Sitting of 5 July 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Solicitors' Remuneration [100].
Third Reading—Erne Lough and River (re-comm.)* [200], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

PETITION.
  FRENCH COMMERCIAL TREATY.

    PETITION FROM BRADFORD.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he had been intrusted with a Petition to present from Bradford of a somewhat remarkable character. It was, in the main, a workmen's Petition; but it represented alike the demand of the employer and of those who wished for work and wages, but which they said were denied them by the pressure of unfair foreign competition with those industries on which the prosperity of Yorkshire depended. He was told that the Petition was nearly 250 yards long, and bore about 21,000 signatures, and that it had been signed in the streets of Bradford by persons of every shade of political opinion. He trusted the House would not turn a deaf ear to the cry for justice, which those who sent the Petition asked him to raise, humbly and respectfully, on their behalf. They saw no reason why French looms should be at work while theirs stood idle; and they asked that honourable House to renew no Treaty with France which allowed France to tax our manufactures, while we received theirs duty free to the displacement of our own industries.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must be quite aware that he is not entitled to debate a Petition.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he did not wish to debate anything, but merely to urge the Prayer of the Petition. The Petitioners asked for equal treatment—for fair play. They saw no reason why the working men of France should receive the wages which ought to be spent in this country. They asked, therefore, that no Commercial Treaty with France should be entered into which had not been submitted for the approval and consent of that House; and, further, that no engagement should be entered into which should bind the country for more than 12 months, without an opportunity being afforded of retiring from such engagement if they found it did not suit them. He had no desire or right to enter into matters of argument. There was much, however, that he could wish to say——[Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call on the hon. Member to confine himself to the Prayer of the Petition.
    MR. MAC IVER said,he most heartily and cordially concurred in the Prayer of the Petition. The day had come when that House could no longer turn a deaf ear to the working population of these lands, or look on coldly while each industry was in turn destroyed. Why had not the people of Bradford intrusted the Petition to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Illingworth)? Because they wished to protest emphatically against such views as his, and because they no longer believed that a system of free imports and of restricted exports was entitled to be called Free Trade.
    MR. CHILDERS: I rise to Order, Sir. A Petition cannot contain a protest.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have already called to the hon. Member's attention twice the fact that he is not in Order.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he begged humbly and respectfully to ask that the Petition be read by the Clerk at the Table.
    Petition read; and ordered to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  TUNIS—TREATIES OF 1662, 1716, AND 1875.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether in the Treaty between

  19
  England and Tunis of October 5th 1662, there is not the following provision:—
  "Article 8. Le Consul ou tout autre Anglais résident à Tunis ne sera forcé de s'adresser à aucune autre cour de justice qu' au Dey lui-même par lequel seul justice lui sera rendue;"
  whether the same stipulation does not occur in Article 8 of the Treaty of 13th August 1716; whether analogous provisions do not exist in the Treaties of other Powers, which are still in force; and, whether in consequence the privilege of access to the Bey is not a privilege and immunity conferred by Treaty on Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General, and confirmed by Articles 11 and 5 of the Treaty of 1875?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Treaties of 1662 and 1716 were abrogated by the Treaty of 1875, which was substituted for all existing previous Treaties, and in which the Article in question was not repeated. I may, however, point out to the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) that even if this Article were still in force, it would give no "privilege of access" to the Consul any more than to any other British subject who might present himself before the Bey for the purpose of seeking justice; and its effect is entirely annulled by the 24th Article of the Treaty of 1875.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the hon. Baronet had not stated whether analogous provisions did not exist in the Treaties of other Powers which were still in force.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I shall be glad if the hon. Member would state what those Treaties are. I have on four or five occasions informed the House that the most careful search has failed to find any Article of the kind in any Treaty, and Lord Granville has made a statement to this effect in "another place." That statement has been elaborately contradicted, especially in a letter in The Times; but in none of these contradictions have Articles in Treaties been quoted to upset the statement.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— REMOVAL OF HEAD CONSTABLE FRAZER FROM BANBRIDGE.
  LORD ARTHUR HILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Head Constable Frazer has been removed from Ban-
  20
  bridge, after having been stationed there about one month, in consequence of the Roman Catholic priest of the parish having demanded that a head constable of his own persuasion should be sent in his place; and, whether there would be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Correspondence between the priest and the authorities?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, the reason of the head constable's removal was this—Catholics and Protestants were about the same number in the district, and there appeared to have been some arrangement that if an officer was of one religion the head constable should be of the other. He could not say that he liked such an arrangement; but he disliked still more the condition of things that seemed to make it necessary. The Government, however, thought it was better that it should be practically put in force; and that was the reason why the head constable was removed. For his own convenience his removal was delayed for some months.
  In reply to Mr. MACARTNEY,
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the removal was not occasioned by the interference of the Catholic priest; but it was a fact that the priest reminded the Government of the arrangement made seine time since.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether an equalization of the persuasions of magistrates would not still further get rid of the religious difficulty in Ireland?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should require Notice of the Question.

  COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND)—AD- MISSION 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): Sir, it is quite clear that, in

  21
  some form, the public are entitled to be put in possession of the opinions and decisions of the Judges of the Court of Session in contentious cases. In consequence of the difficulty referred to in the Question, the Lords Ordinary have resolved, in future, to deliver their judgments viva voce in open Court, instead of in writing; and the Press will, in future, have the same facilities for reporting the judgments in such cases as exist in the other Superior Courts of the United Kingdom.

  INTERNATIONAL LAW—DETENTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS ON A RUSSIAN WAR-SHIP.
  MR. J. STEWARTasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been directed to the circumstances under which, on the 25th ultimo, two British subjects were detained for one night on board the Russian war-ship "Peter the Great," then at anchor in the Clyde; and, if he can state whether such detention was justifiable and in accordance with International Law?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): Sir, in the case referred to, one of two boatmen hired by the Russian naval officers to take them on board their ship, being intoxicated, assaulted one of the officers without provocation, and attempted to prevent him going on board. The Russian commander had to send a launch after the boat to rescue the officer; and, as the hour was late, he detained the two boatmen over night and brought them before the police magistrate next morning, by whom Gemmell, the man who committed the assault, was tried and convicted. The Russian officer, in so doing, did not exceed the power which the law accords to every private citizen to arrest a person who commits a crime in his presence, and bring him before a magistrate with the least possible delay.

  STATE OF IRELAND—REQUISITION OF HORSES AND CARS.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR(for Mr. HEALY) asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, in those cases where the Irish police have recently seized horses and cars by force, the Crown will, on a charge being duly preferred against them by the owners, undertake a prosecution; and, if not, if he would
  22
  state why not; and, whether, if persons not policemen were similarly to impress horses, &c the Law would be put in force against them, and what is the statute under which such powers are exercised, and whether they invest in each individual policeman in Ireland?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW),in reply, said, he presumed the case to which the Question of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) referred occurred a few days ago in the county of Louth. What happened was this. A party of Constabulary hired a number of cars to convey them six or seven miles. After proceeding part of the way some of the drivers refused to drive any further, and the police accordingly drove the cars themselves. He did not see any offence in that. It was quite true that there was no law authorizing the police to forcibly seize cars.

  BULGARIA—PRINCE ALEXANDER OF BATTENBERG.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been directed to a conversation between Prince Alexander of Battenberg and a correspondent of the "Standard," in which the Prince is alleged to have said that "for the Great Powers, Bulgaria c'est mer" (meaning thereby apparently himself), and that when he asked the Emperors of Austria, Russia, and Germany, what he ought to do in consequence of having sworn to maintain a Constitution, which he terms a ' half Republican Constitution," they each replied, "do what you like, but do not leave Bulgaria;" and if the Government have received any confirmation of the alleged conversation; whether Her Majesty's Government, as one of the Great Powers, accepts the assertion of the Prince that Bulgaria is a mere diplomatic expression, meaning neither the country nor its inhabitants, but Prince Alexander of Battenberg; whether communication has been received from any foreign Government leading to the conclusion that, in the event of the Bulgarians declining to grant to Prince Alexander a dictatorship, or seeking to hinder him from exercising such a dictatorship, a foreign occupation of Bulgaria would ensue; whether any complaint has been received respecting the manner in which the

  23
  elections to the Grand National Assembly have been conducted; and whether, considering the great losses that have accrued to investors by lending money to foreign countries on imperfect security, Her Majesty's Government will make public the fact that, by the Articles 123–125 of the Constitution of Bulgaria, the Prince can under no circumstances decree a loan of above 1,000,00 francs, nor authorise expenditures from the public Treasury, which taken together shall exceed the sum of 300,000 francs, and that consequently, if he acquires dictatorial power by unconstitutional means, no loan incurred by him for more than 1,000,000 francs would be valid as against Bulgaria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, we have not received any confirmation of the language alleged to have been used by Prince Alexander in the conversation referred to. The view of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the meaning of the term "Bulgaria" is that which may be drawn from a perusal of the Treaty of Berlin. We have not heard that any foreign occupation has been proposed or is probable. We have not, since the holding of the elections, received any complaint as to the manner in which they were conducted. The Constitution of Bulgaria has been laid before Parliament, and does not, therefore, seem to lack publicity.

