House of Lords; but it would not pacify Ireland. The Conservative Party had got their hand on the key of the situation at the present moment, and he advised them to look to the Irish people, now that the Irish people were being deserted by the Liberals.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he was very much surprised at the vehemence of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. O'Donnell), and would ask the House quietly to consider whether there was the very smallest foundation for all this outcry? There were two modes by which the tenant might get a judicial rent and a statutory term—by decision of the Court or by voluntary arrangement with the landlord as to what a fair rent should be. It was said that this Amendment was a weapon forged by the Government to please the Conservatives; but he (the Attorney General for Ireland) contended that hon. Members opposite would have shown less ingenuity, perhaps, but certainly more candour, if they had described the proposal of the Government as a mode by which the Irish tenantry would be enabled to obtain a reduction of rent more easily and quickly than by going to the Court, and a statutory term without any precedent litigation at all.

    1957
    It should be remembered that the Lords' Amendment had really been first proposed in the House of Commons, where it was considered by a vast majority of hon. Members as a fair solution of a difficulty, and where it would have been carried but for a merely technical objection. It would surely be unfair to say that no landlord should have a fair rent fixed on his estate except after incurring the odium attaching to a demand for a rent to which he was not justly entitled. He really thought, with all respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they were riding their horse a little too hard. They had hardly given sufficient credit to the Government for a desire to do what was just to the landlord without being at all prejudicial to the tenant. The object and. effect of the Amendment was manifest, and it left the tenant perfectly free.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: Let the House consider for a few moments the object now declared to be that of the Irish section, according to the declarations of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The House has decided to establish an institution by virtue of this Bill which is termed the Land Court, and this Court is to decide in matters of equity between the landlord and the tenant. The proposal of the hon. Members whom I have mentioned is that this Court shall deal with the subject-matter land, having only one of the two persons interested in the land before it. The other person interested in the land, the landowner, is never to appear in Court except as a criminal, as having violated the chief object of this Act, the establishment of a fair rent, by asking a rent which he must know beforehand, according to this precious scheme, that the Court will reject as too high; otherwise the landlord will have no locus standi before the Court at all. A Court pretending to deal in equity which would be limited to having only one of the two parties interested before it of right would not deserve to be called a Court at all. The hon. Member for the City of Cork has been at much pains to explain to the House that, however iniquitous may be his suggestion, it involves an object which the Party that he represents has contemplated and striven to attain for years, that object being neither more nor less than this—to outlaw the landlords.
    MR. DAWSONput it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that a landlord, under the Amendment, might induce a tenant to accept a nominal reduction of rent, to which he would be bound for 15 years. The tenant might unwittingly find himself bound to a settlement for that term of years, which was adverse to his interests, and contrary to the previously declared intentions of the Government when the Bill was introduced, for it was understood to be a Bill for the tenant, and not for the landlord.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYalso inquired of the right hon. and learned Gentleman what the landlord could require to go into Court for but for an increase of rent? He was astonished at the remarkable change which had come over the policy of the Government, especially as only the other night the Lord Chancellor made a strong speech in support of not giving the landlords the powers now sought to be conferred upon them. He believed that it would simply lead to litigation, and there was no doubt that the clause was the result of a communication between the Leaders of the two Parties, in order to make things pleasant all round for the Members of both Houses.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment amended, by restoring the words struck out by their Lordships.
    On the Motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, Amendment further amended, by inserting the words "or after" before the words inserted by their Lordships.
    Amendment, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment as amended."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. HEALYsaid, it would be very injurious to the tenant farmers in many cases to apply to have a statutory term fixed, because of the conditions involved in the term, and the penal consequences of any breach of them. Of course, in many other cases, it would be wise in the tenants to apply to have a statutory term fixed. When this Amendment and the Amendment to sub-section 5 were inserted in the Bill it was a permissive Bill no longer. The Government wanted

    1959
    to give fixity of tenure—he begged pardon, he should say durability of tenure—to the tenant; but it was for his own benefit. Where, however, the tenant thought it was not for his benefit to have a statutory term extending to 15 years, he ought to be at liberty to choose a shorter term. The Bill was rendered very mischievous by forcing this statutory term upon the tenant. He begged to move an Amendment on the main question that the amended Amendment be agreed to, that in cases of agreement between landlord and tenant the statutory term should be reduced to such term as the tenant might suggest. He should like to tell the Irish people, if the Bill passed, to improve their holdings at once, and see what foreign competition would do, and then afterwards ask a reduction of rent; but, in the case of persons to whom the rent they were paying was a case of life and death, he would say go to the Court at once and have it reduced.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member would not be in Order in proposing an Amendment on the Amendment after the Question had been put from the Chair, that the House do agree to the Lords' Amendment as amended.
    MR. HEALYsaid, in that case, he was content, and would only say a word more. He had formerly desired that the Bill should be passed. Certainly, now he did not desire it at all. He believed that the Bill, in consequence of the alterations which had been made in it, was now an instrument of oppression that might be used against the Irish tenants, and he should not be sorry to see it drop. The Government had done their worst to make the measure unpopular by introducing the most momentous changes into it, which would involve the loss of millions of money to the Irish people. The only course open to the Irish Members was to divide against the clause, and protest against structural changes being made not in Committee, but on the consideration of the Lords' Amendments. The Government had turned a Bill which might have been of some advantage to the Irish tenants into a most mischievous and dangerous one.
    MR. LALORsaid, he was afraid the Government did not see the disastrous effect of the alterations they had agreed to. There could be no doubt that every
    1960
    Judge in Ireland would differ from every other as to what was a fair rent, and that some Judges would be very favourable to the landlords. Where the landlords found a Judge who was influenced in their favour, they were sure to bring the tenants into Court to get the rents fixed.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 238; Noes 66: Majority 172.—(Div. List, No. 386.)
    Lords Amendment, page 8, line 20.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that they came now to an Amendment which would require an effort on the part of the House, first of all, to grasp clearly the nature of the point they had before them, which was rather complex in point of form; and, secondly, to take a thoroughly cool and dispassionate view of it. The most important subject of it was the following words, which had been inserted at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), "and having regard to the interest of the landlord and the tenant respectively." Those words, it would be recollected, were accepted by the Government and inserted with the express view of giving confidence and satisfaction, rather than to introduce any new principle or idea into the Bill. When they came before the Lords, however, they were viewed as being intended to bring in again an idea which the Government had always emphatically disclaimed—namely, that the value of the tenant's interest in his holding was to be legitimately deducted from the rent which would otherwise be due to the landlord. The Lords accordingly provided against what they conceived to be a danger. In the first place, they struck out the parenthetical words of the Commons; and, in the second place, as a double security, they introduced a subsection (9) to the clause, which ran in these terms—
    "The rent of the holding shall not be reduced in any proceedings under this Act on account of any money or money's worth paid or given by the tenant or his predecessors in title, otherwise than to the landlord on coming into the holding."
    That sub-section the House of Commons deemed to be open to the objection of again bringing in the principle of de-

    1961
    duction, and as bringing it in, in connection with a supposed "largeness" of tenant right, without taking into consideration the case which might, of course, happen, that the very smallness of the tenant right might be urged as a reason for increasing the rent, just as much as the largeness of the tenant right might be urged as a reason for diminishing it. The House of Commons, perceiving the nature of this one-sided Amendment of the Marquess of Salisbury, struck out that sub-section, and restored its own words, and the Lords responded to that proceeding by again striking out the parenthetical words and replacing the sub-section. He was going to ask the House to treat these two Amendments together; and it would be impossible to take a fair view of the importance of the parenthetic words unless the sub-section 9 was also taken in view at the same time. As he had said, the Lords had replied to them by again striking out the parenthetical words, and again reinserting sub-section 9; but he was bound to say that the sub-section. 9 which they had sent them was of a character, from their point of view, quite distinct from that which they sent them before. It looked to him as if some new and skilful hand had tried its effect upon the manipulation of the subsection; and he thought everyone would at once see the difference in its character from the sub-section which they formerly had to deal with. The words now proposed were these—
    "The amount of money or money's worth that may have been paid or given for the tenancy of any holding by a tenant or his predecessors in title otherwise than to the landlord or his predecessors in title shall not of itself, apart from other considerations, be deemed to be a ground for reducing or increasing the rent of such holding."
    Those were words at which they had looked critically and dispassionately, and he was bound to say that they thought they did not contain any injurious element. Therefore, treating that as really one Amendment, the course they proposed to take was this—to agree to the subsequent Amendment as sent back to them, and they proposed to replace the parenthetical words of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, which, if they contained any element of danger, and they did not admit it, would find that danger sufficiently blocked out by sub-section 9, because it simply said,
    1962
    what was evidently quite true, that the amount of tenant right interest might be an important illustrative fact, and have a strong indirect bearing on the question of rent, but which
    "Shall not, by itself and apart from other considerations, be deemed to be a ground for increasing or reducing the rent."
    Therefore, they acceded to that sub-section upon the deliberate conviction that in so doing, while meeting a difficulty honestly entertained, they were not, in any degree, imperilling any of the interests which they sought to defend by that Bill. The course, therefore, he proposed they should take was this—to introduce the parenthetical words, and then agree to the Lords' Amendment in the closing sub-section.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with. The Lords in the first part of the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEpresumed that, technically speaking, the effect was to treat these words and subsection 9 as one; and though they disagreed with the Lords with regard to the words of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), they were not absolutely rejecting the whole of the Amendment. He thought, under those circumstances, that the course which was proposed by the Prime Minister seemed to be one that would really afford a satisfactory solution of a somewhat curious complication, to which more weight had been given than, in his opinion, the words objected to justified. He had never quite understood the original insertion of the words, except on the hypothesis that they were intended as a direction to a Court that still remained to be constituted, and which might, perhaps, act otherwise, to deal in some special way with the tenant's interest in his holding. At any rate, it was clear that factitious importance had been attached to them; and it was some satisfaction, after hammering the matter out between the two Houses, to have at last removed a misapprehension that might have led to more serious difficulties.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, the object for which he introduced the Amendment was that the Government had originally words which directly referred to the tenant's interest. He

    1963
    thought it objectionable that the clause should leave the House without some words securing that object. In the second place, nowhere in the Bill was to be found admitted, in connection with rent, the tenant's interests in his improvements. As to sub-section 9, he did not quite understand it. He found in it language with which he was not familiar, as usual in an Act of Parliament. He found no definition in the clause itself of what was meant by "the tenancy of a holding." Now, it seemed to him that the tenant's interests in his holding included the improvements either made by himself or paid for by him. Having regard to the nature of that interest, he did not know why it should not be taken into account by the clause, nor could he understand the force of the words "by itself, apart from other considerations." The sub-section was very inartistically drawn. He saw great danger in the words as now proposed, and believed their effect would be exceedingly misleading. He would, therefore, suggest, in order to insure that the interest of the tenant should not be encroached upon, and that he should not be charged rent upon improvements which he made himself, that an Amendment to this effect might be introduced—"otherwise than for improvements."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)observed, that what ought to be the test was what the improvements were worth. He contended that the interpretation which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Charles Russell) put upon the words was a wrong one, and that the clause as now agreed to would really meet all the difficulties of the case. It must be remembered that this Amendment followed a provision in which there was a distinct prohibition against making an allowance or charge in respect of improvements against the tenant. He must say that, with the most earnest desire to insert nothing in the Bill which would cut down the tenant's interest, he could see no possible way in which it could be suggested that it would prove injurious to the tenant. The Government had also scanned the Amendment most anxiously with the view of seeing if in any way it would operate improperly against the tenant; but they had been unable to see any. They thought it would be of advantage to the tenant and landlord alike.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that, looking at the long history of the Bill from its commencement, it appeared to him that the adoption of sub-section 9 by the House would very materially injure the Ulster Custom, if it would not entirely destroy it. The Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons, directed the Court, in fixing a fair rent, to have regard to the interest of the tenant in his holding; and that interest was defined, in the case of holdings in Ulster, to the tenant right custom which existed there, and outside that Province to any analogous usage. The insertion of this sub-section, therefore, entirely destroyed the tenant right custom. If the amount of the tenant's interest in the open market was not to be regarded in fixing a fair rent, except there were other considerations which the Court could also take into account, he (Mr. Parnell) thought they were entitled to ask the Government what were those "other considerations," apart from the money paid, which were to be regarded in the case of a person who bought the Ulster Custom when he applied to the Court to fix a fair rent? In the case of a tenant who had sold his interest, and the purchaser applied to the Court to fix a fair rent, what were the considerations here? He did not see what other considerations there could be. He had been willing to limit the discretion of the Court by giving the landlord the right of pre-emption; but that was not the meaning of the sub-section. The meaning of it was that there should be other considerations taken into account by the Court in fixing a fair rent apart from the money paid by the tenant for the interest. That dealt a fatal blow to the Ulster tenant right custom and against the intention to confer freedom of sale in other parts of Ireland, because the tenant would not be able to sell his interest at a fair marketable price; or, at all events, he would be greatly hampered in the sale of that interest. He regretted exceedingly that the Government had departed from their original position in this matter. The history of Clause 7 had been one of continual giving way on the part of the Government. As it stood originally, it gave tenants in Ulster the right to say that their interest consisted of the Ulster tenant right custom; and to tenants outside of Ulster, that their interest con-

    1965
    sisted in compensation for improvements they might be entitled to under the Act of 1870, and in compensation for disturbance to which they might be entitled under the same Act. A strong set, however, had been made against the clause, and the Government for the sake of peace, and for the sake of getting rid of the very strong opposition which undoubtedly would have proved fatal to the Bill, gave in, and said they would leave it to the discretion of the Court; but, at the same time, they assured the Irish Members that the words which they cut out from the original were still suggested in the Bill, and the tenants were protected. The clause had now come back from the Lords, with a very vague addition, which he (Mr. Parnell) defied anybody to explain, and which the Government would not attempt to explain in the slightest degree. If the Government were going to agree with their Lordships in this Amendment, Irish Members were entitled to claim that the clause should be restored to its original state. If the Government were not going to keep their word with the House, and leave the matter to the discretion of the Court, but if, at the eleventh hour, they were going to turn round and introduce a definition against the tenant and in favour of the landlord at the bidding of "another place," the Irish Members were also entitled to turn round and ask that the clause should be defined in the interest of the tenant, and that it should be restored to the form it originally bore before it was altered to get rid of Conservative opposition in this House.
    MR. SHAWsaid, he thought the House of Lords had gone a long way in the solution of the difficulty which arose under that clause. That difficulty commenced when his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Charles Russell) introduced his words into the Bill, which were entirely unnecessary. The words, however, being in the clause he (Mr. Shaw) did not think they could submit to their being struck out. The original intention of the Government was to leave the question of the rent entirely to the Court, and the insertion of these words gave rise to a fear on the part of the landlords that there was some hidden intention of taking the absurd price given in the North of Ireland, and taking 5 per cent on that price out of
    1966
    their rent. He believed no Court in existence would do that. But the fear being there, he thought it was a very natural feeling on the part of the landlords to be rather alarmed on the subject, and this was their mode of solving the difficulty. It struck him at the beginning that there was nothing very serious in these words; but he should certainly preface them with a provision which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland assured him was already in the Bill, and in fixing the rent any improvements on outlay made by the tenant or his predecessors in title should not be taken as a ground for raising the rent. If it was provided for in the Bill, he could not see that these words would do the slightest harm. He did not think there was any hidden or sinister object in them; but if there was it would be all the worse for the landlord in the long run. He thought, however, that some words might be introduced which would make it discretionary on the Court; and he would suggest that these words should be inserted, in "ease the Court should be of opinion that an excessive sum has been given."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he thought there was some misapprehension on the part of hon. Members opposite as to the effect of the words. They always thought that the words inserted by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) were merely a development of the words "after hearing both parties"—that was, that the Court, in estimating a fair rent, would hear the parties; and, having regard to the interest of the landlord and the tenant, consider all the circumstances of the case. He did not, he confessed, think that, even as such, they were necessary. He was aware, however, that the Irish tenants attached a good deal of importance to these words; but that was as nothing compared to the fear as to their import which seemed to exist in "another place." They had, however, got into the clause, and, having got in, the House, he submitted, should abide by them. As had been pointed out, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk was the innocent source of the Amendment which, he agreed with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), had led to the whole of the difficulty. There would have to

    1967
    be some inquiry behind the amount paid for the tenant right, so that the mere money paid at the beginning of the tenancy would not be conclusive in favour of the tenant.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, he agreed with the object desired by the hon. and learned Solicitor General and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but doubted whether the clause, as worded, would carry it out. The defect might, however, be remedied by a very slight change. Why not add, after "the sum of money shall not be taken into account," the words, "apart from the present value of the tenant's interest?"
    MR. GIVANthought that hon. Members opposite representing Ireland somewhat misunderstood the application of the sub-section. It was rather a protection to the tenant than otherwise. In Ulster, he (Mr. Givan) could say from experience that when a high price was paid for tenant right, the landlord generally came to the conclusion that the rent was too low, and raised it accordingly. All the arguments as to the injurious effect of the proposed sub-section on the tenant right of Ulster appeared to him altogether illusory. He was glad that the Prime Minister retained the words which the Lords had struck out. The very reason given by the Lords for disagreeing with that House was sufficient reason for that right hon. Gentleman's course, for the Lords assumed that the tenant had no interest in his holding.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he was glad that the Government had accepted the sub-section.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he had been informed that the sub-section, as it stood, would cause a great amount of alarm and discontent amongst the Irish tenants. He would suggest that the words "in excess of what is deemed by the Court reasonable" should be added after the words "money's worth."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Words struck out by The Lords restored to the Bill, and subsequent Amendment of The Lords to the same clause agreed to.
    Lords' Amendment, page 8, line 23, as since amended by the Lords.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment, as
    1968
    amended."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he felt in a position of pain and difficulty about that Amendment, as it had been his lot to have spoken upon the subject three or four times, and to go over the same ground on each occasion. He only hoped that, as his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had pointed out—and as he admitted—it was in the competence of the Court under the Equities Clause, all the matters which had been alluded to would be taken into account.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he entirely disagreed with the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. The Amendment of the Lords only made clear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment, page 8, line 35, as since amended by the Lords, read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. He must, therefore, move to disagree with it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with. The Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had announced the intention of the Government not to accede to the Amendment. The principle had already been acceded to at the end of a second statutory term, and he could not see why the resumption should be prevented in the case of a first statutory term. It might be necessary in some cases for a landlord to have the power of resumption for the purpose of supplying the wants of the neighbourhood during the first statutory term; but, under the clause, the Court would not have the power of granting it.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 198; Noes 86: Majority 112.—(Div. List, No. 387.)
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Lords Amendments to

