Sitting of 1 July 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—ordered—First Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [204].
Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  VACCINATION ACT, 1867—SEC. 31.
  MR. BURTasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will be good enough to state whether a person who has been once fined under s. 31 of the Vaccination Act of 1867 is liable to be again fined within twelve months under the same order; whether the magistrates have power to grant as many fresh orders as may be demanded by the local guardians; and, whether there is any analogy in other statutes for a repetition of fines under the same magistrate's order, or for a repetition of

  1821
  identical orders for an identical purpose, such repetition of fines or orders not being specially provided for by the statute?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, a person who has been once fined under Section 31 of the Vaccination Act of 1867 is not liable to be again fined within 12 months under the same order; but the magistrates have power, when one order has not been complied with, to make a fresh order, and so on from time to time, on the application of the Guardians. The Local Government Board have, however, frequently pointed out the expediency of discretion in the exercise of this power of repeating prosecutions. It is not correct to say that the fines are repeated under the same magistrate's order, as a fresh order must be made before a second fine can be imposed; and the orders are not identical, as a fresh time is prescribed for the performance of the operation in each case.

  WESTERN PACIFIC—THE SOLOMON ISLANDS—PUNISHMENT OF NATIVES.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he has received any Despatches or Reports concerning recent outrages in the Solomon Islands, and the reprisals inflicted by H.M.S. "Emerald?"
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Report of the proceedings of Captain Maxwell has been presented to the House. It is in the hands of the printer, and will shortly be published. No despatches relating to the subject have since then been received at the Admiralty.

  CITY OF LIVERPOOL—POWDER MAGAZINES IN THE MERSEY.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has on more than one occasion been called to the floating powder magazines in the Mersey; and, whether, having regard to the enormous damage that would be caused to the City and Port of Liverpool in the event of an explosion, he will, notwithstanding the recent expression of opinion by the Mayor of Liverpool that all possible precautions are observed, take steps to prevent so disastrous a calamity from occurring, in the only completely effective way, viz., by procuring the removal of the 400 tons of powder stated to be
  1822
  stored in these magazines to a considerable distance from the city?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, this is, no doubt, a very important matter, and I have been in communication with the authorities at Liverpool with regard to it. I am informed that these magazines are under a special Act passed in 1851, and that they are exempted from the operation of the Act of 1879. They are, therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty and the War Office, and my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty will answer the Question put by the hon. Member.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, in answer to my hon. Friend I may say that the private gunpowder magazines in the Mersey are under a special Act of August, 1871. By this Act the Board of Admiralty, with the approval of the Master General of the Ordnance and the Conservators of the River Mersey, are to appoint places for mooring these hulks; and, if it is represented to the Admiralty that they are unsafely placed, the Admiralty have power to remove them to another place in the same river. The Master of the Ordnance, which now means the War Office, is directed to appoint an officer to superintend the stores, and has the power of making regulations for the safe keeping of the powder; and it is expressly stated that the power of limiting the quantity is attached to the Master of the Ordnance. At this moment the hulks are being closely watched by a Revenue cruiser—one of the tenders to the Defence—which is anchored near them, and whose crew rows guard. Lord Northbrook, who is now at Liverpool, is inquiring into the question; and Admiral Spratt, who is the Conservator of the Mersey who acts for the Admiralty, has been asked to give his advice. I will let my hon. Friend know as soon as anything is determined on, whether in concert with the War Office or without it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—WRIT-SERVING IN WESTMEATH.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to a letter addressed to "Freeman's Journal" of 22nd instant, by Rev. L. Kinsella, C. C., of St. Michael's, Castlepollard, under the heading of "Writ-serving in Westmeath," in which he vouches for the

  1823
  accuracy of the statement that a Mr. Richard Gradwell, of Dowth Hall, near Drogheda, accompanied by his son and three hundred police, proceeded to serve writs for arrears of rent; did the son really act on the occasion as writ-server; and, does the same person, Ashurst Gradwell, hold a Commission from Her Majesty as Lieutenant in the Royal Meath Militia?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he had not seen the letter in question. He had sent for information, which had not yet arrived; but he really thought it was hardly a matter in which he ought to interfere. It was evident from the fact that 300 police accompanied Mr. Gradwell that it was considered a matter of danger to serve the writs, and he did not know that he was to blame.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 22nd June, that Lieutenant R. A. Gradwell, of the Royal Meath Militia, had recently acted as process server near Castlepollard, county Westmeath, having gone hammer in hand and nailed up writs on the doors of some twenty people; whether Lieutenant Gradwell has recently passed an examination for the Line; and, if the Government will state what notice they will take of the matter?
  MR. CHILDERS: NO, Sir; my attention had not been called to the paragraph in question; and, if it had, I should have taken no notice of it, as the Royal Meath Militia has not been called out for training this year, and I have no power to order Militia officers not to serve processes at other times. Lieutenant Gradwell has not passed his examination for the Line.

  POST OFFICE—THE BELFAST LETTER CARRIERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, If it is true that, although the sorters and letter carriers of Belfast performed much extra duty at Christmas last, they have not yet received any extra compensation beyond their ordinary salaries, nor have they received any reply to a memorial they addressed to the Inspector on the subject?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, that the claim referred to was perfectly just and reasonable. He had to express his regret that some delay had occurred in
  1824
  granting the compensation; but he had given fresh instructions, which he hoped would prevent any such delay in future.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT—RELIEF CLERKS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Postmaster General, If it is with his approval that telegraph clerks are sent from the central and larger offices to the smaller provincial ones in the capacity of "relief" clerks to supply the place of those who are ill or absent during the annual leave-taking, a portion of the "assistant" staff of these provincial offices being at the time suppressed, and which, if provided, could readily take the place of the absentees, and thus save the Department the expense attendant on "relief" clerks together with the loss of service at the office from which these are temporarily withdrawn; and, is this one of the principal causes of so much extra duty being exacted off the clerks attached to the larger offices; if so, will he direct the district surveyors to see that, before entertaining any application for "relief," the proper "assistant" staff sanctioned and paid for by the Department is duly provided by the postmaster making such application?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, that he would make careful inquiry on the subject referred to. In calculating the strength of the central establishment, care was taken to estimate the average number of relief clerks necessary to be sent to assist in different places.

  CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION—OFFICE OF WOODS AND FORESTS.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Officers of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests' Office come under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act; whether their appointments are subject to the Civil Service Commission; and, under what regulations they hold their appointments?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The officers of the Office of Woods and Forests are subject to the same conditions of appointment, tenure, and pension as the other members of the Civil Service whose salaries are voted in Committee of Supply. The receivers, surveyors, and local officers who are ap-

  1825
  pointed by the Treasury and paid out of the gross land revenue are not under the Superannuation Act; but, by a Treasury Minute passed some years ago, their pensions, which are paid out of the land revenue, are regulated on the principles of that Act.

  RELIEF WORKS (IRELAND).
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can say why the relief works ordered last Winter at Extraordinary Sessions in Granard, county Longford, have been so long delayed, and why the works ordered for the townland of Aughanoran have not yet been begun, although there is much poverty in that district, and a great many men are eagerly asking for employment there?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that on making inquiries into the matter he found that the works referred to had been postponed pending the completion of two other works in the same locality.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that the conveyance of letters between Arna, county Cavan, and Moyne, county Longford, is very defective and irregular, that the mails sent from Arna at half-past nine in the morning often do not arrive at Moyne, a distance of only two miles, until between eleven and twelve, and that people receiving letters there by that post cannot answer them on the same day, as there is no post leaving Moyne in the evening?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, that no complaints of irregularities such as those mentioned in the Question had reached him; but he had given instructions that inquiries should be made, and would ascertain whether the correspondence between Arna and Moyne was sufficient to justify the establishment of an afternoon post from the latter place.

  AUSTRIA AND SERVIA—COMMERCIAL TREATY.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the revised Convention or arrangement about to be concluded with Servia, it will be admitted that, notwithstanding the
  1826
  "most favoured Nation" Clause, contained in the Treaty of 1880 between this Country and Servia, Servia will be empowered to admit iron unmanufactured, or partly manufactured, and other articles from Austria, at a duty considerably lower than that levied on British products of the same nature; and, whether, before the new arrangement is signed, the stipulations will be laid before the Chambers of Commerce?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the question of the duties on iron is under discussion with the Servian Government. As regards "other articles," Austria, by her Treaty with Servia of July 8, 1878, has the right to special facilities for frontier traffic. The trade in these "other articles "does not concern any but conterminous States, owing to their bulk and small value. The Commercial Department of the Foreign Office is thoroughly acquainted with the requirements of British trade in Servia. The Chambers of Commerce were consulted a considerable time ago on the question of our Treaty with Servia.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Since the Servian Treaty with Austria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir. They were consulted frequently during 1879 and 1880.

  TURKEY—THE MURDER OF THE LATE SULTAN, ABDUL AZIZ—MIDHAT PASHA.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any other report than that published at the time has been received from Dr. Dickson, physician to Her Majesty's Embassy at Constantinople, and a member of the Medical Commission which examined the body of the late Sultan Abdul Aziz immediately after his death of the result of such examination; and, if there be, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House; and also, whether, in the interests of justice and humanity, and in view of the report made at the time by such Medical Commission, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to interpose its friendly good offices at the Porte, or directly with the Sultan, to save Midhat Pasha, and any or all of the other persons convicted with him yesterday of complicity in the alleged murder of Abdul Aziz, from execution of the sentences severally passed upon

  1827
  them? He desired to express, before the Question was answered, his absolute distrust of the capacity and probity of the members of the Turkish Court which conducted the recent trial; and, from his own personal knowledge, he accepted all the responsibility of stating that they were persons not entitled to the respect of Europe, or of that House.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the substance of a Report by Dr. Dickson was laid before Parliament (Turkey, No. 3, 1876, p. 227), and no further Report has been received. Lord Granville is in communication with Lord Dufferin with regard to the recent State trial; but it would be premature to make any announcement at present.

  FRANCE—THE NEW COMMERCIAL TREATY—REPORTED STATEMENT OF THE FRENCH MINISTER.
  MR. W. HOLMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a Report in the "Times" of 30th June of the following statement said to have been made by M. Tirard with reference to the proposed Commercial Treaty with France:—
  "As to England, her Government is resisting only for the sake of appearances, and is really resolved on accepting the proposed basis, with concessions on certain points, of which it already knows the extreme limits;"
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government has given the French Government any assurance which could warrant M. Tirard in making such a statement?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to take notice of statements said to have been made by the Ministers of Foreign Governments, and still less of the unauthorized reports of those made in the secret sittings of a Parliamentary Committee; but as far as regards the statement which is referred to by my hon. Friend, and which I cannot believe to have been made, as to the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in the commercial negotiations with France, I may say that there is no truth whatever in it.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CASE OF DENIS MURPHY, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that Denis Murphy,
  1828
  of Blackpool, Kilmallock, county Limerick, with his wife and six children, were evicted from their holding on the property of Mr. John Coote on the 23rd of this month; and, if the total amount due at the time was only one year's rent and a balance of £22 8s. which accrued during the bad harvests of 1878 and 1879?
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked, whether the Denis Murphy mentioned in the Question was the same Denis Murphy who had been evicted in 1880 for nonpayment of £230, or one and a-half years' rent, and who took forcible possession of his house, and was tried for that offence at the Assizes, when the jury disagreed; whether he did not again take forcible possession of his house; whether his holding did not comprise 70 acres of land of the best quality; and whether his last eviction was not for the violence of his conduct, and not for non-payment of rent?
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that, perhaps, in answering that Question, the right hon. Gentleman would say whether Denis Murphy did not pay all the rent that was due before the six months had elapsed, except a small balance of £18, and also that he had to pay the landlord's costs?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the story evidently had two sides. His own information was to the effect that Denis Murphy had been originally evicted, not for non-payment of rent, but for some other reason; that he had twice retaken forcible possession of his house, and had been tried, as stated by the hon. Member for Leitrim. His last ejectment was in June, 1880, when one and a-half years' rent was owing.
  MR. HEALYasked, whether a man was not said to retake forcible possession of his house when he merely took the staple off the door, and, for instance, returned to sleep there?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Whatever the offence is, it consists in breaking the law.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—THE CITY OF WATERFORD.
  MR. R. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following statement made by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions at Waterford on Thursday the 23rd of June:—

  1829
  "He was happy to be able to tell the grand jury that their duties would be very light, as there was only one case to go before them, which was a charge against three young lads of stealing some potatoes in one of the small streets of the city. The calendar was very creditable to the state of the city, and he was glad to be able to congratulate them on it;"
  and, if he still considers it necessary to declare the City of Waterford a prescribed district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he had not seen the statement to which the hon. Member referred, but did not doubt that it had been correctly quoted. He was obliged, to answer that he still thought it necessary to prescribe the county of the city of Waterford.
  MR. LEAMYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would state the grounds on which he had formed that opinion?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must really refer the hon. Member to what happened a few days ago, when he stated that he was unable to give any precise information on the subject. The adjournment of the House was then moved, and a large majority supported-by voting against that Motion the course he had taken.
  MR. LEAMYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would state any of his reasons, and what had been officially set forth as to the condition of Waterford?
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked whether the Prime Minister had not promised that all actions taken under the Coercion Act might be challenged on the floor of the House? But what was the use of challenging the proceedings if they got no answer?
  MR. J. COWENasked whether it was the case that the city of Waterford, containing 30,000 inhabitants, had been prescribed in order to facilitate the arrest of the secretary of the local branch of the Land League?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he really could not give any more definite answer. The House had approved of their not giving the special grounds of the proclamation issued; but the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) must not suppose, if he did not give him a definite answer, that the supposition suggested in his Question was necessarily correct.
  MR. MACDONALDasked, whether, when promoting the passage of the Coercion Bill through this House, the Prime Minister made this statement,
  1830
  "That on the floor of the House"—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: It is quite irregular for the hon. Member to refer to past debates of the present Sesssion.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANwished to know if they were at liberty to challenge these proceedings on the floor of the House of Commons? If they were, what was the use of doing so when they could get no information?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could repeat what he had stated before, that if any Motion was brought forward censuring the Government they were perfectly ready to meet it.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman knew the grounds on which Waterford had been prescribed, or had he merely relied on the statement of some subordinate official?
  MR. R. POWERinquired if the Government would give any opportunity for bringing forward a Vote of Censure?
  [No reply was given.]

  COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND)—ADMISSION OF REPORTERS.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been, directed to the circumstance that in two recent cases in the Court of Session the representatives of the press have been denied access to interlocutors issued by the Lord Ordinary; and, whether the Clerks of the Court have power to prevent the judgments of the Lord Ordinary being made public; and, if they have, whether he will take steps to deprive them of that power?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN),in reply, said, that, before the Notice of the Question was given, he had made inquiry on the subject; but he had not yet received any answer, and perhaps his hon. Friend would repeat the Question.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he would put it again on Monday.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—T. HARRINGTON, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the alleged offence with which Mr. T. Harrington, at present confined in Galway Gaol, was committed

  1831
  on the same occasion and is charged with the same offence as that which Mr. Farrell was imprisoned for, viz.: the attending of a sheriffs' sale at Mullingar; and, if so, whether the information upon which Mr. Harrington was arrested was the same on which Mr. Farrell was arrested, and who has since been released; whether Mr. Harrington had not previously been committed for trialat the approaching assizes at Tralee; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to bring him to that trial or not?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the copy of the Lord Lieutenant's warrant showed that Mr. Harrington had been arrested for inciting persons to assemble together illegally. As regarded Mr. Farrell, he had already stated he was released on account of the state of his health. He was informed that Mr. Harrington had been returned for trial, but it depended on the Attorney General for Ireland to say whether or not the trial would be proceeded with.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—J. R. HEFFERNAN, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether John R. Heffernan, a suspect detained in Limerick Gaol under the Coercion Act, who is described in the warrant issued for his arrest by the Lord Lieutenant as "John R. Heffernan, Glencam, Whitechurch," has been wrongly imprisoned, as he never lived in Whitechurch parish, but in Glencoom, Grenagh, and not "Glencam, Whitechurch," as stated in the warrant; and, whether any such crimes as Mr. Heffernan is charged with, viz. "entering and taking forcible possession of farms, and general riot and assault," have been committed in the above-mentioned district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he was advised that Mr. Heffernan was sufficiently identified by the warrant, that his detention under it was legal, and that the error—if there was an error—in incorrectly naming the place of abode, was not material. The warrant which described the offence did not state the district in which it was committed.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to answer the last portion of the Question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had not had time to inquire into the matter. He supposed that from the character of the previous answer the hon. Member would not have considered it necessary to ask it. He evidently supposed that the warrant must show that the crime of which he was reasonably suspected had been committed in the district in which the person was described as residing; but the hon. Member must be now aware that that was not so. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) supposed he was under that impression; but if he particularly wished to know about this district, or about any other, if he gave him two or three days' Notice he would give him the information about it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—HINDRANCE TO SERVING PROCESSES OF LAW.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether F. Doogan, of Meenanillen, Derrybeg, county Donegal, has been imprisoned in Lifford Gaol on a charge of assembling to prevent a bailiff from serving writs; and, whether he will consider whether a summons to attend before the petty sessions would have been sufficient? Whether Maurice Coll, of Meenanillen, Derrybeg, county Donegal, the sole support of a family of eight in number, the youngest of whom is only one year old, has been arrested and imprisoned in Lifford Gaol on a charge of assembling to prevent bailiffs serving writs; and, whether he will consider whether a summons to attend before the petty sessions would be sufficient in such cases? Whether James Carroll, Maheralask, Bunbeg, county Donegal, upon whom five children, the eldest of whom being fourteen and the youngest seven, and a wife, are depending for support, has been imprisoned in Lifford Gaol on a charge of assembling to prevent a bailiff from serving writs; and, whether he will consider whether in this case a summons to attend the petty sessions would be sufficient? Whether John Mulligan, Magheraclogher, Bunbeg, county Donegal, has been thrown into Lifford Gaol on a charge of assembling to prevent bailiffs from serving writs; and, whether he will consider whether a summons to attend before the petty sessions would have been sufficient? The hon. Member remarked that the Questions had been much altered since

  1833
  he had put them on the Paper; and he wished to know whether, when Questions were altered by the authorities of the House, it would not be fairer if the hon. Members giving Notice of these Questions should be communicated with?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The magistrate had jurisdiction in each of the cases referred to either to issue a warrant or, if he thought proper, to cause summonses to be issued in the ordinary way. He could not review the decisions of the magistrates in such cases.
  MR. PARNELLasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would express an opinion on the action of the magistrate in this as he had done in other cases?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not consider it his province to express an opinion.
  MR. CALLANwished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, whether it was not usual in such cases where the defendants were residents and not likely to run away to proceed by summons?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, it depended altogether upon the circumstances of the case, and the magistrate was the person to decide.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—QUESTIONS.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the Prime Minister, Whether, as Public Business on Mondays and Thursdays now commenced at a quarter past 4 o'clock, he. would endeavour to insure a more punctual attendance on the part of his Colleagues at that hour, for the purpose of answering Questions which stood on the Notice Paper?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry for the inconvenience to which Members are subjected; but to a great extent they feel the evil pressing upon Ministers of the Crown. When the preliminary Business now comes on, the Questioning very many times, especially on Mondays and Thursdays, continues for two hours or two and a-half hours. The Questions are scattered here and there, one, two, or three, to several Ministers; and, considering all that Ministers have to attend to. the matter becomes one of very great difficulty. For my own part, I sometimes find it impossible to spend the whole time waiting until the period arrives for
  1834
  the commencement of Business. While I sympathize with the inconvenience from which Members suffer, it sometimes occurs to me that, if Members were willing to acquiesce in a system by which the Questions to be put to each Minister might be placed together, it might probably lead to a considerable mitigation of the difficulty. I cannot say, without consultation with the authorities, whether that can be done.
  MR. SCHREIBERsaid, that he had asked the Question from having observed that sometimes the list was otherwise gone through when Ministers appeared in their places, and there was nothing but loss of time from their non-attendance.
  MR. CHILDERS: It is not Ministers only who are absent at Question time. I came down yesterday, and out of six Questions on the Paper to be addressed to me, in four cases the Members who were to put them were not present.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I must also state, although I have had my share of Questions, that only once during the Session I have not been in time, and that, generally speaking, hon. Members who are to put the Questions are not present, as was the case just now with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).
  MR. GORSTsaid, he would ask the Prime Minister next week, whether it would not be possible when Questions were put requiring Departmental information that the answers should be printed with the Votes, and so save time in putting the Questions, and the time taken up by Ministers in replying?
  MR. NEWDEGATEwished to put a Question to the Prime Minister on a subject which had been considered by the Committee on Public Business in 1861. He would ask the Prime Minister whether he could not make some suggestion for the regulation of the manner in which Questions were put, so as to give the House itself some command over them?
  MR. GLADSTONE: While I entirely appreciate the motive and intention of the Notice just given by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), I must say that the whole subject of the Rules with regard to Questions requires further and comprehensive consideration. Questions formerly, when I entered the House, were of very

  1835
  rare occurrence, and for many years they formed so slight a portion of the Business of the House that, as regards time, they required no regulation, but regulated themselves without difficulty. They have now become a very serious and, I am bound to add, a very important part of the Business, and, therefore, not frivolous or trifling. I think the Question suggested by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) will require serious consideration.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]
  Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, Mr (Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 135.]

    COMMITTEE. [EIGHTEENTH NIGHT.]
    [Progress 30 th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    PART II.

      INTERVENTION OF COURT.
      Clause 7 (Determination by Court of rent of present tenancies).
      MR. BIGGAR,in moving, in page 7, line 12, at the end, to insert—
      "And also, if the rent payable by the tenant for the time past much exceeded what the Court now considers a fair rent, the tenant shall get credit in his coming rent for what the Court believes to be reasonable, having regard to the extent of the yearly overcharge and the length of time which it had been paid,"
      said, he did not at all allege that even those tenants who were charged an outside rent—say, one and a-half times the Government valuation—would get any compensation or allowance under this Amendment; but there were cases in which tenants had been charged very extravagant rents—much more than the holding was really worth—and if a landlord had for a number of years been getting money beyond the reasonable rent of a holding, he thought that circumstance ought to be taken into account when the question of the rearrangement of the rent arose. He would give' one illustration of what he meant. There was a great discussion some years ago in regard to property in the county of Tipperary. He did not
      1836
      remember the details of the matter now, but in general terms it amounted to this. Mr. Buckley bought a property which paid 4 per cent on the old rental, and he raised his rent so as to receive 7 per cent. Some allowance ought to be made for a tenant who had been kept in a state of continual poverty all these years, and therefore he thought it reasonable that the landlord should give some compensation for what he had unjustly received in times past.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 7, line 12, at the end, to add the words "and also, if the rent payable by the tenant for the time past much exceeded what the Court now considers a fair rent, the tenant shall get credit in his coming rent for what the Court believes to be reasonable, having regard to the extent of the yearly overcharge and the length of time which it had been paid."—(Mr. Biggar.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. PARNELLthought this Amendment was a very important one. It had reference to a question which had not attracted very much attention up to the present time. The question of arrears was one which had attracted a great deal of attention in Ireland; but the question of tenants who had paid rack rents, but were not in arrears, had not attracted so much attention. He submitted, however, that it was a question which ought not to escape the view of the Committee. How had these rents in many cases been paid? They had been paid owing to the facilities which the Laud Act of 1870 conferred on the tenants. They had been paid by means of loans from the banks and from small money-lenders, and by borrowing indirectly from the shopkeepers, and in every other way but out of the legitimate produce of the holding itself. If the Committee were going to confer, upon this class of tenants a tenant right, as they proposed to do by this Bill, and were going to leave them without any right to a claim of drawback, as regarded the future payment of their rent, from their landlords, the tenant right would, in reality, be given not to the tenants, but to the shopkeepers or to the bankers from whom they had borrowed the money to pay these rack rents up to the present time. The indebtedness of every class of farmer was of a two-fold character. Some of them owed money to landlords,

      1837
      and some to shopkeepers and banks. Some owed money to both landlords and the banks; but the class of tenants now under consideration would be the class who had paid the rent, although it was a rack rent, and who, when they came into possession of the privileges conferred by this Bill, would find that those privileges would not be to their own enjoyment, but to the enjoyment of their creditors who had advanced them the money. He submitted that that was not a fair nor a just operation, and that some Amendment ought to be introduced into this Bill giving the Court power to take into consideration, in fixing a fair rent for the future, the fact, if it were a fact, that the tenant had been paying largely in excess of the rent.
      MR. GLADSTONE: It is not possible for us to accede to this Amendment, either in its present form or in any form it may assume, for reasons which, I think, will be obvious almost to the Mover of it. In the first place, there is 'the difficulty of making retrospective operations and examining all the particulars which determine the equity of past transactions, and of reviving all these questions, long, perhaps, after the record of them has disappeared. But there is a stronger objection to the proposition, and it is that if you give to a tenant who is going to have a judicial rent the power to go back on former years to prove that his rent was too high and to claim a return of the difference, how are we to meet the proposal which would unquestionably be made from other quarters of the House with resistless force, that it should likewise be open to a landlord to claim the difference if, in former years, the rent has been too low?
      MR. WARTONwished to make one observation on the advocacy of this Amendment by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The hon. Member had said that, on the whole, rents in Ireland were low. [Mr. PARNELL: I did not say that.] He (Mr. Warton) had the Report of the hon. Member's words in his hand. Speaking at a convention of the so-called Land League in April last, the hon. Member said—
      "It was also apprehended that on many estates the landlords would force their tenants to have recourse to the Court to fix what was called a judicial rent, and that the result would be to raise rents on estates in Ireland. The net result would be to raise rents generally."
      1838
      Therefore, we had the hon. Member's own confession that rents in Ireland were generally low.
      MR. PARNELLsubmitted that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had twisted the interpretation to be placed on his words, and had deduced from them a meaning which could not at all be attached to them. He believed he had stated to the House much the same thing. He did not dispute the accuracy of the quotation; but he had stated in the House that the net result of the action of this Bill would he to increase, and not to diminish, the total amount of money which the Irish landlords would obtain from the tenants in Ireland. He believed, also, that the Bill would undoubtedly reduce many rents which were extreme rack rents; but he thought that, on the other hand, it would raise many rents which were at present moderate, and that, as regarded the class of rents which were too high, but which could not come under the denomination of rack rents, it would leave these untouched. The net result would be that the total amount of rent paid to the landlords in Ireland would be increased rather than diminished. But that was a different thing from paying that, on the whole, rents in Ireland were low.
      DR. COMMINSthought that if the hon. and learned Member for Bridport would consult the authorities, he would find that the reality was quite the opposite of what he had stated. Mr. Arthur Fitzgibbon, a Master in Chancery, in his work entitled Ireland in 1868, distinctly said that in general the rents imposed and paid in Ireland were higher than could be imposed or paid in England. If rents were generally overcharged in 1868, they were still more overcharged now.
      MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that, in reply to the statement of the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee, he might quote what was said by the Bessborough Commission and the Richmond Commission. The Report of the former Commission stated distinctly that rents in Ireland were not charged on the same scale or to the same extent as they would be in England.
      SIR WILLIAM PALLISERsaid, it followed, from the words used by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that rents fixed by a competent

      1839
      tribunal would be higher than rents generally were in Ireland at the present time, and yet all reasonable men would admit that rents fixed by a competent tribunal would be fair rents. Consequently it followed, from the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that the greater part of the land in Ireland was let at rents below fair rents. If the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork were looked into, he thought it would be found to be absolutely correct. If that were the case, there was little ground for all the abuse and invective which the hon. Member for the City of Cork had heaped on the landlords as being a rack-renting class.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Before the discussion proceeds further, I wish to point out that hon. Members are getting away from the Amendment.
      MR. PARNELLremarked, that he certainly never used the expression that rents in Ireland generally would be raised by the operation of this Bill. He said that the total rental of Ireland would be raised, which was a very different thing. He believed the Bill, practically speaking, would affect but a very small proportion of the rents in Ireland. It would leave the great majority of them untouched. In his opinion, it would raise some and diminish others; but the total result would be to raise the total rental of the landlords derived from the land in Ireland.
      SIR WILLIAM PALLISERsaid, the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was reported in The Times in exactly the same words as had been quoted.
      MR. LALORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had remarked that if this Amendment were agreed to the landlords would have a right to look for credit for rent which they had not already demanded. He denied that there was the slightest analogy between the two cases. If heretofore the landlords had not a higher rent, it was because they conceived that the rents they had already imposed upon their tenants were fully equal to what the land was worth. At all events, the landlords could have raised the rents if they had wished to do so, whereas the tenants had no option in the matter. Again, if the case of arrears of rent were not taken into consideration in this Bill, there would he a large class of the people of Ireland left out altogether from the benefits of the
      1840
      measure. And there was no doubt that if these men were allowed to go without the arrears of rent they had already over-paid, they would not be allowed to remain on the land. He knew cases where the rack rents previously paid by the tenants had been enough to purchase the fee-simple of the land from the landlords.
      MR. MARUMsaid, one of the witnesses examined before the Commission stated that he believed the gross rental of Ireland was £20,000,000 a-year, or, taking out the houses and non-agricultural portions, £16,000,000. In a debate in the Irish House of Commons in 1773, the gross rental of Ireland was stated to be £4,000,000 a-year.
      THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member that his remarks had no reference to the Amendment now before the Committee.
      MR. HEALYobserved, that the arguments of the promoters and of the opponents of the Amendment told equally in its favour. If the statement were true, that the rental of Ireland was a fair rental, the Amendment could do no damage.
      MR. BIGGARmust say he could not follow the logic of the argument adduced by the Prime Minister. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman's argument was a sufficient answer to the Amendment. He and his Friends had never argued that all the landlords of Ireland charged too much rent, and the case put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) told very strongly in favour of his contention. It was known that on very large properties the Government valuation was about the average of the rents charged by the landlords. If this were so, the circumstance proved that a certain proportion of the rents in the country must, be extravagantly too high. He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would agree to such an Amendment as he had himself suggested—namely, that a very low rent charged in times past should be charged against the tenant, to some extent, in the rent he would be charged in time to come. There was not much force in that argument. The reason why a moderate rent was charged in times past was because the tenant improved his holding very much. Even if the suggested Amendment were introduced into the Bill, the number of cases in