  ITALY—FRANCE AND TUNIS.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that the Italian Government have refused to recognise the French Protectorate in Tunis, and the appointment of Monsieur Roustan as intermediary for their official communications with the Government of the Bey; and, whether the Italian Government have more than once since the commencement of the French hostilities against Tunis pressed Her Majesty's Government to act in concert with them, particularly with respect to the appointment of Monsieur Roustan, and what answer Her Majesty's Government have made to those proposals?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, it is not the fact, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, that the Italian Government have refused to recognize the French Protectorate in Tunis, or the
  24
  appointment of M. Roustan. The Italian Government have inquired of Her Majesty's Government, through the Italian Ambassador in London, what are the views of Her Majesty's Government on certain questions arising out of the position of France in Tunis, and Lord Granville has, in reply, informed his Excellency of the communications which Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris has been instructed to make to the French Government on these questions.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The hon. Baronet has not answered the last part of my Question. Is it true that the Italian Government have more than once pressed Her Majesty's Government to act in concert with them, particularly with respect to the appointment of M. Roustan?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Question will be best answered by the Papers before the House. No such phrase as "acting in concert" was used. Her Majesty's Government has been asked its opinion on certain points, and our opinion has been communicated to the Italian Government.

  TUNIS—BRITISH COLONISTS AND TRADE.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the number of British Colonists, and the extent of British trade, at Susa, Monastir, Medhia, Sfax, and Gabes, in the territory of Tunis; also a Return giving the same information with respect to Tripoli and Bengazi?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I do not know whether the noble Lord has read the Reports furnished yearly by Her Majesty's Consular Officers in Tunis and Tripoli; but these give all the information which Her Majesty's Government are able to supply.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I would point out that my reason for asking the Question is, that the public might be made aware in a short and easy manner of our interests in North Africa?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not think, as regards the figures up to a recent period, that they could be laid before the public in a shorter form.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLgave Notice that, on an early occasion, he would move for those Returns.

  TUNIS AND FRANCE—BOMBARDMENT OF SFAX.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has reason to believe that the French Government have any intention to proceed to a bombardment of Sfax, or to take any hostile measures towards the town and people of Sfax; and, whether they will intimate to the French Government that any damage to British property arising out of such hostile measures will entitle the owners thereof to full compensation to be demanded by the Government?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, as a French Consul and several French naval officers appear to have been attacked and wounded at Sfax, it is possible that such measures as the noble Lord contemplates may be taken by France. It is not usual to make beforehand any such intimation as the noble Lord suggests; and if the occasion arises, Her Majesty's Government will, of course, strictly follow the precedents in similar cases of destruction of neutral property.

  FRANCE AND TUNIS (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).
  THE EARL OF BECTIVEasked leave to postpone the following Question which he had upon the Paper—namely, to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in the public press, that M. Roustan directs not only the Foreign Office of Tunis but also all the Government Departments, and claims by the municipality and other bodies against Europeans are made by M. Roustan; whether he can inform the House what guarantees for the protection of British interests exist under such a system; and if he is aware that in one of the aforesaid capacities M. Roustan has adjudged a portion of ground adjoining the English Church, and secured in perpetuity to the British colony by an ancient deed of the Beys of Tunis, to a French subject who never set up any claim to the land prior to the French occupation?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I will ask the House to excuse me if I inform the noble Earl that I have already, on several occasions, stated to the House that questions arising out of the two-
  26
  fold nature of the functions discharged by M. Roustan were under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and were the subject of communications with the Government of France. These communications will be laid before Parliament. We have no information up to the present time as to M. Roustan having adjudged a portion of ground adjoining the English church to a French subject. I must be allowed to point out that a Question of this nature requires a search through the Papers in the French and Turkish Departments of the Foreign Office, and may require consultation with the Secretary of State and the Permanent Under Secretary. This Question was placed upon the Paper at the close of the Sitting of last night, and reached me for the first time at half-past 11 o'clock this morning. I may add that it is not always possible to accept, without inquiry, the statements of fact in the questions relating to Tunis of the noble Earl, for one which he put to me on Thursday last has been the subject of correspondence between myself and the principal gentleman named in it, and I am assured that, as far as he is concerned, there is no foundation for the statements referred to.
  THE EARL OF BECTIVE: With reference to the remarks just made by the hon. Baronet, I beg to give Notice that I will repeat my Question of Thursday last, to which he has referred, and, on information subsequently received, I will make a statement which I am not without hope may induce him very considerably to modify the remarks he has made.