    1969
    the Amendments made by the Commons to the Lords Amendments, in page 9, line 16, agreed to, with Amendments.
    The Amendment made by The Lords to the words restored to the Bill by The Lords not insisting on their Amendment in page 9, line 39, to which the Commons had disagreed, read a second time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not think the words proposed to be introduced were at all necessary in that part of the clause. In fact, he thought they might be decidedly injurious. He must, therefore, ask the House to disagree with them. He proposed, however, to add the word "otherwise" before the word "compensated" in the clause, which would suit the case.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEadmitted that the words, as proposed, were an improvement of the clause as it now stood; but he did not think that they made up for the words which the Lords had put in, and which were almost identically the same as those which he (Sir Stafford Northcote) had moved when the Bill was in Committee. Those words were taken from the Land Act of 1870, and only provided what was fair—namely, that the Court should take into consideration the length of time during which the tenant had been in enjoyment of the improvements at a low rent. The Amendment met the case of a man who took a holding at a moderate or low rent with a view of making improvements which would cost him something, but for which, on the terms on which he had taken his holding, he expected the length of the lease would enable him to recoup himself. He, therefore, hoped the Government would not object to the insertion of the words. It seemed to him to be very fair and reasonable.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that such a case would be sufficiently covered by the words of their Amendment—" paid or otherwise compensated for," which they proposed to introduce after the Lords' Amendment had been formally disagreed with. They were much more simple than the words from the Act of 1870. Their contention was that if there was
    1970
    any doubt about the meaning of the Amendment, that doubt would be removed by the insertion of the word "otherwise." They summed up all the matters that the Court could take into consideration under the words "paid or otherwise compensated." He thought the adoption of the Lords' Amendment would lead to some ambiguity, though, perhaps, it had some basis in reason, and might be accepted if it were modified and made more clear in its language.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he would admit that the word "otherwise" made an important change; but he did not understand why the Prime Minister objected to the particular words contained in the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote). He (Mr. Gibson) thought it was conceived in the most moderate spirit. It only asked that effect might be given to that which nine out of every ten reasonable men would consider the ordinary common-sense view of the case—namely, that the Court should take into account the date when the tenant commenced to make his improvements and the rent which he paid. He could not agree with the Prime Minister that these elements, in a fair decision of the cases which might arise, were, with sufficient detail, stated in the Bill as it stood. If the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland and of his right hon. Friend were engrafted upon the rules of the Court he would be quite satisfied; but he was not quite content that the Court should alone be guided by the words of the clause as it stood.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLopposed the Amendment, being apprehensive that under it the landlord might receive compensation for improvements for which he had not paid. He did not see that the length of the enjoyment of the improvements had anything to do with the question. He saw no reason why the landlord should, in the rent, have consideration for improvements which he had neither purchased nor given any other compensation for.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsupported the Amendment, believing that if it were not adopted a tenant who had already received compensation for his outlay through the payment of a low rent would again receive compensation in money.

    1971
    He maintained, further, that there were other cases which had been overlooked. Land was often let at very low rents on the ground that improvements should be carried on.
    MR. O'DONNELLhoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) would not give the House the trouble of dividing, as Lord Cairns had yesterday agreed with Lord Carlingford that the Lords would not insist on their Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) had. not forgotten the interesting conversation he had with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney General for Ireland yesterday, arranging what was to be done in the matter. [Mr. GIBSON said, he was not in London yesterday.] Well, it might have been on Saturday, but the effect was that they were assisting at a farce. The policy of the Government was based upon two principles—the one was to dish the Conservatives and the other to dish the Irish Members; and at the former operation some right hon. Gentlemen who were still influential amongst the Conservative Party were assisting.
    MR. W. H. SMITHthought the Government, in opposing the Amendment, was refusing what was fair. He could not understand what objection there could be to the adoption of an Amendment which recognized the right of a tenant to full compensation for the capital and the labour he had expended upon his holding.
    MR. HEALYrose to appeal to hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench not to delay the progress of the Bill. They knew very well what they were to get, so that it was a perfect farce continuing the discussion. The Lords had adjourned till half-past 11, and it was desirable that they should meet to receive the Bill at that time, for punctuality was the soul of business He would put it to the Members of the Government not to continue that comedy any longer. Having conceded so far to their Lordships they might, with £ good grace, grant all the rest.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes 232; Noes 104: Majority 128.—(Div. List, No 388.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved to amend the Amendment by the insertion of the word "otherwise" before "compensated," the object being to allow the Court to take into consideration the low-ness of a rent paid by a tenant in awarding compensation for improvements.
    Amendment proposed to the words so restored to the Bill, by inserting before the word "compensated," the word "otherwise."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'otherwise' be there inserted."
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he was opposed to the addition of the words.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that either the word "otherwise" had a meaning or it had not; and if it had a meaning at all, the meaning was in a sense unfavourable to the tenant's interest. He protested against that giving away, bit by bit, on the part of the Government. The proposal was an illustration on the part of the Government of the facilis descensus Averni. In the original Bill the words were—
    "No rent shall be paid in respect of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors."
    But the Lords added—
    "For which, in the opinion of the Court, the tenant shall not have been compensated by the landlord or his predecessors."
    Here was another "sop to Cerberus." The construction which the Government put upon the matter was exactly that which the Lords had put; and, under this proposal, the Court might take into account the time during which the tenant had enjoyed the benefit of the improvements. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The Prime Minister shook his head, but that might mean anything. He feared they were doomed to "or otherwise; "but they should not be doomed to it without a division.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir. FARRER HERSCHELL)said, there was no such sinister intention as the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) seemed to suppose. It was not meant as a sop to the House of Lords, or anything of the kind. The word "compensated" in the clause might be considered by some purely a synonym for "paid." He understood that hon. Members opposite

    1973
    thought it fair that where a landlord had paid for the improvements they should be his own. But the landlord might pay for them either by money or money's worth. To pay in hard cash was one way of compensating the tenant; but if the tenant got money's worth from the landlord, surely that was another way of compensating him. In that view, the Amendment was fair and reasonable, because it would enable the Court to take into consideration whether money or money's worth—the same thing as money—had been received from the landlord in assessing the value of improvements.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that it was part of the plan which the hon. and learned Gentleman was now carrying out that the concessions were minimized in this House and then maximized and magnified in the other House. For the sake of common honesty, the Irish Members would take a division against the system.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, that the words "or otherwise" would be a dangerous innovation as affecting the tenant's interest, for, with those words introduced, length of time during which the improvements were enjoyed would be looked upon as absolute compensation. That was entirely contrary to the principle of the Bill, which was that if a tenant made an improvement it should be his own, and no length of enjoyment should put a bar to his further enjoyment of it. But there was nothing in this clause to prevent the Judge from saying—"Here is a man who may have spent £1,000 on improvements; but he and his predecessors have been compensated by the length of time they have enjoyed them." Such a principle never existed in our judicial decisions; it was not to be found in the laws of this country nor of Ireland either.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it was very desirable that the tenants should understand from the wording of the clause that length of enjoyment was not to be taken into account by the Court in fixing the rent. There was nothing in the sub-section, should it contain the words "or otherwise compensated," to prevent the Court from taking into consideration the length of time. Would the Government have any objection to introduce words making it plain both to the Court and to the tenant that the
    1974
    length of time during which the tenant might have enjoyed those improvements should not be taken into account in fixing the rent? It would be easy to do that by introducing words to the following effect:—
    "Provided, That the time during which the tenant may have enjoyed the advantages of such improvements shall not be held to be compensation within the meaning of this sub-section."
    He begged to move the introduction of those words.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member could not do so now. The Question before the House was that the words "or otherwise," be inserted before "compensated."
    MR. WARTONsuggested the substitution for "otherwise" of the words "in money, money's worth, lowness of rent, or otherwise."
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 262; Noes 93: Majority 169.—(Div. List, No. 389.)
    MR. PARNELLmoved to insert the words to which he had referred before the last division.
    Amendment proposed to the words so restored to the Bill, at the end thereof, to add the words—
    "Provided, That the time during which the tenant may have enjoyed the advantages of such improvements shall not be held to be compensation within the meaning of this subsection."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. NEWDEGATE: Here, again, Sir, I must ask the House to consider the object of the Amendment which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) has moved. Every hon. Member who is acquainted with agricultural improvements, particularly with those attempted by the Irish tenants, must know that all of them are calculated to be temporary in their beneficial effect. Take land-draining, for instance. Land-draining as performed in Ireland, especially in the reclamation of waste land, is calculated to be beneficial for from 10 to 20 years. It would be a very liberal estimate to imagine the buildings they erect are calculated to be useful for 30 years; but the substance of the proposal of the hon. Member is that the tenant shall be practically compensated with these improvements for ever, that

    1975
    he has to acquire a perpetual and beneficial interest in the property on which these improvements are made. In all time to come these improvements will continually need renewal, and each renewal is to form an additional claim on the part of the tenant. What is this but a disguise for the old pretension on the part of the Irish tenants to actual possession, and for ever, of great part, if not the whole, of the fee-simple of the property? I am quite sure that no hon. Member who is acquainted with agricultural improvements can vote for the Amendment.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, it was not long ago that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) proposed an Amendment suggesting three elements to be taken into account by the Court. Now, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), after assisting in the rejection of that Amendment, brought forward a proposal containing one of those elements. The statement of the proposition of the hon. Gentleman carried with it its own condemnation, for it required very little consideration to show that a Proviso of this kind might work substantial injustice. Under no circumstances should any weight be given to it.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he entirely agreed with the proposition which he believed the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) wished to express, that the time of enjoyment during which the tenant might have reaped the fruits of his improvement should not of itself be taken into consideration by the Court. But he was bound to say that was not the Amendment, which implied and declared that, in no circumstances, and under no form, should the element of time be taken into consideration; whereas, in the matter of improvements, it would be a proper and legitimate thing to take into account the amount of compensation the tenant would have received in the length of time he had enjoyed those improvements. Moreover, if the objection on that ground were removed, the Government were still bound to hold that the Amendment was unnecessary, because it was nothing short of impossible that the Court should imagine or adjudge that to be compensation by the landlord which had never cost the landlord in any shape in money, or money's worth, a single farthing. Consequently,
    1976
    the Government could not accede to the Amendment.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, that he was a tenant of the Crown in St. James's Place, and he had a holding there for 30 years. It suited his purpose when he took possession to spend a considerable sum in improving the property of the Crown. He wished to know whether the Prime Minister would be prepared next year to bring in a Bill by which he (Lord Elcho) would be entitled to receive back at the end of those 30 years the sum he had expended for his own good? If not, he wanted to know why not? He also wished to know how the logical or illogical minds of the right hon. Occupants of the Treasury Benches could draw a distinction between the two cases, because, in his stupidity, he was unable do so.
    MR. HEALYasked the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire whether anybody stole from him or from his forefathers the land which he rented from the Crown? But to be serious. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seemed to ridicule the notion that the Court would grant compensation in the case put by his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell); but, to use one of the right hon. Gentleman's own phrases, would he be prepared to lay 10 to 1 that the Court would not do so? He (Mr. Healy) would take the bet at the first opportunity. The Government could not, it seemed, get rid of that bogey of the House of Lords, and they refused to put their own words into the Bill. The House had had no sufficient explanation of the word "otherwise." The Government said it did not mean what the Irish Members in this Amendment said it did mean. He should like to hear now what meaning the Government really attached to it, in plain language. The demand made by the Irish Members in that House was that a tenant should not have his rent raised on account of his own improvements. If a man had brought a mountain or a morass into cultivation, no lapse of time ought to authorize the landlord to raise the rent.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would tell his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) what "otherwise" meant. It meant that there was to be no Dissolution.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, that if the Amendment were accepted, the Court would

    1977
    still have the power to say to the tenant—"It is true you have made improvements; but you have held the land for a considerable time under its proper value, and consequently you shall not have compensation." There were but "three F's" in the Bill when it was introduced, and those small "F's," in the words of the Prime Minister; but he (Mr. Leamy) defied any man in Ireland to discover in the Bill in its present altered state more than one of the "three F's," and even that one must be taken on trust.
    MR. P. MARTINcontended that the House ought, in common justice and fairness, to accede, in substance at least, to the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The words inserted in the House of Lords left the true effect and extent of the clause in much doubt. There was no slight ground to apprehend that the views expressed by the Prime Minister in respect to preventing any increase of rent upon the tenant's improvements would be defeated if the House now simply agreed to the Lords' Amendment of this clause.
    MR. STOREYsaid, it was a very common thing in England for the landlord to charge an increased rent upon the tenant's own improvements. That being the case in England, he was not surprised that it should be the case in Ireland; and, therefore, he failed to understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He held that no lapse of time could justify the exaction of an increased rent from a tenant who had improved his land; and he was, therefore, of opinion that no words should be allowed to remain in the Bill which would seem to confer upon the Land Court the power of increasing an improving tenant's rent on the ground that the improvements effected by him had been enjoyed for a certain length of time. The Amendment, at least, had common justice on its side. He was glad that the Government had stood firm to their proposals so far, and hoped they would so alter or modify the clause as to give effect to the Amendment of the hon. Member.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he could see no objection to the acceptance of the Amendment. The agitation in Ireland
    1978
    had been very largely owing to the fact that the tenants were obliged to pay an increased rent according as they improved their holdings. He would suggest, as a way of getting out of the difficulty which had been raised, that words should be inserted in the Bill to provide that consideration of time alone should not be deemed sufficient ground for increasing rents.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes 91; Noes 262: Majority 171.—(Div. List No. 390.)
    New sub-section 9, the next Lords Amendment, read a second time.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had nothing to do now but to perform the formal duty of proposing to the House to agree with the Lords in the said Amendment. The Amendment was justly treated in substance as part of the Amendment which was fully debated and passed a little while ago. In the remarks on it, he did not hear fall anything which showed that the Amendment required to be amended; and at the present stage of their proceedings it would, he thought, be very undesirable to introduce any Amendment on small and doubtful points. He moved to agree to the Lords' Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would move the insertion in the sub-section, after the word "from" in the 4th line, of the words "the reasonable value of the tenant's interest, and." Thus altered as he desired, the sub-section proposed by the Lords in lieu of the sub-section struck out by the Commons would run as follows:—
    "9. The amount of money or money's worth that may have been paid or given for the tenancy of any holding by a tenant or his predecessors in title otherwise than to the landlord or his predecessors in title shall not of itself, apart from" (here his words would come in) "the reasonable value of the tenant's interest, and "—the sub-section ending thus—"other considerations be deemed to be a ground for reducing or increasing the rent of such holding."
    As the sub-section stood at present, it partook of the same defect as the subsection which the House had just disposed of, It left the matter in doubt as

    1979
    to whether the interest of the tenant would be had regard to in fixing the fair rent where that interest consisted of a sum of money, and consisted only of a sum of money paid, by the present tenant or his predecessor in title. Therefore, he thought the Government ought to consent to the introduction of these words. He agreed it was not right that, on an estate where the rent had been allowed to remain low, and where the tenant right had mounted up to a very excessive number of years' purchase, in such a case the whole of the tenant right should not be taken into account in the fixing of a fair rent, but that it should be left to the Court to estimate the fair interests of the tenants on such an estate, and fix the rent accordingly. The phrase "apart from other considerations" was too vague; but, by the adoption of his Amendment, the power would be given to the Court to intimate what the reasonable value of the tenant's interest was. He, therefore, moved his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in line 4, after the word "from," to insert the words "the reasonable value of the tenant's interest, and."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped that the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) might not be pressed; but, in any case, the Government could not be parties to the adoption of it. The reasonable value of the tenant's interest might in many cases, according to the Irish practice, be a large element of the case in fixing a fair rent. That was frequently the case, and it was one of the "considerations" here referred to. He did not, however, at all admit that it was a consideration that ought to be singled out from all others. The fact of so singling it out would be to present it as a kind of rule or standard to the Court, and then all the jealousies and alarms with regard to the old doctrine of deduction, which he hoped they had put aside, would revive. He must, on that ground, offer a most decided opposition to the adoption of the Amendment.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he must confess that he saw the Prime Minister gradually assuming an extraordinary attitude towards the tenant right custom compared with what he proposed in the
    1980
    original draft of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman now said that the tenant right "might" be one of the considerations which the Court would take into account; whereas, by the original clause, the right hon. Gentleman said it "must" be considered by the Court. Under the constant metamorphoses through which the Bill had passed, the right hon. Gentleman was minimizing, and was almost leaving out of sight, that very tenant right which had been put first among the points which the Court had to regard. Why should not the Court have the power of deciding whether the tenant had not paid, not an exorbitant, but a reasonable price for the tenant right, and, if he had, of settling what the fair rent to be paid should be?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he would point out to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that he was under a misapprehension with regard to the action of the sub-section. There could not, as the clause stood, be excluded from the consideration of the Court any consideration which was necessary for the decision of the question at issue. If a fair price had been paid for the tenant right, that view would not be excluded. If an exorbitant price had been paid, the fact would not be allowed to prejudice the landlord.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he considered the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to be in favour of the Amendment. The fact was, however, that the Government were afraid to carry out their own plan, for fear it would vitiate the secret agreement that had been made behind the back of their supporters, and with the mere object of clinging to Office.
    MR. HEALYsaid, it was clear that an obsequious Government had determined to strike out everything that would be taken into consideration in the tenants' interests, and hastened to put in all that would be taken into consideration in the landlord's interest; and it should be remembered that it was by the weak hangers-on of the Government in that House, as sub-Commissioners, that the provisions of the Bill would be given effect to. They knew the views of their employers in the matter, and would naturally act on them, and bring in a verdict against the tenants. ["Oh, oh!"]