      1841
      which, a landlord could derive benefit from it would be infinitesimal; whereas the tenants who had been charged a severe rent in times past, and who had, in consequence, been kept in poverty, would derive benefit from his Amendment, which was based on the principle of justice and fair play.
      MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the clause provided that the interest of the tenant should be taken into consideration. How could that interest be ascertained without going back some time? And if retrospective inquiry were allowed in one case why should it not be allowed in another? After all, it came to be a question of degree, of discretion, and of convenience, as to how far the Court should go back in making inquiry. If it could be shown that a tenant was unfairly rack-rented in former years, he was unable to see on what principle we could refuse to permit that circumstance to be taken into account by the Court in fixing his rent for the future. That was all the hon. Member for Cavan wished to do. In his opinion, the Amendment was a perfectly fair and reasonable one.
      THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he thought the strongest argument which had been used in this discussion was that urged by his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County. It was to the effect that a landlord who had voluntarily accepted from his tenant a rent below the value of the holding could not have the same claim to restitution as a tenant who had been compelled, against his will, to pay an exorbitant rent. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan need not be deterred at all by the argument used by the Prime Minister; and he hoped his hon. Friend would go to a division, for he thought they might with great safety incur the risk that had been pointed out by the right hon Gentleman at the head of the Government. He differed from some of his Friends; for he believed the landlords of Ireland, as a body, had been rack-renters. This had been asserted by the Marquess of Buckingham before the Union, and by the late Lord Derby. And a great lexicographer had defined rack rent as an exorbitant rent, usually extorted from their tenants by Irish landlords.
      MR. SCHREIBERsaid, that as, in spite of the Chairman's ruling, the charge of "rack-renting" had again
      1842
      been hurled at the heads of Irish landlords, he hoped he should be permitted in reply to read to the Committee the precise words in which the Report of the Bessborough Commission dealt with that subject. The extract was as follows:—
      "Lastly, though the amount of rent was always at the discretion of the landlord, and the tenant had in reality no voice in regulating what he had to pay, nevertheless it was unusual to exact what in England would have been considered as a full or fair commercial rent. Such a rent, over many of the larger estates, the owners of which were resident and took an interest in the welfare of their tenants, it has never been their custom to demand. The example has been largely followed, arid is to the present day rather the exception than the rule in Ireland."
      He was glad to see the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India in his place, because he hoped he would call the attention of his Colleague the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the passage. He held that it put the matter beyond dispute, and he wished it to go forth to the country.
      THE CHAIRMAN: On the general subject of rent I cannot allow discussion. We are upon the Amendment before the Committee, and we must keep to that Amendment.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYexpressed a hope that this Amendment would not be pressed to a division, because it was not a practical Amendment. It was impossible that the Court could go into this matter, and revive the question of the rents paid in former years. Surely nobody could possibly imagine that a Court constituted for the purpose of determining rents in the future could enter into the question of rents paid 10 or 20 years ago. That would impose on the Court a burden which it could not possibly discharge. Therefore, he should vote against the Amendment. He made this statement because he was aware that several of these Amendments would be represented to the tenants as Amendments moved in their favour, and that it would be said that some Members who ought to have supported them did not do so. He did not hesitate to call this Amendment a "bogus" and a claptrap Amendment, which it would be impossible to work, and which could not be adopted by a practical Assembly.
      SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not press this Amendment. If they encumbered

      1843
      the Bill by such an Amendment as this, they would be laying the ground-work for future litigation, and-thus, in his opinion, it would do more harm than good.
      MR. BIGGARobserved, that nobody was responsible for the Amendment but himself. He only wished the Amendment to apply in extreme cases where the tenants were rack-rented.
      MR. P. MARTINsaid, he thought the Amendment raised a very proper question; but, at the same time, it did not raise the principle the hon. Member desired to raise in the most convenient way, or in exactly the proper place, because it would be difficult for any Court to come to a right decision, having regard to the words of the Amendment. The Amendment contained these words—
      "If the rent payable by the tenant for the time past much exceeded what the Court now considers a fair rent, the tenant shall get credit in his coming rent for what the Court believes to be reasonable, having regard to the extent of the yearly overcharge and the length of time which it had been paid."
      These words, "much exceeded," left the matter so vague and general that it appeared to him impossible that the Court could come to any conclusion. He conceded that certain limits must not be passed in the application by the Court of the general principle involved in the Amendment, but he could not coincide in the sweeping condemnation pronounced by the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). Incases of gross rack-renting and oppression the Court should have some power to turn back, even retrospectively, with a view of saying in such cases that they would look at rack-renting as regulating the future payment of rent. He was anxious to affirm the principle, but he could not support the Amendment.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he observed that when an Amendment was brought forward from that side of the House much less patience was exercised by the Ministerial Party in listening to the arguments in favour of that Amendment than was exhibited when an Amendment was brought forward by a Ministerialist in favour of the landlord, and arguments in support of that Amendment were given. They were several hours, the other evening, discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for
      1844
      Great Grimsby, which set up a most absurd and unjust—["Order!"]
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must speak to the Amendment before the Committee.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he, of course, bowed to the Chairman's ruling; but he had been only endeavouring to point out why, in spite of some interruptions, he was justified in continuing the discussion. He had not had the advantage of hearing the views expressed by the Prime Minister on this question; but he gathered from the comments of hon. Members around him, and the speech of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that it seemed, by the Treasury Bench, to be thought unfair to ask the Court to show anything like a retrospective regard to the rent paid by the tenant. Why, under sub-section 7 and the 1st clause of the Bill, the landlord was entitled to have a retrospective regard paid by the Court to the amount of rent he had extracted from the tenant. Under that section, the landlord was entitled to say to the Court—"I made such and such improvements on the land out of my own pocket; I do not get any return for these improvements in the shape of increased rent; therefore, you must make me compensation for the money I abstained from charging." Accordingly, most clearly they gave the landlord the right to demand retrospective regard to the lowness of the rent he had been charging. If the landlord had a right to that consideration, on a perfect parity of reasoning the tenant had a right to demand retrospective regard to the highness of the rent the landlord had been charging. The cases were on all fours; and he, therefore, thought his hon. Friend was justified in the course he was taking. The hon. Member for Count Galway had characterized this as a "bogus" Amendment. Did the hon. Member use that phrase in the case of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby? Of course not, because it was in favour of the landlord. The Amendment of the hou. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), however, was to be denounced as a "bogus" Amendment because it was in favour of the unfortunate tenant and not in favour of the landlord. One of the points which, he understood, had been raised by the Prime Minister was that if the Amend-

      1845
      ments were admitted the Court would have regard to the lowness of the rents charged by the good landlords. Well, his hon. Friend was not afraid of admitting that before the Court. Let both the good and bad landlords be allowed to bring before the Court the question of the rent of the past. Professor Baldwin, in the evidence he had given, had referred to a case where, on the Earl of Arran's estate, a tenant, between the years 1860 and 1869, had had his rent raised from £6 to £12. Every penny added to the original rent during those nine years was money robbed from the tenant, according to all moral considerations. Well, was this unfortunate man, who paid his £12 a-year rent, to be precluded from showing to the Court that he had been robbed of £4 or £5 a-year for several years past? He had only one objection to the Amendment, and it was this. He was not sure whether, under the loose wording of the first part of Clause 7, they were not entitled to bring this question before the Court as the case at present-stood. The words agreed to last night were very vague and wide, and, if he were to advise any tenant going into the Court, he should tell him he was perfectly justified in bringing the rent of the past under its survey. If this were so, it was clear that the Amendment might be objected to on the ground that it was only establishing a principle that was already admitted; but his hon. Friend was perfectly within his right in challenging the verdict of the Committee on a question in which the Irish people were so deeply concerned, and which had the support of all parties in Ireland, including the Bishop of Ossary, who was not at all a Prelate of extreme views. With the Committee would rest the responsibility, not with the Irish Members, who had done their best to get the matter settled.
      MR. LEAsaid, there was a very strong feeling in Ireland that some clause should be inserted in the Bill having regard to rack rents which had been paid by the tenants in the past. That was in sympathy with the principle of the ton. Member's Amendment; but he did not think that that Amendment was altogether a practicable one. If he thought it would have the desired result, he would vote for it, but he did not think it would; therefore, he trusted the
      1846
      hon. Member would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
      MR. FINIGANsaid, he had often listened to strong arguments from the Front Bench opposite against Amendments, but he must say he had never heard a stronger argument in favour of this Amendment than that adduced by the Prime Minister when he had said that if they extended this equitable consideration to the claims of tenants they ought to extend an equally equitable consideration to the claims of landlords. He was sure the hon. Member for Cavan would only be too happy to accede to that principle, or to the completion of a very great and important principle. The Prime Minister would be in perfect Order, both logically and practically, if his statement were put into the form of an Amendment, and added to this Amendment moved by his hon. Friend. It would be a very unfair average to ask the House to judge of the Irish rents by the English standard. It was a very great mistake made in the Committee, and in the House generally, of judging Ireland by an English standard. The two counties were eminently different, both in their rules and in their administration. If commerce were as extensive in Ireland as it was in England, perhaps the parity might be fair and just; but as circumstances existed now, he held that Irish rentals should be judged from an exclusively Irish point of view, having regard to the interest in the land of both landlord and tenant. It was necessary to admit the principle of this Amendment, and to mark out to the Court, in specific terms, whether it was to take a retrospective view of this question, or whether it was only to take a present view. Hon. Members had urged on the Committee that rents in Ireland were fair enough; but it behoved them to look at facts, and, in view of the facts of the case, all hon. Members, on whichever side they sat, must confess that the Irish land system had been an utter failure. He hoped his hon. Friend would divide the Committee on this important principle, not so much in the hope of getting a large number into the Lobby with him, but for the purpose of uttering a protest against their being denied, by the Government and a Party who always boasted of their fairness, a principle of justice and equity.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 305: Majority 281.—(Div. List, No. 280.)
      MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had now to move an Amendment which stood in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). The Amendment spoke for itself, and was devised, not in the interest either of the landlord or the tenant, but of the holding itself. Under the provision, when the tenant went to the Court and asked to have a fair rent fixed, it would be competent for the Court to say—"No, you have broken the conditions of your tenancy, you are doing no good to yourself or the holding, you are allowing the holding to become deteriorated, therefore we will not accede to your application, or we will not accede to it until you have re-instated the holding in its proper condition." It might be thought that there was some innate power in the Bill enabling the Court to deal with this matter, but a careful examination of the clause would show that this was not the case. If hon. Members would look at the 8th sub-section of the clause, they would find that the Government proposed that the Court should have power in one particular case—where the holding in which the tenancy subsisted had been maintained and improved by the landlord—to refuse an application for the fixing of a fair rent. All that he asked was that there should be another case where the Court should have permissive power granted to it to disallow an application or to adjourn it. The proposal was a reasonable one in itself, and it was for the Government to say whether or not this was the part of the Bill in which it should be inserted.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 7, line 12, after "title," insert "Provided always, that where application is made to the Court under this section in respect of any tenancy, and the Court is of opinion that the tenant of the holding in which such tenancy subsists, or his predecessors in title, has or have caused or suffered such holding to become and be then deteriorated, contrary to the express or implied conditions constituting the contract of tenancy, the Court may disallow such application, or may postpone the hearing of the same for such time as the Court may think fit."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Go-
      1848
      vernment could not accept the Amendment. It was not a fair reason to say that the Court ought not to consider this matter; but the answer was that it was provided in Section 8 of the Bill that the Court might refuse an application, or accede to one, subject to conditions to be performed by either landlord or tenant. Any attempt to provide for particular cases would only be a temptation to parties interested to come forward and propose exceptions where they thought they could be made. In the one case the Government had provided for, and to which the hon. Member had alluded, the Government had considered it right to say that the Court might, if it thought fit, refuse the application. The 8th section of the Bill, which provided that the application might be refused, or granted conditionally on the landlord or tenant doing certain things, was identically the same as the 18th section of the Land Act of 1870, which referred to an Ulster tenant who had committed waste. It had been held in Ulster, where questions of this kind had been raised, that the tenant who had acted unreasonably, in the sense that he had committed waste on his holding, should suffer for it.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, that the language of the 8th or Equities Clause would not be sufficient to deal with the state of affairs contemplated in the Amendment. It was no doubt true that cases of this kind had been decided under the Ulster Custom, but such cases might arise where the Ulster Custom did not prevail. The Ulster Custom was such a very difficult thing for people who were not familiar with it to understand, that it would be a great advantage to have this case dealt with as the Amendment proposed.
      MR. BIGGARasked whether it was really intended to press the Amendment? The arguments used against the Amendment he had proposed would apply with much greater force in the case of the present proposal, which was equally retrospective in its character.
      MR. E. STANHOPEapproved of the spirit in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had met the Amendment. The Government were willing to meet the point raised, and considered that the 8th clause was sufficient for the purpose. It was a curious construction to put upon that

      1849
      clause, notwithstanding that it might be supported by the Courts in Ulster. He did not propose to divide the Committee on the Amendment; but when they came to Clause 8, he was not sure that he should not feel it his duty to raise the point again.
      MR. GLADSTONE: The construction that the hon. Member describes as a curious one is not one put on the clause by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, but is an actual judicial construction applied in Ireland. It appears to me to be a much safer course to rely upon that actual judicial construction than to set about amending the Bill in this sense.
      MR. WARTONsaid, that notwithstanding the arguments of the Premier as to the construction put upon the provision of the Act of 1870 by the Courts in Ireland—the construction put upon the word "reasonable"—there was considerable danger that the Courts, in future, would not act upon that construction. He was certain that no lawyer, on a first impression, would say that this case would cover the matters sought to be dealt with in the Amendment. He would remind the Committee that when they were discussing the question as to whether the tenant should sub-divide or sub-let his holding, it was said that under the loose words of the Bill—under the 8th clause—the tenant could go to the Court and say—"I have offered to sub-divide my holding; I have made a reasonable offer to the landlord." The Attorney General for Ireland had said—"Oh, no; you cannot stretch the point in that way." And it, therefore, seemed to him (Mr. Warton) that the clauses of this Bill were to be open to any temporary construction it might suit the purposes of the right hon. Gentleman to put upon them.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the next Amendment was in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), but he had undertaken to move it. Its object was to prevent tenants coming to the Court unless their rent had been raised since the passing of the Act of 1870. The Amendment, it was believed, would prevent a considerable amount of litigation by keeping out a great many cases that would otherwise come before
      1850
      the Courts. The Amendment was recommended, too, inasmuch as the Act of 1870 was the parent of the present measure.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 7, line 12, at end of sub-section 3, insert "Provided, That the tenant shall not be entitled to make such application where the rent of his tenancy has not been increased by the landlord since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.'"—(Captain Aylmer.)
      MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The fact of the rent not having been altered might be an important reason for going to the Court to have a fair rent fixed. In the interest of the landlord as well as the tenant it may be important that, in this case, power should be given to go to the Court, because the landlord may himself have made valuable improvements of which, hitherto, he has not taken advantage. If the Amendment were made at all it should be in other terms, but I am not certain that in any case it could be made with safety.
      MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that what the Prime Minister said was that there might be cases in which it might be reasonable for the Court to take these matters into consideration. That being so, if this were a permissive Amendment there would be no objection to it. The Amendments, no doubt, went a little too far; but there was one in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, a little later on, which was permissive in its character, and that he should submit to the Committee when the proper time came.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the next Amendment standing in his name was a very short one—namely, to leave out the word "if" at the beginning of subsection 4. It really, however, meant the omission of two sub-sections. The object of these sub-sections was to deal with the cases where the judicial rent was equal to, or less, or greater than, the rent payable by the tenant when the application was made. The proposition he had to make was that the three cases should be dealt with alike. If the Amendment and consequent Amendments were accepted, the sub-section would read thus—

      1851
      " The rent fixed by the Court (in this Act referred to as the judicial rent) shall be deemed to be the rent payable by the tenant as for the period commencing at the next succeeding rent day."
      This would simplify the matter very much, and would leave all on an equal footing. He could not help thinking that there was an oversight in the Bill, because he could not see, if the Court said the rent was to be higher, why the landlord should not have the increase at once, just as in the case of diminished rent the decision was, immediately operative. The drafters of the Bill seemed to think that the landlord would not like to take the increase though the Court might award it. Hon. Members below the Gangway might fail to imagine how that could be, but the provision seemed to be constructed on that theory. If the landlord wished to have the benefit of sub-section 6, he could take the rent allowed by the Court, however high it might be, and allow a rebate to the tenant. It would be a great saving of time if the Government were to assent to this Amendment, because the necessity for considering a great number of proposals on the Paper would be done away with.
      Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 13, to leave out the word "if."—(Captain Aylmer.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'if' stand part of the Clause."
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL,hoped the Government would see their way to accepting this Amendment. It was difficult to conceive what motive could possibly have guided the Government in putting the landlord in the position in which he had been placed by sub-sections 5 and 6, because he must remind the Committee that the rent could not be fixed by the Committee until the landlord and tenant had found themselves unable to come to terms. The case would be one of dispute—it would not he a friendly matter at all—because if the tenant offered, and the landlord was willing to take, a lower rent, the case might not come into Court at all. the case might be one where the landlord would be dragged into Court, and the decision would be that the tenant had to pay a less rent than he had paid before. Let the Committee see how the Government
      1852
      went to work in these matters. In this case to which he referred if the rent was ruled to be too high, the tenant was to have, ipso facto, at once the advantage of that ruling. If, however, the rent was ruled too low, the landlord did not at once obtain the increase, but he had to serve a notice on the tenant before he could secure execution of the decree. If they wished to have the decisions of the Court respected, why, in this last-mentioned case, should they leave it to the landlord to put the decision of the Court in motion? If the decision of the Court was to take immediate effect in the case of the tenant, why on earth should it not take immediate effect in the case of the landlord? Why was the landlord to have this further burden imposed on him of going to the tenant and serving him with a notice, or of going to some officer of the Court—some functionary hateful to the Irish tenant—and getting him to serve a notice on the tenant? The Government could not advance any satisfactory argument in favour of this extraordinary distinction, and he could not tell why it had been so framed, unless it was for the purpose of throwing on the landlord an odious and invidious task.
      MR. BRODRICKsaid, that if he read the 6th sub-section aright, the position of the incoming tenant coming in under these circumstances would be most unfortunate. On the assumption that he would have to pay a lower rent than the judicial, he would pay a higher sum for the tenant right, and then, after he had obtained possession, he might be compelled to pay the judicial rent. He thought the Government ought to accept the Amendment.
      MR. PLUNKETtrusted that the Government would accept the Amendment, which was supported by so many hon. Members interested in the subject on the Conservative side of the House. The object they had in pressing on the Amendment was to render the Court a perfectly impartial tribunal between landlord and tenant. No difference should be observed between a case where the rent was raised in the interest of the landlord or lowered in the interest of the tenant. In the latter case, as the Bill now stood, the change would take immediate effect, whereas in the former case it would not take effect until notice had been served on the ten-

      1853
      ant by the landlord. The object of this Amendment was to obviate the necessity of serving that notice. He could not conceive the logic of the clause, which was said to be entirely in the interest of peace and good will between landlord and tenant, unless the landlords—who might be excellent in all respects—were allowed to avail themselves at once of a change made in their own favour, while that privilege was allowed to the tenants. The difficulty raised by the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Brodrick) was a very serious one. He had been discussing this clause with some of his Friends, and they were all at a loss to know how it would work in the event of its being applied to an Ulster tenancy. It was obvious that it would give rise to a great deal of uncertainty and doubt in the event of the provision in sub - section 6 being availed of.
      SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he had been a silent spectator of these proceedings hitherto, but he could not help protesting against the disparaging imputation which had been cast upon Her Majesty's Government by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill). The Government had prepared this elaborate clause and had put in provisions expressly to enable a landlord, who was entitled to a higher rent than he received, to forego that higher rent without being placed in a worse position for so doing. If hon. Members opposite did not like this provision let them say so; but do not let young men get up and accuse much older and wiser men than themselves of having put words into the clause for the purpose of fixing odium upon the landlords.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, what he had stated was that it might appear that the Government were throwing an invidious and odious task upon the landlords.
      SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, that the noble Lord, who, no doubt, had a great future before him, would find it of advantage to learn a little more caution. The Government had prepared a very careful and elaborate provision to save the landlords from the objectionable alternative of having to raise their rent or to lose their right. If those interested in property in Ireland did not like the provision, and thought the notice put them in a false position, the
      1854
      Government could have no object in pressing it upon them. The clause seemed to him to have been prepared with great care; and, certainly, if he might place himself in the position of an Irish landlord, he should like to have the option left to him of exercising or not, as he thought fit, his right to raise or not to raise his rent.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I must say that I think this controversy is being conducted in a very curious manner. My noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill), and my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Brodrick), have raised a question which, on the face of it, appears to be extremely well deserving of consideration—namely, whether it is not a reasonable, natural, and lenient course, if a judicial rent is fixed by the Court, to give effect to the judicial rent as soon as the Court has decided, instead of making a distinction between the case in which the rent has been found to be in excess of what it should be in the opinion of the Court, and a case in which the rent has been found to be too low? The question has been raised in a very temperate spirit. It has been argued by my noble Friend, and by my hon. Friend behind me—who speaks with considerable knowledge of the circumstances of Irish land—but, when all these things have been said, the Government make no sign whatever. Instead of that, up gets my hon. Colleague. He says very little as to the merits of the proposal. What he chiefly has to say is a rebuke of my noble Friend, which, I have no doubt, my noble Friend will survive. I think we are entitled to have an explanation from Her Majesty's Government as to why they think it is necessary to retain these complicated provisions in place of the Amendment now submitted to them. The onus probandi clearly lies with the Government.
      MR. GLADSTONE: If the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) has had the misfortune to receive a rebuke from my hon. Friend, he has had the advantage of receiving a compliment from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the very temperate manner in which the question has been raised and argued; but the "temperate manner" of the noble Lord was to declare that this provision is so irrational that it appears to have been devised by Her

      1855
      Majesty's Government for the purpose of bringing odium on the landlords, and for that the noble Lord received a compliment from the right hon. Gentleman. I quite admit the justice of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that Her Majesty's Government should express their opinion on these clauses, and state their motive for introducing them—which I am now proceeding to do. But the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is desirable for the promoters of the Bill to gather, with respect to certain clauses, the sense of the Committee before committing themselves definitely to a particular course with regard to them. That was exactly the consideration which kept us silent until we had heard expressions of opinion from the quarter of the House which represents those for whose benefit these sub-sections were framed. They were framed by us with a view very contradictory to that purposed by the noble Lord. They were framed, I will not say to meet the interests of the Irish landlords, but for the purpose of satisfying and largely meeting the feelings which have been described as swaying large classes of the Irish landlords, and which deserve every respect. It has been stated that these sub-sections are elaborate, and I quite agree that that is an objection. I admit, also, that hon. Gentlemen opposite may have some grounds for objecting to the landlord being called on to serve a notice on the tenant when the Court had raised the rent. But I should like to mention one or two points before the Committee makes up its mind as to the object with which these subsections were introduced. And, first, let me say that I cannot see the force of the argument of the hon. Member for Surrey as to the interest of the tenant. The hon. Member has said that a tenant will give a higher price for the tenant right on the consideration that the rent is lower than the judicial rent, and that directly afterwards he may find that the rent is raised on him. I have not the slightest apprehension on this subject, for no tenant, I should think, would be so short-sighted as to give a high sum for the tenant right in consideration of the rent being low when he knows that the landlord can raise the rent at any moment. The noble Lord is under a mistake when he says that all the operations must be the result of a previous
      1856
      conflict between the landlord and tenant. If such were the case, I admit there would be great force in the noble Lord's contention. But it is not so, because what will happen is this. That in a great many cases where the rent is a reasonable rent the tenant will require to know something as to the stability of that rent. He will go to the Court to get his rent judicially fixed, because, as has often, with justice, been said in these debates, he knows perfectly well that though he may be a good landlord now the present landlord say shortly disappear, and he may come under someone in whom he has not so much confidence. The tenant will, therefore, go into Court, not because he has had a quarrel with his landlord, but because he wants stability and desires to know what is the maximum he can be called upon to pay. He may do it at the time the landlord is asking from him a rent lower than that he knows the Court will fix. He will go into the Court without the slightest hostility to the landlord, and then the sub-section will operate. It is said that many landlords in Ireland think fit to charge a rent lower than the law of fair rents would allow them. There are, no doubt, a number—and not an insignificant number—of landlords who are content to take, and, perhaps, take a pride in accepting, a less rent than the law would give them. I would ask why should we compel such landlords to raise the rents, or have the tenant rights sold at an elevated price? These sub-sections have been devised distinctly in the interest of this class of landlords. In cases where the landlord is taking a less rent than the Court allows, after the Court has been appealed to, he may continue to charge the same low rent. We put it in his power to prevent the tenancy being sold at a less rent than the judicial rent. The Government attach importance to these sub-clauses, and really consider that the tenant has no very distinct interest in them, and that it is a matter in which we should wish to follow and consult the feelings of those who may be fairly supposed to speak in this House from the point of view which the landlord would be likely to take. Under the circumstances, I am quite willing to take any course that may be agreeable to the Committee. If hon. Members desire it, we will let the matter stand over for further consideration.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he should infinitely prefer the proposed clause to those it was sought to strike out, and that in the interest of the tenant himself. With reference to what the Prime Minister had said, he thought the working of the clause would be this—Where the tenant was under a good landlord, and for years he and his family had only been called on to pay a reasonable rent, he would not dispute the matter. He would not go into Court until a change took place in the landlord, or until a demand was made of him for an increased rent. He would think it desirable, both in his own interest and that of the landlord, that their relations should continue to remain undisturbed without litigation. On the other hand, suppose the tenant did go into Court, he would be made to feel the responsibility of his action. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) did not want the tenant to be treated like a child. No one could suppose that the tenant would go into the Court until there had been a conversation, probably many conversations, between himself and his landlord with regard to the rent. If the landlord demonstrated, or endeavoured to demonstrate to the tenant that the rent was reasonable, and it was proved by the action of the Court in raising the rent that the landlord was more than right in saying that the rent was reasonable, the tenant ought to bear the consequences. These sub-clauses were open to two very great objections. If they did anything at all they would increase litigation. They would be a sort of lottery—they would hold out a kind of promise to every tenant in Ireland to induce him, whether his rent was fair and reasonable or not, to try his chances in the Court. That, he thought, was extremely objectionable. Then, if it was proved that the tenant's contention was unreasonable, and his rent was absolutely lower than the landlord and the Court thought was just, the tenant should take the consequences. What, therefore, would be the result of passing the clauses? He believed they would be inoperative. He did not believe that where the rent was reasonable and the tenant went into the Court and complained, even then the Court in one case out of a thousand would raise it. But, if the Court did so, why should not the tenant take the consequences of going
      1858
      to the Court? It was not imperative on the landlord to take the increase. He might say to his tenant—"I think you were very unreasonble in this matter; you have put me to great inconvenience; you have altered our relations; but, at the same time, I will only exact the increased rent, for such a length of time as will pay the expense you have put me to; after that our relations shall remain as they were." But the sub-sections would tell the tenant that even if the case had gone against him he had still a chance of getting off by having the matter put in abeyance until the estate was sold. Another effect of the sub-clauses would be that the tenant would not be able to look his landlord straight in the face in consequence of their own action. He had argued in the same way on the question of the dilapidations of buildings. If tenants allowed buildings on their farms to get into a state of dilapidation let them bear the consequences, and if they dragged the landlords into Court unreasonably let them equally bear the consequences. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would strike out the sub-clauses.
      LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that if this Amendment were rejected, and the sub-section were passed in its entirety, they would then have to consider the two sub-sections that followed, and he was sure they would find that there were a number of difficulties connected with those sub-sections for which they had not made provision. It must be recollected that this Bill would very much increase the difficulty of settling the respective rights of the landlord and tenant in each tenancy. Hitherto tenant right had meant that the tenant had a right of sale or interest in his holding subject to the rent imposed by the landlord. Now, however, they had set up a Court which was to establish a statutory rent, and every single landlord from one end of Ireland to the other was entitled to the statutory rent which the Court might impose upon his property. Therefore, in all cases where the rent was less than the statutory rent, the difference would be a saleable commodity, the value of which the tenant would be able to realize when he sold the tenant right unless the landlord interfered. The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) had said that under

      1859
      the subsequent sub-sections injustice would be done to an incoming tenant. He (Lord George Hamilton) was sure that would be the case. The value of the tenant right, of course, very much depended upon the rent. The lower the rent the higher the tenant right; therefore, wherever the rent was less than the statutory rent the tenant right would be higher than where the statutory rent was charged. Thus, an outgoing tenant would sell to his successor that portion of the rent—namely, the difference between the rent imposed and the statutory rent which this Bill said belonged to the landlord. The outgoing tenant would receive twofold compensation. He had had the advantage of paying a less rent than might have been asked, and because he had paid less rent he received compensation from his successor when he left. The incoming tenant, on the other hand, would be liable to have his rent raised, to the statutory level, though he had paid to the outgoing tenant a sum to free him from that liability. The net result was that the outgoing tenant would be twice compensated for what did not belong to him, and the incoming tenant would have paid for that which was never given to him. The landlord would step in and say—"The tenant has sold something that belongs to me; "and then the Court would have to decide between the tenant who had sold something and the other tenant who had bought something. If at the end of this complicated transaction the Court decided that the landlord was entitled to a portion of the tenant right, he would have to get from the outgoing tenant that sum which the incoming tenant had paid that outgoing tenant. Then would arise the question whether the landlord would be precluded in consequence of the sum he thus received from raising the rent. If he retained that right, the incoming tenant had paid money for nothing. Practically, this had been done; and it seemed to him that the landlord was always entitled to raise his rent to the statutory level during the statutory term. Suppose the landlord obtained this compensation, the incoming tenant had been done. He was afraid the result of the Bill would be in a certain case to force the landlords to raise the rents.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that all these calculations were based upon what
      1860
      he could not help regarding as an entire fallacy—namely, on the assumption that the incoming tenant, who knew that the landlord had obtained a judicial declaration from the Court which would enable him to raise the rent, would be fool enough to buy the tenancy on the expectation that the rent would never be increased.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the outgoing tenant would say to the incoming tenant—"The landlord has got a judicial declaration; but he is so good that he does not charge me the rent that the Court said he could charge me—or, at least, he has not done for four or five years." If the incoming tenant bought on the strength of that statement, he would not be such a fool; on the contrary, he would be proving himself to be a wise man, because he would buy knowing that the landlord would be certain to treat him well. He wished to point out to the Prime Minister that he had made the statement that it was not necessary that the action under this clause between the landlord and tenant should be a hostile action. On the contrary, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) believed that it would be absolutely hostile. If the tenant only wanted to get stability, and the landlord was a good landlord, the two might come to an agreement under Clause 9. They could agree to create a fixed tenancy, and they need not bother themselves about the Court at all. All the arrangements that would take place under this Bill would be hostile. [An hon. MEMBER: You can have arbitration.] No doubt there could be arbitration; but the whole of the action under this clause would be hostile. Therefore, he thought the arguments of the Prime Minister on this point were answered. With regard to the observation of the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas Acland), he took it in good part; but sometimes a rebuke of that kind, whether merited or unmerited, led to prolonged controversy.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the generous landlord who was inclined to take less than the law allowed him could always do so. The Amendment would simplify the Bill very much without injuring it; therefore, he hoped it would be accepted.
      SIR WILLIAM PALLISERsaid, it seemed to him that the acceptance of the Amendment would have the effect of

      1861
      simplifying and facilitating the progress of the Bill. It would have the effect of enabling them to get rid, at one stroke, of at least 20 Amendments, all of which might otherwise have to be discussed.
      MR. SHAWsaid, he looked upon the clause as very much in the interest of the landlord. He could say, from his own knowledge and experience, that there were many landlords in Ireland who desired to treat their tenants generously, and who would not, after the passing of this Bill, make any rush to raise their rents. Many of these landlords had lived on good terms with their tenants for generations, and desired to continue on those terms; and even where the tenant, owing to some temporary excitement, and thinking he could get his rent reduced, went into the Court, and instead of getting a reduction got a declaration that the rent should be raised, the landlords might not avail themselves of that declaration. The real object of this clause was to give the landlord an increase of rent against an incoming tenant if he thought it right to charge it and the Court allowed it. He (Mr. Shaw) could not imagine how, in the interests of the landlords, these clauses could be objected to. He should like to hear the opinions of the Irish landlords on the matter. He did not think that the Irish landlords wished for the rejection of these words, and thought that valuable time would be wasted in facther discussion upon the question.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that hon. Members who represented the Irish landlords claimed to be actuated by feelings of the greatest benevolence towards the tenants; but the object of this Amendment was to make their benevolence permissive. It would seem, therefore, that those hon. Members who were continually insisting upon the benevolence of their intentions were afraid to allow it voluntary action. He suggested to Her Majesty's Government that it would be a great saving of time to put the question to a division at once.
      MR. CHAPLINwished to point out that the statement of the Prime Minister in one respect opened up quite a new view of the effect which this clause would have. He thought both sides of the Committee would agree that inevitable difficulty and confusion would arise if anything like the majority of the tenants of Ireland went into Court
      1862
      at once. In mitigation of this it had been pointed out that a great number, if not a majority, of tenants were low rented, and it had been confidently expected by the Government that in no circumstances would the low-rented tenants go into Court. But it was now said that the low-rented tenants would go into Court in order to obtain stability; and as the high-rented tenants would, undoubtedly, do the same for the purpose of getting their rent reduced, there would be 600,000 tenants going into Court immediately the Bill passed.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I have never stated that all the low-rented tenants would go into Court; I said that many individual tenants would do so.
      MR. LITTONsaid, he did not attach much importance to these supplementary sub-sections; and, on the whole, he believed, in the interest of the tenant, they would be better omitted. He thought it was far better that the tenant should understand that the judicial rent had to be paid, than that he should be under the impression that it would be allowed to accumulate.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, the Representatives of the Irish landlords certainly regarded this clause with a good deal of embarrassment. They saw that in certain cases an opportunity would be afforded to persons to act in the manner indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton); but they also saw that the retention of the words would lead to the necessity of their serving a notice at every step, if they wanted to get the judicial rent, and that was the reason why they were in favour of striking out these sections.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the proposal of the Government was made in good faith; but experience showed that there was sometimes no greater mistake than to attempt to do kindnesses that were not recognized. After what had been said, he was prepared to accept the Amendment on the Paper with the consequential Amendment.
      MR. BIGGARthought the Government ought not to agree to an Amendment unless some strong reasons were advanced in favour of it, which had by no means been the case in the present instance. He agreed if a landlord charged less than a reasonable rent that, at the time of sale, he should receive a certain sum out of the purchase money. The