  FRANCE AND TUNIS—REPORTED INSURRECTION.
  THE EARL OF BECTIVEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If Her Majesty's Government, in consideration of the probability of the present serious insurrection caused by the French invasion spreading to the immediate neighbourhood of the city of Tunis, intend sending some ships of war to Goletta in place of those sent towards Tripoli in order to protect British subjects resident in Tunis and its neighbourhood?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Condor has been ordered back to Goletta. It is evident that the danger of which the noble Lord is apprehensive is not regarded as imminent, because the French

  27
  have no ship at Tunis of a larger class than the Condor. The Fleet under Sir Beauchamp Seymour is cruising within four days' call, and, if further occasion arises, more iron-clads will be sent.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—GUN LICENCES.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that over one hundred respectable farmers and others in the district of Newcastle West, county Limerick, have been waiting for a licence to carry arms for over a month, though they hold duly qualified recommendations; and, if so, will he inform the House why it is the resident magistrate does not perform this duty?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the resident magistrate in the district of Newcastle West informed him he was unable to give as much time to the examination of these applications for arms licences as was necessary in consequence of the disturbed state of his district. He had already granted 400 licences, and would attend to the other applications as soon as possible.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL WAR—THE PORTUGUESE CONSUL.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received an application from Mr. Forssman, Consul General for Portugal in the Transvaal, for compensation for losses and injuries incurred by him during the siege of Potchefstroom, and what is the amount of compensation which he claims?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received such an application as that to which my right hon. Friend has referred. The amount claimed by way of compensation is £219,000. Probably it would be premature, and not altogether decorous, for Her Majesty's Government to give any opinion as to the first impression which they formed with respect to the claim. Therefore, on that ground, I will withhold any such opinion. But the claim itself will have to be forwarded to the Commission to be duly examined by them.

  THE ROYAL PRINCES—FALSE RUMOURS.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he has inquired into, and can give the House any information as to, the painful rumour circulated in London yesterday of a disaster to one of the Royal Princes?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am very glad to be able to state that we received a telegram to-day, a little before noon, from Lord Clanwilliam, the commander of the Bacchante, dated yesterday afternoon, from Melbourne, in answer to our inquiry. His telegram runs as follows:—"No. 16 received. No foundation whatsoever."

  WAYS AND MEANS—REVENUE RE- TURNS—DECREASE IN THE EXCISE.
  MR. LAINGasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is in a position to afford the House any information which will explain the unfavourable account contained in the last Revenue Returns, as regards a considerable falling off in the Excise duties?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the general state of the Revenue is not very familiar to me; but as to the particular point of my hon. Friend's inquiry, I think I can give satisfactory information. The House will remember that, on examining the year's Returns of the Revenue, they could not but be struck with the ominous fact that there was a decrease of £420,000 odd on the Excise. Now, the reason of that decrease, which is the one and distinctly unfavourable and striking feature, is the different distribution of the Malt Duty and the Beer Duty over the four quarters of the year. The Beer Duty, according to the estimate which has been formed and according to experience, is receivable in the four quarters of the year in very nearly four equal portions; but the Malt Duty varies in the four quarters, according to normal experience, as much as from 14 per cent in one quarter to 40 per cent in another. There is no such inequality in the present case. If there had been, the discrepancy in the Excise would have been very much greater; but the difference in the present case is that 30 per cent of the Malt Duty was received in a normal quarter, in the three months ending

  29
  the 2nd of June, and only 24 per cent of the Beer Duty. Now, when we remember that 1 per cent of duty amounts to £87,000, and that 6 per cent amounts to £512,000, it will be obvious to my hon. Friend that these figures dispose of the whole of the apparent decrease.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, that the first Order of the Day for Wednesday was the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill. He wished, therefore, to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the general interest taken in that question out-of-doors, there was any hope that precedence would be given to the second reading of the measure with which he (Mr. Stevenson) was charged over the Land Law (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; no hope whatever.

  THE NEW FRENCH GENERAL TARIFF.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that after what had passed on the previous day on the subject, he rose with regret for the purpose of making an appeal to the Prime Minister for a translation in English of the Return of the French Tariff. In doing so, the House was aware that he was within the fact when he said there was no question at that moment which was more discussed, and more constantly in the mouth of every workman in every factory, workshop, and yard in the country than the question of their commercial relations with France. He was exceedingly sorry to make that appeal to the Prime Minister; but hon. Members on both sides of the House would be aware that he had in no way interrupted or interfered with the progress of the Business of the House. During the discussion on the Land Bill he had restrained his feelings. But the conduct of the Government in persistently withholding all or any information with respect to the French Tariff, and the position of this country in regard to its commercial relations with France—what he should call the persistent concealment on the part of the Government with regard to what was going on in reference to their Treaty relations with France——
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDrose to Order, and said there was no Question before the House.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he would conclude with a Motion. The conduct of the Government had made it absolutely necessary for him to take that step—["Oh, oh!"]—and he would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway, who had not been so long in the House as himself, that he was only following the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who took the very step he (Viscount Sandon) was now obliged to take, of intruding the subject to the notice of the House from those very Benches when he was last in Opposition a few years ago. He would just ask them to remember why he was obliged to take that step. It was quite obvious from the answer that had been given by the Prime Minister that private Members had no chance of bringing forward any subject whatever; and yet the present subject, by general consent, was one which was exercising the great masses of the people very much more than the Irish Land Bill. He should, therefore, have been happy to obtain a discussion on the subject at half-past 12 at night, and should have been perfectly content to have divided the House on the subject at that late hour, not caring for a long discussion; but the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had thought fit to take a course which, in former Sessions, was considered most unusual, and had prevented him proceeding with the Motion for a Return of the changes contemplated in their commercial relations with France. He (Viscount Sandon) was one of the last men to allude to former services; but he must just ask hon. Members to recollect that when he asked for a Return of this kind he did so, not in his personal capacity, but as one who had borne an important Office in the last Government, as President of the Board of Trade, and as one who, owing to his connection with the important port of Liverpool, had some right to assume that he know something of the commercial feeling of this country, not only as to Chambers of Commerce—for he was happy to say he did not confine his inquiries to Chambers of Commerce—but among merchants and the great