    1981
    He was not aware that a good honest Whig considered it a disgrace to go to the Government for a place. On the contrary, he considered himself flattered when he got it. ["Question!"] Every hon. Member from Ulster was looking for a place from the Government. ["Question!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should address himself to the Question before the House.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that hon. Members should bear in mind that if, in two or three years, it were found that the clause did not give satisfaction, it would be as easy to strike against a judicial rent as it was against the rents of the present time.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, he really could not see the advantage of this sub-section. When the rent came before the Court to be fixed, a great variety of considerations would be put forward both by the landlord and the tenant. The tenant would put forward a number of things to show what the value of his tenant right was, and the landlord would also bring forward a number of other things to show that the interest of the tenant was very small and of very little value. That being so, he wished to know why "the amount of money or money's worth that might have been paid or given for the tenancy of any holding" was singled out and made a special subject for the consideration of the Court—why was it made a subject of special exception at all? It was evidently made the subject of special exception for the purpose of whittling away the tenant right; and it must have been introduced for that purpose, and for no other conceivable purpose. No reason was offered to the House why it should be introduced exceptionally in this way, and brought forward negatively for the rejection of the Court. Seeing that the matter was brought forward in this manner, it could only be in order that it might tell against the tenant's interest and be a weapon in the hands of those who desired to cut down the interest of the tenant. The result, therefore, would be to make the people of Ireland distrust the Act, and have recourse to other methods for protecting their rights.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 257: Majority 179.—(Div. List, No, 391.)
    Lords Amendment, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment in page 11, line 12.
    MR. GLADSTONE: This Amendment is purely consequential upon the insertion in a later clause of the parenthetical words we inserted in the early part of Clause 7.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, there were two differences to be observed. In Clause 8—formerly Clause 7—there were both this Amendment and the Amendment just disposed of, and it was necessary to read both together and in connection with each other. There was now no such Amendment to balance the present Amendment now being disagreed to; and he wished to know if the Prime Minister had considered the effect of striking out the words proposed in the Lords' Amendment. He admitted that the Amendment applied to the class of clauses called voluntary clauses, and that it might be either accepted or left alone.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am of opinion that, considering the purely voluntary nature of the clause, it would be better not to make any further change.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment disagreed to, in consequence of the Commons agreeing to the foregoing Amendment made by the Lords.
    Lords Amendment in page 16, line 9, again read, with reason.
    MR. GLADSTONE: This is an Amendment which is insisted on by the Lords for the reason which has just been read; but it is quite obvious that the terms of that reasoning are quite fatal to what has been admitted to be just and true with regard to the Ulster leases. I, therefore, move that the House should disagree with this Amendment and maintain the substance of the clause. There is, however, an Amendment which we propose to insert in lieu of it, the object of which is to bring the clause relating to this class of leases into analogy with the clause relating to the judicial class of leases, by providing that all leaseholders should be present tenants at the close of a judicial lease,

    1983
    if the judicial lease should be for a term not exceeding 60 years, which is a pretty liberal term. We propose to put in words placing the same regulation as to time, and making the clause applicable to leases not exceeding that term. The exact Amendment we propose is to insert in line 10 of page 16 of the Bill, after the word "leases," the words "or of such of them as shall expire within sixty years after the passing of the Act."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment in view of a subsequent Amendment in the words so restored to the Bill."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he supposed that the House was familiar, having the Paper before them, with the important character of the Amendment, which the Prime Minister stated that he did not see his way to assenting to. As the Amendment had been repeatedly discussed in the House, and as it was one on which he had himself already expressed his views, he should not weary the House by repeating his argument in any detail. But he must, however, state that he thought it was, in principle, a serious change, and a serious inroad on a principle which had always been maintained. It would seriously interfere with one of the most important covenants that existed in all leases, and it would add to all leases the right at their termination to the lessee of a holding to hold on as long as he pleased. He assumed that the changes made on the last occasion would now be replaced; and, to some moderate extent, that course would meet the objections he had made. The very limited power of resumption given to the landlord would meet the objection in some special cases; but it must be borne in mind that the power of resumption was made difficult to the landlord. It was not left to his own discretion for any purpose, however serious and important it might be to the landlord; but, in the first place, he must satisfy the Court; and, in the second place, he must pay every fraction awarded by the Court. This, of course, raised a serious difficulty, and the power of the Court cut down to the narrowest limit the advantage to the landlord. The Prime Minister now proposed another modification, which, as he (Mr. Gibson)
    1984
    understood it, was this—to provide that the clause should only apply to leases which had 60 years to run.
    MR. GLADSTONE: To expire.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, it would apply to leases which at present had 60 years undetermined.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Less than 60 years.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that, of course, was a qualification; but it was a qualification which he did not think would meet many of the objections originally urged to the clause. He himself felt that, even taking the arguments urged by the Prime Minister on a previous occasion, the proposed Amendment did not meet the objections he had raised to the principle of the clause. In these circumstances, he could not allow the clause to pass without again making a protest against the principle involved in it. Even accepting the statement of the Prime Minister that the easy-going way of doing business in Ireland, and the kindliness of feeling on the part of the landlord had not, as a rule, induced him to seek the resumption of a farm on the expiration of a lease, the clause laid down that the matter should not be regulated by usage, but by a hard-and-fast con-tract. It took away from the landlord, in the management of his property, all the grace and kindliness of the old usage, and substituted a rigid line arrived at by breaking all the old principles which had been so long established. He could not allow such a step to be taken by the Prime Minister without a protest.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the final words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) with reference to this matter, which had all been arranged beforehand, reminded him of the chant of a dying swan. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must still make his last protest; but if he (Mr. Healy) and his hon. Friends were to protest against this limitation of 60 years, it would seem that they had no faith either in Irish Land League principles or in the success of the Home Rule movement. He asked what security there was that when the Bill came back once more, the Government would not insert 30 years, instead of 60 years? If the Government could give an assurance that this was the very last change they would make in the

    1985
    clause, he thought that the Amendment might pass without a division.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, if this point had been reached at an earlier period of the evening, he should have felt it his duty to offer some opposition to the principle involved in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; but, under the circumstances, he would only inquire of the Government how they proposed to deal with leases in Ireland which were held for lives and years? It would be quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman and the Law Officers of the Crown that there were many leases in Ireland, especially in that part of it with which he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) happened to be acquainted, where leases had been granted for lives and 21 years after the dropping of the last life on the payment of a fine. The right hon. Gentleman, on a former occasion, spoke of the defenceless condition of the Irish tenants. On the contrary, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) believed that an Irishman was never defenceless at any time; from a considerable acquaintance with the Irish race, he was sure they were quite able to defend themselves. But how could any Irish tenant be said to be defenceless when he had in his pocket sufficient money to pay the fine for the grant of a lease? Now, the form of leases which obtained in the part of Ireland to which he referred was remarkable; he had one in his possession at that moment, and it was quite clear that the Law Officers of the Crown were ignorant of the very important provision which that form of leases contained, giving power to the lessee to determine the lease at six months' notice. That was clearly part of the contract, and he believed that any Court in the land would scout the view that the landlord could be deprived of his right in this respect. The lease which he held in his hand was granted in 1858 for three lives, the ages then being from 7 and 11 years respectively, and was to be continued for 21 years after the dropping of these lives. It was clearly a matter of speculation whether the lease would endure for 60 years or not. The point raised by this Amendment was one of great importance, and one which should be dealt with before the Bill left the House, in order that the tenants, lessors, and lessees, in cases of the kind might not be left in a state of
    1986
    uncertainty. There had been some very extraordinary doctrines promulgated from the Treasury Bench, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) had concurred in the view that a lease, being under seal, it was to be construed, not by what it expressed, but by some extrinsic evidence derived from nobody knew where. It was rumoured that before long the right hon. and learned Gentleman would hold a very distinguished position in his Profession; but, when that event took place, it was to be hoped that his decisions would in no way be regulated by such doctrines as he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had alluded to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be under a misapprehension, of which he (the Attorney General for Ireland) would endeavour to relieve him. There was no difficulty in the case he had just presented. If the lives and years did not come to an end in 60 years, the lease would not be within the operation of this clause; if they did so come to an end, it would.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 208; Noes 100: Majority 180.—(Div. List, No. 392.)
    Motion made, and Question, "That in place of the words struck out by The Lords, the following words be inserted:—
    "Provided that at the expiration of such existing leases, or of such of them as shall expire within sixty years after the passing of this Act, the lessees, if bonâ fide in occupation of their holdings, shall be deemed to be tenants of present ordinary tenancies from year to year, at the rents and subject to the conditions of their leases respectively, so far as such conditions are applicable to tenancies from year to year; but this provision shall not apply where a reversionary lease of the holding has been bonâ fide made before the passing of this Act; and provided also that where it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Court that the landlord desires to resume the holding for the bonâ fide purpose of occupying the same as a residence for himself, or as a home farm in connexion with his residence, or for the purpose of providing a residence for some member of his family, the Court may authorise him to resume the same accordingly in the manner and on the terms provided by the fifth section of this Act with respect to the resumption of a holding by a landlord: Provided always, that if the hold-

    1987
    ing so resumed shall be at any time within fifteen years after such resumption re-let to a tenant, the same shall he subject, from and after the time of its being so re-let, to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to present tenancies,"
    —(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland,) put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment, in page 16, line 24, read.
    Amendment proposed, to amend the Amendment made by The Lords to the words restored by the Commons in page 16, line 24, by inserting therein after the word "may" the words—
    "By leave of the Court, which leave shall be granted unless the Court shall consider the appeal frivolous and vexatious."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GIBSON observed,that as the Bill proposed to give the Court the power to break leases, under a new system now to be established, it was to the last degree reasonable that that power should be subject to some check. What was the meaning of this qualification? How could it be frivolous to appeal against the setting aside of a lease? The grounds upon which a lease was to be set aside were peculiar, and he would like to ask how an appeal, under such circumstances, could be considered frivolous and vexatious? He presumed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would admit that if a man had his lease set aside, he should be able to appeal. That was the substantial point. Would it not be better to leave it so? Plainly, it was intended that the Court should allow an appeal, except in special circumstances; but he was at such a loss to understand what those special circumstances were to be that he thought it would be better not to introduce special words, as proposed.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERreminded the House that the landlord was to be charged with the moral offence of having used undue influence and acted unjustly in making unreasonable terms, and he thought every Englishman would wish to see every opportunity given to him to go to the Court to clear his character. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
    MR. WARTONpointed out that the proposed words would make the clause read awkwardly, for it was difficult to connect the word "may" with the proposed words.
    MR. HEALYdid not think it mattered much one way or the other; but he wished to know something as to the question of costs. If the Court below did not think the appeal frivolous, then it appeared to him that the costs should be equally divided. If it was fair that an appeal might lie, then the costs ought to go to the party who carried the appeal; and he would suggest that the Court should have power to make an order as to costs, without leaving any power to the Court above.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords Amendments, in page 25, line 16, and in page 31, line 6, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment, in page 39, lines 22 to 30, read.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I wish, upon this Amendment, to notice some novel insinuations which have been made somewhat recklessly. It is said that there is a perfect understanding and arrangement between this and the opposite Benches as to the mode in which these proposals are to be dealt with, and it is understood that this House is not engaged in deliberative functions, but simply in giving effect to conclusions already arrived at. We have had plenty of opportunity for using hard words, and on the 50th night of this discussion I do not wish to use hard words, and I will withdraw the word "reckless." There are here about 21 of these Amendments, and, as far as I know—and I apprehend I ought to know—hon. Gentlemen opposite were not aware when they came into the House to-day, or at any time during the evening, what course the Government intended to take upon any one of these Amendments. Now, Sir, this is a clause in regard to which we have been very unfortunate. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) pointed out—and, as we thought, justly—that there might be a temptation to use the process known as fi fa for the purpose of selling up peremptorily, by modes open to the

    1989
    landlord like any ordinary creditor, unfortunate persons who were in arrear, and who, if time were given to them to obtain a judicial rent, would be, perhaps, able to extricate themselves from their embarrassments; and, at all events, by selling their holding, to offer much more security than the creditors would have if this time were not given. I do not wish to go over the arguments; but the point that was urged by the opponents of this clause was that it would offer a general inducement to a very large proportion of the tenants of Ireland to withhold the payment of rents, and to rush into the Court for the sake of obtaining a judicial rent, not merely on the genuine and legitimate grounds upon which a judicial rent might be sought, but likewise for the sake of avoiding all payment of rent. I am not going to make an argument generally against that; but we do say this—that, in our opinion, the delay before the fixing of a judicial rent would be a very short delay. I am in the recollection of hon. Members opposite that that was our contention, that the delay would be very short, and would be no hardship to the creditor, viewing the advantage he would have in the better security provided for in the value of the tenancy when the judicial rent was fixed. The House of Lords rejected the clause. It came down here, and we, bearing in mind the argument made against us, that it would be very hard for the landlords as well as the other creditors to be kept out of their rents for a length, of time, amended the clause by inserting a provision that the Court must be satisfied that the judicial rent had been fixed within a reasonable time, not exceeding three months. We gave into that, not as a mere concession to the House of Lords, but because we felt the force of the argument that the hardship would be extreme to the landlords and the creditors if the proceedings were not pretty rapid. Having made that Amendment, we found that the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and those who had urged the argument on the side of the embarrassed tenant, took a very severe view of it, and considered that it destroyed the value of the clause. However, we persevered, and sent the clause again to the Lords; but while we have exasperated its friends, we have not propitiated its foes. It is again refused,
    1990
    and it comes back to this House with all those previously opposed to it still in opposition, and those who previously supported it declaring that in its present shape it is of no value. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) is stated to have said that practically the Amendment would render this clause entirely valueless to nine-tenths of the people. He said, further, that the provisions of the clause, as they at present stood, were not worth a farthing, and he would, prefer to have them out of the Bill altogether, rather than it should be supposed that the Government had made any concession in this respect. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) made an emphatic declaration, I think, to the same effect, and said it would be more straightforward on the part of the Government to omit the clause altogether. And another hon. Gentleman—the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan)—also denounced the Amendment; while the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) recommended its withdrawal. I do not think, if we are in such a condition in respect to a clause like this, we feel bound to insist on the strict limitation of time, and not being able to resist the arguments made against us, and the friends of the clause declaring that that limitation makes it wholly valueless, I do not think we are now in a position to persevere with the clause. We must act upon those declarations. I should have been glad if we could have persevered with the clause, if it could have been done without inflicting hardship and injustice; but we cannot press it in the terms in which we should feel bound to press it, when it is declared to be valueless as holding out to the people of Ireland promise of advantage and relief which they are not really to receive. Under these circumstances, it will be my duty to move, with regard to this Amendment, that the House do agree to the last Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth not insist on its disagreement with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Mr. PARNELLsaid, that if he supposed that the term was Parliamentary, he would be tempted to say that he considered the conduct of the Government in this matter thoroughly contemp-

    1991
    tible, and a fitting sequel to the course they had pursued during the evening. The right hon. Gentleman, in leading up the way in explanation of the course he was going to pursue on this clause, laboured to persuade the House that there was no secret compromise entered into with regard to this Bill. He thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was scarcely a credible one.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I must call the hon. Member to Order. When the hon. Member describes the conduct of myself and my Colleagues as contemptible, I can sit, and I think they can sit, under that imputation without being in the slightest degree annoyed or disturbed; but when he chooses to go beyond the limits of Parliamentary decency, and says a statement of fact made by a Member of this House is not credible, I think he is out of Order.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will admit, I think, that an expression of that kind applied to a Member of this House is not Parliamentary.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that, of course, if the Speaker ruled him out of Order in saying that the statement of the Prime Minister, in view of the circumstances of the last few days, and of the entire change of front by the Government in regard to these Amendments, was scarcely credible, he would withdraw the statement at once, and would go on to say that the course of events that evening had plainly shown him that there had been some influences at work which he had not been able to see, and the extent and nature of which he had not been able to penetrate, and that there had been reasons which had weighed with the Government in regard to the course they had taken which they had not given to the House as their reasons. The conduct of the Government upon this clause was a fitting sequel to their conduct during the evening; and the right hon. Gentleman, who was responsible for the inefficient, useless, and illusory shape of this clause as it now stood, coolly attempted to throw upon him (Mr. Parnell) the responsibility of the abandonment of the clause.
    MR. GLADSTONErose to explain—
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman could give his explanation afterwards. By his own action, and against the protests of the Irish Members, the Prime Minister had made this
    1992
    clause useless and illusory for fulfilling the purpose for which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had declared it to be necessary. The necessity for this clause, not in its present shape, but in its original shape, as moved by him (Mr. Parnell) and accepted by the Government, was just as great now as ever. It would be just as possible for the landlord to drive a coach-and-four through the Bill; and the fact that the Prime Minister had accepted the clause, and then mutilated it and made it useless, did not exempt the Government from the odium of having yielded to pressure. For his part, he left the responsibility of the affair with the Government, and he could only say that the organization there was in Ireland would prove a more efficient protection against abuse of power than any wish the Government might have in reference to the matter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to relieve the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell) from the entirely erroneous supposition—which no other hon. Member shares—that I made him responsible. I did nothing of the kind. The responsibility for the abandonment of the clause is entirely with the Government. The hon. Member was responsible for declaring that the clause in its present shape was useless, and all I did was to cite the hon. Member on the clause in its original shape. The Government are responsible for the clause in its present shape.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLregretted as much as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell) the abandonment of the clause as it originally stood. He thought the clause, if limited to three months, would have been practically of little value; but he entirely disagreed with the view of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, that the Government had by their concession in this regard in any substantial degree impaired or lessened the value of the Bill. As one who had anxiously watched the Bill, as one who had used no language of indiscriminate eulogy towards it, and as one who had laboured to render it valuable for the Irish tenants, he thought it only just to say that he thought in its main and substantial character, for the protection of the Irish tenants, the Government had stood manfully by the Bill.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was not surprised at the action of the Mi-