      1863
      clause appeared to him much more in favour of the landlord than the tenant, and he was not opposed to its being struck out of the Bill.
      MR. A. MOOREsaid, it was clear that the meaning of the sub-section was that if the rent was kept low the landlord should not be a loser when a sale took place.
      SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he was in favour of the Amendment because, without some such provision under the sub-section, a landlord who had charged a low rent would, when the tenant came to sell, be able to swamp the tenant right altogether by the accumulation of the amounts he had hitherto declined to look for.
      MR. LEAMYsaid, he had always thought that the way in which tenant right in Ireland was swamped was by the rent being increased. The whole effect of the sub-section was that if a decree was given that the rent ought to be higher than the tenant was paying, the tenant should, upon notice from the landlord, pay the increased rent from the next rent day; but that if the landlord did not claim it, the landlord should receive some compensation. The retention of the clause could do no harm to the landlord.
      CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the Amendment had been spoken of as being brought forward by an English Member; but the hon. Member who made that remark must known that he was as much connected with Irish land as any Member of the House.
      MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, that the strongest arguments in favour of the Amendment appeared to him to have come from those hon. Members who had spoken in opposition to it from both sides of the House.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 371: Majority 336.—(Div. List, No. 281.)
      Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 14, omit from "is" to "rent" in line 15.—(Captain Aylmer.)
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORprotested against the action of the Government with regard to Amendments proposed from the Conservative Benches. It was plainly in the interest of the tenant that the landlord should have the choice of
      1864
      charging the higher judicial rent. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the clause as it originally stood would throw odium upon the landlord in his endeavour to get an additional rent, because the final choice then rested with the landlord. The Amendment which the Government had agreed to accept, however, would transfer the whole matter to the Court; and, inasmuch as his object was to throw as much odium as possible upon the landlord who raised the tenant's rent, he very much regretted the change sanctioned by the Government. Irish Members had now become perfectly familiar with such changes on the part of the Government. The moment an hon. Member got up from the Conservative Benches to say that unless assent were given to a particular Amendment a number of others would follow, the Prime Minister became as soft as wax, so to speak, in the hands of the Conservative Party. He could not but think, if the Attorney General for Ireland were allowed to have the final word with reference to these Amendments, that Business would proceed more satisfactorily, because, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was allowed to speak, he always advanced something like a firm and rational argument in support of his view; while, on the other hand, the Prime Minister, who had not that steadiness of purpose which characterized the Celtic mind, and was, perhaps, influenced a little by his prejudices as an Englishman, at once yielded to the wishes of the Conservative Party. Still, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was so much to blame as the hon. Members for Tyrone and Galway, who gave him a push whenever they saw him about to yield to the Conservative Party against the interest of the Irish tenants. He thought that the Irish people would be able to understand both the action of the Prime Minister and that of the two hon. Members to whom he had referred.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 17, leave out "next succeeding."—(Mr. Plunket.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he had no objection to the omission of these words.
      MR. CALLANwas by no means satisfied that this was but a verbal Amendment. When the Bill was framed some meaning was undoubtedly attached to the words "next succeeding," and it was difficult to understand why they were so readily given up. He had a strong objection to the hasty adoption of so-called verbal Amendments; and he remembered that during the passage of the Act of 1870 several Amendments of the kind were admitted which afterwards worked injury to the Irish tenants. For his own part, he viewed with suspicion any Amendment to an Irish Bill which came from the Conservative Benches.
      Amendment agreed to.
      On the Motion of Mr. PLUNKET, Amendment made, in page 7, line 17, after "day," by inserting "next succeeding the decision of the Court."
      On the Motion of Captain AYLMER, Amendment made, in page 7, by leaving out sub-sections 5 and 6.
      LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that some discussion had already taken place with reference to the subject of labourers' cottages. When the question was raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), the Government stated it would be more convenient if the discussion took place in connection with the 7th sub-section of the present clause. The Committee would observe that the effect of that portion of the sub-section which he proposed to strike out was to make an exception in regard to the first 15 years of the statutory term obtained in the manner referred to in the 1st sub-section of the clause. He was quite at a loss to understand why this exception should be made. If it was right for the landlord to take any portion of the holding for the purposes mentioned, when the statutory term had arisen, in consequence of the increased rent demanded by the landlord having been accepted by the tenant, it appeared to him right that he should do so when the statutory term arose in the manner contemplated by the present clause. Then, again, if the right was given to the landlord during the second period of 15 years, why should it not be given to him during the first period of 15 years? The whole procedure appeared to him to be of an
      1866
      arbitrary character, and the work of some ingenious person outside the House, rather than that of a practical statesman. On the whole, he concluded that the Government did not attach very great importance to the words, and that their omission would tend to the simplification of the Bill.
      Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 40, to leave out all the words after the word "landlord," to the end of sub-section 7.—(Lori Edmond Fitzmaurice.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'with this modification, that during the statutory term in a,' stand part of the Clause."
      MR. PARNELLwished to point out to the Committee the great danger which lay in propositions intended to give the landlord a right to interfere with the holding of his tenant. Already in Ireland a movement had been started for the purpose of protecting the interest of labourers in the soil, and he thought it very proper that the interest of the labourer should be protected, and that some provision should be made for the purpose of helping him in his hard lot in life. But it was exceedingly dangerous, under cover of protecting the labourer, to give power to the landlord to come in and set the labouring class against the tenant. A disposition already existed in Ireland to create disputes between those classes; and if the Amendment of the noble Lord were adopted, he feared that the result would be that the labourers would be used as an irritating force, and that when a landlord had a tenant who displeased him, and whom he wished to influence in any way, he would threaten to resume a part of the tenant's farm for the purpose of providing for labourers whom he would plant on the farm, and over whom the tenant would have no control whatever. Therefore, he submitted that the tenant should hesitate before adopting the very dangerous modification of the Bill urged by the noble Lord.
      MR. CARTWRIGHTpointed out that the observations of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) were entirely outside the argument of the noble Lord. The argument of his noble Friend was based upon the arbitrary distinction made between the two forms of statutory tenancy, created by the Bill under different conditions, in

      1867
      respect of the landlord's power of resuming land for certain specific purposes.
      DR. COMMINSsaid, if the stability of tenure which this clause proposed to give was to be anything more than a sham, the words which the noble Lord wished to be struck out ought to be retained in the section. He admitted that there were some exceedingly good landlords in Ireland; but, on the other hand, there were others who deserved the description applied to them in The Times—that they exacted their rights with hands of iron, and neglected their duties with foreheads of brass. It was to protect the tenants of Ireland from such landlords as those that this 15 years' stability was comtemplated by the clause, and which was the central provision of the Bill. What was to become of that security which the tenants in the North of Ireland were willing to buy at 10, 20, and even 50 years' purchase if this power of resumption was to be allowed to the landlord? This was not paid for improvements, nor so much for possession, as for security from the landlord's exactions, and the possibility of capricious and unjust eviction. If this part of the sub-section were taken away, there would be no security whatever for any of the Irish tenantry; for immediately the Act came into force, those landlords who neglected their duties with foreheads of brass would develop an interest in the labourer, and, under the pretext of furnishing him with cottages and gardens, would apply to the Court for permission to resume possession of their farms. It was admitted to be a good thing that cottages should be built for labourers, and that gardens should be given to them; but was' it to be supposed for a moment that the only place where a cottage could be built was upon the estate of a rack-renting landlord, whose tenants had been obliged to bring him into Court, and whose rent had been thereby reduced 20 or 30 per cent? There were plenty of places where that could be done, without giving the rack-renting landlord the opportunity of seizing upon a portion of the holding of a tenant who had brought him into Court and exposed him, in order to save himself from exaction. He contended that a landlord so situated, and smarting under the decree of the Court, would
      1868
      not be long without finding a labourer who wanted a cottage in the neighbourhood; and, under the pretext of supplying that want, he would make application to the Court for permission to resume possession of the tenant's holding. For these reasons he was opposed to the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, which would remove one of the most valuable features of the Bill.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the question had turned too much on the resumption of part of the holding for the erection of labourers' cottages. The sub-section began with a declaration that the tenancy during the first 15 years after the fixing of a judicial rent would be subject to statutory conditions. A special modification was then introduced, and his noble Friend asked why that modification was made to apply only to tenants during the first 15 years? The reason was that Her Majesty's Government wished to give confidence to the tenant in his fixity of tenure during that period. He reminded the Committee that there was a far more important reason for resumption than that for the purpose of erecting cottages—namely, where it had relation to the good of the holding; and that there would be more resumptions upon that ground than any other. He trusted the Committee would consider this Amendment, with reference to the main feature of the clause.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had listened with great interest to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but still failed to see why there should be any different conditions applied to the statutory term which gave an increase of rent to the landlord and the statutory term which gave none. The Committee had passed a provision that—
      "During the continuance of a statutory term in a tenancy consequent on an increase of rent by the landlord, the Court may, on the application of the landlord, and upon being satisfied that he is desirous of resuming the holding, or part thereof, for some reasonable and sufficient purpose, having relation to the good of the holding, or of the estate, or for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments, authorize the resumption thereof by the landlord upon such conditions as the Court may think fit, and require the tenant to sell his tenancy, in the whole or such part, to the landlord, upon such terms as may be approved by the Court as being full compensation to the tenant."

      1869
      The right hon. Gentleman had very properly laid great stress upon the fact that this was a provision where the increase of rent was obtained by the landlord, and which gave the landlord power to effect necessary improvements on the holding, or on the estate—improvements which were as necessary in the interest of the tenant as in that of the landlord. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) pointed out that there were improvements which were probably more necessary to the tenant than the landlord, such as roads, or works of that kind, and the landlord was to have the power of resumption for such purposes if he obtained an increase of rent from the tenant, while, under the sub-section before the Committee, the Court was not allowed to give him that power during the first statutory term of 15 years. That appeared to him to be an unwise and unnecessary restriction, inasmuch as it would tend to cheek improvement and outlay on the part of the landlord, and to retard, in consequence, that development of Irish agricultural resources which they were all anxious to bring about. He could not but feel that if the Court was trusted in the one case it ought also to be trusted in the other; and that this restriction, which was neither for the interest of the tenant nor for the interest of the landlord, ought not to be maintained.
      COLONEL COLTHURSTappealed to the Government not to carry any further the objectionable principle of resumption on the part of the landlord. He thought the power of resumption ought not to be given at all; but as it had been conceded, to a certain extent, in the Bill, he would only express a hope that it would be confined to as limited an area as possible.
      MR. SYNANsaid, he wished to point out, in reply to the inquiry as to why a distinction had been set up between the two kinds of statutory tenancies, that the power of resumption had been given to the landlord in the case of the statutory term which arose out of the agreement between the landlord and tenant, because it was not inconsistent with such, an agreement, and because the tenant, under those circumstances, might be supposed to have confidence that it would not be used for any hostile purpose by the landlord. But the statutory term referred to by this sub-section was
      1870
      created by the Court, subject to certain conditions; and the tenant, having power to sell during the 15 years, would., unless this part of the section were retained, find the value of the tenancy reduced to zero by the landlord's power of resumption. With regard to the labourers, he regretted that their case had been dragged into the present discussion, although their welfare was as much connected with the interest of the tenant as with the interest of the landlord; and it was not for their good that the value of tenancies in Ireland should be reduced by the landlord having power to resume possession of the tenant's holding.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I do not consider that we are, at this moment, confining ourselves to the discussion of the question as to whether the words at the end of this clause, beginning "with this modification" and ending with the words "shall not be entertained by the Court," might not undergo some Amendment. The Committee may wish to raise the question whether there should, be the power of resumption for special purposes, such as the purpose of labourers' cottages, within the first statutory term, consequent upon the fixing of a judicial rent. I do not, however, enter into that. I understand the contention of the noble Lord to be that the first statutory term should be like all other statutory terms, as regards the power of resumption by the landlord. The Government propose to make the first statutory term under a judicial rent an exception to the general rule, and we are asked why we make that exception. It is in order to attain the main purpose of the Bill—namely, the composing of differences and the settlement of relations between class and class in Ireland. We do not require to make any proposals for composing differences where the parties are already agreed and understand one another. Where there is an increase of rent proposed by the landlord, and consented to by the tenant, there would be no difference or disturbance between the parties, and the only reason why we introduce the statutory term in this case is in order that the tenant may not be annoyed by another increase of rent after a short interval. But the rule would be totally different where the rent is fixed judiciously. Whatever cases there are, and their

      1871
      number is not small, where the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland are disturbed, those relations will settle themselves through the Court, and the judicial rent settled by the Court is to be followed by a statutory term, which is imposed not merely for the purpose of ending uncertainty, but also for the purpose of putting an end to a disturbed and unsettled state of things. Therefore, I think it is wise, to introduce an exceptional provision to say that the power of the landlord to resume shall be suspended during that term in order to give confidence to the tenant.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that a few hours ago the Prime Minister stated that under this Bill a large number of people would go into Court without any hostile feeling to the landlord for the purpose of getting the statutory term. Why, then, should not the landlord have the power of resumption under these circumstances, with the safeguards provided by the Bill in the case of the statutory term arising out of the agreement between the landlord and tenant? Under those provisions he would not apply to the Court to resume except he could show that he wanted to carry out something for the good of the holding, the estate, or the labourers; and all that would have to be proved before the Court would grant the power of resumption. He was quite unable to see the reason for the distinction that had been set up between this clause and Clause 4, which had already been passed by the Committee; and he was bound to say that his difficulty in that respect had not in the least been removed by the last observations of the Prime Minister, especially when coupled with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to which he had referred—namely, that a large number of persons would go into Court for the purpose of getting stability.
      MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he had never been able to understand why the statutory term should carry certain consequences in one case and not in the other. Looking at all the circumstances, it could hardly be supposed that the arrangements connected with the acceptance of an increase of rent by the tenant would always be of a perfectly friendly character. The Committee could not feel too strongly that the resumption of possession, under Clause 4 of the Bill, could take place only in the most quali-
      1872
      fied manner; and, therefore, there was little danger in applying it to all terms alike. He was quite unable to understand why the Court should not have power to grant resumption to the landlord under the statutory term arising out of the fixing of rent by the Court, while they had power to do so in the case of the statutory term created by agreement between the landlord and tenant. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had tried to explain that there was an extraordinary difference between the two cases; but he (Mr. W. Fowler) was utterly unable at that moment to see in what the difference consisted. They were bound to assume, having passed the 4th clause, that resumption of possession in certain cases was right; but they were, by this part of the sub-section, asked to say that there should be no power of resumption whatever in the vast number of terms which would be created by the Court under this clause. He was not prepared to say that the landlord should not have power to get back his land for 15 years; and, as at present advised, he could not see that sufficient reason had been shown for establishing this remarkable distinction.
      MR. MARUMsaid, the omission of the modification of this clause would deprive the tenant of 15 years' security of tenure, and it was not to be wondered at that Irish Members met the proposal of the noble Lord with hostility. If the power of resumption were given to the landlord in the present case he would be able to use it as a deterrent whenever the landlord went in for a judicial rent.
      MR. SHAWsaid, he was entirely against the power of resumption, and against anything which would limit the security of the tenant farmer. It would probably meet the case if the power of resumption were given to the landlord for the erection of labourers' cottages; but the Court should have before it a clear and not a mere speculative case on the part of the landlord. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
      MR. FITZPATRICKsaid, as far as he could gather after reading the subsection in connection with the speech of the Prime Minister, the effect of this distinction was to urge the tenant to go into Court and not come to an amicable agreement with the landlord. There-

      1873
      fore, he thought as the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite tended to lessen the business of the Court, by facilitating an amicable agreement between the landlord and tenant, it ought to be accepted. From his own experience of Ireland, having lived there all his life, he did not think there would be many instances in which the landlord would incur the odium of the district by resuming possession of a holding while, at the same time, paying heavily for it.
      MR. EVANSsaid, he thought it was desirable that an understanding should be arrived at without taking a division. There seemed to be differences of opinion that were not very considerable, and he thought the Committee would do well to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR. HENEAGEthought it was during the first term that the landlord would want, if at all, to take back the land if labourers' cottages were to be built. Something ought to be done when labourers' cottages were required and tenants would not provide them. But after hearing the discussion, he thought the suggestion of the Prime Minister might be favourably considered, on the practical view of the position that half a loaf was better than no bread. He would, therefore, advise the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
      MR. GIVANsaid, the explanations of the Prime Minister had convinced him that this was not the place to discuss this question, and that they would have an opportunity by-and-bye of fairly considering how the claims of the labourers might be met on the proposal which the Government would bring forward at a later stage of the Bill; and he, therefore, joined in requesting the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, and not prejudice the matter to be hereafter considered. As to the new-born zeal displayed for the labourers, he might mention that within the last two or three days he had received a letter from Ireland, stating that if their new friends went on in their present advocacy the labourers intended to hold mass meetings for the purpose of praying that they might be delivered from them.
      MR. CHAPLINremarked, that the hon. Member for Grimsby(Mr. Heneage) prided himself upon taking a practical view; but how far was it a practical view to speak strongly in favour of the
      1874
      Amendment, and then advise its withdrawal? He (Mr. Chaplin) hoped the noble Lord would not accept the alternative suggestion made, and would not withdraw his Amendment. Why should there not be this power to resume for purposes having relation to the good of the estate? It would be as flagrant an act of confiscation of the property of the landlord to take it away as anything he had heard of. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division, and he certainly should resist its withdrawal.
      LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, of course he was in the hands of the Committee; and if there was a wish, especially among those with whom he usually acted, that he should withdraw his Amendment, he was quite willing to follow out the principle mentioned by the hon. Member for Grimsby, and accept the half loaf when he could not get the whole. But what he wanted now to know, and he put the question to the Chairman, was, whether his Amendment could be put in such a shape as not to prevent his bringing up words on the top of the next page which would enable the case of the labourers to be dealt with specifically, assuming that his Amendment was not now accepted by the Committee? He had no wish to force the Committee to divide; but, at the same time, he did not mean to run away from his Amendment.
      THE CHAIRMAN: In answer to the question of the noble Lord, it will be quite competent for him at a future stage, to move his Amendment. There will be no difficulty at all.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 226; Noes 146: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 282.)
      And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock the Committee suspended its Sitting.
      The Committee resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Progress resumed.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLmoved, in page 7, line 44, to leave out the word "for" to the second "or,"

  1875
  page 8, line 1, in order to insert the word "except," so that the clause would read—
  "Application by the landlord to authorise the resumption of the holding by him except for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments,"
  shall not entertained by the Court. That he believed to have been the decision arrived at before the Committee adjourned.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 44, to leave out the word "for" to the second "or," in page 8, line 1.—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, it would be necessary to insert after "holding" the words "or part thereof." He begged to move the insertion of these words in the Amendment.
  Question, "That the words 'or part thereof' be inserted after the word holding,'" put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Amendment, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. PARNELLunderstood that the Government were assenting to this Amendment. Well, he was very sorry that this question about the labourers should so continually be in the Bill, and he regretted it, because he thought it would have facilitated matters very much if the Government had placed their proposed Amendment with regard to the labourer on the Paper. He thought that the power given to the landlords to resume the land of their tenants for the benefit of their labourers was a most objectionable one, and, as he stated earlier in the day, one which was calculated to give rise to conflicts between two classes—the labourers and the tenants—in Ireland. What he would suggest as an alternative would be that power should be given to some independent body—neither landlords nor tenants—to resume land under the provisions of this section, to except land from the statutory term, so that if it was found in one district that there was not sufficient accommodation for the labourers it might be possible to take from the tenant a sufficiency of land for the purpose of providing accommodation; and with that view he handed in
  1876
  to the Chairman, at the close of the Sitting, when he knew that the question of the labourers was to come up again, an Amendment, which he proposed to move at the end of sub-section 7, after the word "Court," to add these words—
  "Subject to the provisions hereinafter enacted in that behalf for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments."
  The adoption of such a provision would leave it open to the Committee to consider hereafter whether power should be given to the landlords, or some other body, to resume the land under the provisions of this section. The difficulty that he saw in enacting the section without some Amendment was this—that it gave the tenant an absolute statutory term and right in his holding, free from disturbance for any purpose whatever; and if they, without inserting some such provision as that at a future stage of the Bill, decided upon giving some independent body, such as the Commission or the local sanitary authorities of the rural districts, the power of purchasing or resuming possession of land for the benefit of the labourers, it might be held to be a contradiction of the provisions of the sub-section which gave the tenant an absolute right to his holding during the statutory term, free from all interference. He was, by all means, in favour of retaining the power to resume from the tenant whatever land might be found necessary for the benefit of the labourers in any particular district. But he would ask the Committee not to come to a hasty decision as to the authority to be intrusted with this power. By the adoption of the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock they would declare that they gave this power to the landlord. They were not precluded, hereafter in a separate clause, from giving that power to the landlord, if, when the whole subject came to be discussed, and after they had examined alternative schemes, the Committee should decide that it would be best to do so. But they were now in this position—that before they came to the period of the Bill when it was possible to nave such alternative propositions as he had suggested—namely, the placing of the power of resumption in some other independent body out of the hands of the landlords, they bound themselves,

  1877
  before they could examine the merits of the proposal, to this plan of giving the landlords the right of this resumption. Of course, they did not preclude themselves from adopting another proposal; but it was exceedingly objectionable to give this power to the landlords. In the past it had been shown to be a very useless power, for the landlords had not used it. They had not resumed it to any extent; and if they did it now it would be for the purpose of annoying the tenants. They would use the labourer as a separate interest against the tenants, and they would be very likely to create a war of classes. In objecting to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, he did not object to the power of resuming the land for the labourers; in fact, he was thoroughly in favour of it. But he wished it to be done by some independent tribunal which would be independent of both landlord and tenant, and which would protect the tenant alike from those two classes so far as his little cottage, allotment, and garden went. Let them recollect the nature of the power which they were going to give. At any time the landlord might ask the Court to resume a portion of the ground for the benefit of the labourers in the district; and this resumption might take place under circumstances of great inconvenience to the tenant in a most unusual way. He objected to this Amendment as being, in the present state of the Bill, premature, and as an attempt to settle the labourers' question on wrong lines, which would lead to future dispute between two very important classes in Ireland.
  MR. WARTONobserved, that when the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) spoke of this question being brought in prematurely, and relegating it to some future clause, he seemed to have forgotten that under the 4th clause they had already passed a provision in which land would, be resumed for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, and allotments; and when he spoke of another tribunal, an independent tribunal, he had forgotten that they had already selected a tribunal in this Court as provided by the 4th clause. When they had provided for the labourers in such statutory term, why not provide for the present?
  MR. ERRINGTONsaid, he wished to point out to the Attorney General for Ireland that this very important question arose. The words were very wide, and no direction was given to the Court as to what labourers' resumption was to be made for. Was the resumption made for labourers on the holding alone? Of course, they would be told that the I discretion was left to the Court; but he would particularly impress upon the Government that this was one of the points upon which the Court would require a specific direction as to the meaning of the Committee in the present adoption of that power, because it was quite clear that a landlord might apply for power to resume land on a small holding for the benefit of labourers upon other holdings. It was perfectly possible that it might be a convenient thing for the whole estate, and a very convenient thing for the labourers generally, and it might be a very injurious thing for the tenant of the particular holding. He begged, therefore, to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the intention was that this power of resumption should be generally for the labourers in the district or for the labourers on the estate or upon the neighbouring holding, or—as he thought it ought to be—only upon the particular holding from which the land was proposed to be taken? If that were so the words ought to be inserted, so as to make it applicable only to the labourers of the particular holding.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTremarked, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had stated that he objected to this particular Amendment, because it would place in the hands of the landlords the power of resuming, at his own option, the land for the benefit of labourers; but that he had no objection to the alternative scheme of intrusting to what he called an impartial tribunal the decision as to the power of exercising such resumption, and that impartial tribunal the called the Commission. Now, the Commission was the Court, and the Court was the very power, according to the sub-section which they were now discussing, which sat in judgment on any application for resumption on the part of the landlord for a piece of land for the labourer's cottage, garden, or allotment. The hon. Member for the City of Cork would see that

  1879
  he had entirely mistaken the conditions of a statutory term and the provisions of the sub-section under consideration.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANobserved, that if this power of resumption were handed over to the landlords the Government would find themselves in a very considerable difficulty, because the landlords might not act upon it. The labourers' grievance admittedly existed. The Government felt that it would have to deal with it; and if this power of resuming were confided to the landlords the way of the Government was stopped. The landlords had done nothing heretofore, and he did not believe that they were about to do anything under this measure. He did not understand that the landlord class was evincing any interest in this question. If he really thought that the landlords were about to do this benevolence, and if their new-born zeal was real and sincere, if they were very anxious to improve the position of the labourers of Ireland, he would see no objection to this Amendment. But he saw nothing in their history and nothing in their action heretofore to cause him to believe that they had any such intention; and if they got that power and did not act upon it, he did not see how the Government were going to settle this labourers' question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he really thought that the hon. Member who had just spoken had taken away any objection to this section in saying that the landlords would not act upon it. If they did not act upon it there could be no resumption, and there would not be any danger arising from it. The hon. Member also seemed to suppose that the Government thought that the labourers' question would be settled by the adpotion of this clause. The Government did not think so at all. He did not imagine that any Gentleman in the Committee had that idea. Was it to be said that in all other statutory tenancies except this there was to be a power to resume for the good of the labourers? The question was whether they should not reserve the same power here. The Committee would be very glad indeed to reserve fixity of tenure for all the other purposes, and it certainly would be wrong to take away from the labourer the opportunity of the landlord doing something for him by resuming the land for
  1880
  that particular purpose. They had been told that it had that power under Section 4; but still it could not be wrong to make this Bill perfect by making it sure that the landlord had his power. The hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) could not object to it, because his argument went to this—that the landlords would not do anything; and if they did nothing there would be no harm done.
  MR. MARUMsaid, he would direct the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland to this. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had an Amendment to leave out certain words which would include the subject-matter now before them.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought the hon. and learned Gentleman had not sufficiently appreciated the main objection of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork. They had quite enough of division between classes already, without adding one more. The effect of this clause would be that it would enable the landlords to exploit the labourers against the tenants. He did not know whether that was the object of the Government. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No.] Well, if that were not the object, might he ask whether that would be the effect of it? What would the landlord do? The landlord would say—"I want this piece of land. I have so many tenants, and I want so many labourers, and I must have cottages for them. Under this clause I demand that the Court may turn you out in order to put labourers in." The tenants might refuse to obey the Court. What would be the consequence? Between that tenant and all the tenants of the neighbourhood belonging to his class, and having the sympathies of his class, there would arise a feeling of bitterness and hostility. That was the first objection of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The hon. Member (Mr. Cart-wright), who had just returned to the House, had said that the hon. Member for the City of of Cork had laid it down that he would be quite willing to have it dealt with by an impartial authority, and the hon. Member went on to say that it was the Court which was the impartial authority. But his hon. Friend forgot this underlying fact—that the

  1881
  initiative of taking the land from the farmer in order to give it to the labourer rested not with the Court, but with the landlord who set the Court in motion. This made a serious difference in the case. Now, finally, this was his objection to the proposal. After all, the main object—the underlying purpose of this clause—was to give stability of tenure—stability and confidence in the tenant that for a space of 15 years at least he was perfectly secure from any interference on the part of the landlord. The possible interference of the landlord was, in many cases, as bad as the actual interference, and the landlord would have the power to turn out any men who did not do as he wished, and put in their places men who were waiting outside for employment. By giving the landlord this power of interference they destroyed that stability which this clause professed to give. There was plenty of land in Ireland by which the congestion of labour might be relieved for the benefit of the tenant as well as the landlord; but in this as in the other clauses of the Bill the Government shrank from what required earnest labour, and chose a perilous way of escape from the agrarian problem in Ireland. Every clause like this was an additional temptation to seeking for an artificial instead of a natural remedy for the agrarian question. The remedy was to put a large portion of the 2,000,000 of labourers on to improvable land in Ireland. He did not say that was an exhaustive remedy, but it was one of the remedies for the congestion of the agricultural labourers; and if they put on the shoulders of the landlords instead of upon the Commission the duty of putting labour on to the land requiring it, that labour would never be put there. Therefore, he protested against the change made by the Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)thought the hon. Member somewhat misconceived the effect and object of the clause. The anticipation of conflict between landlords and tenants was entirely an imaginary danger, so far as this clause was concerned. The landlord had to apply to the Court, assigning some sufficient purpose for resuming possession of a particular holding in relation to the labourers in connection with that particular holding. This was not for the purpose of placing
  1882
  the labourers in any place where they were required, but to provide decent houses for the labourers required on the particular holding. He thought this clause made the Bill uniform. The object of the noble Lord was, while there should be a statutory term securing 15 years absolute enjoyment, undisturbed, that the Court might. yet authorize the landlord to resume the whole or part of it if it was satisfied that he wanted it for some really beneficial purpose connected with the labourers; and it seemed to him, notwithstanding the hon. Member's fear of class warfare, there was not the slightest ground for fear, because it was not intended that the landlord should be placed against the labourer, but simply that the landlord should be able to resume possession for the benefit of the labourer.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he heartily approved of the Amendment, because it virtually embodied one which he had placed on the Table some hours earlier. His Amendment proposed to retain the word which the noble Lord would strike out, and simply change "or" for "except." The result was substantially the same; but perhaps it was more neatly arrived at by the noble Lord's Amendment. He thought his proposal would, by some sort of compromise, meet the wishes of both sides of the House, and by which the firmness of the Prime Minister as to interference by the landlord might be maintained, and the newborn philanthropy of the other side of the House fulfilled in regard to the labourers. He therefore supported the Amendment; but to make sure that the concession should not be abused, he would move to add to the clause—
  "Every grant of resumption for such purpose shall be conditional on his giving satisfaction to the Court that the improvement shall be carried out."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)explained that, in order to complete the clause, the words "upon such conditions as the Court thinks fit "were inserted.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he was not sure those words would constitute a guarantee from the landlord, and he thought the Court ought to exact a guarantee.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is at present discussing an Amendment which is not before us.
  MR. M'COANreplied, that he would move his Amendment as a substantive Amendment.
  MR. CALLANdoubted whether the Chief Secretary's mind was clear as to what was necessary and judicious at the present moment. The labourers' question could not be settled in one clause, and he reminded the Government of the advice he had previously given them to draft a special Bill on that question. Under the Act of 1870 a landlord had power to resume l-25th of the holding; but in this Bill there was no limitation, nor was there any restriction on the landlord that if he resumed possession he should only do so for the benefit of the labourers on the particular holding. He might resume for the benefit of the labourers on the estate, and in the case of an improper tenant the landlord might make use of this power to get rid of him. It would be much better to restrict the power to the particular holding for the benefit of the labourers on that holding. The Act of 1870 gave the landlord power to resume possession for the benefit of the labourers; but where had one single landlord resumed possession, paid compensation, and erected labourers' cottages? He did not believe much in the professions on one side or the other, for the zeal among his own countrymen for the interest of the labourer was just as new-born as that of the Tories and the Whigs. He regretted that so much time had been wasted; but more would be wasted unless the Government introduced a separate Bill on the subject.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he understood the words "the labourers" to mean the labourers on the particular holding. He did not think further discussion on the Amendment was necessary, for it would not prevent or interfere with any future general legislation.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYthought any proposal made for the benefit of the Irish labourer deserved sympathy, and he should be slow to reject it; but the Committee were not, he assumed, to anticipate in this discussion the general plan of the Government for dealing with the agricultural labourers presently; and if they were to preserve to the landlord some chance of dealing with the labourers, this did not seem to him the place to do it. The main object, of the Bill was to give a sense of security to
  1884
  the tenant for 15 years after getting a fixed rent; and, undoubtedly, by not restricting the area of resumption in regard to a particular holding they did break in, to some extent, upon that security, and if they accepted the Amendment, they ought to do so in such a way as to diminish as little as possible the security to be offered to the farmer. He would suggest something of this kind. They were going to give security for 15 years, but subject to the danger of resumption. How could the tenant know when during that period resumption might be applied for? But it was not unreasonable to suppose that when the judicial rent was fixed the Judge would be able to see whether it was likely that within some time resumption would be necessary; and he would suggest that when a landlord should have a reservation of this power when the rent was being fixed, and that warning should be given to the tenant. In that way the danger of insecurity to which this clause gave rise would be very much lessened. Fifteen years was not a very long period; but, at all events, the Court could very well look forward seven years; and it was most important to relieve the tenant from the dread of being turned out, which haunted them and prevented them putting their capital into the land. It would not be any hardship to the landlord to require him to ask for a reservation of this power during the 15 years. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), for he thought there was an implied condition that the labourer was working on the holding for which the power was asked. He hoped the Committee would listen to his suggestion.
  MR. CALLANsaid, what he had said was that it would be unfair to a tenant to resume possession from him on land for labourers' cottages to be erected elsewhere, and not for the benefit of his holding.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he feared that when he spoke previously he must have failed to make his meaning clear to the Chief Secretary. His point was this. If the Irish landlords did not use this power of resumption, who was to provide the cottages for the labourers? He was inclined to think the landlords would not use their power, and that would interpose a difficulty in the way of settling this question. The right hon.