    31
    mass of men who gained their living by means of commerce. He believed it to be unprecedented to refuse a Return of this kind when asked for, and he was fully aware of the great responsibility of taking this step. The question, he would point out, was urgent; and it was urgent, because the commercial relations with France must be concluded within a very few weeks. Now, the House of Commons, the Prime Minister told them, was to adjourn about the 6th of August—just four weeks' time, and if the French Chambers prolonged the negotiations on the subject, they would only be prolonged, they were told, for three months, so that the country would have no opportunity whatever of expressing an opinion upon its great commercial relations with France in the few weeks that remained of the Session. He said that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House treated this subject as a light subject; but the constituencies did not think so, and he would recommend hon. Members to visit their constituents, and see what they thought about it. He thought he had established urgency; for the House was to be up in four weeks, and negotiations for the Treaty must proceed very shortly. Perhaps hon. Members thought he was making a good deal of a Return which they had not seen, or perhaps the Prime Minister had not seen, and if the right hon. Gentleman would allow him, he would make him a present of one. [Laughter.] Some hon. Members regarded that as a joke; but it was no joking matter. He (Viscount Sandon) observed the President of the Board of Trade regarded it as a joke; but the Return was a very serious thing. It was not his desire to have a general accounts; but what he requested was that the people of this country should be put in possession of a statement of their former commercial position with France, and of the changes proposed to be introduced, so that they might compare the two. The Return he wished to have in English was in three columns. The first was the old Tariff, the second the commercial arrangements with France, under which we had worked some years under Cobden's negotiations and under the Most Favoured Nation Clause; and the third column gave the new Tariff as proposed by the French Chambers. It did not give that mysterious document which nobody was al-
    32
    lowed to see but a few favoured members of the Chambers of Commerce; and it did not give what the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had called the tariff à discuter in the French terms which had been offered by the French Commissioners. There was a tendency to use French terms; but he thought that was a practice rather to be avoided in the House. He thought it was right to use English terms in this country. This Paper contained about 600 articles in print. It was not a very heavy book, but one of modest extent, consisting only of about 52 pages, and it would not be a matter of very heavy cost if given in English. He moved for the Returns in April in a very simple and natural manner, and as it was produced it showed the various facts in English. He therefore expected the Returns would be given in the same language; but, to his astonishment, when he was prepared to send them to some working-men's associations in Liverpool, who took a keen interest in this matter—[Ministerial laughter]—he was not at all ashamed to own that he had sent it to a workingmen's association; he was saying that to his astonishment he found it to be in French, and that he would only make himself utterly absurd if he sent it to the working men in that language, with which they were not familiar. So the matter first came to his notice. After a while, hon. Members from other commercial constituencies said the same thing, when the constituencies asked for them. He had asked for an English translation; but it was refused, the Returns remaining in French; and that, he thought, was an unprecedented course for the Government to take at a time of great excitement on commercial matters. That was, however, a course reserved entirely for that most enlightened Liberal Government to adopt. Now, some of the supporters of the Government might regard that as a slight matter; but that it was not so would be apparent when he stated that the new Tariff increased by about 24 per cent the duties on the great bulk of the important articles of British manufacture; and, beyond that, converted to our detriment into specific duties the existing ad valorem duties, which appeared to have been raised. It also made a change in the classification, which the English people would have difficulty in understanding if informa-