    1993
    nistry. He had always regarded himself up to this evening as the one person in Parliament who did not and never could believe in the existence of a crisis at all. From the beginning he had endeavoured to convince people that the whole matter was a storm in a teacup, and the picture of the Prime Minister putting his foot down on the one side, and the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) in "another place" doing the same, was the creation of an excited imagination. What was the meaning of this transaction? He did not know whether the Government wished to excite some waning enthusiasm, or to make the country forget their errors; but anyone who read the newspapers would be firmly convinced that the Prime Minister had made up his mind to make some radical changes in the Constitution of the country. He was amused to see his hon. Friend on the Radical Benches, with a load of telegrams from public meetings and associations, all eager for the Prime Minister to make the sound radical declaration he made in introducing his remarks upon this clause against "another place." These very things which were declared by all the Ministerial organs to be of the first importance had now been brought down by the Ministry to matters of the most trifling detail. What was the Prime Minister going to put his foot down upon? Upon having regard to the interests of the landlord and the tenant. That had been a great point of controversy and collision between those in "another place." The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland almost fell upon the neck of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and shed tears of joy at the infallible nostrum the hon. Member provided for a reconciliation. But now what had become of the clause? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whittled the period down to three months, and now, taking advantage of his own wrong, he sought to get rid of the clause altogether. He remembered the Prime Minister nodding his head significantly when the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was objecting to one of the clauses of the Bill, and said that the interest of the tenant in the tenant right had been reduced to zero. The Jove of the Olympian Treasury Bench nodded his head to sig-
    1994
    nify his acquiescence in the opinion that the tenant right had been reduced to zero. If that were really so, all the tenants were absolutely placed at the mercy of the landlords if they happened to owe arrears of rent. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was intrusted with the duty of governing Ireland. He (Mr. O'Connor) did not know for how long or how short a time he meant to retain that duty. [Cries of "Question!"] If he was not able to make his remarks clear to the intelligence of hon. Members opposite, it was not his fault. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had the duty of governing Ireland; and a large number of the tenants were in peril of forfeiture of their holdings if some clause like that proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork were not inserted in the Bill. For his own part, he did not feel much aggrieved by the course the Government proposed to take. He would certainly feel aggrieved if he thought the tenants of Ireland were dependent on the Government, or upon this Bill, or upon any proceedings which the Government might take; but he knew they had something far more stable to found their hopes upon than the friendship of a Liberal Ministry, or any pledges they might make.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had listened with very great interest indeed to the declaration of the Government that the harmony sought to be established in "another place" was not the result of a compromise, and he was accordingly led to conclude that the warm and interesting discussion which was supposed to have taken place upon the Land Bill between the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) and the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had been a matter for their own private gratification. It was a gratifying thing, in these days of Party warfare, and spoke much for the innate nobleness of political controversy, to find that even common rumour could accurately guess the action of Her Majesty's Government, and predict with certainty that they intended to meet the wishes of the House of Lords, and surrender the protection which, on the initiative of the hon. Member for the City

    1995
    of Cork (Mr. Parnell), they had consented to throw around the Irish tenants. By the surrender of the protection proposed to be given to the Irish tenants, which Her Majesty's Government had now accomplished, thousands and tens of thousands of tenants in Ireland were liable to be deprived of all the advantages which it was presumed they would derive from this Bill. It was left entirely dependent upon the mercy of the Irish landlords whether tens of thousands of tenants were not sold out within the next few months; but very possibly the Irish landlords might prove to be much more merciful than Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had thanked, in the most effusive manner, the Leader of the Irish Party for supplying this indispensable protection to the Irish tenantry. There could be no doubt that all the sincerity and honesty of the right hon. Gentleman's character went forth in that solemn declaration of thankfulness, and that, having made it, he had satisfied his conscience, and would stick to his official position. The proceeding was in perfect keeping with the whole official bearing of the right hon. Gentleman. The conduct of the Government had already been characterized by an epithet which was not altogether undeserved, and it was unnecessary to add to that epithet, as it precisely described the conduct of the Government. He was satisfied, however, that the Irish tenantry had learnt a lesson, teaching them to organize so thoroughly that much of the mischief which might come upon them from this wretched abandonment of the pledges of the Government would not be brought about. But even the abject surrender of Her Majesty's Government to the House of Lords might not give them the satisfaction and peace and uninterrupted enjoyment of their official positions which they doubtless looked forward to. There was "many a slip' twixt the cup and the lip." He concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in never having believed in the occurrence of a serious Ministerial crisis. There was much more danger, and it might still exist, of a crisis on the side of the Conservative Party. No one who had witnessed what had been going on in the last few days,
    1996
    and had seen the quaking Liberal, green with terror at the thought of a Dissolution, could have believed in the reality of a crisis. No one who had watched their heart-born countenances could have supposed there was much of a critical nature about the resistance of the Liberal Party. They had cheerfully surrendered before friend and foe, and they were now being allowed to perform their triumphant retreat as the worthy followers of an unprincipled Government.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister stated early in the evening that there had been no compromise. He (Mr. Healy) quite believed the right hon. Gentleman that there was no necessity for making a compromise. The Government was one of surrender and not of compromise. They surrendered Candahar; they surrendered Afghanistan; they surrendered the Transvaal; and what objection could they have to the surrender of a clause in the Land Bill? He was reminded by an hon. Friend that they had even surrendered Mr. Bradlaugh. The Tory Party knew too well the character of Her Majesty's Government to require a compromise; and he did not believe that they had found any necessity for entering into any arrangement or any negotiation with the Goverment, because they were satisfied that, as a matter of course, they would capitulate, and that a surrender would follow. He could, therefore, quite credit the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that the proceedings of that night were in no sense the result of a compromise. The House had been told by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) that the Bill had been in no way impaired by the concessions which had been made. It was exactly what they had heard in regard to Candahar; the British Empire was in no way impaired by that surrender. We had surrendered the Transvaal; but after all it must be confessed that justice was on our side. [Cries of "Question!"] He could readily believe that the analogy was much too perfect for hon. Gentlemen opposite. He could easily understand how it was that an Irish Ministerialist could get up and say that the present surrender of the Government was of no account at all. When

    1997
    the House summed up the frightful total of surrender to the House of Lords, which the Government had consented to, they would have no difficulty in believing that the Cabinet weighed and liberated for a considerable time as to whether there should be a preliminary statement of the course they intended to take. It was amusing, in the early part of the evening, to see the bellicose Radicals come down to the House with their telegrams and Petitions. Calling upon the Government to stand fast by the Bill, the Prime Minister must have been aware how horrified the Radicals would be by the work of surrender contemplated by the Government, and he therefore wisely abstained from making a preliminary statement on the Order being read for the Consideration of the Lords' Amendments, They all recognized the wisdom of the course the right hon. Gentleman had taken. Personally, on this the 50th night of their deliberations, he (Mr. Healy) congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon it. Before he sat down he should like to say one word more. They were now agreeing with the Lords in striking out this clause; but there was a passage in what occurred a day or two ago which he should like to read to the House as a final touch—and it related to the Commons' reasons for disagreeing with the Lords' original Amendments. The Government then found it expedient to put in black and white what their reasons were for insisting on sticking to this excellent clause. He had it before him in black and white, or rather in black and blue—very like the Bill itself—
    "The Commons disagree to the Amendment at page 39, lines 22 to 30, for the following reason: because"
    —he could almost trace the accents of the Chief Secretary—
    "because it is expedient to provide that where a tenant is seeking to obtain a reduction of rent and statutory term through the intervention of the Court, the sale of his tenancy at the suit of a creditor may, under special circumstances, be stayed for a short time so that the true value of his tenancy may be realised."
    [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland cheered; but the words, like the right hon. Gentleman's Resolutions, had faded—like Hans Breitman's cele-
    1998
    brated party. "Where is that party now?" And what had become of the Reasons which the House of Commons felt it necessary to send up to the House of Lords? They were gone; and gone with them were the hopes of thousands of the Irish tenants.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the result of the rejection of this clause would be that directly the Bill became law every Irish landlord would commence proceedings to obtain a judgment in execution against any tenant who happened to be in arrear. The landlord would have the full right of selling out all tenants in arrear, putting every penny of the proceeds of the sale into his own pocket and shutting out the ordinary creditor from all remedy.
    Question put.
    The House divided;—Ayes 196; Noes 70: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 393.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Committee be appointed 'to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments made by The Lords to the Bill, to which this House hath disagreed':—Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. DODSON, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND:—Three to be the quorum."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Am I in Order, Sir, in moving an addition to the names proposed?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be in Order in moving.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have pleasure in proposing that the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) be added.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I think it would be more apropos if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) were upon the Committee.
    MR. GIBSON: There is no desire on my part to serve upon the Committee.
    MR. HEALY: I have no wish to be a Member of the Committee. I have only to express a hope that the next time the Reasons are printed they will be adhered to.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee to withdraw immediately.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND BILL. — [Lords.]— [BILL 247.]
  (Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND BILL. — [Lords.]— [BILL 247.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
    MR. HEALYrose to Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been appointed one of the Committee that had just been ordered to withdraw, and he still retained his seat on the Treasury Bench.
    Question put.
    MR. HEALYagain rose to Order. The right hon. Gentleman had just been ordered to withdraw, and had not done so.
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is quite in Order in moving the second reading of this Bill; and I have put that Question to the House.
    MR. HEALYasked whether he could raise the question of Privilege? This proceeding affected the Privilege of the House of Commons, inasmuch as the Order of the House had been disobeyed.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have already informed the House and the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) that the right hon. Gentleman is in Order. The question of Order has no foundation.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that hon. Members on those Benches felt very strongly on the subject-matter of this Bill. He objected to the second reading being taken at that hour, and therefore begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. P. O' Connor.)
    MAJOR NOLANhoped the hon. Member for Galway would withdraw his Motion, otherwise there was no chance of the measure being passed that Session. It would be a great pity if the Bill were not read a second time that night.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERregretted that the second reading should have been moved at so late an hour; but he trusted that hon. Members interested in the question would consider that if the Bill was to become law that Session, it was very desirable that nothing should be
    2000
    allowed to stand in the way of the present stage being taken. There was no Notice of opposition to the Bill upon the Paper, and he did not suppose that any objection would be taken. He earnestly desired that all those who were concerned and interested in the question would consent to the second reading being taken; and he would do his best to take the next stage of the Bill at an earlier time. Under the circamstances, he trusted the hon. Member for Galway would not persevere with his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not think it unreasonable, having regard to the time of the Session, that the Bill should be read a second time; and he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would, on the next occasion, do all he could to bring it on earlier in the evening. He had some remarks to make when the next stage was reached on the expense of the Examiners and the unlimited number and indefinite amount of the prizes, to which he would not now refer in detail.
    MR. DAWSONthought it would be a great calamity for the Irish people if the Bill were read a second time at that hour without a protest. The Bill provided no education for the Irish people. It was a misnomer to describe the system as one of education. The examination paper had no other result than to bring about the same state of things in the higher branches of education as was disclosed the other day by the noble Lord on that side of the House (Lord George Hamilton) in the case of Mr. Goffin—namely, a system of cramming for the purpose of getting grants. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had thought it right to take the second reading without giving Irish Members an opportunity for making a plea that the Irish people should be treated fairly in the matter of education. He thought they ought not, as it were, silently to sell their birthright in this matter for £20,000 a-year; and, although he was not at that moment prepared to discuss the Bill, he trusted that some further protest would be made that Irish Members had been driven, at an inopportune time of the morning, to give it a second reading.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLagreed, to a certain extent, with the objections

    2001
    made by hon. Members opposite. He could not regard the proposed scheme as by any means satisfactory, nor did he think it reasonable to take the second reading stage without some opportunity of discussing the principles of the Bill. Nevertheless, he put it to hon. Members, that if it was not taken then there was no chance of the Bill passing that Session. He thought it would be better to make the Bill, with all its disadvantages, into law than to postpone it until next year.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he rose to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. He had worked hard and long in the cause of reform of Irish University Education; but, so far as he could make out the present Bill, it was for the abolition of University Education in Ireland. It did not even provide a good examination, paper—the machinery was bad even for that purpose—and he could say that the men who had the interest of education in Ireland at heart despised the Bill. Irish Members should, at least, have an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it; but those exponents of the national feeling upon the subject of Irish University Education had been kept entirely in the dark with regard to the Bill. There was a great public interest taken in this matter; and, having formerly objected to the inferior character of the education in the Queen's University, he should be false to his principles if he allowed to pass without protest a measure which would make men look back with regret to the Standard at that University. He trusted, therefore, an opportunity of discussing the second reading would be given. It was quite impossible to allow that stage to be taken on the present occasion without a sincere protest on the part of Irish Members.
    MR. LABOUCHEREreminded the House that the Prime Minister had promised the House, when he asked for the whole of the time of the House, that no controversial matter should be brought forward during the remainder of the Session. Every English Bill had been set aside for the Irish Land Bill; and he would like to know upon what grounds the promise given was to be departed from? It was very clear, from what ton. Gentlemen opposite had said, that this Bill would, at some stage, provoke
    2002
    a lengthy discussion; and therefore he would like to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland to explain upon what grounds the pledge given to the House was being violated?
    MR. GIVANquite thought this Bill was not sufficiently comprehensive for the requirements of education in Ireland; but, at the same time, he knew that a great amount of interest was concentrated upon the Bill by both Catholic and Protestant clergy. Their arrangements were made in view of the Bill being carried, and he thought it would be a great calamity if the intention to pass the Bill was frustrated. He hoped the second reading would be given to the Bill.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYthought the Bill which was now being attacked was a very small matter; and that if hon. Members had wished to prevent the Bill, they should have endeavoured to repeal the Act passed two or three years ago. The present Bill was only intended to give greater effect to the Bill already passed.
    DR. LYONShoped his hon. Friends would agree to the second reading. The Bill had been a long time under consideration, and it must be borne in mind that some years ago the present Government made an effort to settle this University Question, and he always regretted that the Bill introduced by the present Prime Minister had not become law. After careful consideration of the subject, he thought no such measure, in all probability, would be possible at any juncture of political circumstances in the near future. When a great opportunity, given in 1873, was lost, hopes were entertained that another and a greater measure would be introduced; but those hopes had been falsified, and the only possible measure that could be expected was that now introduced. A body of gentlemen, representing the education, and the religion, and the feelings of Ireland, had sat together for a long time, discussing the framework of a measure to be submitted to Parliament; and this Bill was only carrying out the essence of the Act of two years ago. The responsibility of the framework of the present measure did not rest with the Members of the Government; and he was prepared to say that if there was the smallest chance of a larger measure being considered, he would not accept this as the

    2003
    best settlement of the question. A vast deal of elaborate and scientific consideration had been devoted to this University scheme. It had been under the consideration of the House for some time, and all that the House was now asked to do was to give effect to the previous Act. Therefore, he hoped the House would consent to the formal second reading of the Bill. If this Bill was wrecked, thousands of expectant educationists in Ireland would be greatly disappointed.
    MR. HEALYcomplained of the action of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in this matter. The Speaker had said something which nobody could hear, and all that hon. Members were given to understand was that the second reading of this Bill was being moved. Except the Coercion Bill, he had not read a single Bill that Session; and it was a question whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when the second reading of this Bill was moved, ought not to say something in explanation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, however, had not done that, and had treated the House unfairly.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERobserved, that no person could speak twice to a second reading, and therefore he had taken the course which he had adopted.
    MR. HEALYreplied, that there were other right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who were fully aware of the circumstances of the case, and, therefore, the excuse of the right hon. Gentleman went by the board. To ask the House to discuss, at that hour, a Bill which they did not know anything about was unreasonable; and if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would allow the second reading to stand over to a reasonable time, the Irish Members would undertake not to oppose the second reading.
    MR. GRAYsympathized with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) as to the importance of a Bill of this kind being introduced earlier in the Session. He had no particular admiration for the scheme; but the existing Bill having been passed, it was desirable to pass this Bill also. When the Bill was blocked, there was a feeling of alarm amongst many hundreds of people in Ireland; and if it was now stopped, it might be stopped altogether, and that would create a feeling approaching to consternation in Ireland. The Govern-
    2004
    ment, which had already burnt its fingers with the University Bill, could not be expected to decide the question; and, considering that there would be abundant opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill on the Committee stage, he thought it would not be desirable to persevere in opposition to the Bill.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to explain the course he intended to take. He felt very strongly with regard to the character of this Bill, and took great interest in University questions generally. He did not wish to sacrifice his chance of doing what he thought necessary in this case; but, as he had been appealed to by so many people, and did not wish to be ill-natured, he would withdraw his opposition. At the same time, he would suggest that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should, before the Committee stage, consider how he could bring the Bill on at an earlier hour.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERpromised to do his best in that direction, for he desired that there should a good discussion on the Bill.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not wish to detain the House. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gray) had said that the House ought to consider the expectant educationists in Ireland. He (Mr. Labouchere) was an expectant vacationist, and he was anxious that the House should adjourn as soon as possible. He had understood that no impediment would be placed in the way of that adjournment by the introduction of controversial matter, and he did not understand how the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could enter into an agreement to afford time for discussing the measure.
    THE MARQUESS or HARTINGTONsaid, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had misunderstood the assurance given by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had only pledged himself that Bills of a public controversial character should not be taken. If any hon. Member was prepared to oppose this Bill, of course it could not be passed, and the responsibility would fall upon those who opposed it.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to point out that there was really no controversy with regard to the Bill, and that it received the support of a large number of Irish Members. The only point was whether the Bill was large enough to