  1885
  Gentleman said, if the landlords did not use this power, no harm would be done; but that would be a sort of "Will-o'-the-wisp" to the Irish tenants.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in the earlier part of the Bill we had before us the question of how far the tenant should be given power to sub-divide and sub-let, in order to have full power to put up cottages for the labourers. It was understood that that power was to be given; but the precise way in which it was to be given should be left to the clause I undertook to bring forward. Now we have the question of how the landlord is to do it. I cannot help thinking that the general feeling is that he should be allowed to do this; and we must remember that, after all, both the landlord and the tenant are interested. The landlord does not lose all duty in regard to the labourer because of this Bill. Our object is that he shall be able to put the labourers in a better position if they are badly housed, and in such a way as not to injure anybody else. We think we have prevented the possibility of that by putting in a clause for the purpose. It appears to me that the hon. Member for Limerick stated a difficulty we might fall into under the noble Lord's Amendment; but I dare say the noble Lord would be quite willing to get his object in any other way. The hon. Gentleman says it would not do to limit the power to any particular holding; and I think he is quite right. I think you could not limit the power to the labourers on a particular holding; but I think that difficulty might be got rid of if we took the Amendment I should have proposed, which was that we should keep in the words the noble Lord proposes to strike out, and then omit the words "or for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments," which would refer the power of resumption to the 4th clause, which would then read with this qualification—
  " Application of the landlord to authorize resumption for some purposes having relation to the good of the holding or estate will not be entertained by the Court."
  That would put back the landlord, the tenant, and the labourer in the same position under this sub-section as they are under the 4th clause.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLpointed out that if the words "or for the benefit of the labourer in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments" were left out, it was clear that, so far as the improvement of the holding or estate went, the Court could not grant resumption. But by his Amendment there would be no question as to the meaning of the clause, for it expressed the matter positively. It was difficult to say by what rules the Court would be guided; but by his Amendment there would be no doubt that the landlord could not resume except for the benefit of the labourers on the estate. He also suggested that the words "under such conditions as the Court may think fit" should be put in after "allotments," as that would allay the apprehensions that had been created. With regard to the stigma cast upon Irish landlords as to their not using the power to be given them to build cottages, he had been in every county in Ireland, and had seen as good cottages on the estates as could be found on any English estate; and they were built by landlords in Ireland. He had seen four most beautiful cottages on the estate of Mr. Adam, in Queen's County; and he could multiply instances of efforts by landlords to improve their labourers.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will not follow the noble Lord in his general observations, because these generalizations are driving Members into a position, I am afraid, of the utmost inconvenience. On the question before us, it appears to me the argument is perfectly clear. In the first place, I cannot entertain a doubt that although we have precisely the same intention in view—and I hope we may come to some satisfactory conclusion—yet, incidentally, the Amendment of the noble Lord is open to this objection—that whereas under the Amendment there will be constituted a provision in this clause, as there is already a provision in the 4th clause, for the resumption of a holding with a view to the benefit of the labourers, those two provisions would be liable to different rules and interpretations, because in the 4th clause, as it stands, it is perfectly clear that resumption may take place for the good of the holding or estate, or of the labourers; but you will add doubt by the words "providing that the labourers are confined to the holding."

  1887
  It seems to me impossible to confine the resumption to the labourers on the holding, for in that case the labourers would be absolutely at the mercy of the tenant of the holding. On the other hand, with regard to the fear that the landlord might spite a tenant by erecting cottages near a particular place to be occupied by labourers from a distance, that would be a most absurd course for a landlord to pursue, for the great object of the landlord in building cottages must be to bring them as near as possible to the labour which the inhabitants of the cottages have to perform. But if you keep the words of the clause, you have a fair and rational construction as to the labourers. With the Amendment of the noble Lord, the clause would run thus—"For the resumption of the holding, or part thereof, by him for some purpose having relation"—[Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I have left that out.]—"Resumption of the holding except for the benefit of the labourers." Who are the labourers? There is nothing before to which the definition "the labourers" can refer except the holding. It would be a power to resume possession of the holding for the benefit of the labourers. Surely the noble Lord does not suppose we are to pass these powers of resumption subject to different conditions in the two clauses? [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I think it is generic] Generic! Perhaps the noble Lord will introduce the word "generic" into the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman proposed—and now I want to meet the view of the noble Lord—to meet this by omitting the words "or for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, and allotments;" and what he said was that the effect of that would be to throw the Court back on the 4th clause. That would give simplicity. The noble Lord thinks that will create ambiguity; but I think he will perceive that there is no possibility of the most ingenious lawyer or layman—and some of us laymen as lawyers—to insinuate the thin end of a doubt into this, because the clause will then run thus:—
  "When a judicial rent has been fixed the tenancy shall be deemed to be a tenancy subject to statutory conditions, and having the same incidents as a tenancy subject to statutory conditions consequent on an increase of rent by the landlord."
  What are these incidents? One of the
  1888
  most important, the power of resumption, is completely set out and defined in the 4th clause. Then we come to Clause 5, and say, with this modification—
  "An application for resumption shall not be entertained for any purpose having relation to the good of the holding or estate;"
  so as to leave in full force the provision as to labourers as it stands in the clause. It is a perfectly clear matter.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthought the right hon. Gentleman was quite right, and he would withdraw the Amendment; but he thought the Prime Minister ought not to be impatient if, when a violent and prolonged attack was made on the Irish landlords, there was one voice capable of defending them.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEwas of opinion that the noble Lord had been too hasty in accepting the suggestion of the Government, for he considered the noble Lord's proposal was simpler than that of the Government. He also thought the Prime Minister's criticism had been unfair; and he wished to point out that whereas the clause as amended provided that the Court should not grant a resumption except for the benefit of the labourers, the clause would, if the words of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, provide that an application for a resumption for the good of the holding, or the estate should not be entertained by the Court. But it was obvious that an application to resume a part of a holding for the purpose of building labourers' cottages was quite as much for the good of the estate as for the benefit of the labourers. The 4th clause said—
  "The Court, upon being satisfied that he is desirous of resuming the holding, or part thereof, for some reasonable or sufficient purpose having relation to the good of the holding, or of the estate, or for the benefit of the labourers," &c.
  The proposal the Prime Minister was now supporting, instead of stating distinctly that the reasons which would entitle the Court to authorize resumption, only stated what would not entitle the Court to do so. It was a pity there should be a difference upon words which were intended by both sides to carry out the same object; but the words proposed by the noble Lord were accepted by the Attorney General before the Prime Minister entered, and, finding the

  1889
  noble Lord vindicating the landlords from the attacks made upon them, fell upon him violently, as if he had been obstructing the progress of the Bill. He hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would stand by his acceptance of the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he thought the frame of the clause was such that the Prime Minister made it infinitely more simple. It began by saying that when a judicial rent had been settled, a statutory term should arise with such incidents as under the 4th clause, with this modification—that during the first 15 years there should be no application for a resumption. That, he thought, was infinitely simpler than the proposal of the noble Lord.
  MR. MARUMsaid, that the resumption mentioned referred back to the subject-matter of the 4th clause, and he thought that the words of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) would create doubt and difficulty.
  MR. WARTONsaid, the noble Lord's Amendment was clearly accepted by the right hon. Gentleman; but the Prime Minister, accustomed as he was to change his position again and again, sat down on his subordinates and changed his position again. He hoped the noble Lord would not withdraw, as he thought the language of the noble Lord was better than that of the Prime Minister.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: To carry out the arrangement which I think has the general concurrence of the Committee, and the noble Lord having facilitated our going on with Business by withdrawing his Amendment, I will move to strike out from "estate" down to "allotments."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 1, after the word "estate," to leave out the words "or for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, which he trusted the Government would be able to accept, as affording an indication on their part that the power of granting resumption would be given to some authority for the
  1890
  benefit of the labourers. The clause at present gave the tenant, where a judicial rent had been fixed, security for 15 years; but no power of resumption was given to anybody but landlords in the case of tenancies subject to statutory conditions, and he therefore wished to leave it open to the Committee to give some power of resumption to some other authority by the Amendment he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 3, after the word "Court," to insert the words "and shall he deemed to he subject to the provisions in this Act contained, for the benefit of labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONEthought it was obvious that the introduction of these words at this point would be inconvenient; but subsequently the Government would introduce words which would meet the point.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he did not altogether understand the line the Government had taken on this labourers' question. It was only a week since the Chief Secretary had withdrawn an Amendment he had placed on the Paper on this question, saying he would bring up another clause. Since then the labourers' question had recurred several times; but still the Government remained silent, and declined to produce their clause, or give the Committee any indication of their policy with respect to the labourers. Under these circumstances, he thought the Committee would be acting prudently if they put in some words of the kind proposed, which did not in the least interfere with the symmetry of the clause, but which pledged the Committee, independently of the Government, to provide that the landlords should do something for the labourers. This was not at all a question of Party; and he urged all parts of the Committee to unite upon it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsuggested that the noble Lord should get the general concurrence of which he spoke to press upon the Government a certain matter, and then call upon the Government to state exactly what their clause would be. The question was one of the greatest importance; but it could not be brought in at this point.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDthought it would be imprudent for the Committee to accept the Amendment, as it was both inconvenient and injudicious to insert words in this place having relation to a subsequent and highly contentious proposition which was not at present before the Committee.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he thought the Amendment ought to be adopted, for although he should propose an Amendment for giving power to Boards of Guardians to purchase land for the benefit of labourers, he was not sure he should not be ruled out on Clause 19. He therefore thought the hon. Member had wisely raised the question now, for the Government had not stated whether they were going to propose anything. If the Government would state that on Clause 19, which was a money clause, they would allow the question to be discussed, it might rest now; otherwise it could not be allowed to pass.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: There was rather a curious point raised by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), who seemed to suggest that the words "for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding or the estate" might be held to include the case of the labourers, and that anything that was done for the labourers might be held to be for the good of the holding or the estate. Therefore, if you are excluded by these words from making any provision for the good of the holding, it might be held that you were excluded from doing anything for the good of the labourers. It is very difficult in these cases to know what the legal construction of the words may be; and it does seem to me that it would be only reasonable that we should take care that some words should be in the clause to cover the possible case of the labourers, and the apprehensions of my hon. Friend. Then, with reference to that, it seems to me that the words suggested by the hon. Member for Cork are not at all unreasonable words, although there are, perhaps, two words—"hereinafter contained"—which might be altered. We do not quite know in what clause the provisions will be—whether they will be in some clause we have already passed, or in some future clause. I would suggest that the hon. Member should say "in this Act contained," instead.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)thought the words suggested would not at all carry out the object aimed at, because the sub-section provided that the judicial tenancy should have the same conditions as a statutory tenancy. Then came the qualification that in certain cases the Court should not allow resumption by the landlord. The words "subject to the conditions hereinafter contained," in relation to labourers' cottages, would only operate if there were subsequent conditions with reference to the Court. Whatever might be put in to show that there was to be some limitation as to cottages, the proposed words would not effect that, because they would only have sense if there were some provisions dealing with the landlord's right of resumption.
  MR. GREGORYcomplained that the Committee had been placed in an awkward position by the conduct of the Government in connection with the Amendment under discussion, of which no Notice had been given, and which they could not fully consider. Some further provision was now required in consequence of the changes that had been made; and, some sort of protection being necessary, the words of the hon. Member for Cork were better than nothing.
  MR. CHAPLINwished to support the Amendment, with the hope of still extracting some information from the Government. With regard to what the hon. Member for Salford had said, he had not the least doubt that it would be very imprudent, so far as the interests of the Government were concerned, to discuss the Amendment at this part of the Bill; but he had observed that when a question arose which it was in the least awkward for the Government to deal with, it was invariably postponed to some clause at the end of the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is—
  "Subject to the provisions hereinafter enacted for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments;"
  and that question does not raise the other points to which the hon. Member is referring.
  MR. CHAPLINexplained that he was replying to a remark by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) which the Chairman had admitted as in Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Salford pointed out the inconvenience of discussing a question which did not include the Question before the Committee. I thought the objection a very proper one, because the question was not before the Committee.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, the hon. Member was discussing the propriety of discussing this subject now; and he himself was pointing out that although it might be imprudent for the Government it would not be imprudent for the Committee. The question was, the propriety of the landlord resuming a holding—
  THE CHAIRMAN: That subject is already passed, and we have come to line 3, on which an Amendment has been moved.
  MR. CHAPLINexplained that he was endeavouring to extract from the Government what their provisions were to be; and he asked how it was possible that he could give a vote upon this question, the question raised being the propriety of the landlord resuming subject to certain conditions, without knowing what those provisions were which the Government proposed to enact? It was not right that these questions, which were of vital importance, should be postponed to the end of the Bill, when the Committee were now engaged in discussing what was universally acknowledged to be the pith and cardinal portion of the Bill. His vote upon this and other questions would turn upon the answers the Government gave; and he did not think the Committee had been, treated in a right way
  MR. GLADSTONE: The remarks of the hon. Member raise a question of considerable importance—the question of this Committee postponing the consideration of the elementary rules by which the Court is to be guided. He is not at liberty to discuss now the proposals to be made by the Government as to labourers, allotments, and arrears. The hon. Member said we postponed these questions, and then rises and discusses them in whatever order he pleases. I want to know whether we are to discuss all points on this Amendment or take them one after another; and I must tell the hon. Member that in all the time I have sat in this House I do not think I have ever known a single occasion before when it was not
  1894
  the universal practice of a Committee to allow the order of the great topics contained in a Bill to be presented on the responsibility of the framers of the Bill and to take them one by one. To do otherwise would create perfect chaos. I will frankly answer the hon. Member. We will not say, on the present occasion, what we intend to propose with regard to the labourers; and for this reason—he considers it a monstrous proposal that we should not allow him to discuss the questions of arrears and leases all at once. The purpose of this clause is most specific and important. It is that of regulating the conditions of a judicial rent, and in order to have a satisfactory decision upon that we must deal with it apart from the other important portions of the Bill and not allow them to be mixed up. Therefore, it is an absolute duty with us not to enter upon the discussion of our intentions with regard to other portions of the subject, because, if we did, a long debate would immediately arise on the conditions of what we intended to propose, and we should make no progress at all. I heard the hon. Member, the other night, urge, in defiance, as it seemed to me, of the Rules of this House, a declaration which would infallibly impart into the middle of this discussion on the question of judicial rent another most important and difficult question. That is my objection, and it is as well it should be understood that we will not, as far as we are concerned, mix up the question of labourers with the Question now before the Committee.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I rise under some hesitation, because we have had a lecture administered to us beforehand. I do not in the least desire to interrupt the proper order of the consideration of the questions involved in this Bill; but I must call attention to the fact that we are, at the present moment, engaged upon a provision which has been framed by the Government, giving the conditions which are to attach to a case in which a judicial rent has been fixed; and, when a judicial rent has been fixed, we are told, in this sub-section, that it is to be deemed a tenancy subject to statutory conditions. We know all about statutory conditions, for we had them laid down a few nights ago in the 4th clause; but, according to the Bill, the statutory

  1895
  conditions are to be subject to certain modifications—in the case of those tenancies which are subject to judicial rent, certain of the statutory conditions are not to apply, and the conditions which, according to the original frame of the Bill, were not to apply until the power was given for the resumption on the application of the landlord for any purpose having reference to the good of the holding or estate, or for the benefit of the labourers' cottages, gardens, and allotments. That was the original proposal of the Government; but in those cases where the judicial rent was fixed there should be no power of resumption on the part of the landlord for the good of the holding generally, or for the benefit of the labourers. Then, on that, a challenge was given to leave out this prohibition; we proposed to leave out that prohibition, and Government divided. We were told that a prohibition of some sort must be retained. That was done by the Government against the sense of a considerable number in the House; but they expressed themselves as prepared to meet the case of the labourers, and to make exceptions for the purpose. Now, it is desirable that this labourers' question should be considered. I do not wish to say in what part of the House there is the most anxiety to consider the case of the labourers. I am convinced there is that feeling in all parts of the House, and I am certain that we are very anxious to have the case considered, and some nights ago we brought forward an Amendment which we thought would be of some assistance in the matter. However, what has happened is this—the Government have assented to the striking out of the words that prevent the landlord from resuming for the purpose of providing cottages and allotments for the labourers; but, even by striking out these, you do not distinctly affirm that there will be that power of resumption, and the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) has pointed out that if application was made by the landlord for the resumption of the holding, or a part of it, for the purpose, he might be told that it was not for the benefit of the holding or estate, and his application would be excluded. Then the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and others, are of opinion that it is desirable to show sufficiently that it was intended that this limitation of the power of resumption
  1896
  on the part of the landlord should be so qualified that it should not extend to the prevention or embarrassment of any provisions hereafter made in regard to labourers. We do not seek to discuss now what these should be; all we ask is a saving clause that may prevent embarrassment in regard to any future discussion that may be raised. It may or may not be necessary to introduce such an Amendment; it may or may not be necessary to affirm it; and, having distinctly the interests of the labourers in our minds, I do not see any objection to the insertion of the words.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had given in words the meaning which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had not as yet apprehended—that was, that from the clause the power of the landlord to resume, even for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, was exempted. The hon. Member proposed words to save, what he called, the rights of labourers. What would be the effect of the saving clause? It would mean that the power of the landlord to resume was exempted, subject to the right of resumption in the case of labourers' cottages, and, in point of law, it could not be construed in any other sense; it must be construed in relation to what had gone before—that was, the exemption out of the exemption.
  MR. LITTONsaid, he. thought the objection of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was a substantial one, and the present Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would not be in accordance with the views of the Committee in regard to the clause. He suggested that after the word "Court," leaving the words in the clause as they now stood, there should be added words giving the right to apply in respect to the building of cottages, &c. This would confer the right, and relieve the clause from the difficulty the hon. Member for East Sussex mentioned—namely, that the words "for the good of the holding, or estate," might exclude the application in respect to labourers' cottages. If in Order, he would, with the leave of the Committee, and if the hon. Member for the City of Cork did not press his Motion, move such an Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he should be happy to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir

  1897
  Stafford Northcote), and ask leave of the Committee to amend his Amendment in two ways—first, to meet the objection of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, which, he recognized to be a valid one; and, secondly, to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet. He would ask leave of the Committee to amend his Amendment by prefixing to it the words "and shall be deemed to be," then it would read—
  "And shall be deemed to be subject to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of the labourers in respect to cottages, gardens, and allotments."
  That would get over the valid objection of the Solicitor General, and a similar objection raised by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan). If it was intended to enact anything for the benefit of the labourers, that must be done by some interference with the holding of the tenant. The land was in the possession of landlord and tenant, and they must except so far the interest of the tenant from the operation of the clause by adding something to the statutory conditions as they now stood.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was willing to accept the suggestion with the modification of the striking out of the words "hereinafter contained." It would not make a material change in the Bill. He had to say that, in his opinion, the words were entirely unnecessary, and that the clause was unequivocal and incapable of two constructions as it stood; but it was much better to introduce two lines of words that were unnecessary than to waste the time of the Committee, provided the words were harmless, and he believed they were quite harmless. Therefore, he proposed to admit the Amendment in this form—
  "Subject, nevertheless, to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of labourers in respect to cottages, gardens, and allotments."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the objection to his Amendment which he strove to meet came from the Treasury Bench—from the Solicitor General for England—who pointed out that the Amendment as it stood did not meet the object which the great bulk of the Committee had in view. The Prime Minister had agreed to accept the Amendment, and why? Because it did not meet the object in
  1898
  view. Now, he wished to take a division on the Amendment, framed in such a way as would meet that object, leaving the Committee to enact hereafter provisions for the benefit of labourers.
  MR. GLADSTONEobserved that, because he differed from the hon. Member for the City of Cork, the latter imputed to him, that which no other would, that his object in accepting the Amendment was to defeat the object the Committee had in view. That was not a method of proceeding agreeable to the courtesies of discussion in Committee, and beyond saying that he would not refer to it. The objection to the Amendment turned upon the words "hereinafter contained." There were words in the Bill hereinbefore contained, which were words relating to labourers and the exercise of the discretion of the Court; therefore, the change in the words completely met the objection of his hon. and learned Friend.
  THE CHAIRMAN: So far as 1 read 'hem, the two Amendments given in, that of the hon. Member for Cork and that of the right hon. Gentleman, are identical. I will read them—the first is that of the hon. Member for Cork—thus—
  "And shall be deemed to be subject to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of the labourers in respect to cottages, gardens, and allotments."
  —and the Amendment of the Prime Minister reads—
  "Subject, nevertheless, to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of labourers in respect to cottages, gardens, and allotments."
  MR. GLADSTONEremarked, that he had misheard the words of the hon. Gentleman; he was satisfied with them.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The most convenient mode will be for the hon. Member to withdraw his first Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not think that the words would quite read. They would run thus—
  "The application by the landlord for authority to resume, for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding or estate, should not be entertained by the Court."
  He did not see how the words "shall be deemed" came in.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, if the hon. Member for the City of

  1899
  Cork altered his Amendment he really pledged the Government to nothing, because the Bill would stand exactly as it was; and if there was nothing in the Act, why, the words "subject to the provisions" were useless. But if he retained the words "hereinafter contained," that pledged the Government to introduce a clause in the most distinct and specific manner to deal with the subject. He would point out to the hon. Member for the City of Cork that he had no security whatever that the Government were going to bring up a clause to deal with the labourers of Ireland which ought to be at all sufficient for the Committee; but if they inserted "hereinafter" they exacted a pledge from the Government that such a clause would be brought up. He would ask the hon. Member for the City of Cork to keep to his original words and take a division on them, and, if defeated, let him get the next best thing, the words suggested by the Government.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, there was some inconvenience in settling the drafting of a Bill in a large Committee, for it was difficult to keep everything under view. But it did seem to him that his noble Friend was in error in thinking that the matter would be improved by retaining the words "hereinafter contained," instead of "in this Act contained," because it was intended to make this power subject to provisions that were to be contained in the Act in some particular clause having reference to labourers; and it might be found convenient to introduce this into any clause before Clause 7, or even in Clause 7, and in that case the words "hereinafter contained" would not apply; whereas, if the other words were introduced, they would be generally applicable to anything in the Act. All that was important was to take care that the mere striking out of the words did not leave the prohibition to the land-land to resume for the purpose intended. There had been a pledge given that the Government would take up the subject, and if the Government failed to redeem that pledge—and he had no reason to suppose they would—then some other Member of the Committee, no doubt, would take it up. But he thought the Committee would hamper and confine themselves by inserting the word "hereinafter," which involved a question of
  1900
  drafting now beyond the power of the Committee.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not wish to pledge the Government positively to deal with this question of labourers; but he wished to leave it open to them to do so. The Amendment which he asked leave to put to the Committee would carry out that object; and he thought the Attorney General for Ireland had not properly read the clause as he would always like to read it, as a lawyer. Taking the last lines of the clause, it would read thus—
  "Such present tenancies shall be deemed to be tenancies subject to the statutory conditions and having the same incidents as tenancies subject to the statutory conditions consequent upon an increase of rent by the landlord;"
  and then came in the exceptions, and his words would follow the words he proposed.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he understood that the Government were distinctly pledged to deal with the subject, and any words which would so bind the Government as to be satisfactory to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would be impossible. He hoped the hon. Member for the City of Cork would be guided by the advice of the right hon. Member for North Devon, and accept the general words that implied that the question of the labourers would be dealt with in some way or other.
  SIR RICHARD WALLACEsaid, the Government had assented to the proposal that the landlord should have power to resume for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, and, no doubt, all were deeply interested in the question of the labourers; but they must not forget that there were other things absolutely necessary on an estate; and he hoped the Government would consider the proposal to include in these powers of resumption land for the purpose of building schools, churches, and hospitals.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 3, after the word "Court," to insert the words "and shall be deemed to be subject to the provisions in this Act contained, for the benefit of labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONEsubmitted that it was a rule that the persons in charge of a Bill were responsible for the drafting, and surely it was not right for a Member to oppose the Government on the question of general language. To the substance of the Amendment he did not object; but he could not accept the form of it, and should endeavour to negative it and substitute the words which had been suggested by his right hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had not the slightest intention of casting any imputation on the motive of the Prime Minister, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would see the unfairness of imputing to him any such intention. He thought nothing but the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was such an old Member of the House, and he was a very young Member, would entitle him to use the language he had used. He said no other Member would impute such an intention to the Government. As to the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland, he was perfectly willing to accept it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The words which I now have to propose are—
  "Subject, nevertheless, to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of labourers in respect to cottages, gardens, and allotments."
  Does the hon. Member wish to amend that?
  MR. PARNELL: I have accepted the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland, and I move to prefix the words "such present tenancies shall."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
  To leave out the first word "and," in order to insert the words "but such present tenancy,"—(Mr. Farnell,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  MR. CHAPLINasked, did not the Government intend to make any reply to the appeal of the hon. Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace)—a more natural or fitting appeal he never heard. This was a clause by which the landlord would be deprived of his property for years, practically for ever; and the Government, before the question was put to the vote, should make some reply, and show that they intended to include
  1902
  in the landlord's power of resumption the means of doing an act of real charity. The hon. Member raised the question whether the Government would not make some provision in the Bill by which, in cases where the tenancy is let for a statutory term, the landlord might be enabled to resume part of a holding for the purpose of providing land for a church, a school, a hospital, or a convalescent home.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in Order. That is a subject not now before the Committee.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, in view of that decision, and to put himself in Order on a question that appeared to him of vital importance, he would move that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. He would not for one moment take this step except on a matter of vital importance. He did not know how or where he was guilty of a trespass on the Order of the Committee, when the question was raised by an hon. Member to whom the Chairman took no exception whatever; nor did he understand how, if the present Amendment should be accepted, the question could be raised again. He was quite sure the Prime Minister would admit that the purposes for which the hon. Member for Lisburn made his appeal were admirable in every respect. They were going to take away the landlord's property for a period of years, it might be for ever; and yet would not allow some provision in the Bill by which a landlord might carry out his laudable intention.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  MR. GLADSTONEremarked, that he felt bound to say that, although it might be beyond his power to prevent or check the spontaneous exercise of the discretion of the hon. Member opposite in entering into matters which were irrelevant to the point at issue—[Mr. CHAPLIN: I did not introduce it.] The point before the Committee was that the hon. Member had moved that the Chairman report Progress, and that was a Motion which he had not power to prevent or check. But he had the power of declining to concur in a practice which, in his opinion, was destructive of the order that should

  1903
  regulate the proceedings of that House. He hoped the hon. Member would excuse him if he declined to say a single word; but as the question had been raised by the hon. Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace), he might say that he knew no person who was better entitled to make an appeal to the Government on the Land Question than that hon. Member. He was quite convinced that if it had not been for the circumstances in which they found themselves they might have told the hon. Member in what way they intended to deal with the subject before the Committee. But he must respectfully say that this was not the place where they could entertain that question. It related to resumption generally, and the place for it was where they were dealing with resumption generally. Certainly, an Amendment might be raised in this way for the purposes of discussion; but he was quite clear that the principle was certainly connected with the conditions of resumption, and that the place for considering it would be when, upon the Report, they came again to be on the 4th clause. He did not wish to dismiss the question; but this was not the proper place to discuss it.
  SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman promised at an Earlier stage to introduce words similar to those of the hon. Member for Lisburn.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that his object was simply to elicit some answer from the right hon. Gentleman to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Lisburn. He did not desire to delay the progress of the Committee in that House; and when the right hon. Gentleman accused him of introducing a subject in a disorderly manner, the right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, permit him to remind him that the subject was not introduced by him (Mr. Chaplin), but by another Member of the House, and that he (Mr. Chaplin) was not in the slightest degree disorderly. His Motion was accepted by the Chairman; and, with deference to the Prime Minister, he declined to accept his interpretation.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that having accepted the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he should adhere to those words, and consider them before the Report.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked if he might intervene for a moment to smooth a single point of difference, as to which he believed the Prime Minister would have no justifiable cause of complaint? Might he respectfully point out that, in the opinions of people in that House and those outside of it, it would really look as if the Government begrudged the hon. Member for the City of Cork the credit of having moved this Amendment? ["No, no!"] The meaning of that cry was that hon. Gentlemen believed that that was not the motive; but he might say that he did not agree with them on that point. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government to agree to this Amendment, which was their own. It might be that he misconceived the intentions of the Government, and if he did, he apologized for that; but as there was no substantial difference between the Amendment of his hon. Friend and that of the Government, he thought it quite right and fit that the Government should accept some Amendments from his side of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONEthought the hon. and learned Member had misconceived the course the Government was pursuing. The accepting of Amendments from the opposite side was exactly the thing the Government was doing. He was accepting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), with the modification suggested by the hon. Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace). He was accepting Amendments from below the Gangway, with modifications from above the Gangway, such modifications having been accepted by those below the Gangway.
  MR. PARNELLobserved, that the Prime Minister objected to accept the Amendment which he (Mr. Parnell) moved. The Attorney General for Ireland took exception to some expressions which he used. He should be very unwilling to have any such expressions interfere with the better shape of the present Amendment and the more intelligible reading of it; and he would unhesitatingly say that he unreservedly withdrew the expressions he used, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman took exception.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member desire to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment?
  MR. PARNELL: No; I referred to the expressions.
  Question put, "That the word 'and' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 305; Noes 53: Majority 252.—(Div. List, No. 283.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. GORSTmoved an Amendment to insert, after the word "cottages," the words "schools, churches, and hospitals." This, he thought, would enable the Government to fulfil their intention of making provision in that direction.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert, after, the word "cottages," the words "schools, churches, and hospitals."—(Mr. Gorst.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONEexplained, that the proper place for considering a question of this bind with respect to the extension of the principle of resumption was on that part of the Bill which mainly and principally dealt with the causes of resumption—that was the 4th clause. He must, therefore, ask the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member now proposed to bring in a new subject, and to bring it in in this place; and it was a subject upon which the Govern-had already given the Committee, on a former day, an intimation of their view. Under the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman thought it reasonable and fair to make a speech, and to administer a severe rebuke to a portion of the Committee, because they thought the course he had adopted unusual. He was bound, by his respect for the structure of the Bill, to resist this proposition.
  MR. CHAPLINunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to object to the proposal on the ground that it was not introduced in the proper place. But the matter was one that might very easily be disposed of. The right hon. Gentleman said he had already given an intimation of a disposition to accept the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman would only undertake to embody the Amendment in the Bill before the Bill left the House, no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the Amendment. But there ought to be a distinct understanding that the Government would accept, unconditionally, the views of the
  1906
  hon. and learned Member in reference to the erection of schools, churches, and hospitals.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have nothing to add to the intimation I have already given.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had already given an intimation of his willingness to accept such a proposal before the Bill left the House.
  MR. GORSTthought the Government would really find it necessary to put in words of this kind in this place. If they really meant, as he had no doubt they did, to fulfil their promise, and put in such words in the 4th clause on Report, their insertion in the present place would be an earnest and a proof of their intention, and would, in fact, pledge them to carry out that intention on the Report.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who says he must have "an earnest and a proof," in order to enable him to believe what I say.
  MAJOR NOLANthought the point was an important one, but did not think it was dealt with in the right way at present. There was a notable case in his own county—in the Diocese of Clonfert, where, owing to objections made by the landlord, the building of two churches had been stopped. Now that a partnership was to be established between landlord and tenant, it would be well if power were given to some central body in Dublin to hear and to deal with such matters.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I entirely sympathize with my hon. Friend the Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), with regard to the object they have in view. I think it important and desirable that we should make some provision for the introduction of words which may provide for resumption for these purposes; but I very much doubt whether, at the present moment, we should not rather embarrass the question by pressing this particular Amendment.
  MR. GORST,in deference to the opinion just expressed by the right hon. Baronet, was willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I consider it my absolute duty to object to the withdrawal