    33
    tion such as he asked for was persistently withheld, and which would increase the duties. Anybody who knew anything of commercial matters was aware that the change implied a great burden upon the British trader. It was a change which would also be very fatal to the English people. ["Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.] It might be said by some that the proposed changes would affect but few industries; but the contrary was the fact, as their influence on British industries would be widespread and most serious. If the House would allow him, he would show how multiform were the interests affected, and what the articles affected were. They were stone and slate, marble and stone, all minerals and stones, iron and steel, chemicals, soda, soap and starch, feathers and down, earthenware and china, glass and glass ware, prints and textiles, table-linen, hosiery, cotton, poplin, velvets, silk, tissue and fancy papers, skins and leather, furniture, carriages, musical instruments, guns, fowling-pieces, and breech-loading rough gun-barrels. These were but a selection of the articles upon which a seriously increased Tariff was proposed to be placed; and the selection he had given would show how widespread and serious were the changes which were proposed by our French neighbours. Surely by this time we could understand that the matter was a very important one. He would ask just one simple question, which perhaps would tend to bring this discussion to an issue. Why on earth should there be any concealment whatever on the part of the Government on a matter of such importance to the people of this country? If they did not want to have Returns, why did the Government grant it in French six weeks ago? But the Government did grant a Return, full of important particulars in three columns, showing the particular position of the country at this moment. It was important that the country should know what the position of the country was. The Return was granted without hesitation in French; what possible excuse could the Government have for not giving it in English? He was quite sure the position of right hon. Gentleman opposite was utterly and entirely untenable. It was almost like saying to a boy, who was growing up—"These books are only for grown-up people, so
    34
    pray do not read them. When you are grown up you can read them." So this was saying to the working people—"When you know French, you can lead it; it is not for the present working people, and you shall not read what your betters around you shall read." He would venture to remind the House, from his own knowledge, what was the feeling of the commercial class—working-men, manufacturers, shipping-people—with regard to the French Treaty. It was this, that they certainly ought not to have a worse French Treaty than the Cobden Treaty. That, he thought, was a universal feeling on both sides of the House. They could not afford to have a worse Treaty than the Cobden Treaty, and he believed that they ought to have, and might have by careful and prudent negotiations, a better Treaty. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, no doubt, might say that they ought to have confidence in Her Majesty's Government in this matter. But he (Viscount Sandon) did not wish to raise the matter as a question of confidence one way or the other. It was very much too serious a question in the interests of this country for that. In the interest of truth and facts, he must say that it had not been unobserved by those interested in these industries that in the division led by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), both the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs voted against his Resolution——
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I stated at the time that the Government would vote for going into Committee of Supply, agreeing, as they did, with the terms of the hon. Member's Resolution, but thinking it undignified to pass such a Resolution while the negotiations were going on.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he wished to point out that the names which appeared in the Division List gave the impression that the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to whom he had referred were not staunch, and the conduct of the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the Sugar Bounties had, he (Viscount Sandon) ventured to say, probably done more to shake the confidence of the working people of the country—[Cries of "No, no!"]—he hoped he might be allowed to finish the

    35
    sentence—had done, perhaps, more than was imagined to shake the confidence of the working people, not with regard to his economic views, but with regard to his sympathy towards those engaged in the sugar refining industries, as indicated by the tone of the letters signed by the Board of Trade. He would now run over the several reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman flip President of the Board of Trade for refusing to give the information which they had a right to demand.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the, noble Viscount's pardon. The noble Viscount attributes to me a statement which I did not make at all, and in regard to which I have on more than one occasion endeavoured to correct him. I did not refuse the translation of this Return. I never have refused it. ["Oh!"] I merely asked the noble Viscount to wait the result of inquiries which I was making of the re-presentatives of the commercial classes, with regard to its utility.
    VISCOUNT SANDON, continuing, said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that he was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) to give this translation. He did not give it, and he repeatedly refused it. He declined to give it for the following reasons:—He said that it would cause a great deal of delay; but the real delay was in declining to give the Return, because if it had been put in hand three weeks ago, when the Question was asked, the translation would have been made and in the hands of the public by this time. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that "there was considerable difficulty in translation." He also said he was at a loss to find English equivalents for some of the French denominations. He (Viscount Sandon) thought that rather strengthened the reason why they should have the translation. The whole of the commercial community interested in the question of the French Commercial Treaty were told that the Government could not find in the Foreign Office, in the Board of Trade, or among the experts in London, men competent to find English equivalents for these French terms. One comfort was, however, given to them. They were assured that the working men—the artizans—the right hon. Gentleman
    36
    (Mr. Chamberlain) said so—were all acquainted with the French terms used. If that were so, it simplified the matter, for it would have been a very easy thing to have sent a Circular from the Board of Trade to the different centres of artizan population, asking the working men what was the meaning of the terms? That, he thought, threw some light on the negotiations which had been proceeding. It turned out that those grandees sitting in Whitehall did not understand the meaning of some of the terms they were discussing, and the whole subject was wrapped up in so much mystery, so much confusion, that he thought it would be best cleared up by the Prime Minister giving the Returns in English, so that the country might know exactly what the position was. There was one thing, however, which stopped the way. The President of the Board of Trade told them that the Return might be an expensive one. He (Viscount Sandon), however, could not think, when so much expense was being incurred in connection with the Commercial Treaty, that translating into English a little Return of 52 pages would be a very heavy burden even upon the exchequer of a Liberal Government. He was supposed to be crushed by the answer of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who said that they were discussing the French General Tariff in the Commission; but nobody supposed that they were discussing the French General Tariff, seeing that the Commissioners from France brought their terms in their hands. It was no answer whatever to his appeal to say they were not to know what the Cobden Tariff was, to enable them to compare it with the new French Tariff, because of this mysterious document which they were not allowed to see in the Chambers of Whitehall. He thought it was a great misfortune that the document should be communicated singly to the different manufacturers, so that each manufacturer separately should be made aware of the secret proposals of the French Government. He maintained that the country had a right to be made acquainted with the question of the French Tariff as a whole. Anybody who knew anything of the feelings of the industrial classes was aware that there was what might be called a great solidarity between