    2005
    deal with the general question of University Education; but there was no dispute as to the necessity of passing the measure in the present Session. A great deal of harm had been done in Ireland through not having a proper system of University Education, and it was quite time that something should be done to remedy the evil. He sincerely hoped that no attempt would be made to delay the progress of the present Bill.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he did not intend to discuss the merits of the Bill at any length; but he thought the second reading ought not to be allowed to pass altogether in silence. He was of opinion that the Bill was not properly understood by the House. It was not correct, as had been stated by two of his hon. Friends near him that the measure was intended merely to carry out the Act of 1879. When the Bill of 1879 was introduced, it was subjected to a considerable amount of criticism, and the reply was that it was only a sketch giving the outline of a scheme, which outline was to be subsequently filled in by the Senate. The Senate were directed to prepare a scheme, and that scheme had now been prepared, and laid before Parliament, and the present Bill was brought in to give effect to it. Objection was taken to the scheme prepared by the Senate, on the ground that it was worse than the one shadowed forth by the Act of 1879. It would have been quite possible to have a much better scheme under that Act, and he sympathized with what had been said by his non. Friend opposite (Mr. Dawson), that the Bill now under discussion was one which would do no good to the cause of education in Ireland. At that late hour (half-past 2) he would not ask the House to listen to any discussion on the merits of the Bill itself; but the Irish Members who took an interest in education, naturally protested against a scheme which they believed would satisfy nobody, which would not benefit Irish Education in any perceptible degree, and which would only form a basis for future agitation.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the object of the Bill was to provide an endowment for carrying out the purposes of the Act of 1879. He had no wish to go back upon the discussion which occurred in 1879; but he thought that the Bill which was then passed did, to
    2006
    a certain extent, make provision for a great want in Ireland. A great number of the Irish people were not satisfied with the Universities then in existence. He held now, as he held then, that it would have been far better to meet the want in a far more comprehensive manner; but, although that was his opinion, it was not the opinion which the House adopted. A measure was, however, passed, and the object of the present Bill was to enable that measure to be put into practical operation. He thought it would be a great disappointment to a large portion of the Irish people if Parliament refused now to try the experiment of establishing this new University. Not only would it be a great disappointment to a good many people, but it would be a great calamity to the cause of higher education; because it would be depriving the young men who hoped to take advantage of it of the means already provided, without putting anything in their place. He therefore thought that those who were interested in Irish Education were bound to support the present Bill in order to carry out the Act of 1879; and if, at some future time, it was found that that Act was not the best mode of carrying out University Education, an attempt might be made to improve it. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) said the Bill would satisfy nobody, and would not benefit Irish Education. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) must remind his hon. Friend that, after all, the scheme proposed by the Senate was the result of the labours of a large representive body of Irishmen, and, probably, the best representative body that could be found. His hon. Friend might possibly be right in his views; but, at any rate, he stood alone in those views, and, not being himself an Irish Member, his opinions were contrary to those which had been declared by a considerable number of persons who had carefully inquired into the subject. The mode in which the scheme had been prepared was this. The Senate were instructed to prepare it, and, having prepared it, it had been submitted to this Government and laid on the Table of the House. But the scheme was not binding. It merely contained such information as the Senate desired to lay before Parliament; and what would really be binding would be the statutes and regulations

    2007
    made under the Act of 1879, and those statutes and regulations would have to be approved of by the Government, and laid upon the Table of the House. The Senate would act with the full knowledge that their recommendations would have to be approved by Parliament; and what the House had now to consider was whether any good object was to be gained by putting the matter off for another year. He would really submit to his hon. Friend whether he was so fully confident in his own views as to what Irish Education should be that he was prepared to subject the Irish people to the great inconvenience which the loss of what they were now striving for would entail? In regard to the future discussion of the Bill, he would do his best to secure the measure being brought on at as early an hour as possible. It had already passed through the other House of Parliament. He was sorry to say that, owing to the pressure of other Public Business, there was not much chance of bringing the Bill on at a very early hour; but, in order not to disappoint those who were interested in the question, he would try to induce hon. Members to submit to the inconvenience of discussing it at a late hour. Personally, he should very much prefer a full discussion, because he thought it was desirable that the public should know all that might be stated in regard to the provisions of the Bill.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had scarcely treated the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), fairly. The right hon. Gentleman told the hon. Member that he was not an Irish Member, and therefore that he was scarcely competent to discuss a question affecting Irish Education. But the hon. Member, if not an Irish Member, was an Irishman, and was therefore fully competent to take part in the discussion of an Irish question. The present Bill simply made provision for the appropriation of an Irish fund for University Education in Ireland, and by that provision it would save the Imperial Exchequer a certain amount of money now given to the Queen's University, which University, when the Royal University was started, would cease to exist. Therefore, it was at the expense of an Irish fund that the new University
    2008
    was to be established. Personally, he looked upon the sum of £20,000 a-year proposed to be applied to the new University as a very inadequate sum. The Senate, when it drew up the scheme, framed it in a manner that was liberal and reasonable; but the Treasury refused to assent to it, because they considered that it would involve a larger expenditure than they were willing to agree to. The consequence was that the new Royal University was cut down to proportions which, he was afraid, would make it a deplorable failure. That, however, was a question which could be raised just as readily when the Bill got into Committee as upon the second reading. He should be sorry to do anything that could interfere with the second reading of the Bill; but he certainly could not understand why, seeing that it was a Bill of only one clause, the right hon. Gentleman could not have deferred it until a later date, when a full discussion could have been taken on it, and the necessity of discussing it in Committee obviated.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was glad to hear the assurance which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the scheme which had been drawn up by the Senate was a scheme still open to amendment. He thought it was quite capable of amendment. He quite agreed with the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Lyons), who stated that although the Act of 1879 did not provide for a good University, still, at any rate, it provided a better University than existed at present. He deprecated the limited nature of the provision made by the Act of 1879. The measure did not appear to provide sufficient backbone for the persons who undertook the carrying out of the important business dealt with by the Act. There seemed to him to be too much of the jelly fish in the system, and he was afraid that the new University would totally fail to content the Irish people. At the same time, if there were any further delay in carrying out some scheme or other, great mischief might be done to the cause of education in Ireland.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

    REPORT OF REASONS.
    COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE LORDS TO THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE COMMONS TO THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, AND COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE SAID LORDS AMENDMENTS.
    The Commons propose to amend the amendments made by the Lords to the amendment made by the Commons to the Lords amendment in page 2, line 5, by leaving out the words ("or acquired, and have in the main been upheld"), and inserting in lieu thereof the following words ("by the landlord or his predecessors in title, and have been substantially maintained"), by leaving out the word ("or") and inserting the word ("and"), and also by leaving out the words ("made or acquired ").
    The Commons disagree to the amendment made by the Lords in page 2, line 28, for the following Reasons:

    (1.) Because the purchase of the tenant right by the landlord in Ulster placed the landlord and tenant in the same relative position as they occupy in the rest of Ireland, and it would be unjust in the application of this Bill to subject the tenants in. Ulster to a disadvantage which is not imposed on the tenants in any other part of Ireland:

    (2.) Because the landlord if he has not increased the rent so as to obtain a return for his investment in the purchase of the tenant right (including the tenant's improvements) may still have the rent fairly increased by application to the court.

    The Commons propose to amend the amendment now proposed by the Lords in page 6, lines 3 and 4, by inserting after the word ("coal pits") the following words ("subject to such rights in respect thereof as the tenant under the contract of tenancy subsisting immediately before the commencement of the statutory term was lawfully entitled to exercise")
    The Commons do not insist on their disagreement with the amendment made by the Lords in page 6, line 8, but propose as a consequential amendment to insert in page 6, line 7, after the word ("tenancy") the words ("save as hereinafter provided")
    The Commons disagree to the amendment now proposed by the Lords in page 6, line 37, for the following Reason:
    Because they believe that their alteration of the scale of compensation for disturbance is expedient with a view to the effectual protection of the tenant against unreasonable and unjust eviction.
    The Commons propose to amend the amendment now proposed by the Lords in page 8, line 15, by restoring the words omitted and by inserting the words ("or after") before the words ("the parties have otherwise failed to come to an agreement") inserted by their Lordships.
    The Commons disagree with the amendment now proposed by the Lords in page 8, line 23, for the following Reason:
    Because the object of the amendment is already fully provided for by the equities clause (ş 8).
    The Commons disagree with the amendment now proposed by the Lords in page 8, line 35, for the following Reason:
    Because it is desirable that for a reasonable time after the passing of the Act the tenant should not be liable to disturbance by "resumption" save for some breach of duty or for some public purpose.
    The Commons propose to amend the amendment made by the Lords to the amendment made by the Commons to the Lords amendment in page 9, line 16, by leaving out the words ("or acquired and have been in the main upheld") and inserting in lieu thereof the following words ("by the landlord or his predecessors in title, and have been substantially maintained"); and also by leaving out the word ("or") and inserting the word ("and")
    The Commons disagree to the amendment now proposed by the Lords to the words restored to the Bill in page 9 at the end of sub-section 8, for the following Reason:
    Because, having regard to the clause already inserted in the Bill these words are superfluous, but the Commons propose to amend the clause by inserting the word ("otherwise") before the word ("compensated") so as to indicate that the latter word includes other words of compensation besides direct payment.
    The Commons agree to their Lordships amendments in page 9, line 42, and propose, as consequential thereto, to re-insert the words omitted by their Lordships in the same clause in page 8, line 20, and also in page 11, line 12.
    The Commons do not insist on their disagreement with the amendment made by the Lords in page 16, line 9; but they propose in place of the words struck out by the Lords to insert the words ("Provided that at the expiration of such existing leases, or of such of them as shall expire within sixty years after the passing of this Act, the lessees, if bonâ fide in occupation of their holdings, shall be deemed to be tenants of present ordinary tenancies from year to year, at the rents and subject to the conditions of their leases respectively, so far as such conditions are applicable to tenancies from year to year; but this provision shall not apply where a reversionary lease of the holding has been bonâ fide made before the passing of this Act; and provided also that where it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Court that the landlord desires to resume the holding for the bonâ fide purpose of occupying the same as a residence for himself, or as a home farm in connexion with his residence, or for the purpose of providing a residence for some member of his family, the Court may authorise him to resume the same accordingly, in the manner and on the terms provided by the fifth section of this Act with respect to the resumption of a holding by a landlord: Provided always, that if the holding so resumed shall be at any time within fifteen years after such resumption re-let to a tenant, the same shall be subject, from and after the

    2011
    time of its being so re-let, to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to present tenancies")
    The Commons propose to amend the amendment made by the Lords to the words restored by the Commons in page 16, line 24, by inserting therein after the word ("may") the words ("by leave of the Court, which leave shall be granted unless the Court shall consider the appeal frivolous or vexatious ")
    With the preceding exceptions the Commons do not insist on their disagreements to the amendments on which the Lords have insisted, and agree to the amendments made by the Lords to the Commons amendments and to the Lords consequential amendments.
    Reasons for disagreement to the Amendments made by The Lords to the Commons Amendments to The Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to the Lords.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE (STATUTES) BILL.— [Lords.]
  (Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE (STATUTES) BILL.— [Lords.]

    [BILL 241.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHproposed to defer the second reading until to-morrow.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTasked if it was really intended to take the second reading of the Bill to-morrow?
    MR. BEYCEsaid, he had had a Notice on the Paper to prevent the Bill from being proceeded with after half-past 12 o'clock; but he had taken that Notice off, and there was now nothing to prevent the Bill being taken at any hour.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTasked when the Notice was taken off?
    MR. BRYCE: To-day.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he must repeat his question to his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it was proposed to proceed with the second reading to-morrow?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHintimated that such was the intention of the Government.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTremarked, that as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had taken off his Notice against the Bill, the Government would be able to take the second reading at any hour. He wished, therefore, to have a distinct answer to the question whether it was proposed to take it at any hour, because it was only right
    2012
    that those who were interested in the Bill should know whether it was likely to be brought on at an inconvenient hour. Of course, if the Government persisted in bringing on the measure at any time, he must make the best he could of the situation.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONunderstood that the Government did hope to be able to take the Bill tomorrow; but, no doubt, if the hon. Gentleman was in his place at 4 o'clock and would ask the Question, he would receive an answer.
    Second Reading deferred until Tomorrow.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1879–80.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. Resolved, That it appears that by the Navy Appropriation Account, for the year ended 31st March 1880, that the balances unexpended in respect of Votes for Navy Services for the said year amounted to the sum of £208,684 14s. 6d. viz.—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Vote 2. Victuals and Clothing for Seamen and Marines

  38,347

  17

  0

  Vote 3. Admiralty Office

  1,635

  2

  6

  Vote 4. Coast Guard Service and Royal Naval Reserves

  3,305

  3

  5

  Vote 5. Scientific Branch

  6,642

  6

  8

  Vote 7. Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad

  3,509

  16

  0

  Vote 8. Medical Establishments

  1,168

  3

  4

  Vote 9. Marine Divisions

  787

  3

  8

  Vote 10. Naval Stores, &c.:—

  Section 1. Naval Stores

  64,733

  18

  11

  Section 2. Steam Machinery, &c.

  58,471

  2

  10

  Vote 11. New Works and Repairs

  20,159

  19

  4

  Vote 12. Medicines and Medical Stores

  9,755

  9

  7

  Vote 13. Martial Law, &c

  168

  11

  3

  £208,684

  14

  6

  2. Resolved, That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorized the application of the said sum of £208,684 14s. 6d., to provide in part for the following amounts of Expenditure incurred in excess of certain other Votes for Navy Services for the said year, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Vote 1. Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines

  15,762

  7

  3

  Vote 6. Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad

  2,768

  1

  1

  Vote 14. Miscellaneous Services

  4,691

  17

  2

  Vote 15. Half Pay, &c

  8

  3

  7

  Vote 16. Military and Civil Pensions, &c.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Section 1. Military Pensions and Allowances

  6,963

  7

  8

  Section 2. Civil Pensions and Allowances

  1,780

  13

  3

  Vote 17. Army Department (Conveyance of Troops)

  592,571

  1

  9

  Amounts written off as irrecoverable

  1,638

  14

  9

  £626,184

  6

  6

  3. Resolved, That the said application be sanctioned.
  4. Resolved, That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account, for the year ended the 31st March 1880, that the balances unexpended in respect of certain Votes for Army Services for the said year, amounting to the sum of £232,036 8s. 4d., were as follows, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Vote 3. Administration of Military Law

  1,091

  17

  1

  Vote 5. Militia Pay and Allowances

  23,860

  9

  7

  Vote 6. Yeomanry Cavalry Pay and Allowances

  1,962

  12

  10

  Vote 8. Army Reserve Force

  30,895

  15

  6

  Vote 13. Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  16,204

  17

  10

  Vote 14. Establishments for Military Education

  5,865

  13

  5

  Vote 18. Pay of General Officers

  8,253

  15

  2

  Vote 19. Retired Full Pay, Half Pay, Pensions, and Gratuities

  133,261

  3

  11

  Vote 22. Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals

  1,223

  4

  5

  Vote 24. Superannuation Allowances

  6,472

  13

  1

  Vote 25. Militia, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Volunteer Corps.

  2,944

  5

  6

  £232,036

  8

  4

  5. Resolved, That it further appears from the said Account that the sum of £189,108 19s. 6d., was realised in the said year in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid.
  6. Resolved, That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorized the application of the said sums, amounting together to the total sum of £421,145 7s. 10d., to provide in part for the following amounts of expenditure incurred in excess of certain other Votes for Army Services for the said year, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Vote 1. General Staff and Regimental Pay

  282,010

  7

  0

  Vote 2. Divine Service

  1,004

  14

  11

  Vote 4. Medical Establishments and Services

  13,331

  10

  1

  Vote 7. Volunteer Corps Pay and Allowances

  9,995

  11

  11

  Vote 9. Commissariat, &c. Establishments

  160,949

  4

  7

  Vote 10. Provisions, Forage,

  £

  s.

  d.

  Fuel, &c

  2,034,065

  9

  8

  Vote 11. Clothing Establishment, &c

  89,133

  7

  10

  Vote 12. Supply, &c. of Warlike and other Stores

  532,249

  18

  4

  Vote 15. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  56,382

  13

  5

  Vote 16. Administration of the Army

  4,836

  1

  0

  Vote 17. Rewards for distinguished Services, &c.