  1907
  of the Amendment, after what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, unless he gives a more explicit explanation in reference to the words he used.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he did not wish to he misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman—ho was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not do it wilfully—but he (Mr. Gorst) had been obliged to speak very quickly and briefly because of the interruptions of the right hon. Gentleman's followers. If he were allowed by the Committee to explain his meaning at the same length as the right hon. Gentleman himself could do, he should not so frequently fall under the misconception of the right lion. Gentleman. But he would say as explicitly and as frankly as he could that if the words he had used were such as to imply that he had the least doubt in the world as to the right hon. Gentleman keeping every promise or pledge he made to the Committee, he (Mr. Gorst) begged most unreservedly to withdraw any such insinuation; for, however imperfectly he might have expressed himself, nothing could have been further from his thoughts than that.
  MR. T. COLLINShoped the Committee would allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, because they all wanted to get on with the Bill, and to make progress with it, and no progress would be made if its withdrawal was refused.
  Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question proposed,
  "That the words 'and shall be deemed to he subject to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments,' be there inserted."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL:If we negative these words, will it be possible to insert the Amendment of the Government, which begins with the words "subject to?"
  THE CHAIRMAN: They are essentially different in the preliminaries. But when another Amendment comes to be proposed it will then be competent to consider it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 273: Majority 207.—(Div. List, No. 284.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I now propose the words, with the connecting words necessary to make them follow.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 3, after the word "Court," to insert the words "Subject nevertheless to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottage gardens, or allotments."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwished to raise a point of Order, and it was extremely important that they should have a clear and definite ruling upon it, because he understood it was a Rule of the Committee that another Amendment could not be moved exactly in the same sense as an Amendment already negatived. The Amendment which had just been negatived by a very largo majority was exactly in the sense of the one now proposed, and the Prime Minister was really asking the Committee solemnly to reverse its decision. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] It was perfectly useless for the right hon. Gentleman to shake his head, for this was a matter of fact and not of opinion. He submitted with deference that the Amendment could not be put, and that the intentions of the Committee on which they were perfectly unanimous had been defeated by the action of the Government.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought the present Amendment was not out of Order, because it really dealt with another subject-matter. The subject-matter of the previous Amendment was "tenancy;" the subject-matter of the present Amendment was the "modifications" contained in the last part of the clause with reference to the Court not entertaining the application on certain subjects.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: That is not grammar; it does not read. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): The matter of grammar or reading is wholly different from the point of Order.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the simple fact appeared to be that when the Prime Minister moved an Amendment all the Rules of the Committee were to be set aside. He wished to point out that the Solicitor General had suggested that the Rules of Order had been or should be set aside on the present occasion.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the noble Lord was mistaken, as he had not made any such suggestion.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, if this was so, it must surely be unnecessary to make the Amendment which had been proposed. The words "subject to the provisions in this Act contained" had no reference to the modifications which had been mentioned; and he maintained that the Solicitor General had made out no case for the Amendment, either on the grounds of Order or of grammar.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that as far as the question of grammar was concerned, the words "subject to" did not refer to the tenancy or the modifications, but to the whole of the preceding sentence.
  MR. GORST,speaking on the point of Order, said it seemed to him that the positions taken by the Solicitor General in the first instance, and the Prime Minister in the second, were altogether different. The position of the Solicitor General was an extremely ingenious one. It was that this Amendment was in Order, because a former one applied to tenancies, and this one to modifications. The position was, however, changed by the Prime Minister, according to whose dictum the Court, in construing the clause as amended, would apply it equally to matters covered by both Amendments.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wanted, in regard to this point of Order, to show to the Committee the ludicrous position in which it was placed. The first form of the Amendment, as it was moved by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), was in these words—
  "Such tenancies shall be deemed to be subject to the conditions in this Act contained, for the benefit of labourers, in the shape of cottages, gardens, and allotments."
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and learned Member was out of Order in that he was not speaking to the immediate point of Order.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that the observations he was making when he was interrupted by the Chairman were leading up to the immediate point of Order; but as the Committee seemed to be growing somewhat impatient he would not pursue the matter further.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he thought the Committee was indebted to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the close similarity between the two Amendments. It was a very important point—indeed, it was the invariable rule of the Committee that no vote should be taken upon an Amendment which was substantially the same as one that had already been negatived; and if he believed that the Amendment now before the Committee was substantially the same as the one which had been negatived, he should rule that the present one could not be put. But, as he understood it, there was a material difference between the two proposals; and he should, therefore, rule that the Amendment now before the Committee could be put.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the Amendment he was about to propose would not take long, as he was inclined to believe, after what took place on the previous night, that the Prime Minister would accept it in principle if not in terms; in which case he would withdraw his proposal, leaving it to the Prime Minister to deal with the matter at a later stage of the Bill. As the Committee would doubtless remember, the question of sub-tenants was mentioned on the previous night, and that the Premier then informed the Committee that the matter in question would come before the Committee under Section 7; but on looking into the Bill it struck him that if the case of a sub-tenant came before the Court, the Court would say that it could not adjudicate upon the matter, because they would be compelled to give to the sub-tenant a statutory term of 15 years, whereas the tenant, from whom the sub-lessee took the property, was only a tenant from year to year. He therefore moved, after sub-section 7, to insert the words—
  "On the occasion of an application to the Court by a tenant or an occupier holding under another tenant, the statutory term granted to him by this Act shall be co-existent with the statutory term of his immediate landlord; and in case the original tenant has not obtained a statutory term, then the term assigned to the subtenant shall be for 15 years, or such less period as the immediate landlord shall continue in the occupancy of the holding."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had no hesitation in saying that the Govern-

  1911
  ment accepted the principle of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment, and for one reason, because it was a principle which had been followed throughout the Bill, to a greater extent than the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to have perceived. There were in Ireland tenants with widely differing tenures, and in no case could the Government begin with the men at the top of the hierarchy of tenants. The tenant actually in occupancy was the only person to whom a statutory term could be given. He might be called a tenant as far as the landlord was concerned; but not in the view of the Court. He had no difficulty in saying that his right hon. Friend would deal with this matter in the view shadowed forth by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  CAPTAIN AYLMER,in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, said, he hoped the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in dealing with the matter, would not lose sight of the fact that sub-tenants in Ireland were practically unknown to the real landlords, who were, therefore, unable to exclude the middlemen whom they did not recognize.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PELL,in moving that Progress be reported, said, the Government had accepted the principle of a long and important Amendment put in in manuscript, which hon. Members had not enjoyed an opportunity of considering.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Pell.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was extremely sorry the hon. Member had thought it necessary to make the Motion he had laid before the Committee, because he had hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin would have been able to-night to make the proposal which stood in his name, so that it might be in the minds of hon. Members for consideration before the Committee was resumed. He could not, therefore, assent to the Motion.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, it was generally understood that the Motion of the right
  1912
  hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin would take some time; and, therefore, he thought the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was a very reasonable one.
  MR. GLADSTONErepeated, that he was very sorry he could not assent to the Motion. He was very sensible of the fact that a severe tax was being put upon the physical energies of those hon. Members who were in full physical strength and vigour; but, at the same time, as a most sacred protest against any attempt to limit the time which the Committee was willing to give to the progress of this Bill, he must take a division on the Motion to report Progress.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, there was a disposition on the part of the Committee to facilitate the progress of this Bill; but he could not help thinking that, at the present moment, they had arrived at a stage when the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Pell) was not at all unreasonable. He did not say that on his own behalf, but on behalf of Members of the Government themselves, who had been on the stretch for so many hours, and also for the sake of other Members of the House, who had been so long in continuous attendance. The Government had taken possession of the whole of the time of the House for that Bill, and a very considerable strain was entailed on the House by taking the same measure at both the Morning and the Evening Sittings. He ventured to express an opinion, based upon experience, that the Government was likely to make greater progress by not pressing the House too far.
  MR. PELLsaid, he could not admit that his proposal to report Progress was unreasonable; and, therefore, he must ask the Committee to divide upon it. It must be obvious that if an enormous strain was to be put upon the physical strength of the Chairman of Committees, the Business of Parliament could not be conducted as efficiently as it ought to be. He certainly did not think anything could be gained by proceeding at that late hour (12.55) with a long and important Amendment which was not on the Paper, and concerning which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had made an important statement.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 164: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 285.)
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  FUGITIVE OFFENDERS [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment of Expenses which may he incurred under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to Fugitive Offenders, in the apprehension and return of a Fugitive to the United Kingdom, in like manner as the expenses of the prosecution in Ireland of felony, and in Scotland of a crime are paid.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

MOTION.
  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    " That leave he given to bring in a Bill further to amend the Acts relating to the raising of money by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and for other purposes relating thereto."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
    MR. MONKdesired to know what the proposed Bill was, as it seemed to him a very objectionable practice that the Government should bring in Bills for raising money—if the Bill were for that purpose—on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHexplained that some years ago the Metropolitan Board of Works were allowed to introduce Bills themselves for raising money; but latterly, in the time of the late Government, the Government had undertaken the introduction of these Bills in order to impose a check on the expenditure of the Board. The present Bill was absolutely necessary in order to continue works which were in hand.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill further to amend the Acts relating to the raising of Money by the Metropolitan. Board of Works; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH and Mr. JOHN HOLMS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 204.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure* (140); Solway Fisheries Amendment* (141); Presumption of Life (Scotland) * (142).
Committee—Summary Jurisdiction (Process) * (124).
Report—Gas Provisional Orders* (97).

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—FURTHER PAPERS.—QUESTION.
LORD BRABOURNEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, When further Papers will be presented regarding the Transvaal; and, also, whether in those Papers will be included the Letter from Mr. Gladstone to the Boer Leaders?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,in reply, said, he laid on the Table of the House the previous night further Papers with, respect to the Transvaal; and they included the Letter referred to.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked, when they would be in the hands of Peers?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Very shortly.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in rising to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Bessborough Commission on the Irish Land Laws, and to the evidence relative thereto; and to move for the following Returns:—
  "I. A Return showing the number of agricultural holdings in Ireland, and the tenure by which they are held by the occupiers, arranged as follows:—1. Holdings valued under £5; 2. Holdings valued at £5 and under £10; 3. Holdings valued at £10 and under £15; 4. Holdings valued at £15 and under £20; 5. Holdings valued at £20 and under £25; 6. Holdings valued at £25 and under £30; 7. Holdings valued at £30 and under £35; 8. Holdings valued at £35 and under £40; 9. Holdings valued at £40 and under £50; 10. Holdings valued at £50 and under £100; 11. Holdings valued at £100 and upwards; and showing in what counties they are situated respectively: II. Return showing—1. The total number of land claims decided by each county court judge in Ireland since the Act of 1870 came into operation; 2. The number of such decisions in each case in which the maximum compensation under the scale sanctioned by the Land Act was awarded by the Court; 3. The number of such decisions which were abated on appeal by the Court of Appeal: III. Return of the number of evictions from agricultural holdings in each county in Ireland for each year from 1871 to 1880 both inclusive; and showing how many of these evictions were for non-payment of rent: IV. Return of the claims under the Land Act of 1870, made by tenants of agricultural holdings in respect of compensation for improvements, in each county court in Ireland; showing the amount so claimed in each case, and the amount awarded by the court of first instance, and as altered on appeal,"
  said: My Lords, my first duty is to apologize to the House, and especially to those Members of the House who are connected with Ireland, for the frequent postponements of this Motion. I can assure those noble Lords connected with Ireland—some of whom, I am afraid, I have put to some personal inconvenience—that nothing but physical inability would have prevented me bringing it forward on the day first named for it; and, although I hope to discharge the duties I have undertaken to-night, I wish I was as confident of my own strength as I am of the indulgent consideration of this House. My Lords, we all know, if not from the common sources
  1754
  of information, at least by the official information contained in the gracious Speech from the Throne, that before the close of the present Session we shall be called upon to express our opinion of, and to give our decision upon, a measure largely, I may say fundamentally, altering the Irish Land Act of 1870. My Lords, no words that I can use can exaggerate the sense of the difficulty, the delicacy, and the responsibility under which I now address your Lordships, and which will then be cast upon us; but, my Lords, I should certainly not be speaking in the sense of that responsibility, which I deeply feel, if I were to induce your Lordships, or any Member of this House, to enter upon a premature discussion of measures which are not before us. At the same time, there are great questions of fact, and matters of the highest interest and importance, which, in my opinion, your Lordships have not only a right, but which it is your duty, to discuss before those measures are brought into this House. Now, my Lords, in particular, Her Majesty's Government have laid upon the Table of this House, and upon the Table of the other House of Parliament, the elaborate Report of a Royal Commission appointed by themselves to inquire into the circumstances of the subject; and I presume that my noble Friends below me, in laying that Report on the Table of the House, desire and expect that we should consider this matter and discuss it. Let me remind the House for a moment of the circumstances under which the Commission was appointed. The present Government was formed with no expressed intention of bringing in another great Irish Land Bill. I state this broadly and distinctly, so far as my knowledge goes. I do not mean that the Government was called together with a pledge that no such measure was required; but I mean, it formed no part of the programme upon which the Government was formed. Perhaps no Government was ever formed on a greater or wider programme, if we are to take the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the course of the Mid Lothian campaign as the programme of the Government; but, so far as I recollect and am concerned, it was not intimated in those speeches that it was the intention of the Government to unsettle the settlement of the Land Act of

  1755
  1870. Well, then, let me remind the House of the circumstances in which this Royal Commission arose. Your Lordships will remember that we opened Parliament last Session with a Queen's Speech, in which there was a paragraph referring to the future condition of Ireland; but not a hint was given of other measures with respect to Ireland than those measures of relief which had been begun by the late Government; nothing was said that they would be insufficient to meet the requirements of the case; indeed, an expression of confidence was uttered that the future of Ireland would be prosperous and happy. Now, my Lords, it is to be recollected that at that very moment the Land Bill had not been thought of, but the Land League had been formed. Indeed, it had been in existence for a considerable time during the reign of the previous Government; and it is to be remembered, further, that not only had the Land League been formed, but difficulties had begun with regard to wholesale evictions in Ireland. If I recollect aright, in the time of the late Government there was one case where a force of 50 men were unable to enforce an eviction at Kilmallow, and a further force of 120 men was ultimately sent out for the purpose. Those were the circumstances under which we assumed Office in 1880, and those were the circumstances under which the Queen's Speech was delivered, in which no intention whatever was expressed of re-opening the Irish Land Question. A very few weeks after this the Irish Government became alarmed, not so much by the actual number of evictions, as by the danger they saw impending ahead of a very much larger number of evictions for non-payment of rent during the coming winter; and, under those circumstances, looking at the increased resistance of the people, and the determination of the people not to pay, the Irish Government recommended that measure which is known as the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. My Lords, I am not going to renew the controversy, or indeed to say a word on the controversy on that Bill; but this I may say, that during the debates that took place on this matter, intimations were made, as it appears to me, on both sides of the House, that probably, instead of the temporary measure, it might be necessary to review
  1756
  the actual operation of the Land Act of 1870. I remember I was particularly struck with a passage in the speech of the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), whom I am sorry not to see in his place this evening, and who delivered an able speech, in which he indicated distinctly his willingness to re-open the question of the Land Act of 1870. He said he should support a statesmanlike measure for that purpose, without, of course, committing himself to any particular measure or suggestion. But he did indicate his wish to re-consider the matter. Well, my Lords, under those circumstances, I confess I was one of the Members of the Government who were most anxious and eager for the appointment of a Royal Commission to ascertain the actual facts as regards the operation of the Act of 1870. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) presided over another Commission appointed by the previous Government; but that Commission was of a much larger scope—it was a Commission to inquire into the agricultural distress which had prevailed over all three Kingdoms of England, Ireland, and Scotland. But that Commission was not specially directed to the operation of the Land Act of 1870, and the Members of Her Majesty's Government at that time, and I agreed with them in doing so, thought it was most expedient that a Special Commission should be appointed to inquire into the actual operation of the Land Act of 1870 during the 10 years it had been in operation. That Commission was appointed under certain terms, which, as I say, directed its attention specially to the operation of the Land Act of 1870, and to the making of suggestions with a view to the amendment of that Act. I have, in another form, expressed a very strong opinion that that Commission directed its inquiries with a view to the establishment of a foregone conclusion as to the nature of the remedy to be applied to the assumed grievances of Ireland under the assumed failure of the Act of 1870. I am not now going to dwell upon it, but merely wish to state as a fact, patent on the face of the examination of the witnesses, that the most active Members of the Commission, Baron Dowse, Mr. Shaw, and others, conducted their inquiries, from the beginning to the end, with a foregone conclusion in favour of the scheme called

  1757
  the "three F's." The "three F's" was crammed down the throat of every witness, and suggested to every witness, even if he himself did not think of it, and it was clearly proved by the evidence that it was so suggested in order to prove those grievances existed for which it was said the "three F's" was a remedy. I am not going to weary the House with evidence of a fact that is patent, but I am going to take the evidence as I find it, and I say so much the better for my purpose. What I want to know is this—what has been the result of this evidence as regard this important question? and what has been the operation of the Act of 1870 in regard to those special grievances which it was passed to remedy? That is the point to which my inquiry is directed. Of course, my Lords, it needs no inquiry to see that in a certain sense the Act of 1870 has been a failure. It is quite certain that it has not pacified Ireland. We see too clearly that it has not satisfied the Irish people, that it has not prevented the occurrence of agrarian agitation. Now, my Lords, there are various modes of explaining that failure. It may be said that three disastrous years, testing even severely the agricultural system of England and Scotland, but coming upon an agricultural condition of things in Ireland which is essentially in many respects unsound, that no efforts of ours could remedy the most grievous distress which arose, and out of which agitation might arise again. Again, it may be said, and I dare say many noble Lords opposite may be inclined to say, that the Act of 1870 failed because it raised expectations which it would not satisfy; and really the same explanation in another aspect was given by Mr. Parnell, when he said that the Act of 1870 contained germs which were not properly developed. So the same objection is taken by both Parties, though in the one case from the Home Rule, and in the other case from the Conservative point of view. But they mean the same thing, that the Act failed because it laid down principles which it did not fully develop; one Party thinking these were dangerous principles, and the other that they were valuable principles which ought to be applied. I am not going to enter into any of these speculative questions now; my inquiry is specific and distinct. What is the evidence taken before this
  1758
  Commission as to the effect of the Land Act of 1870 in remedying the special grievances which we designed the Act of 1870to remedy? The witnesses numbered no less than 700, and the number of questions and answers amounted to 40,000. I cannot say that I have read the whole of the examination, but I have studied the evidence with great care, with a desire to ascertain; and I wish now to draw the attention of the House to this most important question—namely, the practical grievances which we intended to remedy by the Act of 1870. Now, my Lords, the 1st clause of the Act of 1870 to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is one, strange to say, very seldom noticed at all. The 9th clause of the Act of 1870 is the one that provides that ejectment or eviction for non-payment of rent is not to involve the principle of disturbance. But there is this remarkable exception linked with it, sanctioned by Parliament, that in the case of all existing tenancies below £15 rent, if the Court should find that the rent is excessive or "exorbitant"—for that is the word used—then eviction even for non-payment of rent may involve compensation by the landlord. This is a most remarkable provision. I need hardly point out to the House that it is a provision which involves, to a considerable extent, within limitations, but still very distinctly, the principle of the Disturbance Bill of last Session. Now, my Lords, let me ask this question, and direct the attention of the House to the answer to it. On what principle was this clause framed, and why was this curious exception made to a general principle of obvious equity—that when a landlord gets rid of the tenant for non-payment of rent, he shall not be called upon to pay compensation for turning him out? My Lords, that question opens up a much larger question, and it is this—what is the practical connection between the past history of Ireland—the political history of Ireland, what is commonly known as the wrongs of Ireland—and the duties and necessities of present legislation? It is a moat difficult question to answer, my Lords; but I, for one, am not prepared to deny that there is a connection, a most embarrassing connection, between the past political history and the wrongs of Ireland and the duties and necessities of our present legislation. But this I

  1759
  would say, that the popular understanding of what that connection is, and the use which is made of those wrongs of Ireland, is one which ought to be watched and examined with the closest attention. My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships have seen a pamphlet published lately by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. I call it a pamphlet; but originally it was a speech which he delivered in "another place" on the second reading of the Bill which is not yet before us. As a speech, we have nothing to do with it; but, as a pamphlet, it is accessible to us all. I am not going to enter into any part of that speech as regards the arguments used in it; but there is one passage which I read the other day, and which I confess struck me very much. My right hon. Friend refers to the difficulties under which the Government labour, and he says that one of those difficulties has been the schemes, the many schemes, which have been urged on the Government in Ireland, which he, for one, cannot separate from the character of being schemes of public plunder, although he by no means intends to say that those who propound them are conscious of their deserving this epithet, and assuming that character. This is one of the most remarkable utterances that ever came from a Prime Minister. I do not know what the schemes may be to which he is referring. I do not think they can have been the schemes of the Land League, because they are avowedly public plunder. I imagine, therefore, that when my right hon. Friend denounces, as among the difficulties which the Government have to meet, the schemes that are propounded in Ireland for the solution of this question, he must allude to schemes that come at least with the pretence that they are within the possibility of Parliamentary discussion; that they are propounded by men of tolerably moderate opinions on other matters, and having some pretension to present to Parliament the popular opinions they have on this great matter. Therefore, we have this decided indication of opinion on the part of the Prime Minister—that some of the schemes urged on Parliament are of so violent a nature as to deserve the name of schemes of public plunder; and yet—and it is a remarkable thing—that those who propounded them are perfectly uncon-
  1760
  scious of their character. I entirely agree in that with my right hon. Friend; but I think it indicates a demoralization of public opinion on these great public questions such as never before existed; and I ask what is the cause and what is the origin of this extraordinary demoralization of opinion? A great many of these schemes I confess I have heard propounded by Friends of my own, and I have said to them—"How can you propound such schemes? You know what you would think if they were propounded for any other country in the world. You know what you would think if they were propounded in France, or in Scotland, or in England, or in any other part of the world but Ireland; and how is it you reconcile your consciences to the propounding of such schemes for Ireland?" And I have found the propounders of these schemes generally reply by making excuses, referring to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, the wrongs inflicted in past times upon that country, the confiscations, and the hardships it has undergone. Now, my Lords, when we are dealing with the demoralization of public opinion, it is of the utmost importance to scrutinize the arguments which are brought forward, and I hold that the question must be thoroughly argued. Let me say, in the first place, not denying some connection, only too real, between the wrongs of Ireland and the necessities of our present legislation, that I deny altogether that the great confiscations which took place in Ireland have anything whatever to do with the matter. Not to mention the fact that the youngest of them is about 200 years old, no settlement of property could be safe in any country if such arguments were to be entertained. Not to mention the general ground of principle, I say this, moreover, that there is probably not one single tenant in Ireland at the present moment whose right to his holding is older than that of his landlord, from whom he derives it; and if he questions his landlord's title he questions his own, and therefore these confiscations have nothing to do with the matter. Just conceive the case of an Ulster tenant coming to this House and asking for something altogether outside the Ulster Custom, and quoting the great confiscations of Cromwell and James as a plea for having his privileges. What is the answer to be given?" You are

  1761
  an interloper as well as your landlord." In 99 cases out of 100 he is a "plantation" man. He came into Ireland as one of the confiscators, when the Natives were driven away to the South; and any claim now on the part of the tenants of Ireland, and on the part of any class especially leaning on the old grounds of confiscation, is about as absurd as that of a tenant of Hampshire who should come and ask special privileges because of the cruelties perpetrated by the Normans many centuries ago in founding the New Forest. But now there is another plea which is much more common than confiscation. I have heard, over and over again, and a distinguished Friend of mine, in an article published in one of the reviews, pleaded that the great wrongs of Ireland were these—that we had insisted upon breaking up the old Irish customs, and bringing in our English law, which was unsuited to the people of Ireland. This idea is repeated from day to day in the Press as a plea for extraordinary measures for Ireland; and I say this—that there never was a plea for such measures more absolutely without foundation than this distinction between Irish customs and English law. What were the old customs of the Irish people? They were the customs of the Celtic Tribes, and I ought to know something on that subject, and I think I do. I am myself a Celt, and more than that, in our country we are Irish Celts. The time when our people in the Western Highlands of Scotland came over from Ireland still lives in the memory of the people. I have often stood on the shore of my own county looking to the opposite coast of Ireland, divided by a strait so narrow that on a clear day we see the houses, the division of the fields, and the colours of the crops; and I often wondered at the marvellous difference in the development of the two kindred peoples. And yet, my Lords, do not let us be mistaken; our position was parallel to theirs during the whole of the Middle Ages. The history of the Highlands of Scotland during the whole of that period was a rude and barbarous history, full, indeed, of poetic incident, over which the genius of my great countryman, Sir Walter Scott, has cast the halo of an imperishable charm; but I say again, it was the history of almost utter barbarism. All the Tribes smothered men, women, and children. There was smok-
  1762
  ing to death in caves, and all districts of the country were continually ravaged by civil war between clan and clan, and women were exposed to death on tidal rocks. These are the stock ingredients of the Celtic history of Scotland as they are of the Celtic history of Ireland; and yet how complete a change. No part of the world has made such progress in civilization, and in wealth, and in agriculture as the Western Highlands of Scotland during the last 100 years. No part of the world, in so short a time, has made such rapid strides of progress. And what has been the cause of this great change? Nothing now remains of that old Celtic character except a certain sentiment of the clan feeling, which still sweetens our society very much as the clouds on a stormy morning are very often the brightest ornament to a peaceful day. What was the cause of the change? It was the gradual invasion, and the firm establishment against the old Celtic habits of those higher customs and bettor laws which came from the Latin and Teutonic races. A native legislation was developed in Scotland, founded, it may be, on the jurisprudence of that ancient people who were so great in arms and in arts, but greater than all, perhaps, in law; and so gradually we have emerged from that state of Celtic barbarism into the condition in which we in Scotland now find ourselves. But what is the truth with regard to Ireland? There never was a grosser misrepresentation of history than to say that the Irish have suffered from the invasion of the English law. The idea that under the old Celtic custom the cultivator of the soil had a greater security than he has now is ludicrous. Even in the great Report of this Commission—and I do not profess any very great respect for that great Report—they tell you that under the old Celtic customs they were at the absolute disposal of their Chiefs. Have your Lordships read a book which everybody who takes an interest in this question ought to read—I mean the tracts of Sir John Davis, who was Attorney General in the reign of James I., and who was sent over to Ireland on public affairs? I will give your Lordships a few very short extracts from his book, in which he describes the way in which the Irish people who had some portions of land allotted to them were impoverished and despoiled of

  1763
  their treasures by their Chieftains. Their position, as regarded tenure, he says, "is only a scanty and transitory possession at the pleasure of the Chief." Then, Sir John Davis quotes from an old Irish authority, proving that the Irish people were anxious to get the benefit of the English law, which in many cases was withheld from them. He further says, truly enough in regard to some of those old Irish customs, "that although they undoubtedly originated in a certain place that is always nameless to ears polite, if practised there as in Ireland, they would have brought to an end the kingdom of Beelzebub." These are the Irish customs under which the Irish tenants would be, rather than under English law. The truth is this, the whole attempt under the government of law was to substitute uncertain exactions and services for the benefit of rent at fixed periods. That was the great object of English law, and that, I need hardly say, is for the necessity of agricultural security of the tenant. Having disposed of these two very absurd pleas with regard to the condition of Ireland, I will refer your Lordships to things which I think are valid pleas if exceptionally treated, and I would put my finger at once on the penal laws. Until I looked into this question, I confess I did not realize the close connection between those miserable penal laws and many of the difficulties in which we are now placed. My Lords, let us recollect that for very nearly the space of 100 years, at least more than 88 years—the greater part of the 18th century—Ireland was under penal laws against Roman Catholics, the nature of which was this, that no Roman Catholic could hold a beneficial interest in a lease. I put my finger on that law alone, and ask your Lordships if it is not responsible for a very great deal? The landlords could not get rid of the land except by letting it to a Protestant, or a nominal Protestant, and the tenant who took it had to recoup himself by sub-letting it to other people. There was no clause against sub-letting. Indeed, the object of the chief lease was that the tenant should be able to sub-let, otherwise no rent would have been derived for the land at all. You had that system all over Ireland, under which men were under an absolute necessity of letting land upon very long leases, with the
  1764
  most injurious provisions in regard to sub-letting and toil; you had a pauper tenantry bred upon the soil under the direct influence of your penal laws. Never has a punishment so direct and so rapid followed the violation of one of those great laws of national justice that no Parliament and no Kingdom can violate with impunity. Well, upon the back of that came the 40 s. freehold, which again gave a political value to the land; and, last of all, came the system which I have never heard of anywhere except in Ireland, the truly Irish idea and custom—it is called "burning the land." Here, again, till I looked into this matter, I had no conception of the extent to which this evil went. A recent writer on this subject—a gentleman of authority who knows what he is speaking about—says he recollects when a whole area of country at night would be one mass of smoke and flame by burning the fine old pastures for the purpose of growing potatoes and wheat, a system most destructive to the land, but enabling the tenant to realize immense profits in the meantime. This custom attracted the attention of the Irish farmer; statute after statute was passed to prevent it, but in vain; agrarian outrages in great numbers were committed against those endeavouring to restrain the people, and a large portion of Ireland is to this day suffering for the poverty that this barbarous custom caused. Now, I beg the House to observe that the modus operandi of the law was this—it gave unlimited scope to genuine Irish customs, the sub-division of the soil, sub-letting and subletting over and over again down to the lowest standard of the people, with this barbarous custom of agriculture. Though the free scope thus given to these Irish customs was the mischief of these laws, they did not interfere with these Irish customs, but placed a premium upon them, and allowed them to go to the greatest licence and excess. In order that the House may realize the actual result, I take a case from the evidence of the Commission. One witness gave evidence as to his own estate. The land was let in 1796; and of 491 acres at £241, or less than 10 s. an acre, in 1850 not a single acre was in the hands of the representative of the original lessee. He had let to 67 sub-tenants; then these sub-tenants let to 129 sub-sub-tenants,

  1765
  and of these 90 lived in cabins, not having a single perch of land. The result was, that instead of one or two families, which would he quite enough for the healthy population of the soil, there were 196 families, or 980 souls. Now, this is the condition of things, these are the laws, these are the habits with which you must grapple, and with which you must deal in dealing with the Irish Land Laws; and I say, as one of the authors of the Act of 1870, this is my excuse for having agreed to a clause so exceptional as that to which I have directed the attention of the House. I now wish to direct the attention of the House more particularly to the result of that clause. Below £15 valuation, tenants might fall into arrear and be ejected for non-payment of rent, and they might go to the Court and say—"My rent is exorbitant, and I demand compensation." How many of the tenantry of Ireland were affected by this clause? Something like three-fourths of the whole tenantry of Ireland. How many cases were brought forward? Over the whole of Ireland there was not a single tenant able to come forward and plead that his rent was exorbitant. Was not that a most remarkable fact, with the most litigious tenantry in the world, incited by lawyers prepared to take advantage of every quirk and quibble of the law—that over the whole of Ireland this special clause of protection for exorbitant rent below £15 was not taken advantage of, so far as I can find, in one single instance. Now, with regard to this poor class of tenants, I think there is a great deal of exaggeration as to the miserableness of their condition. I mean the extremeness and hopelessness of their condition. There is, no doubt, a good deal of wretchedness in Ireland; but these people live close to the greatest labour market in the world, to which railways and steamboats carry them for a small sum, and the wages of the labourers are, as a whole, fairly good. I had the curiosity to go to the Irish Office and ask for details of the cases of small farmers, or, in fact, of labourers with small allotments. The average rents of these farms came to 30 s. a-year—that is to say, about 8d. a-week, which is less than any artizan pays for the rent of his room in a town. It must be remembered also, however, that whereas the artizan gets no return
  1766
  for the rent he pays for his room, the Irish tenant gets plenty of potatoes, some corn, and perhaps some keep for his pig. I feel bound to say that is a condition of things which in all cases is unsatisfactory. However, my Lords, I pass that, and come to matters of much more importance—the effect of the Disturbance Clause of the Act of 1870 upon this class. Your Lordships will recollect that the principle of that Act was this—not to prevent or destroy the right of the landlord to deal with his property, but it placed a fine upon him in the case of this right being exercised in certain specified ways, this fine being imposed according to a certain graduated scale. The object of the clauses was this—to prevent a landlord from enforcing, I will not say an exorbitant, but a very dear and excessive, rent; and, secondly, to prevent him making frequent unfair increasements in the rent; and, thirdly, it was to prevent him unjustly charging an additional rent upon the improvements of his tenants; and, lastly, it was to prevent him from infringing the Ulster tenant right. These were the four great objects of the Act of 1870, and where is the evidence to show that that Act failed in securing them? I will ask your Lordships to follow me for a short time while I endeavour to analyze the evidence bearing upon this point. In the first place, let us take rents which, according to the evidence, though not exorbitant, are, at all events, very dear—oppressively dear. We see it over and over again stated that the landlord has been squeezing up the tenant to pay dear rents; but that is said of other countries also. Now, what is the evidence of the Commission on this point? In the first place, let me point out that the Commission proceeded to its work in the most extraordinary way. They began by asking every tenant whether he thought his rent too dear. They never tested any one case. They never sent down a valuator in any one case to test the statement of the tenant, or to ascertain the value of the land. I have heard it questioned whether the Commissioners had power to employ a valuator for such a purpose; but I have myself no doubt whatever, looking at the wideness of the terms constituting them, that they had ample power to take that course. They, however, did.