    37
    them. They all felt that if one class of industry was injured, the others would ultimately suffer. He would conclude by again asking—What was the meaning of all that concealment? Why did not the Government at once give way? He had told the President of the Board of Trade that he should not be satisfied with the mere opinions of the Chambers of Commerce. He asked hon. Members opposite whether, if the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce said they did not care for a translation, he (Viscount Sandon), representing thousands of persons interested in trade and commerce, would be right in accepting that statement? He felt convinced that this affair had arisen from the want of experience—with which they had no right to find fault—of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Nobody could suppose it was a grave fault; but, of course, they all knew that the right hon. Gentleman had not spent a great deal of time within those walls. He appealed to the Prime Minister, who appreciated deeply and truly the feelings of the masses of the industrial classes, and who knew how they liked to be taken into confidence in these matters, which affected their daily bread and daily life; and he asked him to take one of two courses—first, that he would instruct the Members of his Government to remove the block from the Motion which stood in his (Viscount Sandon's) name, if he put it on the Paper. He would then bring it on after half-past 12, when he would be content, sparing them another speech, to take the opinion of the House upon it; and if the House thought it was better that there should not be an English translation of these French Commercial Treaties, he would not say more about the matter. What, however, he would like better than that course would be for the Prime Minister to acknowledge that there had been a slight mistake, and to say that on the whole he thought it was better that an English translation should be at once laid on the Table. He would move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Viscount Sanden.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have no complaint to make of either of the alternative proposals with which the noble
    38
    Viscount opposite (Viscount Sandon) has concluded his speech, as they are perfectly fair ones—that the Government should withdraw the expression of a desire made by my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Chamberlain) not to have an opportunity of discussing this Return before it was granted; and the other, that we should agree to withdraw any obstacle to the prosecution of the Motion of the noble Viscount, either at the proper hour of the evening, or, as he fairly says, at half-past 12, and allow him to take the judgment of the House upon it. I make no complaint of that proposition, I am very sorry that the noble Viscount, who is not accustomed to deal with a matter of this kind, should have introduced into the speech one or two points which require a little notice from me. He made it matter of complaint that when he appealed to me yesterday I was silent. The noble Viscount did appeal to me yesterday, and I was silent; but the reason was that I requested my right hon. Friend near me to speak on my behalf. The reason why I said nothing was because I knew nothing, a rule which, I think, perhaps, would be advantageous—namely, that those who know nothing of a subject should say less. I say so for myself, and perhaps other hon. Members may apply the remark to themselves. The noble Viscount quoted, as a precedent to the conduct of my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in having previously moved the adjournment of the House during the Question time. That precedent, in my opinion, is no precedent at all, as the cases are not in the slightest analogous. But I make no complaint whatever of the noble Viscount moving the adjournment of the House, because I think, under the circumstances in which he stands, he not having the means of bringing it forward in any other way, he has a perfect right to take this course—at all events, it is not my business to complain. I do, however, really feel somewhat disposed to regret that the noble Viscount should have assumed the patronage of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for what he thinks his miscarriage in this matter, and thrown his shield over him, by referring to what he considers his inexperience in Office. My right hon. Friend has sat in this House for a not inconsiderable number of years,