  184

  2

  4

  Vote 20. Widows' Pensions, &c

  8,077

  15

  0

  Vote 21. Pensions for Wounds

  1,743

  8

  7

  Vote 23. Out Pensions

  52,900

  19

  3

  Amounts written off as irrecoverable

  606

  15

  10

  £3,247,471

  9

  9

  7. Resolved, That the said application be sanctioned.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to point out that under Vote 10 of the Navy Estimates for the year 1879–80, there was a sum not required of £64,700, under Section 1, for Naval Stores, and of £58,000 for Steam Machinery, besides £20,000, under Vote 11, for New Works and Repairs. He wished to call attention to the fact, because tomorrow, or at a very early date, the House would be called upon to pass similar Votes in the present year's Navy Estimates, and he thought it ought to be borne in mind that last year more money had been voted than was actually required. He also wished to point out that in regard to the Army Votes—on Vote 10, for Provisions, Forage, Fuel, &c.—there had been a sum voted in excess of the sum actually required of no less than £2,000,000. The Vote was a very large one, and it had been enormously exceeded; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War proposed to take Vote 10 this year, at 1 o'clock in the morning, hon. Members were thought very unreasonable because they objected to proceeding with such an important Vote at such an hour. He thought the fact of the existence of these excesses fully justified the position then taken by hon. Members.
  LORD FREDEEICK CAVENDISHthought the hon. Member should remember that the excesses had connection with the war in South Africa.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  SOLENT NAVIGATION BILL.— [BILL 207.]
  (Mr. Evelyn Ashley, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Trevelyan.)
  SOLENT NAVIGATION BILL.— [BILL 207.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, in moving that the Order for going into Committee on the Bill be discharged, said, the House must not be alarmed, because it was merely a formal matter. The Examiners of Standing Orders had reported that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, and that the Bill, though virtually a Public Bill, was in reality a Hybrid Bill, and ought to be considered upstairs by a Hybrid Committee, nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Order for going into Committee upon the said Bill be discharged,"—(Mr. Evelyn Ashley,)—put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, consisting of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House, and Two by the Committee of Selection."—(Mr. Evelyn Ashley.)
    MR. HEALYasked if it was intended to proceed further with the Bill in the present Session?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYreplied in the affirmative.
    Question put, and agreed, to.
    Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill be referred to the Committee.
    Ordered, That Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel or Agents be heard against the Bill, and that Counsel be heard in support of the Bill.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:—Three to be the quorum.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION AND CIVIL PROCEDURE BILL.— [Lords]— [BILL 219.]
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  STATUTE LAW REVISION AND CIVIL PROCEDURE BILL.— [Lords]— [BILL 219.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he very much regretted to have to move that the Order be discharged. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had given
    2016
    Notice of opposition, and it was, therefore, impossible to proceed with the Bill, and he would move the discharge of the Order for considering it in Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for going into Committee upon the said Bill be discharged."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would gladly take off his Notice of opposition to the Bill if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would accept his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) grounds of objection to it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not make any conditions, and must, therefore, press the discharge of the Order.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the course taken in this case showed the impropriety of putting up a Member of the Government to block the Bills of independent Members. If a Bill of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had not been blocked by the hon. Member for Bath (Sir Arthur Hayter), the hon. Member would not have blocked the present Bill.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORfelt that he had been very badly treated by the Government, and he had no doubt that the hon. and learned Attorney General would agree with him that he was justified, under the circumstances, in the course he had taken. He simply wished now to explain his reasons for taking that course.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that at present there is no Question before the House other than the discharge of the Order.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would take off the block against the Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Then I will withdraw my Motion for the discharge of the Order, and fix the Committee for to-morrow.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  POLLEN FISHING (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  POLLEN FISHING (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 248.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)hoped

    2017
    the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time. Pollen was a freshwater herring, peculiar to Lough Neagh, and in season up to the 1st November. Between 300 and 400 persons lived mainly by this fishing, and as the salmon and trout season closed much earlier the Inspectors of Fisheries, up to last year, made separate orders for the close season for salmon and trout and for the close season for pollen; but it had now been found that under the existing law such separate orders could not lawfully be made, and that there could only be the same close season for salmon and trout and for pollen. The consequence of this was that although pollen were in season they could not be captured after the
    2018
    close season for salmon had commenced. This was a serious hardship to an industrious class of fishermen, which it was the object of the present Bill to remedy, and to enable pollen to be captured during the salmon close time and when pollen was in season.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland,)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Harrington, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—National Debt* (213).
Third Reading—Erne Lough and River* (206), and passed.

DRAINAGE (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—RESOLUTION.
LORD THURLOWmoved—
"That the Order of the 1st day of April last, which limits the time for the Second Reading of any Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order he dispensed with respect to the said Bill."
The noble Lord explained that the Bill was one of considerable interest and importance to a large number of persons in Ireland. The measure had reference to a district in the county of Cork. It was of a very useful character, and he hoped it would not be prevented from becoming law by reason of a technicality in the Forms of the House.
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he did not think he ever rose to do a more painful or unpleasant duty than the present. He had been for a great many years Chairman of the Committees of that House, and it was his duty in that Office to see that the Orders of the House with regard to private legislation were observed. He had never yet found any want of confidence in the decisions he had come to, and this was the first time in which, having expressed a decided opinion against a proceeding of this kind, that opinion had been overruled. One of the Standing Orders of the House was that no Bill confirming a Provisional Order should be read a second time if brought from the other House after the 16th of June; but this Bill was not read a first time in the House of Commons till the 21st of July, and if their Lordships allowed such an infraction of their Orders, those Orders were worth nothing at all, for nobody could rely on them. He had never shown any unwillingness to suspend the Orders when good reason had been shown; but here there was a deliberate insult to the House of Lords.

1879
Everything was ready in the Office in Ireland by the 22nd of January, and the delay was simply owing to the negligence of the promoters to push it forward in due time.
EARL GRANVILLEentirely agreed with the observation of the noble Earl that the Orders of the House should be maintained; but could not accept the view that any insult to the noble Earl would be involved in a Resolution of their Lordships to suspend the Order for the public convenience. He was not acquainted with the details of the matter, and could not say why the Bill was not proceeded with at an earlier date. He could not help thinking that the observations of the noble Earl would expedite parties who were concerned in Private Bills. There was really no objection to this Bill. The object of it was good, and it was desirable that it should be passed this Session. He thought they might suspend the Order in this exceptional case. To do so would cast no reflection on the Office of the noble Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he felt that the noble Earl had done his duty by calling attention to this matter. Unless the Order was maintained, there was very little chance of it meeting with any respect hereafter. These Orders were often a security against private rights being invaded by the action of Provisional Orders, and if the noble Earl went to a division he should support him. But, while saying that, he admitted that there was in this case some ground why they should take an indulgent view; and, as there was no opposition to the Bill, he would advise the noble Earl not to press his objection.
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he could not accept the advice which had been given him, because if he did it would go forth that their Orders were of no use. If this were a small case he would not press his objection. This Bill was ready on the 22nd of January; but the promoters had thought proper not to push the Bill forward. If the Motion were agreed to there would be an end of their Standing Orders.
LORD THURLOWdesired to assure their Lordships that nothing had been done which was prejudicial to the dignity or the Office of the noble Chairman of Committees. There had been an unfor-
1880
tunate delay; but he might observe that two Bills analogous to the present were brought in last year in the month of August, and were passed into law.
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that the fact just mentioned showed that he was not unwilling in proper cases to have the Standing Orders suspended. The circumstances of last Session were very exceptional indeed. Everything was very late. As he believed it to be necessary that the Standing Orders should be obeyed, he should divide against the Motion.
On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 29; Not-Contents 31: Majority 2.

CONTENTS.

Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

De Mauley, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Denman, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Camperdown, E.

Granville, E.

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

Kimberley, E.

Minto, E.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Morley, E.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Northbrook, E.

Spencer, E.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.

Sydney, E.

Sandhurst, L.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.

Ampthill, L.

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

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Thurlow, L.

Braye, L.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Somerset, D.

Borthwick, L.

Colchester, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Winchester, M.

Elphinstone, L.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Cairns, E.

Devon, E.

Harlech, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lamington, L.

Harrington, E.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Lathom, E.

Rowton, L.

Redesdale, E. [Teller.]

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Hawarden, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Melville, V.

Sidmouth, V.

Strathspey, L. (E. Sea field.) [Teller.]

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Ventry, L.

Waveney, L.

Alington, L.

Wynford, L.

Bateman, L.

Resolved, in the negative.

PATRIOTIC FUND BILL.
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
In reply to Viscount SIDMOUTH,
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, there was a sufficient fund at the disposal of the Commissioners, supplemented as it would be from other funds that were available, to render it unnecessary that an appeal should be made to the public for subscriptions for the widows and orphans of the sufferers by the loss of the Doterel, and he hoped that other similar cases would also be met in the same manner in future.

CEYLON—ECCLESIASTICAL SUBSIDIES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to call the attention of the House to the correspondence relative to ecclesiastical subsidies in Ceylon; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies for explanations of his despatches of 19th November 1880, and 14th June, said, he desired to call their Lordships' attention to the Correspondence recently laid before Parliament on the ecclesiastical subsidies in Ceylon. This Correspondence referred to two subjects which were distinct—namely, the maintenance of the Bishop of Colombo and his clergy, and the maintenance of the Reformed Church at Wolfendahl. With regard to the Bishop, he should say nothing of the intrinsic merits of the Bishop of Colombo, because it would weaken the line of argument he was going to take, because he had better leave that to other noble Lords and to the right rev. Bench, and because he was bound to believe that the only grounds of action of the Secretary of State for the Colonies were those stated in paragraph No. 2 of his despatch of November 19 of last year—namely, the small number of persons supposed to be benefited out of the general taxation of Ceylon. For the Secretary of State this was, therefore, a question of population, and if the population of Ceylon were limited to the 250,000 Christians, of whom 190,000 were Roman Catholics, the inequality which had moved the Secretary of State would be great; but as there were 2,150,000 non-Christian inhabitants of the Island, other considerations must be taken into account.
  1882
  According to the figures adopted by the Secretary of State's despatch, there were some 470,000 Hindoos in Ceylon. He proposed to eliminate these altogether from the discussion, because most of these were poor Coolies employed on the coffee plantations, and were, for the most part, only temporary sojourners in Ceylon, and were not affected by taxation. Those who belonged to the few Hindoo temples in Ceylon might be classed with the Buddhists. Now, the 1,500,000 Buddhists and the 180,000 Mussulmans of Ceylon would be equally dismayed and alarmed for the property held by themselves as religious communities when they found the Government disendowing its own religion; and there were indications in this Correspondence that the temple lands of the Buddhists were threatened with attack and spoliation, or with new taxation, which would have the same effect. As to the Mussulmans, it was to them but a very slight grievance, if it were a grievance at all, that some portion of the public money derived from general taxation should go to the maintenance of a representative of the religion of the State; but it would be a great grievance to them to be subjected to a State and a Government without any religion, such as the English Government would appear to be if the policy of these despatches were carried out. He could not conceive any greater humiliation for the Mussulmans than to be under a Government which had discarded religion and its ministers, and which hung out the colours of infidelity, or, as it was now called, agnosticism. In the meantime, this grievance was as nothing compared to that from which the Mussulmans of Ceylon were actually suffering. Though they were from 170,000 to 180,000 in number, and were the most intelligent, active, and wealthy of the Native communities, they still had no representative in the Legislative Council. He hoped that the regard for equality of the noble Earl would induce him to remedy this before long. So far he had spoken on general principles; but to come to particulars, the Mussulmans in Ceylon often spoke to him of the Bishop of Colombo, but they never said anything against him or his office; and, though this subject had probably been discussed in the local newspapers, it had not been alluded to in the letters

  1883
  he had received from that Island. He might say much the same as to the Buddhists; although it appeared to be inconsistent with their tenets, yet they were much attached to public worship, and would think ill of a Government which discouraged it. The most ancient mosque in Ceylon was originally built on temple land, which was leased by the Buddhist priests to the Mussulmans; and when they found that the building erected by them was dedicated to public worship the Buddhist priests refused to take the money reserved as rent for the land. The Governor of Ceylon, Sir James Longden, wrote to the Secretary of State to the effect that the ecclesiastical subsidies might be withdrawn in Ceylon because the circumstances were different from those in Trinidad, where he had opposed such a measure. He thought that the difference was, however, all against the policy of the noble Earl, for in Trinidad less scandal would be caused than in Ceylon, where the exemplary demeanour and learning of the Buddhist priests made it the more essential that a State professing to be Christian should not desert the Held. If the Government persisted in the course laid down in these despatches, it would be more easy to believe that it was indifferent and hostile to religion than to believe the excuses on account of economy or of equality put forward in this Correspondence. He trusted that the noble Earl would reconsider his decision, even though he should reduce the stipend of the Bishop and reduce the number of the clergy who were now supported by the Government of Ceylon, and that he would not sever the connection between Church and State, and throw to the Bishop a freedom which he did not require, or, as the noble Earl's despatch worded it, "relieve him from all State interference." At the same time, in order to satisfy those feelings which were raised by consideration of the statistics of the population, some assistance might well be granted to the Portuguese, who, in general, were not as wealthy as the other classes of the Christians. It appeared from the Correspondence that the Dutch Reformed Church willingly joined the Church of England, and rallied to that Church in 1796, and had shown no signs of wishing to separate from it. As for the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council who had
  1884
  raised this question, and who, in a heathen and idolatrous country, had called upon the Government to withdraw its countenance and support from the established ministers of religion, the more fitting attitude for the Government towards them would be that which was adopted by His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople some 200 years ago, who, when the Quaker persisted in keeping on his hat before him, said the Turks were right, and that the man must be mad. The Government of Ceylon might get over the difficulty caused by the steps taken and related in this Correspondence by making grants of some of the land still at the disposal of the Government to the different Churches. The case of the Church of Wolfendahl, belonging to the Reformed Dutch Church of Colombo, stood upon a different ground. The decision of the Secretary of State, in his despatch of June 14, was open to all the objections which might be made to his decision against the Bishop of Colombo; but, besides that, it was a distinct violation of the engagements of the British Government at the time of the capitulation of the Dutch in 1796. It appeared to be only a quibble to endeavour to evade that engagement by saying that the Dutch clergy voluntarily left Ceylon in 1806. The Dutch settlers did not leave, and were now there, and were known as Burghers. They required and had a claim to the stipends stipulated for their clergy in 1796, and it made no difference to them whether the original clergy left voluntarily or had all died of an epidemic. Least of any could our Government afford to disregard and break its Treaty engagements; and, even if the Secretary of State attached any value to this quibble of the Law Officers, the matter in dispute was too trifling to make it advisable to risk the opposite view which was taken by the Dutch Burghers. This was not the only Colony in which Treaty obligations had been set aside and disregarded and hostile comment provoked on the part of the former countrymen of the Colonists whose rights had been set aside.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, it was important that they should know whether the disendowment referred to by the noble Lord had been effected, and, if it had not, whether there was time for consideration. It

  1885
  could hardly be considered as actually done; because, so far as he knew, there was a Legislative Body in Ceylon, and the only record they had of the opinion of that body was to the effect that it ought not to be done. The Secretary of State, in his despatches, seemed to contemplate that the thing would be done. He presumed it would be done by votes, in obedience to orders from head-quarters. The objections raised to the proposal were, first, that it was a violation of Treaty obligations; and, secondly, that it was inexpedient in itself. As to its being in violation of Treaty obligations, that, at all events, was a very important matter, and it had, probably, been considered by the Law Officers of the Crown. There was a Proclamation following the Treaty, which, to uninstructed persons, seemed to be an acknowledgment of the obligation of maintaining the Christian religion on the part of the Government which succeeded the occupation of the Dutch. At the time of the cession of Ceylon by the Dutch there were two great religions in the Island—one the original Buddhist religion, professed by the great majority of the inhabitants, the other the Christian religion, professed by a large body. At that time the Government issued a Proclamation, stating that both those religions should retain the rights ceded to them by the Dutch Government. But it was said that instead of one body of Christians in the Island there were now several; and, no doubt, there was a temptation to apply to Ceylon the principles which had been applied in other places where there were different Christian denominations. But when they considered the Papers they would find that not even all the congregations of the Church of England were subsidized. Some successors of the old Dutch congregations continued to receive those stipends, and they were under the Bishop of Ceylon, although they were, by descent, the representatives of the old Dutch Presbyterian congregations. Many of their ministers were actually persons whose ancestors were of those Dutch Christians, or belonged to the Native Churches which grew up under Dutch protection. Now, the question was raised—Why give the subsidy to the Church of England and not to the other bodies? It was a sufficient answer to
  1886
  this to say there was a large heathen population, consisting also of various bodies. The most important was the Buddhist, which received this subsidy; but there were other heathen denominations existing throughout the country who received no subsidy. To those who said that the Bhuddist body should be disendowed as well as the Christians the answer was plain—if you promised a sum of money to one person it was no reason he should not get it because other persons to whom you made no such promise got none. The noble Lord said that the Buddhists were not endowed; but they were secured by the Government one-third of the landed property of the whole country. Not only so; but in the cultivation of this land they were secured from taxes which fell on all the other inhabitants of the Island. That, of course, increased the incidence of taxation on the other inhabitants; and, therefore, the Buddhists were practically endowed with a large sum of money. If they endeavoured to disendow the Buddhist body they would lose possession of the Island, because one-third of the land was in their possession, and they constituted an overwhelming majority of the population. Consequently, it would be dangerous to tamper with the rights secured to them by Treaty. Now, he was surprised that some of those who were so eager against endowments of all kinds should be discontented with endowing their Christian brethren in Ceylon, while they were bound to maintain so very large an endowment of a heathen religion. The case of Jamaica was not analogous to the present, because in Jamaica no heathen religion received large amounts of public money. It would, besides, be highly undesirable to show in Ceylon our readiness to shake off all recognition of the Christian religion on the part of the State, especially as the Proclamation at the cession of the Island made such loud declarations that the Christian religion, which the Dutch had left in a nourishing condition, was to be maintained by the Government that succeeded them. The course pursued in a good many instances by the Colonial Office lately, of disestablishing and disendowing Churches, was one which, to say the least, required to be taken with caution. It was now proposed to sweep away the corporation sole created by