  1767
  not think fit to do so in any single case. Professor Baldwin, one of the first witnesses examined, and one of the great authorities on the subject, says that there is no mode whatever of testing whether rents are dear, except by going to the spot with a skilled valuator; but this was never done, and not only was no valuator sent down, but there was no confronting of witnesses with the view of testing a valuation. Cross-examination, except in the interest of the tenant, was also most feeble and most ineffective. No testing by valuation, no testing by confronting of witnesses, and now what is the Report they have given us? The Commission came to this conclusion—I think they might have written it before they began to sit at all—they say that—
  "The evidence shows that under a system of gradual small increases of rent, the tenants have at length reached a point at which they consider themselves to be unfairly rented."
  I must say to my noble Friend who presided over the Commission (the Earl of Bessborough), that he could have written the sentence before he began his investigations. Then follows a still more remarkable sentence. The Report says—
  "It has been found that the landlord has actually been able to turn out a tenant, and to pay the whole compensation that the Court would give him, and then to get a new tenant, who was happy to take the farm at the former rent, and to pay the amount of compensation awarded besides."
  The Report states this as if it were a grievance, as if the rent were too high; but to my mind it is, if not conclusive proof, at least primâ facie evidence that rent was very low because another Irishman was willing, not only to give the rent, but to pay a high premium to get the farm. The evidence of the Commissioners was sent to us from day to day, at least from week to week, and from month to month. I hope I do not weary your Lordships; but it is a serious matter, and I therefore went very closely into the evidence. I was very much interested as one of the authors of the Act of 1870, and I felt it a public duty to look closely into the facts, to see what had been the result of the Act of 1870. Well, now, the second witness examined by the Commission was a certain Mr. Ferguson, who filled the office of County Court Judge, I
  1768
  think, in one of the largest counties in Ireland; a man of great experience, and a man of very strong opinions. In short, he wished to have complete power over the landlords to prevent them doing anything he thought was wrong on their part. It appeared he had made, two or three years ago, before the appointment of the Commission, some very severe observations in regard to a case in which a tenant had suffered hardship, and, of course, he was immemediately interrogated about this case. He said he remembered making these severe observations, and he thought they were deserved. It was, he said, a case of six or seven tenants who had been charged a very unreasonable rent, to which they were obliged to submit, as they could not run the risk of litigation. Mr. Ferguson said it was a very hard case; and he went on to say, encouraged by the cross-examination, that the tenants had all been ruined. It was altogether a very hard and cruel case. Well, this case made a great impression upon my weak and susceptible mind at the time. I thought it was a hard case, and I looked to see who was the landlord, and I found it was two ladies, the Misses White, and I remember it occurred to me whether it would be according to Irish ideas that we should expatriate not only the landlords but the landladies as well. Very soon afterwards, when I saw a similar case brought against a clergyman of the Church of England, I remarked to a friend that the only cases of hardship I saw was upon estates managed by women and clergymen. But I am happy to say that both women and clergymen came well out of the cases. This evidence came before us; but the rebutting evidence was not furnished for many months after Mr. Ferguson had given his evidence. I ask if anything so monstrous was ever done, that a lawyer in high position should give evidence before this Commission upon the mere hearsay of a person. Such hearsay, too, as made it evident that he had never investigated the facts, and that this should go forth to the English race, and to the British people, as an example of the hardships imposed by Irish landlords, one that was perfectly to be relied upon, although it was not I supported by the facts! What does the agent of Miss White say? He says

  1769
  that the tenants are all living in new slated dwelling-houses, or old ones well repaired; drainage and fences were among the improvements which had been made by those very tenants since 1878; there never was, indeed, any difficulty between the owners of the soil and the tenants until this Land League agitation began. They were not poor men; they paid in all about £190 among them—showing that they belonged to what is a very respectable class in Ireland, they had at least 46 milk cows, besides young stock; and were in the most thriving and flourishing condition. This is one of the cases that made a great impression upon my mind, and this is the result. I will now take another, and your Lordships must remember I am not picking out cases to suit my argument, I am taking typical cases, mentioned by typical witnesses, men of authority or who ought to be of authority. I will take a case mentioned by Professor Baldwin. I have had some correspondence with that gentleman, and I believe him to be a thoroughly honest man. I do not, however, think he is a very clearheaded man, if he will allow me to say so. I do not think he investigates his facts very thoroughly; but I believe him to be an honest man. In the course of his evidence given before the Commission he said, almost in a tone of triumph—"If the Commission wants to see what is done by the cruel landlords in Ireland, I advise them to send for the agent of the property on the Island of Arranmore, in County Donegal." This statement made a great impression on my mind. I thought such a man would never give such evidence without having been on the spot. However, the Commission took his advice; they sent down a special Commissioner, and who do you think was the first witness that that Commissioner examined? Why, the agent referred to, who turned out to be a money-lender and meal-dealer in the town of Donegal. This man confessed that he lent money to the people at 10 per cent interest, and he also confessed that he sold meal to the people at 2s. above the ordinary price, and then he adds, with truly Irish vagueness and "sometimes more." How much more we do not know, but I should not wonder if he charges some 20 per cent to poor people for their meal. I would ask your Lordships to look at the animus
  1770
  of a witness of this kind. The people are all largely in his debt, for he charges them 10, 15, or 20 per cent for the loans he has made to them; and he very naturally thinks that all the produce of the soil ought to go to pay his interest, and none of it to pay the 2 or 3 per cent which might not unreasonably be expected by the landlord. He gives evidence about the dearness of rent; but then, with that truly Irish character, which, I may say, is often extremely open and honest, he proceeds to make a most extraordinary admission. It appears that he was not only a moneylender or meal-dealer, but that he also did a little at the trade of farming, and it comes out in his evidence—and he did not seem to be in the slightest degree conscious that he contradicts in this any other part of his evidence—that he had bought from one of these terribly high-rented tenants a grazing at 25 years' purchase, after which he goes on to say, almost in the same breath, that the tenants are so very highly rented that he would not take their farms, although they were given him for nothing. That is the first witness examined by the special Commissioner to Arranmore, and then comes the priest. Now, I understand this priest, Priest Walker, was a smart, respectable man, and I believe that he, like Professor Baldwin, would not say anything that he did not believe to be true; but he had not been long in his present position, and as the Land League has been in active operation for a long time, and the priests are, rightly or wrongly, supposed to be under its influence, it was not matter for wonder that this particular priest should bring forward the most elaborate statistics to prove that the grossest cruelties had been committed upon the tenants of Arranmore. Every item of accusation was minutely accumulated against the proprietor of Arranmore, so circumstantially that unless I had closely inquired into it I should have taken it as a matter of fact. But the moment that the rebutting evidence came out, I saw at once what complete humbug the whole story was. The trustee for the proprietor is the Common Serjeant of London (Sir Thomas Charley), and he gives statistics to show that every one material statement made is a falsehood. I have seen Sir Thomas Charley, and he tells me that the books of the pro-

  1771
  perty are open to anyone. The truth is, the people were starving at the time of the Famine, and that Sir Thomas Charley emigrated a great many of the people at their own wish, and that the tenants who remained were getting on very well in their diminished numbers. These are but typical cases. I now come to the next head of the grievances alleged, and to which I have to call the attention of your Lordships. The first of these grievances was oppressive rents; the next is frequent and uncertain increments of rent. There is no accusation more commonly brought against Irish landlords at the present day in the Press, and especially in the Irish Press, than that of frequent and uncertain increments of rent. In this connection I must say that, in my view, nothing can be conceived more mischievous to everybody concerned than increments such as I have described. There can be no security when there are frequent and uncertain increments of rent. This practice of frequent and uncertain increments is certainly not an English custom or an English practice, but is essentially an Irish idea, and one which was invariably practiced among the old Irish proprietors of land. Anyone who examines the matter must come to the inevitable conclusion that the landlord who raises his rents at frequent intervals and unknown to his tenants in any part of the Three Kingdoms is doing that which is incompatible with civilization and the progress of the country as regards agriculture. What is the truth? I am Sorry to say I am obliged to quote one who was very lately a Colleague of my own as regards the allegations that are made upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) went over to Birmingham the other day and made a very able speech—a speech with the great part of it on other subjects I was entirely able to agree. But I cannot concur in that part of what Mr. Chamberlain said which had reference to Ireland. In regard to Ireland, he said this—he said that the failure of the Act of 1870, assuming that it had been a failure, was due, in the first place, to the action of this House; and in regard to this, I suppose, we shall have some future debate, and I have simply now, therefore, to say that if I could attribute the failure of the Act to the action of
  1772
  the House, as one of its authors and supporters, I should be very glad to do it; but my conscience does not permit me, because I am not able to trace the connection between its failure and any single one of the Amendments that came from your Lordships. Mr. Chamberlain said, further on in his speech, it was also partly due to the action of some landlords unnecessarily endeavouring to escape from the conditions of the Act, and who also had by slow degrees raised the rents of their tenants until the burden became too great to be borne. This is an important statement, coming as it does from a Minister, a high Minister of the Crown, a Cabinet Minister, and I must say I have ransacked the Blue Book to find evidence for it, and I cannot find it. There was one case which was brought before me when I was a Member of the Government, the case of Lord Arran. Like every other case I have mentioned, it made a great impression upon my mind at the time. Once it was distinctly and circumstantially stated by Professor Baldwin that Lord Arran had raised his rents at very close and frequent intervals. He said he had in his possession receipts to tenants showing rises of rent within a very few years to an extent that was really grievous and oppressive. But what are the facts? As that statement came from Professor Baldwin, and related to an Irish Peer, who might at any time be a Member of this House, I never for a moment doubted that there was at least some foundation for the story; but now the rebutting evidence has come out. Lord Arran succeeded to the estate in 1837. For 20 years he never raised his rents a single 6d., these rents being no less than 39 per cent below Griffith's valuation. In 1857 prosperous times arrived, and Lord Arran thought the time had also arrived when he might in all fairness have a re-valuation of his estate. He accordingly sent down to his property Messrs. Brassington and Gale—who were among the most eminent valuators in Ireland—with instructions to report to him, after a careful examination, what they thought would be a fair rent as between man and man. The valuators went down, and, as we may very well suppose, upon an estate which was 39 per cent below Griffith's valuation, and had never been altered for 20 years, they found due to Lord

  1773
  Arran a considerable rise. Well, what happened to show how grossly perverted the facts were? I may say that Lord Arran determined, in order to be lenient with his tenants, and in order to give them time, that the rents should be raised, not at one step to their true value, but to do it by instalments, and it was receipts for some of these instalments that Professor Baldwin had seen. This is the true story as far as Lord Arran is concerned, and I ask your Lordships whether it is not a monstrous perversion of facts to say that in this case there has been a frequent and excessive increment of rents? I will take one other case. There was a man named Wynn, a very representative man, who made great accusations against the landlord, and who, in the notes he had sent to the Secretary of the Commission as to the evidence he was prepared to give—among them being a statement that on Borne estates there was a revision every 10 or 12 years—was questioned on this point. He said that some landlords would allow their rents to remain 20, 30, or 40, or even 50 years; but the others raised their rents every 10 years. When he was asked if he could give the name of any estate on which the rents had been raised every 10 years, he said—and this is truly Irish—it had been done once and threatened a second time on one estate that he knew, that of Sir J. Stewart, within the last 30 years. I now pass to another item. I want to know what confiscation there has been of improvements? Now, this is one of the most important of the accusations brought against the Irish landlords to which I ask your Lordships' attention. Your Lordships will see it made in every speech of the members of the Land League, and, I am sorry to say, in a great many speeches made by persons who are not members of the Land League, that the landlords are confiscating the tenants' improvements by basing increases of rent on such improvements. Now, I will say this—I have gone through this Blue Book, as I firmly believe no other Member of this House has gone through it, and I have not seen one single case in which dates are given by which you can judge whether the increment has been an unfair one upon the tenant's improvements. Let me explain what I mean. Professor Baldwin gives a case which is worth a score of
  1774
  arguments. He refers to a property, a hillside in the West of Ireland, the property of Colonel Pitt Kennedy, where, on a piece of wild moorland, not worth in its natural state Is. an acre, Professor Baldwin saw on one side of a fence which divided two properties many thriving farms, and on the other side the original moorland. Now, what were the circumstances in which the change took place? Colonel Pitt Kennedy brought the people to the moorland, and said—"Cultivate and improve this moorland, and you shall have it the first seven years for next to nothing—1s. an acre. The eighth year you shall pay 2s. an acre; the 12th year 4s., and so on. At the end of 20 years the rent reached 14 s. an acre; the people were happy and contented, and the whole operation is praised by Professor Baldwin; yet the ultimate rent was 1,300 per cent above the original value of the land, and it was raised entirely on what is called the tenants' improvements. The landlord made no outlay, except £300 for a road. Now, was that or not a legitimate operation? Well, I say, and everybody knows, that it was a legitimate operation, and that it depends on this principle—the tenants work on the landlord's capital. After they have enjoyed, for a certain length of time, the fruits of his capital and their labour, the landlord is entitled to share in certain improvements of the soil. Now, you can never judge of cases in which the rent has been raised upon improvements until you have the following data:—The original value of the land, and the time the tenant has enjoyed it; the produce of the land during that time, and the profit the tenant has made. And unless you have these data, you may depend upon it the case is a fallacy. For accurate information of this kind I have searched in vain in the Blue Books and the various very remarkable pamphlets which I have received. There was one sent to me by a Member of Parliament, and there were others sent by gentlemen who have gone round Ireland, in which it was stated that, in some cases, the rent had been raised 4,000 times upon its original value. The "trick" of statement—I do not use the word in an invidious sense—is this—you compare the ultimate rent with the original value, which may show a difference of 4,000 per cent. I have myself improved

  1775
  land which, at the end of the second year, yielded 4,000 per cent on the original value; and then it sounds most monstrous and cruel when you say that the tenant's rent has been raised after he has done all those improvements himself. I was so annoyed at the vagueness of such statements that I put myself into communication with some of the authors of these pamphlets. I wrote them, and said—"Did you go to the places?" and I never found one who told me he had, or who had inquired into the truth of the cases they cited. I was reminded of the lines of Wordsworth on the invisible cuckoo—
  "To seek thee did I often roam, Among the woods and on the green; But thou wert still hope of love, Still longed for, never seen."
  But when such was the state of my mind, a great piece of good luck happened to me, and again I was reminded of the good luck of the cuckoo listener, as described by another poet—
  "Blessings on him! he came and stopped, And sang where I could hear and see."
  Who do you think was the blessed cuckoo which came and stopped and sang that I could hear and see? It was my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, Mr. Shaw Lefevre. Mr. Shaw Lefevre went down the other day to Liverpool, and he made a long speech, and, as he always does, a very able speech, in favour, I am told, but I do not know, of the Government Land Bill. Now, I was very much struck with this speech, which gave mo exactly what I wanted. I was hunting for a case, and Mr. Shaw Lefevre gave me one. I must read the language used by my right hon. Friend, because I must say I think it rather strong, especially as Mr. Shaw Lefevre is a well known authority on the subject. My right him. Friend said, after one of those vague, generous, and candid insinuations, which are so common, that the majority of the Irish landlords had, on the whole, behaved well, but there was a large minority—the Prime Minister called them a small minority—but my right hon. Friend, not content with a small minority, says that was a large minority of a very different character, who were exacting and determined to screw the last farthing out of the tenant, wholly disregarding justice and humanity. I hear my noble Friend
  1776
  the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) whisper below me that it is perfectly true. I am glad to hear that he has got cases; and, if so, I hope he will bring them forward. I can assure the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies that I am on an honest quest. I want facts, and if he can bring me any of these facts I shall be much obliged to him. My right hon. Friend at Liverpool quoted a case, as given to the Commission by Professor Baldwin, of a poor man who hired three acres of bog laud for 8s. a-year, and spent £45 on reclaiming it, besides his own labour. He enjoyed it for three years only, and then the landlord raised the rent to 22 s. per acre; and the right hon. Gentleman said, if that was worked out, it would show that the increase of rent far more than appropriated the whole of the tenant's improvements. I was rejoiced at this. I saw in a moment, what Mr. Shaw Lefevre probably does not know, that the data even here is wanting. There are cases, not many, but not uncommon in Ireland, where, as is pointed out by the Commission, every three or four years' enjoyment of improvements will recoup the man in abundance for making them. It is curious to observe, in connection with this exceptional case, that the bog is a valuable material which you may sell for fuel or use for manure, and when you get to the bottom of the bog you very often get the very finest land. I have seen such crops upon reclaimed bog as I never saw on any other land. When Mr. Shaw Lefevre told the people of Liverpool this story, he said it showed how cruel the case was. I was determined to find out the case, so I wrote him a note asking him to give me a reference in the Blue Book to the case. The first thing my right hon. Friend did was candidly to state his memory failed him as to the authorship of the answer given to the Commission, It was not Professor Baldwin at all; but he referred me to the page in the Blue Book, and what was my astonishment to find that this case of a cruel and rapacious landlord, utterly regardless of justice and humanity, was Lord Londonderry, the proprietor of notoriously one of the most generously-managed estates in Ireland. That was pretty well, and it was very clear there must be some mistake here. That was the first thing I found;

  1777
  but when I turned to the evidence, which was that of the tenant himself, the next thing I observed was this—that he had appealed to the Court twice against the rent, and the Court decided against him. Well, I must say, I think that when a Minister of the Crown quotes cases of this kind, inflaming the passions of the people of Ireland, and misleading the judgment of the people of England, he ought to be a little more careful with his facts. That was what I found on the face of the tenant's evidence. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to have contented himself even with that. He ought to have applied to Lord Londonderry's agent for his version of the matter; for an ex parte statement of this kind is not worth the paper it is written on. I applied to Lord Londonderry's agent, and he, going to the man and examining him, was able to show that the case was completely mythical. The Court not only twice rejected the tenant's appeal to have his rent reduced, but found him in costs, and Lord Londonderry spared him the costs, and continued the tenant in his farm. That is not even all this particular case—this case of cutting out a bog is exactly one of the cases I have mentioned to your Lordships, as a case in which the tenant himself confesses that he realized a large profit by removing the turf for manure to another part of his farm. He had also cropped his farm since 1804, and it was not true that a new valuation had been made at the end of four years. The landlord had, further, made a main drain through the farm without charging the tenant anything for it. The local agent went to the man, and he confessed that he had bought another piece of bog from a neighbouring tenant at a higher rent, and found it profitable. When asked why he did not tell all this to the Commissioners, his reply was, "Sure, and was I going to injure the cause?" So much for these charges of cruelty and rapacity against the landlords. I come now to a very important matter. I fear I am detaining your Lordships; but if I have strength I am determined to go through with this duty which I have undertaken. I come now to the important question of the evasion of the Ulster Custom. A more unfounded charge has never been made against the landlords of Ireland than that they are evading this Ulster Custom, and that
  1778
  the Act of 1870 has been found insufficient to protect the tenants. There is no charge which goes more against my own convictions than that, because there was no part of the Land Act of 1870 that I more heartily agreed to than I did to the legalizing of the Ulster Custom, because I thought that custom, properly so called, is a part of contract, and that where you have proof of a bon â fide custom, it ought to be legalized, and the Judges ought to recognize it. My Lords, I have been most anxious to find out whether it is true that, under the Act of 1870, the Ulster Custom has been evaded, and I will call attention to a most extraordinary paragraph which appears in the Report about the Ulster Custom. It says that the remedy given to the tenant under the Ulster Custom was similar to that given in reference to any other custom; the tenant who was served with notice to quit was enabled to lodge a claim; but the claim would not justify a decree against the landlord if the tenant failed to prove that he had not been charged more than a fair rent. My Lords, I fail to follow the logic of that paragraph. The argument is this—The Act of 1870 authorized the legalizing of the Ulster Custom, and, therefore, it ought logically to have authorized fixity of tenure at a fair rent; but that was no part of the custom; consequently it did not legalize fixity of tenure; but it ought to have done so in Ireland, because in Ireland things that are equal to the same things are not equal to each other. That is the kind of logic that is to be found in the Report. But I come to something more important than logic. Another paragraph in the Report says that the large estates are generally considerately managed; but on some of the more recently acquired estates rents have been raised both before and since the Land Bill to an excessive degree, not only as compared with the valuation of the land, but are so high as to absorb the interest of the tenant. Again, it says that "the process has gone so far as to destroy the tenant's legitimate interest in his holding," and it adds "that in Ulster in some cases it has almost eaten up the tenant right." Now, that is a most important statement if it be true; and I looked immediately to the margin of the Report to find what evidence was given to support it. The names of seven witnesses are given—

  1779
  and will the House believe it?—there is not a single one of them whose evidence justifies the statement. I should weary your Lordships and exhaust myself if I were to go through the evidence of these seven witnesses. I have gone through them all, and will give one or two as specimens. I take the evidence of Mr. M'llroy, the Secretary to one of the largest Tenant Eight Associations in the North of Ireland. He is asked a question, and gives a haphazard answer, in which he says not that the tenant right is eaten up, but that that is the complaint of the people; but the remaining evidence which falsifies the statement is not given. For instance, he is asked—
  "Do you find that the average soiling value of holdings has been smaller within the last 10 years?" and he replies—"No, not smaller.—Is that so during even the latter part of the 10 years?—No; prices are nothing smaller! The tenant right has increased in value during the last 10 years."
  I ask, my Lords, is it fair to support this broad statement, that the tenant right has been eaten up by garbled statements from witnesses whose evidence disproves it? I have other cases here, with which I will not trouble your Lordships—they are all of the same character. Individual cases are quoted whose evidence is that they know of cases in which the tenant right has diminished in value; but, in several cases, the witnesses confess that the goodwill and the tenant right have increased in value—in one case, I think, to 40 years' purchase. There is one other branch of the subject to which I desire to refer, and it is to the accusations brought against those who purchased in the Encumbered Estates Court. Now, I must say that on this matter I do not think that the large landed proprietors are wholly free from blame. There has been a disposition to say—"On our estates everything is managed fairly; but many of those who bought in the Encumbered Estates Court are harsh and cruel men." That is the sort of candid admission which the supporters of the Land League make as to certain Irish landlords. But I confess, my Lords, I have not been able to trace to its source any one good authorized case against these purchasers. What happened was this. Many of the estates which were sold were held under old leases, and it was the regular habit of the Court to advertise that at the end
  1780
  of the leases there would be a rise of rent. There are no end of such cases. Men invested their money under that inducement, and at the end of the leases they did as they had a right to do—they raised the rent; and, as far as I can make out, that is the only foundation for the charge. My Lords, the Irish hate an improving landlord. When they find a man buying land for the purpose of improving it, for the purpose of applying industry and capital to it for his own interest and the well-being of his tenants, they hate him for the changes which it is almost his duty to institute. But I have not been able to identify any cases in which injustice has been done. I have traced out one or two of them with great care, and I have found them all to be not as their accusers would have your Lordships to believe they are. I was very glad to see that Judge Longfield, in a very interesting article he published some time ago, defended the proprietors who bought in his Court against such accusations. As those who, in the Middle Ages, purchased corn in time of panic—who were the great storekeepers of corn at critical periods—were exposed to the odium and hatred of the ignorant, so likewise those who wish to make the tenure of land a matter of real business are exposed to all the passions of a misguided mob. My Lords, I venture to say that there is no proof whatever throughout these pages that the Land Act of 1870 has failed in remedying any one of the grievances which we intended it to remedy. We hear no longer of notices of ejectment falling like snow-flakes on the tenantry in order to keep them in a state of perpetual bondage. We hear no longer of exorbitant rents being exacted in spite of the statute. We hear no longer, except in the language of demagogues, of constant increment of rent, keeping the people in hopeless poverty. We hear no longer of rents being raised so rapidly upon improvements as to forfeit the whole industry of the tenant. In all these matters the proof of the accusations utterly fail, as did the proof as to the eating up of the tenant right. But, my Lords, there are some consequences of the Act of 1870 which we did not foresee, and of which ample proof is given in these pages. I am afraid that, instead of the increment of rent eating up tenant right, we have

  1781
  established the converse—that the claims of tenant right are eating up every claim to any increment of rent. This is laid down as a maxim, that every 1s. on rent is a reduction of £20 on the tenant right. We used to hear on all sides that political economy does not run now. And what does this Report say? It says that—
  "The system of letting land according to market rates in Ireland is a system which never can prevail."
  My Lords, that statement is absolutely without foundation. As given by the Commissioners, what they mean is this—that the landlords are not generally in the habit of exacting more than market rates. But the tenants charge the very highest market rates to the labouring classes who want land for their potatoes, and they claim the absolute right to the very highest price for their tenant right. There are instances in this Commission where these persons, in one breath, say—"There is only one way of valuing my interest, and that is that the landlord should pay what it will fetch in the open market; but in regard to the land I let to the labouring classes, the only was to test the value is that you must take it at my valuation." Now, there is another fact comes out in this Commission of which the Commissioners take no notice, and that is the monstrous, and I will say fraudulent, claims made under the Act of 1870 by the tenants claiming compensation for improvements. I will content myself with citing one case, in which an Irish tenant, who got a Scotchman to support him, claimed for five years' compensation the sum of £4,900. And what do you think the Court awarded him? £280. Cases of that kind could be given in abundance. Now, I thank the House for the great patience with which it has heard me. I can well conceive that the question may be asked me—What has been my object? My Lords, I have a very short answer of three words to give to that question. My object has been to ascertain and to vindicate the truth. I sometimes ask myself—Will the day ever come when that spirit will prevail in politics which prevails in science, when truth will be valued for its own sake? My Lords, the men of science have their own battles and their own passions. They contend keenly with each other for the honour
  1782
  of a discovery. They contend fiercely with each other on the interpretation of fact; but I have never known of men of science being silent and thereby giving support to a popular delusion, because it supported a favourite theory or nostrum of their own. And in politics, where facts are above all things valuable, when dealing with the passions and with the interests of men, is it not, above all things, important that we should ascertain facts, and speak them when we know them? My Lords, I am now done. I move for the Papers of which I have given Notice. I leave the facts which I have stated to the thoughtful consideration of this House, and I leave the slanders which I have refuted to the condemnation of all honourable men.
  Moved that there be laid before this House,
  I. Return showing the number of agricultural holdings in Ireland, and the tenure by which they are held by the occupiers, arranged as follows:—

  1.Holdings valued under £5;

  2.Holdings valued at £5 and under £10;

  3.Holdings valued at £10 and under £15;

  4.Holdings valued at £15 and under £20;

  5.Holdings valued at £20 and under £25;

  6.Holdings valued at £25 and under £30;

  7.Holdings valued at £30 and under £35;

  8.Holdings valued at £35 and under £40;

  9.Holdings valued at £40 and under £50;

  10.Holdings valued at £50 and under £100;

  11.Holdings valued at £100 and upwards;

  and showing in what counties they are situated respectively:
  II. Return showing—

  1.The total number of land claims decided by each county court judge in Ireland since the Act of 1870 came into operation;

  2.The number of such decisions in each case in which the maximum compensation under the scale sanctioned by the Land Act was awarded by the court;

  3.The number of such decisions which were abated on appeal by the Court of Appeal:

  III. Return of the number of evictions from agricultural holdings in each county in Ireland for each year from 1871 to 1880 both inclusive; and showing how many of these evictions were for non-payment of rent:
  IV. Return of the claims under the Land Act of 1870, made by tenants of agricultural holdings in respect of compensation for improvements in each county court in Ireland; showing the amount so claimed in each case, and the amount awarded by the court of first instance, and as altered on appeal.—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHsaid, as Chairman of the Commission, he wished to make a few observations; but it was not his intention to speak of the