  1887
  Letters Patent in the Bishopric of Colombo. This experiment ought, in his judgment, to be made with great caution. It was in the power of the Crown to create corporations; but it was not quite clear that the Crown could by its own act supersede them. The gravest complications as to property had been introduced in various Colonies by the off-hand way in which the Colonial Office had dealt with these matters. A serious law-suit had recently arisen with reference to property at Grahamstown, in the Cape Colony; and a very important question would have to be decided before long by the Privy Council as to whether the corporation of the Bishopric of Grahamstown was still in existence, although the Crown had, for the time, failed to appoint anyone to occupy the corporation. The result at present was complete confusion as to all property connected with this matter. So in Ceylon the same difficulties might arise which had occurred in other Colonies, where the seeds of many law-suits had been sown by the way in which this matter had been dealt with. Therefore, although he did not expect the noble Earl to alter his views on the subject, he hoped he would not fail to give full consideration to the difficulties that might arise from the course he was about to adopt.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was not prepared to admit, in the slightest degree, that the action of the Colonial Office, either in that or the other matters referred to, had been either rash or hasty. The decision affecting the Cape Bishopric to which the most rev. Prelate referred took place many years ago, before he was in the Office which he now had the honour to hold; and the effect of it, as far as he remembered, was that the Letters Patent could not be legally maintained. He could not admit the truth of the allegation that the action of the Colonial Office had sown the seeds of many legal disputes in regard to ecclesiastical matters in the Colonies. The Colonial Office had, in all these instances, advised that a statute should be passed in each Colony to enable the disendowed Churches to transact their work and to hold property. He agreed, indeed, with the most rev. Prelate that it would be a great hardship and a scandal to the Church if measures were not taken to enable the
  1888
  Church to administer its affairs in a satisfactory manner. With regard to the particular question now before the House, he must point out that the most rev. Prelate had spoken of the Buddhist endowment as if it were the same thing as the endowment which was about to be done away with. The Buddhists in Ceylon had possessed, from very ancient times, large tracts of land, which were known as temple lands, while the very small endowment which was now given to the Anglican and the Presbyterian Churches came directly out of the taxation of the Island, and was paid by the Government. With regard to any lands which the Church possessed, it was distinctly provided in a despatch, which he wrote on the subject, that there was to be no interference.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYinquired whether such lands were free from taxation?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not know; but he did not think that because they were bound by Treaty to respect the privileges of the Buddhists, therefore they were bound, for all time, to extend the same privileges to other religions. This was a question, not of Christianity, but of a variety of Christian denominations. There were in Ceylon large numbers of Buddhists, Mahomedans, and Hindoos, a considerable number of Roman Catholics, and a handful of Anglicans and Presbyterians. They endowed this handful of Anglicans and Presbyterians; but they totally disregarded the claims of the Roman Catholics, Mahomedans, and Hindoos. Such an injustice could not possibly be defended. When he held Office before this question came up for consideration, and some persons at that time desired that a change should be made; but nothing was done, because it did not appear that there was any feeling in Ceylon in favour of the change. Since then, however, a strong feeling had been expressed by a considerable number of persons in Ceylon that these endowments should be put an end to. Therefore, he thought, the time had come when the change might be made, not rashly, but after the consideration of many years. There were nearly 250,000 Christians in Ceylon. Of these, 190,000 were Roman Catholics, and 45,000 belonged to unassisted Protestant denominations, leaving only

  1889
  15,000 Anglicans and Presbyterians, who received a State contribution of £10,000 a-year. If the endowment of the latter was continued, could it possibly be maintained that the Roman Catholics ought to receive nothing? If there were Treaty obligations requiring them to keep up this endowment, he should have considered that they were absolutely bound either to continue it or to give a sum of money by way of compensation. But he thought the most rev. Prelate could not have referred to the actual words of the Treaty, which said—
  "The clergy shall continue in their functions and receive the same pay and emoluments as they have from the Dutch."
  The only question which could arise was whether the present Dutch Church in Ceylon was entitled under the Treaty to continue to receive some stipend? As there might be a legal doubt on this point, he referred it to the Law Officers, who gave it as their distinct opinion that the Treaty did not apply, for shortly after its conclusion the whole of the Dutch clergy left, and the payment made to them came to an end, and the present payment could not be held to be made under the Treaty. The Bishop of Colombo had urged upon him the necessity of giving sufficient time to the Church in Ceylon to make arrangements, and a period of five years had accordingly been granted for the purpose. He might observe that the Bishop said he was not prepared to advance on behalf of the Church of England in Ceylon, as a whole, any claim for a continuance of the State assistance, and he added—
  "I am not aware that as a Church we have any right to it, nor am I sure that its permanent continuance would be to our ultimate advantage."
  This was not merely a question of the disendowment of a Church. It was a question of justice to the various inhabitants of the Island. To give a concurrent endowment to all these religious communions would be out of the question for various reasons, and, amongst others, that it would impose a burden on the revenues of the Colony which they could not bear. The strongest possible case had been made out for putting an end to this small endowment, which was not at all necessary for the maintenance of the Church in
  1890
  Ceylon; and he could not hold out any hope that the policy on which Her Majesty's Government had determined in respect to this matter would be departed from.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONdesired to know whether all the details of the proposed arrangement had been settled, or whether there was still room to modify them? He trusted care would be taken to prevent legal complications in. regard to Church property if disestablishment took place. He also trusted that his noble Friend would make the transition as gradual and as easy as possible.

TUNIS.—RESOLUTION.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to call attention to the present state of affairs in Tunis; and to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, any interference with the integrity of the Ottoman Empire in North Africa is likely to prove dangerous to the peace of Europe,"
said, that on the last occasion this subject was before the House the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs remarked that, in view of the complicated state of things then existing, it would be the duty of the Government to take the best advice they could get and to give a full and frank explanation to Parliament. Since then Papers had been presented relating to both Tunis and Tripoli, and, judging from the public Press, matters had become somewhat less complicated than they were; but the information contained in the Papers was somewhat meagre, and matters were still so far complicated that he thought that the full explanation which the noble Earl suggested would be welcomed by the House and the country. The first thing that would strike anyone on reading the Papers would probably be that there was no mention made of the Enfida case. It was not necessary for him to go into the details of this dispute. The facts were that a French Company negotiated with Khereddin Pasha for the purchase of a large estate in land. As there existed in Tunis, as in other Mahomedan countries, a right of pre-emption on the part of neighbouring proprietors in the case of a sale of landed property, the precaution was taken of leaving a strip all round the Enfida estate in the hands of Khereddin

1891
Pasha, so as to exclude the possibility of the right of pre-emption being exercised. But, as it turned out, this precaution was unavailing, as a Mr. Levy possessed some portions of property in the centre of the Enfida estate. He was consequently able to exercise his right of pre-emption, and did so. It was suggested that the matter should be referred to arbitration; but Her Majesty's Government very properly decided that it ought to be settled in the Local Courts, and, in order that the Courts should exercise unbiased judgment, two British ships of war were sent to Tunis. Mr. Levy brought his claim forward in the Hanefi Court, the Court to which such matters were always referred, and an order was given putting Mr. Levy in possession. Afterwards, at the instance of the French Minister Resident, the case was taken out of the jurisdiction of the Hanefi Court, and referred to the Maliki Court, which did not take cognizance of cases of that kind. He had seen it stated that this Court had decided against Mr. Levy. How far that was true or not he did not know. He had seen it also stated that the British Consular Judge had been ordered back to Tunis to report as to whether our Treaty rights were interfered with by the transference of Mr. Levy's claim from the Hanefi to the Maliki Court. Whether, theoretically, our Treaty rights were broken was a matter which he could not judge; but he should imagine that there could be no doubt that, practically speaking, they had been broken. If the matter had been left to the free and unbiased action of the Bey's Court there could be no question that Mr. Levy would be put in possession of the estate; but if, owing to the preponderating influence of some other Power, the case was taken out of the proper Court and referred to another tribunal and decided against Mr. Levy, there could surely be no doubt that an infringement of our Treaty rights had taken place. Another important omission was that instructions from the Government to our Consul General at Tunis were not, he imagined, given in full. Mr. Reade had instructions to accept the new order of things in so far as it did not violate our Treaty rights. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was very properly most particular that our Treaty rights should not be infringed, and
1892
France, very properly, undertook to say that they should not be infringed; but, as a matter of fact, it appeared to him impossible that they could be maintained in the spirit. One of the principal stipulations in our Treaties was that the Representative of Great Britain should be treated with the same honours in every way as were accorded to the Representative of any other nation; but as very special honours and privileges were accorded to the Representative of France, there could be no question that at that time our Treaties were broken. The noble Earl pointed out the difficulties arising from the double functions exercised by the French Minister Resident at Tunis, and France had so far recognized these difficulties that she had appointed a subordinate of M. Roustan's to the post of Consul. But the difficulty was not really solved by this. Another point of importance was the right of access which our Representative had to the Bey, and the right of British subjects to have matters in dispute decided by the Consul in concurrence with the Bey or his delegate. The delegate must, of course, mean a Tunisian delegate; and if the Bey's delegate was the Representative of another Power, the spirit of the Treaty was broken in that case. The Papers presented contained the statement made through the Havas Agency to the effect that there was nothing in the French Treaty to preclude the Representatives of Foreign Powers from claiming audience of the Bey whenever he thought right to accord it. That might be very true; but the Treaty contained a provision giving us a right of access to the Bey. It might be said that we could not have compelled the Bey at any time to have accorded an audience to our Representative; but, in the event of his not doing so, we should have had our remedy in remonstrances with the Bey. It was useless to suppose that we had that remedy now, seeing it was absurd to suppose that the Bey was any longer a free agent in the matter. The general tenour and object of our Treaties was that British subjects should enjoy equal privileges in the way of acquiring lands, investing money, and carrying on all the affairs of life with the subjects of any other Power; and it was obvious that if any other Power obtained a preponderating influence over the Bey and over the Local Courts, the

1893
whole spirit of the Treaty was, practically speaking, broken. Our Commercial Treaties also must not be lost sight of. Our Commercial Treaties with Tunis were very favourable to us. They would be open to revision next year; and although it was stipulated that they could not be altered without the consent of both parties, it was probable that, in view of the commercial relations between France and England, there might be more difficulty in renewing them on equally favourable terms to us, under present circumstances, than if we had to deal with the Bey uninfluenced by France. The real difficulty was that there was no real authority in Tunis. The Sultan claimed supreme authority; but his claims had been disallowed. The authority of the Bey had been, practically, superseded, and yet in theory it remained unchanged. The foreign affairs of the country were, to all intents and purposes, in the hands of the French Minister Resident, who thereby became the Suzerain of Tunis. And yet he was not the Foreign Minister of the Bey, for the Tunisian Minister of Foreign Affairs retained his position, but was subject to the control of the French Minister Resident. It was difficult to see what was the position of British subjects in reference to Tunisian subjects in Tunis, or Egypt, or Malta, or in this country. Would disputes in which Tunisians were implicated be decided by the French Ambassador or Consul General or by the Consul General and Ambassador of Turkey; and would a British subject, having a dispute with a Tunisian subject—say in Egypt—be dealt with by the British Consul and the Courts of the Viceroy, or by the British and French Consular Courts? A kind of government within a government, where nobody appeared to be responsible, existed in Tunis, which might lead to endless difficulties. For instance, to whom were British subjects to apply for redress who had lost property during the bombardment of Sfax? Was application to be made to the Bey, who was supposed to be responsible for the government, but was certainly not responsible for the bombardment; or to France, who was responsible for the bombardment, and who was not supposed to be responsible for the government of Tunis? If a country was conquered, and the conqueror accepted the Treaty
1894
obligations of the conquered, the other parties to those Treaties had no cause to complain. They could hold the new Government responsible for the observance of their Treaties. But if one nation exercised complete control over the affairs of another nation, but without definitely taking and exercising the functions of a Government, it was difficult to see how other people could guard their interests. To whom were they to appeal? Who was responsible? The one nation was not responsible for the government of the country theoretically, neither was the other responsible practically, seeing that it had ceased to retain real freedom of action. Our Treaties were designed for the protection of British subjects at a Court irresponsible and independent as far as European influence was concerned. Tunis could not any longer be looked upon in that light; and though the letter of our Treaties might remain intact, it would be strange if the spirit of them was not broken. A state of things existed which might lead to difficulties at any time; and, as anything that could imperil in the slightest degree the friendship existing between this country and France would be greatly to be deplored, the present state of affairs was most unsatisfactory, and it would be a relief to know that there was a probability of this anomalous condition of affairs being brought to a close. So much for the manner in which our Treaty rights were jeopardized. He did not intend to dilate upon the possible dangers to our trade. He called the attention of the House on a former occasion to the magnitude of our Indian and Colonial trade that passed through the Malta Channel; and it could not be denied that our feeling as regarded the security of that trade must be modified if an important naval position commanding the Malta Channel passed out of the hands of one of the Barbary States into those of a great Naval Power. We had great interests involved in that part of the globe, as had also other nations, Spain and Italy especially, and anything imperilling the interests of those countries could not but be dangerous to the good feeling existing among nations. The greatest danger, however, appeared to arise from the effect upon the feelings and sentiments of Turkey which might be produced by the annexation or occupation of any portion of her dominions-

1895
in Africa. Turkey was very hardly dealt with. Her territories were constantly circumscribed and guaranteed, and then circumscribed and guaranteed again. But if every guarantee was speedily followed by some fresh infringement of her territory, it was not likely that Turkey would have much confidence in guarantees. He presumed that some continuity existed in Treaties, and that the Treaty of Berlin ratified the Treaty of Paris, and that again ratified former Treaties affecting Turkey. He did not think that Tunis was mentioned in the Treaty of London of 1841; but it happened that it was particularly mentioned during the Conference at Vienna which preceded the Treaty of Paris of 1856. It was probable that Tunis was especially before the eyes of Europe at that moment as having contributed a contingent of 25,000 men to the forces of the Sultan engaged in the Crimean War. Russia was, very naturally, somewhat reluctant to give a specific detailed guarantee as regarded all portions of the Ottoman Empire, though willing to give a general guarantee; and Prince Gortchakoff stated as one of his reasons that, if any detailed guarantee were given, such a thing as an invasion of Tunis would have to be considered a casus belli. Trance, however, saw no difficulty in giving detailed guarantees; and M. Drouyn de Lhuys stated that he would willingly give, not only a general guarantee, but a detailed guarantee, and added that he saw no difficulty in extending it to the Regency of Tunis. According to the 13th Protocol of the Conference of Vienna there could be little doubt that the Regency of Tunis was considered to be included within the general guarantee given by the Great Powers to Turkey by the Treaty of 1856, and we could not be surprised if Turkey considered that an infringement of her Treaty rights had taken place. Turkey, as was usual, had been put in an impossible position. She was told that if hostilities broke out among the Arab tribes on the Frontier of Tripoli, she would be held responsible if she could not put them down: and she was told also that if she sent troops to Tripoli, and hostilities broke out among the Arabs, she would be responsible for having fomented them. If she did not send troops and difficulties arose, she would be told, as was told to the Bey of Tunis, that she was unable to
1896
control the Arabs. Any interference with the Sultan's dominions in that quarter of the globe was greatly to be deplored, as being likely to upset the balance of power in the Mediterranean, and to unsettle that settlement of the Eastern Question which Her Majesty's Government had laboured so hard and so successfully, in some respects, to bring about. Turkey gave way to the wishes of the European Concert and allowed a settlement to be made. But if the settlement so arrived at in deference to the wishes of the concert was to be followed immediately by some fresh interference, we could not expect Turkey to look upon the concert as anything but a somewhat one-sided affair. If the concert of the Powers were only possible when there was a question of dividing some portion of the Ottoman Empire, and if it resolved itself into its primitive elements the moment there was a question of preserving what was left of the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan was not likely to look with great respect upon the European Concert and the concert failed in its objects. How could we, or any other of the European Powers, expect Turkey to fulfil her obligations, financial or otherwise, if we did not fulfil our obligations to her? How could we press upon her to undertake reforms and carry out the promises which she made, if we on our part did not carry out the promises which we made to her? It was not unreasonable to look with some degree of anxiety upon what might result from the French occupation of Tunis. A fire was burning in the midst of most inflammable materials, and all those who had property in the neighbourhood naturally felt anxious. There were two ways in which a fire could be treated. It could either be dealt with at the commencement, or it could be confined within limits. The first policy, if practicable, was the best. There could be no objection, on the part of this or any other country, to France taking the necessary measures for the protection of her Algerian Dominions; but it was possible that if the grave consequences which might ensue from the occupation of Tunis had been pointed out to her, she would have been able to do all that was necessary without going so far as she had. It would be a most lamentable thing if anything occurred to endanger the friendship existing between England

1897
and France; and he did not suppose that France would wish to do anything that could weaken that friendship; but the danger was that in embarking on a certain course she might find it very difficult to check herself. He must confess that French statesmen appeared to have but vague apprehension of the danger to which the state of things in Africa exposed them and others. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs pointed out the difficulties that might arise on account of the pretensions of French Consuls in Tripoli and Egypt to exercise protection over Tunisian subjects. M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire merely promised to examine into the question and to make a communication about it. Whether that communication had been received he did not know; but anyone would have supposed that such a simple matter required very little examination, and needed only a distinct disavowal. M. St. Hilaire had spoken very plainly concerning Tripoli. He stated to Lord Lyons that the French Government had no intention whatever either of invading it or of attempting to establish any exclusive or predominant influence in it. But it must be remembered that he and other French statesmen had been equally distinct and clear in disavowing any intention of annexation or of an occupation of Tunis other than one of "an essentially provisional character," and in stating that the only object of French interference was the guarding of her Algerian Frontier, and protecting her interests in Algeria. But as yet we saw no sign of the provisional nature of the occupation. On the contrary, France appeared to be consolidating her occupation, and was even appointing Governors over various portions of the country. He did not suppose that France had any designs towards Tripoli; but the danger was that in occupying the position she now held she might find herself irresistibly dragged into a still more complicated position. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs also spoke very distinctly as regarded Tripoli; but he was equally clear as regarded Tunis. In fact, it was difficult to understand what difference this country could recognize between the two Provinces. The noble Earl stated that Tripoli formed an integral portion of the Ottoman Empire, and that Her Majesty's Government
1898
looked upon Tunis as forming part of the Ottoman Empire. The only difference that he could see was that the Governor of Tunis was called a "Bey," and the Governor of Tripoli was called a "Dey." He was tempted to remark that—
"Tis strange there should such difference be,
'Twixt letter B and letter D."
But it seemed that in the difference between the letters "B" and "D" there was some inscrutable reason which caused Her Majesty's Government and the other Powers to look upon Tripoli in a different light to that in which they viewed Tunis. It would be very interesting to know what was the opinion of the other Great Powers on this point, particularly on account of what the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said on a former occasion in that House. He then stated that, although we held that Tunis formed part of the Ottoman Empire, and although Austria and Germany held the same view, he had reason to know that they would not have assisted us in carrying our views into effect. It was important, therefore, to know what Austria and Germany, for instance, thought about Tripoli, because if our carrying out our obligations and views depended upon the assistance we received from other Powers, it was obvious that the assurances of the noble Earl concerning Tripoli were not of great value unless read alongside of the opinions of the other Powers on the subject. For the reasons he had given, it appeared to him that there was scarcely any portion of the world where more sensitive interests of many nations were at stake than in those portions of the Ottoman Empire which bordered on the Mediterranean. There was no spot on the globe where a small spark was more likely to bring forth a serious conflagration. Under those circumstances, it was not unnatural that we should feel somewhat uneasy that Parliament should separate without the full explanation that was promised by the noble Earl.
Moved to resolve,
"That, in the opinion of this House, any interference with the integrity of the Ottoman Empire in North Africa is likely to prove dangerous to the peace of Europe."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
LORD LAMINGTONsaid, that, with all deference to the noble Earl who had

1899
just sat down, he thought that the subject of Tunis and the position of the Ottoman Empire in respect of it had been brought recently much too frequently before their Lordships. He confessed that having read the recent despatches laid upon the Table he did not think that France had any design whatever to interfere with the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and that the assurances given to them by eminent French statesmen ought to satisfy them on that subject. For his part, he had gathered the opinion he had expressed from the despatches before their Lordships and from the speeches delivered by M. St. Hilaire, M. Gambetta, and other distinguished French statesmen. They ought to take the assurances of Foreign Powers as they were given, until by some overt act they had reason to believe that they had said what they did not mean.
EARL GRANVILLE: I desire to say a few words to your Lordships in respect of the speech of my noble Friend behind me; and, in the first place, I have to express my regret that entirely owing, not to my fault, but to circumstances with which your Lordships are acquainted, my noble Friend was obliged on several occasions to postpone his Motion. I have listened very attentively to what my noble Friend has said. Some of us, my Lords, in this House and out of it, are sometimes not able to express our ideas very clearly; but I know no one who is able to express his views with more clearness than is my noble Friend. The only thing which I failed to catch was the drift—the practical result which he desired by his speech to obtain. Certainly the noble Earl does not wish to censure Her Majesty's Government, towards whom he seemed to entertain a friendly feeling throughout the speech. He made but one complaint, to which I will allude immediately. He put the question whether the Government can assure the House that a state of things which he described as anomalous would soon be brought to an end. I hardly know what that question means. Does it mean that he expects the French Government to give up the Treaty with the Bey and withdraw from their position, which undoubtedly is one that enables them to exercise great influence in Tunis? That is a question that he can hardly expect a reply to. The noble
1900
Earl complains that the Correspondence does not give sufficient details of the Enfida case, in which he takes great interest. The fact is, the Papers give all the information we have to give. The noble Earl had been informed that it was decided to refer the case to arbitration, and that two vessels of war were sent to watch that arbitration; but that is an entire misapprehension. At the beginning, when we were hardly informed of the circumstances of the case, and when it appeared that the French were going to increase their Naval Force, we thought that, unintentionally, such an increase might produce an unfair pressure upon that particular case, and we thought it our duty, also, to send a man-of-war also to be present, and which left at the time the increase to the French Force was taken away. In a case of this sort we thought it our duty to take legal advice as to every piece of information; we consulted the highest legal authority, who has taken great interest in the matter; and the fact is that up to this moment we have been positively advised that we had no ground of interference as a Government in this matter. I do not say that circumstances might not arise which might make it our duty to interfere; but up to this time, as we have been advised, we have not been in a position to interfere at all. The noble Earl alluded to a fact that shows the anxiety of the French Government to meet our wishes. The position of M. Roustan as Consul created a considerable technical difficulty with regard to the equality of our Consul; the French Government promised to pay attention to our representation; and the result is that they have appointed another gentleman as Consul at Tunis. Whether the fact is one of great importance or not, it is one that shows the sort of feeling in which the two countries ought to act together in this matter. The noble Earl speaks of difficulties which may arise in the present state of things. I cannot deny that such difficulties may arise; but up to this moment they have not arisen. As to the question whether our Treaty rights have been broken in any way, I have already stated, in answer to the noble Earl, that we have no Treaty rights as regards access to the Bey, and I adhere to that statement. We have no Treaty rights; but we have had the practice

1901
of access to the Bey, and I am not aware that it has been diminished by what has occurred. I added, what is obvious, that the importance of access to the Bey is probably much diminished by the present state of things. As regards Treaty stipulations on this point, they do not exist; as regards practice, we are not in the least prohibited from the access to the Bey we have previously enjoyed. The noble Earl could see no difference between the position of Tunis and that of Tripoli; but there are great differences. In one the authority of the Sultan is purely of a nominal character; in the other there has been active interference in many ways. Indeed, in Tunis the French and the Italians deny the suzerainty of the Porte; but as to Tripoli, all the Powers are united in admitting that it is a portion of the Ottoman Empire. I am sure, from what he said, that the noble Earl approves our policy. We have adopted the Treaty of Berlin; we have endeavoured, and we shall endeavour, to remove any difficulty in the way of fulfilling the conditions of that Treaty. We believe that if all the conditions of the Treaty of Berlin are carried out there is no reason whatever why the Sultan should not maintain his authority in Turkey, and we desire that he should do so. As to Tripoli, all we have done, and it was clearly our duty, is this—in the most friendly, and, I flatter myself, the most courteous manner, we gave our opinion with absolute frankness to France, and France has returned assurances of a most definite character. The noble Earl has intimated that there may be some doubt about those assurances; but I cannot think it is desirable that in this House we should question the perfectly definite and clear assurances given by the Governments of great and friendly Powers. For one, I certainly wish to rely on those assurances. I quite admit that in international affairs those who are charged with the conduct of the foreign relations of a country must not take everything for granted, but must keep their eyes open, and must be prepared, when occasion arises, to act in the manner required by the interests of their country. With regard to our position, I really do not think I have any information to give with regard either to Tunis or Tripoli beyond what is to be found in the Papers
1902
presented to this House, and I must return my thanks to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lamington) for having spoken of them as so very satisfactory.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, at this time of the Session and this hour of the evening it is not easy to command the favour of the House on a great subject. If I desired to express at all completely the ideas which have occurred to me during the course of the transaction, or during the long interval in which the Notice was delayed, I ought to look to other channels for producing them. But as I fully share the view of my noble Friend who brought the Motion forward, as the two speeches we have heard have both of them been adverse to it, and as I am led to think he counts on my support, I feel bound, however brief and hurried it may be, if possible, to give it. The noble Lord who followed him indulged in some extraordinary criticism. He complained that the subject was too frequently adverted to. Since the end of June it has never been adverted to at all, although its phases have been multiplying. Before that time, all the Notices on Tunis came from his side of the House. The question has never until to-day been introduced upon these Benches. What is more material, the House has never until to-day had any opportunity to pronounce a judgment on the character of the transaction. The noble Lord has laid down as a maxim that the assurances of foreign Governments should be accepted as substantial. It may be satisfactory that such a maxim should proceed from any quarter to which foreign policy has been a theme of meditation or discussion. But the noble Lord does not go so far as to contend that assurances may be relied on when they are shown to be illusory. Can he maintain that the assurances of the French Government have been performed? The whole series of events involves a constant violation of them. I listened with much attention to the speech of the noble Earl the Secretary of State, but could not ascertain from it a single ground on which the present Motion is objected to. It is not a Motion to reflect on the proceedings of the Government, which I may, therefore, now pass over. It is a Motion to affirm that interference with Ottoman domi-

1903
nion in North Africa tends to endanger the peace of Europe. In that sense alone would I discuss it.
There is one part of the subject which tends, perhaps, more rapidly than any other to the conclusion my noble Friend has recommended to us. The Trench Government maintain—to justify their violence—that Tunis is not incorporated in the Ottoman Empire. In that manner they admit that if Tunis is incorporated in the Ottoman Empire they have been led into considerable errors. But, according to the Foreign Office, and the noble Earl presiding in it, there is no doubt at all upon the subject. The French Government is thus condemned and reprimanded by the British Government in spite of all its friendly language and ingenious connivance. But the British Government is condemned by itself, since, if Tunis is a portion of the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain was bound either to insure its safety or to protest against its violation. The position of the British Government is, therefore, fatally untenable. They shelter the accused, while they reject the plea on which alone he can defend himself. The French Government can only vindicate itself by a successful reference to history and to Treaties. But no such reference suffices. The connection of Tunis and the Ottoman Empire has had so many illustrations that it is really difficult to choose out of the number which to bring before your Lordships. My noble Friend has mentioned one I never heard before, and which appears to me conclusive—namely, that, in a Conference which happened at Vienna, before the negotiations and the Treaties of 1856, France acknowledged, in a formal way, the dependency of Tunis on the Sultan. It is worth while to add a circumstance which shows that during the whole Crimean War she systematically recognized it. During the Crimean War Tunis was contributing a military force to the united Armies which upheld the Ottoman Empire against Russia. She was either a fifth Ally, in the same rank with the Sublime Porte, with France, Great Britain, and Sardinia, or else a Vassal of the former. She was not a fifth Ally of the co-operating Powers, or history would have mentioned it. She therefore acted—and France considered her to action the obligation of
1904
a Vassal sending a contingent to the Suzerain. Where is the reply? But did Tunis, after the Crimean War, become divested of the status which then undoubtedly belonged to her? So late as 1863, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when it was attempted to negotiate a Tunisian loan at Paris, pointed out that the authority of the Sultan ought to be invoked to give it the validity it wanted. Since 1863 has Tunis ceased to be dependent? To support the argument is useless; but M. Rousseau, the French Consul, and author of the Annales Tunisiennes, would give voluminous materials for doing so. When the French and British Governments have both been led into a position they are not able to defend their influence is lowered; and when their influence is lowered the peace of Europe is less secure than otherwise it would be.
My Lords, the Motion gains new support by remarking what might have been done, and what has been omitted, as to Italy. It is allowed that the Italian Government were anxious, and in some degree impatient, to combine with us in such precautionary measures as might have guarded Tunis against the fate which has befallen it. Italy, since 1870, when her unity became complete, has been a great, a splendid, and an unappropriated element to tempt the labour of diplomacy. She has resided in the air without a bias or direction, except so far as Germany in some degree controlled her. At length, the opportunity to draw her strongly to the objects of Great Britain, which are not alien to her own, was forced upon the Government. It was abandoned for no purpose. To defend the latter phrase it is essential for a moment to advert to a prevailing fallacy, which is not less unfounded than prevailing, and which, indeed, appears to underlie the whole course the Government have followed as to Tunis. There is a general assumption that France is an Ally to be on that account conciliated or condoned in any deviation she adopts, until it reaches great or insupportable extremity. No doubt, in disposition and in feeling, since the War of 1870 the relations of France and Great Britain have maintained—down to the present year—their former cordiality. But alliance, in the sense of common action, perished with the Empire. It perished as the flag

1905
descended from the Tuilleries at half-past 3 o'clock on the memorable 4th of September—an incident which cannot be forgotten by those who happened to observe it. From that time France has had but two pre-occupations—externally, at least—first, to withstand calamities which multiplied around her, then to recover the position she held in Europe before the war with Germany affected it. She has not been able or disposed to share the line, and to pursue the objects of Great Britain as she used to do. She has not been able or disposed to venture upon any course by which Russia would be alienated. So deeply was the situation felt in 1871, that at the Black Sea Conference of London, under the auspices of the noble Earl the Secretary of State, it was not thought worth while to wait for her Ambassador before commencing the proceedings. However, that is but an isolated proof which leads to others more convincing. When the Eastern Question re-appeared in 1874, over a series of transactions in which her aid would have been precious and her countenance important—the alliance of the three Emperors; the Herzegovinian, Servian, and Bulgarian rebellions; the war which they produced, the negotiations which preceded it—the voice of France, which so powerfully operated in 1853, was altogether wanting. Even at the Congress of Berlin—except as regards Greece—you cannot urge that France had any telling weight in the direction it adopted. The French alliance, therefore, we had lost by no fault on either side, but by events which violently drew one Power into a different set of calculations and of thoughts from that which used to bind the two to one another. Until the reclamation of Alsace and Lorraine has been achieved, or else until it is despaired of, the greatest minds and soundest combinations will not restore a French alliance which is more than negative and formal. Since France is unattainable, whatever language she may hold, whatever Rulers may direct her, you have to look to other Western Powers as a substitute. The affair of Tunis, although sinister in itself, presented such a chance of gaining Italy as had never before occurred, and is not likely to come back again. But we have failed to grasp what might have been a substance in order to retain
1906
—at no little cost of dignity—what must, until another epoch has been opened, continue to be nothing but a shadow. Italy is not only unattached and undecided in her policy, but embittered against France and discontented with Great Britain. The peace of Europe becomes endangered by her attitude.
If we examine the question still more closely, it seems to me that such interference with the Ottoman Empire in North Africa tends to European war under two categories. It tends, in the first instance, to re-establish an antagonism between France and Great Britain, which we had hoped that many centuries of strife had finished and exhausted. The division is produced when Tunis is encroached upon; becomes more grave when Tripoli is compromised; should Egypt be involved, is certain to be more thoroughly accentuated. In Egypt elements of variance between France and Great Britain are abundant; if only because one Power designed the Canal the other has the greater interest in using and preserving it. Whatever nourishes a French ascendancy in Egypt must embitter the relations of the countries. The comparative tranquillity of France has been purchased by struggles and by sacrifices which elude the grasp of the historian—of which no picture can be adequate. It cannot be denied that Her Majesty's Government have helped her to resume the demon of aggression and rapacity against which William III. first led us to protest, and which the Duke of Wellington was thought at last to have exorcised. But it is not only by reviving discord between the leading Western Powers that the risk of European war has been promoted. We ought to bear in mind the consequences of that discord. As soon as it is felt, an irresistible temptation to revive the troubles of the Eastern Question is administered. Greece observes the moment for' reclaiming the Frontier which a recent Conference imprudently propounded. Russia is invited to cross the Pruth again, if only to adjust the difficulties of Bulgaria. Germany and Austria can hardly look on such a movement with indifference. But, disregarding these contingencies, it cannot be assumed that the Ottoman Empire will always be disposed to leave invasion un-resisted. The experience of 1877 forbids such an assumption.

1907
But it is not enough to show that any Motion is correct, unless it is seen, at the same time, that it would be productive of advantage to adopt it. In France there is a considerable party opposed to the aggression upon Tunis, which has found organs in the Due de Broglie and M. Clemenceau—great names abroad, of which the first, at least, is known in this country. They seem to represent extremes of opposite opinion, although concurring on this subject. The debate in the Chamber of Deputies on the 23rd of May, the debate in the Senate on the 25th of July, reveal the current of opinion which the voice of this House would tend to dignify and strengthen. Another result to which the Motion, if adopted, may contribute is that of warning the French Government itself that lawless and insulting policy directed to encroach upon the Ottoman Empire, and not directed to replace it, has found a just interpretation, and may provoke a serious discouragement. They may be led to see that such a policy will make the recovery of Alsace and Lorraine more difficult than otherwise it would be; that Allies will not be found to put an end to losses and to remedy disasters which, instead of being a school of moderation and forbearance, have excited a contempt for right and hunger for disturbance. If, therefore, my noble Friend thinks proper to divide the House, I shall give an unhesitating vote in favour of his Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
House adjourned at 25 minutes to 8 P.M. during pleasure.
House resumed at 25 minutes to 3 A.M.
The Earl of CORK—Chosen Speaker in the absence of The LORD CHANCELLOR and The LORD COMMISSIONER.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL,
Returned from the Commons with an amendment made by the Lords to which the Commons had disagreed and on which the Lords have insisted, agreed to; and with several of the further amendments made by the Lords, agreed to; several agreed to, with amendments, and with consequential amendments to the Bill; and several disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement: The said amendments and reasons to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 214.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock A.M., till a quarter before Five o'clock.