  1783
  Land Bill, nor would he enter at length into an examination of the evidence which was in the Blue Book. Their Lordships must, however, see that the selection of a few cases by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) was a fallacious manner of proceeding when considering the whole of them, with the view of arriving at a conclusion as to the real bearing of the whole case. He could not go into an analysis of that evidence, for that would take too much time; nor did he think it was his duty—and certainly it was not his inclination—to criticize or attack those men who came before them and tendered their evidence freely, and he might say in most cases fully believing in the truth of what they said when they spoke it. But as to the Report, he might say that it was the result of the honest convictions of those who signed it, founded, as they believed, on the testimony which had been given, and that it contained a very clear description of the various opinions on different sides in Ireland. He had been told during the last month that he was about to be worried by the noble Duke; and though the noble Duke had made his attack, he thought that the evidence taken before the Commission justified the Commissioners in coming to the conclusion which they had done in their Report. It was not a pleasant thing to have a worry hanging over one; but he thought that upon the whole he might thank the noble Duke for the way in which he had spoken of him personally, and for the way in which he had dealt with the Report. Quotations, to suit the purpose of the person quoting, had been made from the evidence and the Report; and as to the former, the great mass of the evidence given on the subject of the raising of rents might be entirely laid aside, and it had been laid aside by the Commissioners when f raining their Report. The opinion of the Commissioners on the subject which he had named was based on the evidence of impartial witnesses. He might say at once that nothing astonished him more or gave him greater pleasure during the sitting of the Commission than the character of the men who now acted as agents in Ireland; and he had no hesitation in saying that if the same class of men had been agents in that country 20 or 30 years ago the present Irish Land Question would never have arisen. He
  1784
  wished to state to the House what was the mode of proceeding which the Commissioners adopted. At the time when: the Commission was appointed, it had already been announced that the Land Question would be dealt with in the next Session. It was therefore evident that the Commission had a very short time in which to conduct the inquiry. They therefore proceeded with their work quickly, in order to enable the Government to have the evidence before them. But if they had had longer time, say two years, to prepare their Report, it would probably have been more satisfactory. The Commissioners, he contended, could not have gone about the country acting like Government valuators. Such a course would have been productive of mischief rather than good. He might tell the noble Duke that some inconvenience had arisen from the fact that many of the witnesses who came before the Commissioners were under the impression that the Commissioners had come to lower the rent, and could hardly be persuaded that the Commission had no power to do so. The Commissioners also experienced great difficulty in obtaining evidence on the part of those connected with the landlord interest, and a strong disinclination on the side of the tenants, and although witnesses had not been actually forbidden to come forward by the Land League, that organization had recommended that tenants should not offer themselves as witnesses. The Commissioners, nevertheless, invited both landlords and tenants, by advertisement, to come before them to give their evidence, and they issued a series of questions for examination of the witnesses, but not for leading questions to be put. The noble Duke had expressed his belief that the Commissioners did nothing but put words into the tenants' mouths. He could only tell the noble Duke that an examination before a Commission was a very different thing from an examination by a Court of Law. He had always found that Irish witnesses, if treated in a severe manner, were reticent, but if drawn gradually into conversation would tell their own story in their own way. That was the method he had adopted. No doubt there were a number of the witnesses whose stories were exaggerated. But there was often a real grievance behind. Nor because statements

  1785
  were exaggerated ought the evidence of witnesses to be totally rejected. In such cases the main part of the story was frequently true. Then there was a great deal of uncontradicted evidence. He did not intend to enter into the question as to how far the statements made in the Report and the conclusions drawn therein were justified by the evidence; but if the Commission had been of any use to the Government in preparing the Land Bill, it would be for them to justify it when they brought the Bill into that House; or now, if they thought proper. There was one point upon which he desired to mate an explanation, and that was the publication of one-half the evidence before the rest. That was an unfortunate circumstance; but he did not see how the Commissioners were to blame. They issued the evidence as rapidly as they could, as it was required before the meeting of Parliament, and they had been pressed by individual Members of Parliament to furnish the results as soon as possible. But what he was surprised at was that the noble Duke had made up his mind before the evidence was published. [The Duke of ARGYLL dissented.] With respect to those witnesses who did not wish to give their names, the Commission said that the evidence would all go to the persons against whom charges were made, and that the value of the evidence would be greater if the names of the witnesses also appeared. It was strange that complaints with respect to the conduct of the inquiry should have reached the noble Duke only. As a general rule, if complaints were made of the proceedings of a Commission the Chairman heard something of them; but he had received only five letters, and three were full of complaints from persons for not being called as witnesses, and the others were on unimportant matters. The Secretary of the Commission said that he had received no complaints. It certainly was strange that it should be left to the noble Duke to find out that witnesses had been unfairly treated. They themselves had never heard one charge brought. The charge of the noble Duke amounted to this—that the Commissioners had presented to Her Majesty a prejudiced Report, and had cooked the evidence in order to back it up; but he (the Earl of Bessborough) thought that was a charge
  1786
  which did not require contradiction. The statement of the noble Duke that leading questions were asked in order that answers might be given in accordance with the preconceived notions of the Commissioners was most unjust and unfair. When such leading questions appeared in the evidence, it was always in consequence of previous expressions of opinion on the part of witnesses. Baron Dowse had been mentioned in the course of the speech to which their Lordships had just listened; and he must say that such statements as those of the noble Duke about that learned Judge were most unfair and unjust, and not calculated to encourage respect for authority in Ireland. There was not in existence a more honest or outspoken man than. Baron Dowse, and he ought not to have been attacked in the way he had been. The noble Duke had also said that the Commissioners set out with a foregone conclusion. Well, he (the Earl of Bessborough) supposed everyone had his own ideas upon the Irish Question; and, of course, Baron Dowse had his views upon it; there was scarcely a woman in Ireland who had not her ideas on the subject. The noble Duke said the Commissioners started with the programme of the "three F's." That was not his (the Earl of Bessborough's) programme when he started; but he came to it when the weight of evidence forced him to do so. Nothing could be more unwise and unjust than the noble Duke's attack upon Baron Dowse. The noble Duke was a statesman and a politician. He (the Earl of Bessborough) was neither; but he would take heart to say that the course which the noble Duke had pursued that evening was neither statesmanlike nor politic.
  THE MARQUESS OF WTATERFORD: My Lords, after the very clear and able speech of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll), in which he has dealt with the Report and evidence of Lord Bessborough's Commission, I do not think it will be necessary for me to enter into the different points which he has stated. I shall, therefore, limit my remarks to certain facts which have come under my notice with regard to that Report and evidence, and invite explanation from noble Lords opposite. At the time the Commission was appointed, the landlords of Ireland felt that the Commission was not likely to consider

  1787
  the question—to put it in the mildest way—with any bias in their favour; and when the Secretaries were named who were to take part in the inquiry, and their political opinions became known, that feeling was certainly not decreased. But, at the same time, the landlords came forward most willingly, and in large numbers, to throw all the light they possibly could upon the question, and the Irish Land Committee—a Committee to which I have the honour to belong—did all in their power to assist the Commission in collecting evidence on the subject. The public were told—in letter No. 4 of the Appendix to the Report—that if any charges were made against owners of land in Ireland, they would be informed of those charges, and have ample opportunity of either rebutting them, or explaining them away. The Commission was formed to inquire into the Act of 1870, and to report what changes, if any, were necessary in the Land Laws of Ireland; but, in my opinion, certain Members of the Commission acted as counsel for the prosecution, and cross-examined witnesses with a view to eliciting statements to coincide with their own preconceived opinions in favour of the "three F's." I gather this from reading the questions asked witnesses during the taking of the evidence, and also from information which I have received, from time to time, from gentlemen who were examined before the Commission, and who stated to me that the questions they were asked all tended in the same direction, and that when they volunteered any statement not bearing on the "three F's" they were courteously listened to, but not invited to continue their explanation. My Lords, although I believe several Members of the Commission started with foregone conclusions on certain points, I must not be understood as wishing to make a charge against any one of them, for I believe there is not one of them who would have knowingly allowed a mistake to be made in their published Report or evidence which would have been likely to lead the public to a wrong conclusion. But, my Lords, I believe mistakes did occur—mistakes which it is somewhat curious to observe tended but in one direction, and that against the landlords. Had there been any mistakes the other way I should have supposed them to be technical errors; but I have carefully
  1788
  searched through the whole of the books, and I cannot find any in the other direction. When we consider the enormous importance attached to the Report of this Commission, a Roport which has been so constantly referred to by the Prime Minister in his speeches upon the measure which is now before "another place," by other Members of the Government, and by the great Liberal Party, I think it most unfortunate that such mistakes should have occurred. On the 1st page of the Report, I find it mentioned that, after taking evidence at various places named during the months of September, October, and November, they also held a series of sittings in Dublin in December, to take evidence from those who had been unavoidably passed over in their journey, and also from several persons who, from published writings or personal reputation, appeared qualified to give valuable assistance. I was naturally anxious to read this evidence; but what was my astonishment on examining the third volume of the evidence to find that the 50th sitting closed on the 30th of November, and that the 51st sitting began on the 3rd of January. What has become of the evidence given in December? I cannot believe that it has been suppressed; and yet I cannot find it among the published evidence. I can only suppose that this is a gross error on the 1st page of the Report, and that no evidence was taken in December, which must lead the public to look upon the rest of the Report with suspicion. Another thing of which I have to complain is the sparsity of the rebutting evidence. My Lords, if you will examine the evidence published, you will find that on several occasions gentlemen were allowed to make charges against individuals without giving the names and addresses of persons so charged; thereby rendering it impossible that such charges could be answered. I consider that evidence of this sort is perfectly worthless. I have stated before that the Commission informed the public that they should have opportunities of rebutting the charges made against them, either by writing or by personal explanation, after the direct evidence had been taken. Many landlords waited to answer the charges until such time as the Commission could receive them personally. The direct evidence ended on November 30, and the Commission began to take the rebutting evi-

  1789
  dence on January 3. If the Report were to be a fair Report, it was necessary that the Commission should hear both sides of the question, and consider the answers to the charges, before they issued their Report; but what was the case? The Commission began to take the rebutting evidence on January 3, and I find that the Report was signed on January 4, thereby proving that the bulk of the rebutting evidence was never before the Commission at all when the Report was signed. But, in addition to this, certain landlords were never informed of the charges laid against them; and when this fact became known to the Land Committee, the Secretary wrote, asking whether the rebutting evidence would be published with the charges. He received an answer from Sir George Young stating that—"In many instances the Post Office had failed to find the gentlemen against whom charges had been made." The Secretary then wrote, asking for a list of those whom the Post Office had failed to find, as he believed that, with the powers at his disposal, he would be able to find many of them. He received an answer from Sir George Young stating that he was so occupied with the business of the Commission that he could not give the time himself, and had no staff available for the purpose. There were several other instances in which, owing to the names of the persons charged not having been given, the Commission were unable to communicate with them; and, therefore, many charges against landlords remain unanswered to this day. To show the character of the evidence, and in order to prove to your Lordships how very important it was that rebutting evidence should have been considered, and what wild statements were made, I will give, as a sample, what occurred to myself. A gentleman—by name Mr. Brown, a Presbyterian minister—came forward, with two other gentlemen, to give evidence in Londonderry, where I, at one time, had a large property. He stated that a certain townland of mine was occupied by three tenants—two of them were improving, and one was not. That, upon the lease falling out, the rents were raised to the amount of £7 10 s. and £3 10 s. respectively upon the improvements of the two improving tenants, and that the non-improving tenant was allowed to remain at the same rent.
  1790
  That, upon my property being sold, these two men had to buy their own improvements back at 30 years' purchase, in addition to paying 30 years' purchase on the old rent of the holding. I was very much astonished at this evidence, and I wrote to my agent to inquire into the matter. I received an answer from him, saying that the statement was utterly without foundation, that there were only two townlands upon my estate, previous to the sale, occupied by three tenants; that one was bought in block by a landlord, and that the other was the one upon which Mr. Brown resided, thereby proving that he must have known the circumstances of the case; that, instead of the rents having been raised, they were reduced. I will read you a return of what they were in 1854 and 1870:—M'Fetter, 1854, £30; 1870, £28. Rev. N. M. Brown, 1854, £37; 1870, £34 19 s. J. Wilson, 1854, £9; 1870, £8 8s. This answer is published in the third volume of the evidence. My agent, on finding this, wrote to Mr. Brown asking what townland he referred to. He received an answer, which I have in my possession, that Mr. Brown believed the townland was Boola. Well, upon Boola there were seven tenants, and the statement was equally untrue about that townland; but Mr. Brown added that he did not remember giving the evidence, and he believed it must have been given by some other witness. I believe that your Lordships will find many answers of this description were given to charges made, and yet the Report was signed without taking the major part of them into consideration. Now, I have to point out another most serious mistake, which would be calculated to lead the public to a wrong conclusion. At the foot of each page of the Report are given the names, in print, of those agreeing with paragraphs contained in it, and in italics the names of those disagreeing. By glancing at these lists one would suppose that there were a very large number of persons agreeing, and very few disagreeing; but, on referring to the evidence, I find that though on page 4, paragraph 10 of the Report, which I take as a sample of many of the paragraphs, there are 24 names given in support of the statement that "nearly all improvements in Ireland are made by the tenant"—a state-

  1791
  ment reiterated in another place by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—and not one, in italics, disagreeing with this paragraph, I can find 23 names of those who gave evidence directly against that paragraph—among them witnesses quite as important as any cited in favour of it; but the public would naturally believe, as all these names are placed in print in the Report, that the evidence was unanimous in support of this paragraph. But more than that, when I come to examine the evidence of those cited in favour of this paragraph, I find there are four gentlemen's names placed in the foot-note as supporting paragraph 10 who gave evidence directly against it. If your Lordships will allow me I will read shortly the evidence given by these gentlemen, who, it is distinctly stated, supported Paragraph 10, and who gave directly contrary evidence—
  "Question 27,158.—Mr. Leahy says, 'I find tenants' improvements generally are nil, except the reclamation of waste land.' Question 30,619.—Sir George Colthurst, 'There are some most glowing exceptions of tenants making improvements; but it is only one case in 20.' Mr. Rochfort Boyd, Questions 39,894–6, 'Tenants may sometimes make poor improvements; but permanent improvements are made by landlords' Question 26,908—Mr. Bence Jones, 'All improvements are made by himself, and large sums expended.'"
  Your Lordships will be amused to hear that these four gentlemen are named as supporting the statement in paragraph 10, and that among them should have been selected Mr. Bence Jones. I could point out many other instances of the same thing, or something very like it, occurring through the foot-notes of the Report, and I say distinctly that this is a mistake tending to back up the paragraphs contained in the Report, which goes directly against the evidence, and against the interest of the landlords. Within the past fortnight another volume has been published, which is called an "Index;" but it should be called an "Index of Mistakes," for, instead of its throwing any light upon the question, I think it is even more complicated, and more one-sided, and contains, if possible, more mistakes than anything that has gone before. But all the mistakes still run in the same direction, and are calculated to mislead the public more than anything that has appeared in the preceding volumes. On page 55, under the heading "Raising of Rent," you
  1792
  will find a summary given of a number of charges made; but, on page 60, under the head of "Reply to Evidence," you will find merely the names, and no summary given of the replies to the charges made on page 55. But if you will examine the two statements, although certain charges were answered and refuted in the evidence, you will not find even the names under the heading of "Replies." Therefore, the public can read the summary of the charges; but if they wish to see the replies they must wade through miles of paper before they are able to find them. I will take three names, quoted on page 55, as a proof of rent raising; and though answers were given, their names do not appear upon page 60. Charges were made by Mr. Drew against Captain Caldwell, which were disproved by Mr. Townshend (App. C. 184); also by Mr. O'Connell against Lord Cork, which were rebutted by Mr. Leahy (App. C. 1); also by Mr. Shellington against the Duke of Manchester, rebutted by Mr. O'Brien (App. C. 25). In all these three cases, although a summary is given of the charges, the names even of these gentlemen do not appear under the head of "Replies," thereby leading the public to believe that these charges were not answered, although they were distinctly proved to be untrue. I merely take one paragraph or heading, in both this and my last statement, as an example; because I consider that I should weary your Lordships if I were to deal with them all; but you will find the same thing occurs repeatedly in the Report and Index. To prove to you how misleading the manner is in which the evidence was collected and placed before the public, I will take the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law), delivered on 28th of April in "another place." If he arrived at a wrong impression, what chance had the general public of arriving at a right one? he cited five instances of oppression by landlords, taken from the evidence before the Commission, and I was much struck by the cases which he cited; so much so, that I at once proceeded to inquire into them; but what did I find? That the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have taken his cases from the direct evidence, without referring to the rebutting evidence at all; for if he had done so, and made in-

  1793
  quiries, he would have found that in two cases he cited, the landlords never had an opportunity of rebutting the charges, because they were never informed of them, and that the three others were either denied or explained away. If your Lordships will allow me, I will quote the cases named by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the answers given, which I have verified by the kindness of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself—
  "The first case.—Witness, John Cunningham (page 320): 'A tenant had his rent raised from £46 6s. to £60; his valuation was £38.' Answer.—'Name of landlord not given or asked for.' Second case.—Witness, Robert Adams (page 630): 'Tenant on Londonderry estate, holding 62 statute acres; valuation £40 10 s. Rent raised from £38 to £59. Had reclaimed some land at £40 per acre; had three acres of cut out hog; spent £45 in reclaiming it; and the fourth year the agent put 22 s. 6d. per annum on it.' Answer.—Thomas Colquhoun (local agent to Lord Londonderry).—'Never got intimation of evidence given by Adams, though on same day tendered myself for examination before Commission. Offer refused. Adam's statements are altogether misleading, if not utterly false.' Third case.—Witness, James M'Intyre (page 365): 'Bought and improved two holdings; spent £2,000; rent at purchase £43 15 s.; present rent £74 1s. 7d. for not 50 acres. Never received one sixpence assistance.' Answer.—Durie Miller, agent to Irish-Society (App. C. 365): 'Acreage of farm 68 acres; Irish Society spent £40,000 on making Derry Bridge toll free; M'Intyre lives three miles from bridge; has to go over it to get to Derry with all farm produce.' Fourth case.—Professor Baldwin, witness, (page 991): 'Never went west of Shannon, but heard of a certain landlord; he bought three townlands about 20 years ago in Connemara; his agent gave me rental of one townland when purchased, which was £62 10 s., and rental now £276 14 s. He never spent a penny in improvement; he spent a little money in building a shop in village.' Answer.—Mr. Leonard.—'Townland of Carna contains 1,000 acres. At time of purchase was held by three tenants, since which time a village has been established, a fishery opened, and a house built, which lets with it for £75 a-year; cost Mr. Leonard £1,100; about 30 tenants now on the estate. It is false for Mr. Baldwin to say he had rental from his agent, as Mr. Leonard never had one.' Fifth case.—Witness, Professor Baldwin (page 982):'On Lord Arran's estate there is a constant nibbling at rents, and 25 per cent is put on every time there is a change of tenancy. Sometimes 75 per cent, on three changes, in two years.' Answer.—Mr. Crean (page 1,348): 'It was only when tenants sold their holdings to strangers that 25 per cent was put on. There is no foundation for statement that 75 per cent was put on in two years. To my certain knowledge this never occurred.'"
  This last piece of evidence was given on January 10, although the Report was
  1794
  signed on January 4. Well, my Lords, I have tried to lay before you a few facts as to the way the evidence was collected, and the Report and Index made out. I should like much to hear an explanation of mistakes which seem to have tended but in one direction, and which were calculated to mislead the public. I do not wish, as I have said, to say one word against any Member of the Commission, least of all against my noble Friend the noble Earl who was Chairman of the Commission (the Earl of Bessborough), for whom I have the greatest respect and regard; and I am quite certain that the mistakes I have pointed out will annoy him more than anybody else. But, at the same time, somebody is responsible, and I should like to know who that somebody is. Your Lordships will understand that if mistakes such as I have pointed out could occur under a Commission, such as the one we are discussing, composed of men of the highest position and honour, with what anxiety the landlords of Ireland are looking to the composition of a Commission which, under a Bill that I am informed will shortly come before 3'our Lordships' House, will be the sole arbitrator of their fortunes, and from whom there will be no appeal.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD: My Lords, I shall confine my few remarks to the county in which I live, and to facts of which I am cognizant. I had intended to proceed with Professor Baldwin; but as the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) has proved that he was totally wrong in his evidence as to Lord Arran's estate, and he himself says that I am not so bad a landlord as Lord Arran, I shall dismiss him with a flat denial, merely stating that the Commissioners never gave me an opportunity of rebutting Professor Baldwin's evidence, and that the total increase of rents on my property on farms changing hands only amounted to £28 3s. in 20 years. And now I come to a matter so personal to myself and those dear to me that I bring it forward with the deepest unwillingness, and even disgust. I do so, because I know that your Lordships are ever ready to hear in selfdefence a Member of your Lordships' House whose character may have been vilified; but also, and more particularly, because what I am about to read proves the extreme keenness and unscrupulousness of the Commission in their zeal to

  1795
  establish the "three F's," and especially their contempt for the ordinary rules of evidence. I will beg to refer your Lordships to the evidence of Mr. Doherty, a Roman Catholic priest, who lives about 14 miles from me, and whose only cause of malevolence to me is that I am Chairman of a Railway Company which is making a line between the town where the rev. gentleman officiates as priest and the nearest—and, in fact, only considerable—port in the North-West, by a route nearly one-half shorter than that advocated by the rev. gentleman. If my information is correct, the rev. gentleman's anonymous informer is a person so low in position and character that no one but the priest himself would have received his information. Your Lordships will find the evidence I am about to read on. page 1,285 of the evidence, and my answer to the Commissioners on page 1,431. The evidence is as follows:—
  "There is another landlord equally as bad—namely, Lord Lifford. I wrote to a party at Ballybofey, asking him for information about Lord Lifford, and I will read -what he says on the subject. I will only say that I can place full reliance on my correspondent. He says—A few years ago, since the passing of the Land Act of 1870, Lord Lifford served notices to quit on a large number of his wretched tenants, and on the hack of each notice was a notification that, if the tenants agreed to a new rent set forth on the notice, he would not proceed to eviction. In several of the newspapers of the day the names and residences of 16 of these tenants were published, with the Poor Law valuation of each, and the rent claimed on the notice to quit. In some cases, the rent claimed "was nearly four times the valuation; and on the total valuation of the 16, the total rent claimed was £100 per cent over the valuation. And it must be borne in mind, when comparing rental and Poor Law valuation in Donegal, that the valuation of that county is £25 per cent higher than in the rest of Ireland. These tenants refused to comply with this exorbitant demand, and were evicted. They then brought their land claims against his Lordship, who then cunningly sent his bailiff among the evicted, offering to allow them back on easier terms than he had before demanded, and ultimately the rents were arranged before the County Court Judge. Previously the tenants got 40 porches of free bog; hut since they must pay 9d. per perch, like persons from other estates, thus saddling them with £1 10 s. a-year more; and although there are thousands of acres of turbary on his wild property, he does not allow as much as a perch of free bog, even for the purpose of burning lime for their land. But that is not all. When his own tenants happen to have convenient banks of turbary, and outsiders wanting them, they are taken from the tenants and given to the others, and the tenants must go further away,
  1796
  I and thus the humane Lord treats his serfs as the Americans treat the Red Indians. One of the standing rules of his estate is, that if any tenant fails to pay his rent on the gale day, 2s. in the pound is charged for the delinquency and added permanently to the rent—sharp practice, surely! Another rule is that whenever a change of tenancy takes place an increase of rent is put on, and even poor widows are not exempted from the operation of the rule. This is so well known that his younger sons were seen to dance with joy on hearing of the death of a tenant, and exclaim—'That will be an increase to Pa's rental'—a truly humanizing rule! Perhaps Lord Lifford will deny these things, as he tried to deny other things equally incontrovertible; but let him ask himself how often in a few years did he raise the rent of P. M'Gahran's farm, and when M'Gahran sold his farm about two or three years ago, and went with the purchaser to Lord Lifford's to have him received as tenant, did not his Lordship refuse unless he agreed to an increase of rent? The purchaser naturally drew back from the bargain, and poor M'Gahran had to accept a sum considerably less—Lord Lifford pocketing the balance in the shape of a yearly increase of rent—in his pocket. About the same time, another tenant named Bustard sold his farm in the same way, and when the purchaser would not agree to the increase, poor Bustard had to remain in his farm. Surely this Lord of Meen Glas is a noble specimen of an advocate of tenant right.'"
  The rev. gentleman then went on to say—
  "'Another item is, he charges where the rents are not paid punctually 2s. in the pound for delay, and on a change of farms he always puts an addition to the rent.'—Baron Dowse: 'Do you say that 10 per cent is put on where the rents are not punctually paid?'—'Yes.'—'So that if a man made 10 failures in the course of a few years there would be an increase of 100 per cent?'—'Oh, yes, and without the failure at all, 100 per cent addition is not unusual. 1 may mention that a man living in my house at present saw his father pay four guineas only for an entire townland, and it is now £32.'—Mr. Shaw:'Within the memory of a living man?' 'Yes, the man is stopping in my house.'—' Was this under the same landlord?' 'No, there was a change of landlords; Mr. Johnstone was the first. It is now in the hands of the third landlord.'"
  No wonder that Baron Dowse should have made the remark upon that evidence that "of course people have no security under such a system." I will not trouble your Lordships with reading my reply to this. It was, of course, a denial as emphatic as I could word it as to every statement in it. At the same time, I sent a protest to the noble Earl presiding over the Commission (the Earl of Bessborough) against anonymous evidence of such a character being received.
  THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHexplained that he did not regard the evidence as anonymous, inasmuch as the rev. gentleman who read the letter stated that he could place the fullest reliance upon his correspondent, that he could speak to the facts it contained from his own knowledge, and that he repeated, the statements it contained on his own responsibility.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD: He merely said, according to the report of the evidence, that he could place full reliance on his correspondent.
  THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I distinctly called his attention to it, and he said that he made the statement on his own responsibility.
  LORD WAVENEYobserved, that that was quite sufficient to make the letter evidence.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD: I must differ entirely from the noble Lord on that point. It may be sufficient for him, but it is not sufficient for me. I will only remind your Lordships that I have already stated that the total increase of rent on farms changing hands on my wild property has been in all £28 3s. in 20 years. I will only mention two points. First—Some 25 or 30 years ago a few of my tenants agreed to an increase of rent—5 per cent—if their rents were received yearly, instead of half-yearly. This is the sole ground for Baron Dowse's conclusion that if a man made 10 failures in paying rent he would be added 100 per cent. As to the man M'Gahran, his rent was only raised once, on his coming into his farm on the death of Ids father, to the amount of £2 2s., and on selling his farm he received £150 tenant right. Now, I will pray you to observe that the evidence reviewed as evidence by this Commission is not only hearsay evidence which is not usually admitted, but absolutely anonymous—a libellous letter, totally devoid of truth; an anonymous letter, as to which the Commissioners were totally unable to cross-examine the witness. But how was this received by that Member of the Commission versed in law and the practice of the Courts? Instead of pointing out to the other Commissioners that an anonymous letter, anonymous to the Commissioners themselves, was no evidence whatever, Baron Dowse jumps to the conclusion that all was true, and says that—Ques-
  1798
  tion 40,084—"Of course, the people have no security under such a system." The laws of evidence, the practice of justice, my character, which was known to Baron Dowse, and that of my family, are trampled on; but never mind, the case of the "three F's" is made out. Fiat in justitia ruat cælum. I took a legal opinion as to an action for libel against this priest; but I was told that a jury, on such persons especially, would hold that he was protected by the Royal Commission; so that, as far as I am concerned, the printed evidence of this Commission is a mode of circulating anonymous libels, and protecting those who circulate them from the punishment they deserve. Was there ever a Royal Commission so prostituted? Now, I may ask, how is the reception of this mass of absolutely false evidence—how is this disregard of the ordinary rules of evidence—to be accounted for? The Commissioners were men of high character. Two of them, at least, were men of such known impartiality that their being on the Commission was a guarantee for its fairness; but your Lordships know what powers may be exercised in a Commission of this kind by the Secretaries, and I must needs say that when a gentleman so well known as a determined and avowed enemy of the landed interest as Sir George Young was appointed Secretary, it would have been but decent to appoint a man of some moderation as Assistant Secretary. But who was appointed? A Mr. Donnell, known as a bitter enemy of the landed interest in Ireland, who appears in the evidence in. a double capacity—first, as Assistant Secretary, second, as another roving Commissioner in the county of Donegal. There he makes out a very severe case against a family possessing one of the largest properties in Ireland, but proverbial for their liberality to their tenants and the extreme lowness of their rents. I am unable to answer Mr. Donnell's ex parte evidence. Lord Conyngham is, I grieve to say, not in good health, and his agent has lately died. But this I will say—Some years ago, through the kindness of the late Lord Conyngham, I purchased a small property in Donegal from him. I had it valued as a matter of course, and the value put on it was double Lord Conyngham's rent. There is a moral to be drawn from all this, the necessity of our

  1799
  knowing in time who will be the Commissioners under the coming Land Act, and what will be their appointments? Unless they are men—I care not of which side of politics—of honour, ability, and known impartiality; unless those who may be appointed under them are men of such moderation as to be beyond suspicion that they will prefer their own peculiar views to their duty to the public, whether landlord or tenant, I trust your Lordships will be prepared to go so far as even to address the Crown for the protection of what remains of property in Ireland. We have come to that pass in Ireland that life is insecure, property diminished, character, which ought to be dearer than property or life, sometimes, as I have shown, taken away even under the shelter of a Royal Commission; and I fear that no man of property ought in future to live in Ireland unless he be one who cares nothing for Ireland, does nothing, hopes nothing.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that it was not his intention, on the part of the Government, to attempt any defence of the Irish Land Commission as if the Commission were a Department of the Government. The Commission, from the first, was an utterly independent body, well able to take care of itself, and needed no defence at his hands. The few observations he had to make—and they would be fewer than they otherwise would have been, owing to the fact that the noble Duke who brought the matter forward (the Duke of Argyll) had been compelled to leave the House—would be directed to the general question. The object of the noble Duke and those who had followed him was evidently to cry down the value of the Report, and still more of the evidence brought before the Irish Land Commission from beginning to end, as if it was something not deserving their attention, something that was to have no weight with them in their future deliberations, and apparently as if it afforded no reasons whatever for any fresh legislation on the subject of Irish land. That being apparently the object of the Motion, and the speeches which had followed it, it was impossible for him to refrain from making some protest upon the subject. It appeared to him, in the first place, to be perfectly vain and futile to attempt to overthrow the effect of the
  1800
  vast body of evidence accumulated from all quarters and all classes in Ireland by the Irish Land Commission, by noble Lords in that House picking out particular cases here and there, cases which might happen to interest them individually, upon which the evidence might be inaccurate or unfounded, and then saying that these cases were examples of the whole, and that the evidence, therefore, was worth nothing. He preferred to look at the matter another way. It would be perfectly easy to pick out any number of cases on the other side. When the noble Duke was picking out a case here and there that suited his purpose, he (Lord Carlingford) thought of a case stronger than all of them that came before the Royal Commission on Agricultural Distress, where a series of leases were produced on their table which had been forced upon the same tenants during a few years, in each case with a rise of rent, and the unfortunate man had to submit to that treatment on the part of the landlord. He did not say that that was a usual case; but it was one of those cases that startled one, and made one understand that the practice of raising the rent by a certain number of landlords in Ireland, as stated over and over again by many of the most experienced men in Ireland, was enough to destroy all confidence in the minds of the Irish tenants, and to strike terror into, above all, the heart of the improving tenant. All this tended to show that some legislation on the subject was absolutely necessary. Let them consider what were the belief and the feelings of the Irish tenants, both in Ulster and other parts of Ireland, as to the practice of raising the rents. He thought there could be no doubt whatever, in the mind of anyone who had taken the trouble to look into the matter, that there was a belief on the part of a large number of improving tenants that they were in danger of having their rents raised upon their improvements, if they showed signs of being able to pay something more. He did not suppose the noble Duke would deny that the tenants entertained that fear. They might be mistaken; they might often be under such landlords that they could run no such risk whatever; but they said how long did they know that they would be under those landlords in a country where land

  1801
  changed hands so rapidly? and this feeling was producing deep disaffection among the tenants of Ireland, and was paralyzing their efforts. Was it to be supposed that these dangers were purely imaginary? The conviction was not confined to the tenants themselves, it was shared by men of all classes in Ireland, men of the greatest experience, and men who had no prejudice or interests in favour of the tenant classes. Quite the contrary, and he could give specimens from the Report of the Commission. One large landowner and land agent in the South of Ireland spoke of the raising of rent as being often done by small proprietors; another large land agent said that small owners screwed the land up fearfully. A landlord, who was examined, said that the improving tenants were liable to these increases of rent. Similar evidence was given by others, including several County Court Judges. Was it to be supposed that these gentlemen, acquainted with Irish life and Irish land, were entirely mistaken in those broad statements of fact within their own experience and observation? To set aside the evidence of the Commission because out of 40,000 questions and answers some might be objected to would be the most misleading and mischievous process they could adopt. What was the effect on the Commissioners themselves? Was there any disagreement? No, there was none at all. Both the English and the Irish Commissions were in practical agreement as to the facts connected with the raising of rents in Ireland. There might have been some difference as to the degree of importance attached to those facts; but as to their existing to such an extent as to demand the attention of Parliament there was no doubt. He would remind their Lordships of the constitution of this Commission. He did not think Baron Dowse and Mr. Shaw were men of revolutionary tendencies; but the other three Commissioners were themselves large landed proprietors, of different schools and tendencies in politics, with a sufficient amount of the landlord spirit in their minds. Mr. Kavanagh himself treated many of the personal complaints of the tenants with very little indulgence indeed, with almost as little as the noble Duke himself. Nevertheless, that did not affect the general conclusion that he
  1802
  had drawn from the whole body of the evidence. He said, in his own Report,
  that—
  "A sufficient number of cases of the unjust raising of rent have been proved to show that the Land Act is not a sufficient protection against the exercise of the power."
  Since then, in a remarkable letter published in the Press, which did credit to his ability and his candour, he said—
  "I must frankly confess that when I entered on the work of the Commission I did not believe that there was any valid ground for the discontent which has been, and is so rife. However, as the inquiry proceeded, I found there was.…I could see an element of hope in the fact that all this discontent was not the fruit only of political agitation."
  That was the opinion of an Irish Conservative landlord of the facts which had been laid before him as to the raising of rents, and which led him to believe that legislation was required for the protection of the tenant. The Irish Land Commission was not the only inquiry that had been conducted during the last year upon this subject. He (Lord Carlingford) had the honour of serving upon the Royal Commission on Agricultural Distress, which had taken a very large body of Irish evidence, and most important evidence; and his strong impression from that evidence was that there was a vast amount of agreement as to the facts. They had the advantage in their inquiries of Assistant Commissioners, one of whom was Mr. Baldwin, who was undoubtedly a gentleman of extraordinary knowledge of Irish agriculture, and of the Irish farmer, and who was not alone, but was associated with, an experienced Irish land agent. The statements that these two gentlemen together made on the matter of raising rent fully confirmed the general conclusions which were drawn, by the other Commissioners. He was surprised to hear it made matter of complaint that the Land Commission had reported that permanent improvements were in Ireland generally the work of the tenant. He really thought that was a question that had been settled long ago, and that no one who knew anything about Ireland doubted it for a moment. If they went back to the Devon Commission of 40 years ago, they would find that they reported that it was then admitted on all hands that the dwelling-houses and the farm buildings were erected by the

  1803
  tenant, and that where the landlords did so was the exception. That was still the case; but he (Lord Carlingford) made no charge against the Irish landlords on that score; it was only a question of facts, and he did not complain of Irish landlords not having tried to introduce the English system on their estates. It would be impossible to introduce the English system in Ireland, and if it were possible it would be folly to do so. The facts which had been elicited by both Commissions proved that in the present system of land tenure there was a want of security which was productive of constant discontent and paralyzed the efforts of the tenants; and the only question, therefore, was whether the facts admitted were sufficiently extensive and important to demand the attention of Parliament. Now, this was at the root of the whole Irish Question, and he believed this view was supported by the Report of the two last Commissions.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONhoped the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford) would excuse him for saying he felt bound to explain that he did not share the conclusions which the noble Lord had arrived at, so far as he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) himself and the Commission over which he had had the honour to preside were concerned.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that he admitted that different degrees of importance might have been attached by different Members to the facts in question; but unless the majority of the Commission meant to say that facts existed which demanded legislation, he was unable to attach any meaning to that portion of their Report. In those facts the whole of the Irish Land Question lay. Ireland was a nation composed mostly of small farmers who invested their outlay in the cultivation of the soil, and the problem to be solved by the Legislature was how to devise and adapt to that country a system of land tenure which had been the growth of another country—a system which had been the product of circumstances, conditions, and interests totally different from those which existed in Ireland. They had never attempted to solve that problem or adapt those laws until 10 years ago, and then only, as it proved, to a limited extent. Their task was now to solve it
  1804
  entirely. He believed that the legislation which was now being undertaken was necessary, in justice and in policy. He had great admiration for the eloquence of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll); but he trusted that on this occasion he should fail by its exercise to induce their Lordships to approach the great question which would soon be before them from his point of view.
  LORD WAVENEY,who was very imperfectly heard, defended the accuracy of the statements in the Report of the Bessborough Commission, especially when it spoke of the general rise in the rent, and said, for that very reason, it was right that the tenant right should be extended. The reverse would be a very terrible condition of affairs. He thought that, after all, their Lordships had reason to be exceedingly grateful to the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) for having introduced the subject they were now debating. It was a matter which should be considered apart from political strife. The Government of the day were engaged in a great and important work—that of re-modelling the chief institution of the people of Ireland by consolidating its system of land tenure. That meant dealing with the social life of a whole people, and he trusted that their Lordships would lend their aid in accomplishing so desirable a result, and that they would be able to carry that work to a satisfactory conclusion. He would venture to assure his noble Friend (Viscount Lifford), who had stated that stringent legislation would have the effect of driving the landlords out of Ireland, that such would not be the case. It would be wrong, in any circumstances, for the Irish landlords to abandon their country; and he (Lord Waveney) hoped that their Lordships would feel, as many of them were proprietors of land in that country, that their place was in the front rank of those anxious for the good of the country. With that feeling, whatever happened, he believed that those who claimed to be the leaders of their tenantry and the holders of great properties would still be found in their proper places among the people. He had himself long lived in a district in which tenant right had prevailed for centuries. There the tenant got his share and the landlord his, and the former knew that he was in possession of a well-secured tenant right. When the

  1805
  rent was raised on account of the increased value of the holding, the tenant I right was raised in the same proportion. The great Famine of 1846–7 seriously affected the Ulster tenantry, though in a lesser degree than it did other parts of Ireland. So greatly were their charges increased, by the competition for land, that they seriously apprehended that their tenant right would be frittered away. Such, however, happily was not the case; but this he knew, that when the Irish Land Act of 1870 passed, one of its effects was very seriously to depreciate the tenant right. He confessed he was one of those who thought that Act was passed too hastily, and that it ought to have been revised. Had it been more patiently considered, he believed it would have been modified; but the country was impatient, and one of the consequences was that a large number of purchases were made on Parliamentary title in order to obtain a mercantile return for the purchase money. Under those circumstances, the tenant right, being a fixed quantity, was necessarily diminished, and from that circumstance the deterioration of tenant right first arose. They were now told that it was their duty to assimilate the land tenure of one set of counties with the habits and customs of another set of counties with which it was not congenial, and that, he feared, would be a very difficult task. He was of opinion that the general adoption of the Ulster Custom would be of great advantage to Ireland, and that they ought to try and assimilate the law and practice of Ireland in respect to land tenure to that of England. The tenant right of Ulster was virtually a copyhold, and the administration of it by the Judges of the Land Courts had been similar to that which would be found in the old law books in reference to the administration of the Law of Copyhold. He hoped their Lordships would guard against forming an opinion that the landlords of Ireland had any other wish in reference to this subject than that a pure and equitable Land Code for Ireland might be framed. Speaking for those on the Liberal side, he said that all they advocated was the adoption of a fair and generous measure, which would give to the tenantry all the protection they required, and, at the same time, would conserve the just rights of the landlords. The question of tenant
  1806
  right and other matters would, no doubt, be seriously discussed when the Land Bill came up from the other House; and he trusted that their Lordships, in considering that measure, would deal with it in accordance with the great principles underlying it, that they would not attempt to seek refuge in legal complications, but that they would proceed upon the great principles of justice, judgment, and mercy.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he should like to know how a responsible body such as this Commission was could have issued such a Report, or how another responsible body, the Government, could have founded legislation upon it. Any person attentively reading it would find that he was insensibly led up to the idea of proprietary right, for it gradually developed the doctrine of the tenant's proprietary right, though it really contained no evidence which could justify the creation of such an interest. As regarded improvements on land in Ireland, it could not, with any certainty, be assumed that they were all made by the tenants; on the contrary, he believed the figures would show that more than one-half of the improvements in that country were made by landlords and tenants conjointly; and that was the only proper way in which such operations could be effected.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he wished, as an Irish landlord, to express his thanks to the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) for the manner in which he had discharged the difficult and embarrassing duty which he had undertaken. His speech was the complement of the acquittal pronounced "elsewhere" by the First Lord of the Treasury, who had stated that the landlords of Ireland had been put upon their trial, and had, on the whole, been acquitted of the charges brought against them—an acquittal which would certainly have sounded more agreeable in their ears if, immediately after pronouncing it, their Judge had not proceeded to pass upon them the heaviest sentence which the law permitted. He could not help thinking that the noble EARL behind him (the Earl of Bessborough) and his Colleagues had incurred a very serious responsibility by collecting and disseminating a great number of ex parte statements and much untrustworthy evidence, and founding upon this testimony recommendations of

  1807
  a violent and extraordinary character. While saying that he wished it to be clearly understood, as a matter of course, that he did not impute any want of good faith to the Commissioners. He believed, on the contrary, that they had had immense difficulties to contend with—difficulties which were not of their own creation. He did not think any Royal Commission had ever been appointed under circumstances so extraordinary. Another Commission—numbering among its members several Gentlemen eminently qualified to investigate the agricultural system, of Ireland—was already in existence, and had taken a large amount of Irish evidence. The removal of the inquiry from the Commission presided over by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) to the specially-appointed Bessborough Commission undoubtedly gave rise to an impression that the Commission of the noble Earl was appointed for the purpose of getting up a case against the landlords and the Land Act of 1870, and it consequently became the receptacle of an amount of idle gossip and vague statements such as had never before been admitted into a Blue Book. The next difficulty the Commissioners had to face was the shortness of the period in which they had to complete their labours. In three months during which the Commissioners travelled over the whole country they had no less than 51 sittings, and the witnesses examined before it amounted in number to about 700. The Devon Commission, he might remind their Lordships, sat for 15 months. He ventured to think that during those three months there could be little doubt that the Bessborough Commission proceeded at a pace which was incompatible with a thorough investigation of the facts placed before it. How was it possible for its Members to sift evidence collected under such circumstances? He contended that no Court of Law would have acted on such undigested evidence as that upon which the Commission had affirmed the failure of the Land Act, and the necessity of a revolution in the existing system of land tenure. It had been said that an opportunity was given to persons who had been subjected to injurious accusations to rebut the allegations made against them. This was true; but the opportunity came too late. The mischief had been done. The
  1808
  Report containing the charges against the landlords was presented to Parliament on January 24, and Vol. II., in which was published a vast quantity of declamatory evidence, on February 11; but it was not till April 4, or three days before the introduction of the Land Bill, that the rebutting evidence in Vol. III. was presented. He would like to know when the rebutters of those calumnies were received. It was a remarkable circumstance that none of them had dates attached. Now, it was quite possible that some of the authors had omitted to date the papers which they sent in; but it was not very probable that the whole 380 had done so. The public was placed at a great disadvantage by the omission of these dates; because, without them, it was impossible to determine whether the Commissioners had prepared their Report with or without a knowledge of the rebutting evidence, and whether the Government—to whom, as they had been told by the noble Duke, the evidence was sent over from day to day—were aware of the contents of these Papers when they were framing the Bill now under discussion in "another place." He would say a few words with regard to the allegation that the Land Act had failed to afford the tenant a sufficient protection against repeated and inequitable increases of rent. In the first place, he would state his conviction that it would be found that while the prices of agricultural produce had risen with great rapidity during the last 20 or 30 years, and while the prices paid for tenant right had also risen with great rapidity, the rents over a great part of the country had remained almost stationary, or had, at all events, not undergone anything approaching a commensurate increase. But the Commissioners and the noble Lord below him (Lord Carlingford) grounded themselves upon the statements of these witnesses that the landlords had eaten up the tenants' interest by increases of rent. The noble Duke had, however, examined with the greatest minuteness the statements upon which the Commission relied, and had shown that whenever the witnesses ventured to depart from vague and general assertion, and to specify particular instances in which this abuse of the landlord's right had taken place, their evidence as to the facts was disputed and disproved.

  1809
  What was the answer of the Chairman of the Commission (the Earl of Bessborough), and of the noble Lord who supported him (Lord Carlingford)? They answered that it was very well for the noble Duke to single out from the mass of the evidence a few selected cases, and to found his argument upon them. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would, however, remind the House that it was not the noble Duke who had selected the cases, but the Commissioners themselves; and that it was fair to assume that they would not have made that selection and quoted those instances of alleged hardship in the body of their Report, if they had not believed that those cases were the strongest which they were able to discover—it was these cases thus selected that the noble Duke had demolished one by one. He had done so, and he had challenged the noble Earl to produce a single case in which he was able to substantiate his own assertions, and the challenge had not been accepted. Five hundred tenant farmers had been examined before the Commission, and their evidence was met by some 400 statements in reply. The whole case for the prosecution upon this particular count had completely broken down. It was further alleged by the Commissioners that the landlords had, in many cases, chosen the moment when the tenancy was about to change hands in order to exact an increase of rent. No attempt, however, was made to prove that the rent demanded from the in-comer was an unfair rent, and it was obvious that the whole question turned upon this. He would quote, in regard to this point, a very high authority, which justified the landlords in the course which it was alleged they had adopted. In the pamphlet which the noble Duke had referred to, the Prime Minister was represented as having used the following language upon this point:—
  "I therefore hold, and we have framed the Bill on that principle, that to recognize duly the power of the landlord or the Court to raise the rent is the due and just means of preventing the tenant right, which we think to he the just right of the tenant, from passing into extravagance, and from trespassing upon what is the just right of others."—[3 Hansard, cclx. 904.]
  That was the remedy suggested by the Prime Minister. How, then, did the question stand? First, there was the ad-
  1810
  mission of the Commissioners that rents in Ireland were generally low. Next, the fact testified to throughout the evidence, that the farmers were ready to pay extravagant prices for the tenant right. Thirdly, the advice of the Prime Minister to counteract that tendency to extravagance by raising the rent. Fourthly, there was the fact that the noble EARL based his condemnation of the Irish landlords on their adoption of that very course. It was upon that slender basis that the Royal Commission had founded the whole superstructure of their argument and their conclusion—that the whole system of Irish land tenure was to be revolutionized in order to guard tenants against increase of rent and against arbitrary disturbances by the landlords. But he would not discuss the recommendations of the Commission then, as he should have an opportunity of doing so when the Bill reached their Lordships. He did not agree that the Land Act of 1870 had been a failure. He had always regarded it as a just and generous measure. It had, no doubt, disappointed the expectations which had been formed of it, and it was not matter for surprise that it should have done so. The object of its framers had been to check capricious evictions, and to secure the tenants against the confiscation of their improvements. Experience had, however, established the conclusion that capricious evictions were virtually unknown in Ireland, and that, on the other hand, owing to the miserably backward condition of Irish agriculture, the so-called improvements often turned out to be either valueless or, at all events, worth infinitely less than the amounts claimed in consideration of them. He owned that he was filled with alarm when he found proposals submitted to the public with apparently the object of gratifying the unreasonable expectations formed by the peasants of Ireland; and he warned their Lordships that those expectations would continue to rise with every fresh concession that might be made to them. It was impossible to read the evidence without observing the progressive character of the demands thus preferred. The growth of opinion in this direction was frankly described by one of the witnesses, whose evidence the Commissioners had thought worthy of special quotation—Mr. William Bolster, ex-President of the Lime-

  1811
  rick, Clare, and Tipperary Farmers' Club, who said—
  "I think it would be a wise thing for the landlords to settle the Land Question, for I find every year it becomes worse. When I first became President of the Farmers' Club, I think before we had Mr. Butt in Limerick, our idea was a 31 years' lease—that is 16 years ago. We crept from that to a 61 years' lease. Then Mr. Butt came in, and it was the 'three F's,' and we forgot these two things, which we thought at one time would be satisfactory, and now we believe we must sweep the landlords away altogether; and I believe really that if the question is not settled soon I do not know where it will end."
  He thought that those words might appropriately be printed on the back of the volumes of the evidence taken before the Commission.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the Lord Privy Seal had made an important admission in stating that the constant changes of landlords in Ireland by sale and purchase had caused fear and uncertainty to tenants; and such sales and purchases, which were so much desired by some of his Colleagues, would have the same bad effect in England. Nothing that had been said that evening went to disprove what the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had urged as to the want of logic and general want of value attaching to the evidence taken before and the Report of the Royal Commission. The best explanation the noble EARL (the Earl of Bessborough) had given was his statement that he had been a Chairman of a bad company, by which he supposed he meant a financially unsound company, and that he had not emancipated himself from the style of Chairman of such companies, who had to do without facts. There was another hypothesis, and that was that not only did the Report embody foregone conclusions, but that it might have been written some months before it was signed. That body had placed before Parliament one-sided evidence and a Report which could not be followed, as the rebutting evidence which was offered to the Commission was not considered by them at all.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKdesired, in personal explanation, and as an example of the mistakes that had been made, to say that he had received a letter from Sir George Young, the Secretary to the Commission, who had pressed him to make a statement to the House. Sir George Young had said that he sent
  1812
  him (the EARL of Limerick) proofs of his evidence given before the Royal Commission, so that the evidence as printed was corrected by himself. That, however, was a mistake, as he had not received a proof; and the evidence, therefore, was not corrected and revised by himself, as stated by Sir George Young.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had indulged in the hope that we should have heard from the Government some kind of reply to the powerful statement of the noble Marquess who sits behind me (the Marquess of Waterford), respecting the Report of the Commission; but they seem to be endowed with a considerable amount of philosophy, and do not care to answer speeches of that kind. The speech of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford) explained to me to some extent why the Government did not care to continue the debate, because I thought that his answer to the overwhelming statements of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) and the noble Marquess behind me, was, at the same time, one of the most ingenious, and one of the most desperate that I ever heard. He at once went away from all attempt to justify the Commission. He knew that that was hopeless, and so he turned to the discussion of the general principles which, if ever a certain Bill reaches this House, will, no doubt, be very much in place. But he hardly touched one of the points established by the noble Duke. The noble Lord, desperate in his facts, urged that it was proved to the satisfaction of everybody that the Irish tenants had had their rents unjustly raised in a great number of cases, and that the Irish tenant almost always made the improvements on the estate. These were interesting subjects of debate; but I do not think they were any answer to the criticisms passed upon the Commission. But even these points were proved, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, in a somewhat Irish fashion. He hardly condescended to any definite evidence; but appealed to general rumour. The noble Marquess behind me took a very different view, as anybody who knows Ireland might expect he would do; and the only reply offered to him was that of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, who said he was astonished at the statements of the noble Marquess; and that the thing was res judicata. Notwith-

  1813
  standing that it was res judicata, that opinion was shared by my noble Friend (the Earl of Donoughmore) and the noble Marquess who had spoken from behind the Government (the Marquess of Lansdowne). Then the Lord Privy Seal sought to establish his case by a bolder expedient, because he appealed to the Chairman of another Commission (the Duke of Richmond), who entirely repudiated his view of the matter. I cannot, therefore, congratulate the noble Lord on the success of his generalship; but, after all, those were not the matters which had been brought forward by the noble Duke opposite. The object of the noble Duke was to point out how utterly unworthy of trust was the Report that has been laid before the House. He wanted to establish, as he said, the truth of facts which had been misstated, and to repel slanders which had been published. In answer to the statements of the noble Duke, no kind of justification has been attempted. It has been shown that this Report, and the evidence it contains, have been dealt with and manipulated in a manner which, we are not used to in respect to Commissions appointed by Her Majesty to inquire and report for the information of Parliament. It has been shown that the names of those who gave evidence on the other side have been misprinted again and again, in a manner and in such proportions as almost to exclude the possibility of mere accident or error. Nobody could read the questions put to the witnesses without coming to the conclusion that the accusation is entirely correct that the Commissioners went to their task with a foregone conclusion; that the examination by Baron Dowse was entirely the examination of a counsel for the prosecution. It is not merely the case, as has been alleged by the noble Earl (the Earl of Bessborough), of mere poor illiterate witnesses whom he thinks it is necessary to prepare for the answers that they are to give by leading questions which may draw them into fulness and frankness. Look at the examination of Lord Dufferin, Professor Baldwin, and witnesses of a very different stamp, and you will see that Baron Dowse's examination was that of a man who is utterly penetrated by one opinion, and desires to establish it by the witnesses whom he examines. But even graver charges have been estab-
  1814

  lished to-night—I do not mean charges of a personal character, as affecting the personal character of the Commissioners; but as affecting the value of the Report and the evidence before us. It has been shown that the Commission actually published a Report professing to be based on a vast mass of evidence—evidence which was mainly derived from one class and pointing in one direction, without accompanying it by the rebutting evidence of the persons whose conduct was impugned, and upon whose conduct turned the whole question whether the recommendations in the Report were justified and whether the legislation recommended was really expedient or not. They went entirely on the well-known principle of the Irish magistrate who always forebore to listen to more than one side of a question, because he found that it wholly confounded his mind to hear both sides. They listened to statements on one side, however violent and extreme; they sent out summonses asking for statements in rebuttal of them, without, however, waiting to receive the rebuttals before they formed their opinions and drew up and signed their Report. And that explains the curious circumstance that when the rebuttals came in, the dates of them, as the noble Marquess has shown, were carefully eliminated. Another fact has been brought to our notice in regard to this Commission, which is very remarkable, and on which it is almost impossible to speak in this House in the full and frank language which the case appears to require. It is almost incredible that a Commission composed of such men should have received an anonymous letter containing base and foul slander against a noble Lord, a Member of this House, and should have printed it without even requiring the name of the person from whom the slander emanated, and without taking an opportunity of making an inquiry or examination to find out the extent of the justification which might be brought for the statements that were made. What could have been the sense of duty which led the Commissioners to give circulation to such an atrocious document, and that without adopting the most ordinary precautions to test it, such as any person would adopt if he were told the story in respect to some personal acquaintance in private life? It is impossible

  1815
  to explain the conduct of the Commission in accepting that document as they did, except by the assumption that they were driven on by the irresistible force of a pre-possession, and that they, unconsciously to themselves, were acting as if their mission was to establish a certain principle, and to make certain recommendations for the guidance of the Government. This, however, is not merely a question of the two points raised by the noble Earl (the Earl of Bessborough) that evening. It is not a question merely of the trustworthiness or the untrustworthiness of the Commission. It involves matters far more important than that. The recommendations of the Commission go much farther. They give utterance to the most extravagant doctrines. They say, for example, that it is necessary at once to negative the idea that a fair rent means what in England would be considered a fair rent. In other words, they mean to say that what is a full and fair rent in England is not to be taken from the Irish tenant; that what in England moans a fair rent is a rack-rent in Ireland; and that that fraction, whatever it is—one-third, or any other proportion—which makes the difference between the fair rent in England, and what the Irish tenant would give must be taken from the landlord and handed over to the tenant. Before such doctrines as those—and the Report is full of them—were given to the public they ought to have been supported by some evidence collected more carefully and with more circumspection and discretion than were shown by this Commission. We are told—we know not how correctly—that it is the project of the Government to hand over to some unknown Commission—known, I presume, to themselves—the settling of the income of every landlord and every tenant of every county in Ireland; and that they are to be charged with that duty without the indication of any principle by which they should be guided. If it should ever be the law of the land that such vast powers should be intrusted to any two or three individuals, at all events it becomes a matter of the first importance that the persons intrusted with such, powers should not decide on the Report of, or on the principles laid down by, a Commission which entered on its task in the spirit, and performed it in the manner, which has actuated the Commission
  1816
  whose work we are now discussing. When I heard that such powers were to be given, and that no principle was to be laid down for their guidance, I confess I thought with dismay that one of the few authorized documents we possess, to which anyone could appeal for the definitions of what fair rent is, was a document which is full of wild revolutionary principles based upon mere gossip and indigested evidence, such as this I hold in my hand. It is of the first importance that your Lordships should thoroughly understand the character and value of the document, and not only understand it, but express your opinion upon it in terms so unmistakeable that no Court may hereafter be asked to rely on it, or appeal to it as an authority.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not rise to satisfy the complaint of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) by entering into a debate in which he seems to think it a matter of reproach that the Government have not joined. The Government have deliberately abstained from taking part in this debate. I think it would have been felt to be most inconvenient that we should join in it, having a great measure on the subject before the other House of Parliament, and great responsibility resting on us in regard to carrying it through. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) carefully abstained from alluding to the Bill before the other House; but the noble Marquess, with that impetuous haste which so distinguishes him, could not resist going at once to attack a measure which he thought he could discuss and disparage before it came to your Lordships' House. My noble Friend (Lord Carlingford), who spoke not as a Member of the Government, but as a Member of one of the two Commissions that sat on this question, has been severely attacked by the noble Marquess for what he said; but it appears to me that what my noble Friend did say was just sufficient to prevent its being assumed that Her Majesty's Government at all agreed with the abuse and discredit thrown upon the Report of the Royal Commission. The noble Marquess attacked my noble Friend for bringing in the opinion of the English Commission on this subject. The obvious rejoinder of my noble Friend to the repudiation of the noble Duke (the

  1817
  Duke of Richmond) was—"If it did not bear the interpretation I have put upon it, what on earth do the noble Duke and his Colleagues mean?" That the noble Marquess entirely refrained from telling us. The Report says that the improvements are generally the work of the tenants, who are liable to have their rents arbitrarily raised in consequence of the increased value given to the holdings by the expenditure of their own capital and labour, and that "the desire for legislative interference against the arbitrary increase of rent does not seem unnatural;" and the Report adds—
  "We are inclined to think that by the majority of landowners, legislation, if properly framed to accomplish that end, would not be objected to."
  It is obvious that this Report was framed with the greatest possible caution. It is not a full and comprehensive Report, with recommendations on every point; but the Commissioners having inserted such a sentence as that, I am utterly at a loss to understand what it means, except that which is expressed by the interpretation put upon it by my noble Friend. I have only to protest against the raising now of a debate on the Land Bill; and I must say that I thought the language of the noble Marquess was most exaggerated and unfair to the noble Earl (the Earl of Bessborough) and his Colleagues, and I deeply regret the tone the noble Marquess has adopted, for it is not encouraging as regards the spirit with which he is prepared to receive a legislative measure which I cannot help thinking everyone must feel to be of the greatest importance.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONcontended that the course pursued by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) was justified by references that had been made by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) to necessary legislation, and referring to the general question, said, the Commission over which he had the honour to preside in no sense recommended legislation. There was not a word in the Report to that effect, and the Commission had been careful not to state anything in their Report that had not been proved in evidence. It was true that the Report contained the passage which the noble I Earl (EARL Granville) had just quoted; but the Commission merely stated matters of fact founded in evidence, and
  1818
  made no distinct recommendations on the subject. The Commission was appointed to inquire into all the facts of the Irish Question, and it took evidence very freely upon that question. The noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) took a very much wider view in speaking of legislation, and he did not confine himself to the question of raising rents in consequence of improvements. What the Report of the Commission over which he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had presided stated was, that where the tenant had made the improvements, it was not unreasonable that he should desire to have the benefit of them, or the value of them repaid him. That Report certainly did not recommend the adoption of the "three F's," although that of the Bessborough Commission did do so. In the Report of his (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon's) Commission, the Commissioners merely stated, in a carefully-drawn paragraph, that—
  "With the view of affording such security, fair rents, fixity of tenure, and free sale—popularly known as the 'three F's'—have been strongly advocated by many witnesses; hut none have been able to support these propositions in their integrity, without inflicting consequences that would, in our opinion, involve an injustice to the landlords."
  The Commissioners recommended nothing—they merely stated what had been proved before them in evidence, and left it to the Government of the day to take such steps as they might think right.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) that the paragraph in question in the Report of the Commission over which he had presided was very carefully drawn, and was based upon the evidence laid before them. That evidence, as far as he could judge, was of very much the same character as that taken before the Bessborough Commission. The noble Duke said that that carefully-worded paragraph was not a recommendation in favour of legislation; but in that case what was it? Was it a sentiment? [The Duke of RICHMOND and GORDON assented.] Was it then a mere sentiment which was to have no practical effect? The noble Duke must have had far too long an experience of public affairs to suppose that a statement of that character made in the Report of a Royal Com-

  1819
  mission could be looked upon as the mere utterance of a sentiment. He (the Earl of Kimberley) was sorry to differ from the noble Duke; but he could not help remarking that that Commission first laid the groundwork for legislation, for the paragraph began by the very important declaration that, the improvements were generally the work of the tenants, a view which the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had treated as being a mere assumption on the part of Her Majesty's Government. What he (the Earl of Kimberley) himself had said about this question of improvements was, that in the great majority of instances the improvements were made by the tenant alone; that in many instances they were made by the tenant and the landlord jointly; and that he doubted whether in any instances, except those that had been specifically referred to the English system, under which the landlord alone made the improvements, was followed. The Report of the noble Duke's Commission, having laid down the premiss that the improvements were generally the work of the tenant, went on to draw the following very natural conclusion:—
  "We are inclined to think that by the majority of landowners legislation properly framed to accomplish this end would not be objected to."
  To accomplish what end? The protection of the tenant from an arbitrary increase of rent, which he not unnaturally feared, because of the improvements effected by himself. Did the noble Duke really mean to contend that a statement of that kind was not equivalent to a recommendation in favour of legislation on the subject? It amounted to such a recommendation in practice, if not in words. In his (the Earl of Kimberley's) opinion, the words amounted to as strong a recommendation in favour of legislation as could be framed. He did not think words could have been more carefully or skilfully chosen for the purpose of bringing home to everybody's mind that additional legislation, in order to give additional security, had become inevitable.
  LORD LECONFIELDsaid, that, having been alluded to in the course of the debate, he wished to say that his estates in Ireland were managed, with great success, on the English system, so far as could be done in a country where the
  1820
  tenure of land was different. He had not the facts and figures with him to show the actual results; but he believed he was not the only Irish landlord who had adopted the English system in the management of Irish estates with beneficial results.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION AND CIVIL PROCEDURE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing various enactments chiefly relating to Civil Procedure or matters connected therewith, and for amending in some respects the Law relating to Civil Procedure—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 140.)

  SOLWAY FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to Salmon Fisheries in the Solway Firth—Was presented by The Earl of DALHOUSIE; read 1a. (No. 141.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Ten o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.