    39
    and has had an amount of practice in what may be called Public Business before entering this House, which is probably quite unequalled by that of any other hon. Member within the House. The noble Viscount must know that this kind of patronage, especially when offered across the Table, has really always the appearance of an intention to wound and hurt the feelings of those to whom it is directed. In these circumstances, I think that the tone of the noble Viscount's speech was most inappropriate and most unfortunate, and I trust the noble Viscount himself will a little regret it. I come now to the question itself. The noble Viscount asks what is the object of all this concealment on the part of the Government? Here, I must say, I am afraid we are all apt to be more tolerant of charges against our moral character than against our understanding, and I own I do feel very much hurt by the estimate the noble Viscount has formed of our understanding, when he actually conceives that we are capable of devising a plan to conceal information from the House and the public, by only publishing it in the French language. I think the estimate he forms of our motives in this matter is one he might apply to the lowest aborigines on the face of the earth, or, perhaps, even to go further back, to some of our ancestors anterior to the human race; and, even there, he might have detected a dawning of intelligence, such as if they had desired to conceal anything they would never have adopted this particular course. Now I come to the main matter—and I think I have come to it rather quicker than the noble Viscount—and, after consulting my right hon. Friend, I will take the shortest of the noble Viscount's suggestions, and for this reason—my right hon. Friend near me desired to secure an opportunity for discussing this Motion, because he thought it desirable to lay before the House the position of affairs. But to-day the question has been raised in a manner that seems to evoke a considerable amount of warmth, and that warmth is not an immaterial fact for us to weigh. I must say that if there is any one subject on which, more than another, we should be less anxious to practice concealment it would be the tendency to establish protective Tariffs, whether in France or any other foreign countries. That is a subject on which,
    40
    so far as we can prudently do it, it is our interest in the highest sense, and emi-nently comformable to the traditions of my right hon. Friend and all those who sit on this side of the House, that we should endeavour to enlist the English public upon our side. There are several modes of enlisting public opinion. Some of these modes may be prudent, and others less prudent. The noble Viscount has read out, amidst storms of indignant cheers from the opposite Benches the extravagant rates of protective duty which the French, in the exercise of their discretion, have proposed to levy upon a multitude of English imported goods, of which the noble Viscount only gave us a very short statement. For my own part, I am delighted to find manifested upon the opposite side of the House so strong a sense of the inexpediency of a country resorting to such practices. I am all the more delighted at that manifestation of feeling on the part of hon. Members opposite because, unfortunately, it is not supposed to be expressive of the sentiment held by them; and I have seen in journals professing to represent their views, and I have read it speeches which have been delivered through the length and breadth of the country, lamentations over the un wisdom of this country in exposing its markets to be flooded by all sorts of manufactures, and, on the other hand, altogether commending the great prudence and wonderful forethought of other countries, France amongst them, for protecting their trade against the invasion of the stranger. My satisfaction at that expression of opinion on the part of hon. Members opposite is all the greater because I am sure they will admit that if these prohibitive duties are bad in the case of one country they must be equally bad in the case of all countries, and that will show that they have changed their minds as to the effect of them in this country. What I desire, however, to point out is that, although the expression of such sentiment, on behalf of hon. Members opposite may have considerable effect in rousing and stirring up the public feeling of this country against protective Tariffs, the echo of those sentiments will go forth, and the speech of the noble Viscount will go forth, and be heard in France, and by the French public; and the consequence may be—I do not hesitate to

    41
    say that probably it will be—to seriously increase the difficulties of carrying on the negotiations between the two countries. My frank opinion is, and I appeal to hon. Members on all sides of the House, to remember that, while it is desirable that the British public shall be thoroughly and completely informed as to what is going on, it is desirable that these matters shall not become the theme of a rather warm debate in this House at the present moment while negotiations are proceeding, but that the discussion in respect of them shall be postponed to a more convenient season. My right hon. Friend is quite ready to give an indication of his very sincere adhesion to that view by consenting at once to repress the desire he has felt for stating what he would call his case in favour of the Return; and, therefore, instead of agreeing to the suggestion of the noble Viscount that this debate shall be resumed at a late hour, I am willing to withdraw all opposition to the production of the Return. Her Majesty's Government feel that it is far better that they should remain, in some degree, misapprehended, and that their motives, not for refusing, but for postponing, the production of these Papers should be misunderstood, than that they should enter upon a debate on the subject at the present moment which may lead to misconstruction. No doubt the noble Viscount felt himself justified in bringing forward this question if he believed that the Government were shrouding themselves behind the impenetrable mysteries of the French language in order to gain their object of concealment. I am not, therefore, in any way finding fault with the noble Viscount; but I appeal to him, after the concession I have made, to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the House.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he would answer the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman by doing his best to prevent the discussion from going any further. All he could say was that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) thought that he (Viscount Sandon) had said anything personally discourteous towards him he begged to tender to him his most hearty apologies, because the last person towards whom he should desire to be discourteous would be his Successor in Office, who had always shown the most
    42
    friendly feeling towards him. After the very handsome way in which the Prime Minister had consented to his application, he should place his Notice of Motion for the Return on the Table to-night, so that it might be moved to-morrow as an unopposed Return, and he would trust to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to lay a translation of the document in question before the House as speedily as possible. He trusted that, in future, the error of giving Returns in foreign languages would not be repeated, and that they would have them laid upon the Table in their own old English tongue, of which they were so proud. In conclusion, he begged to be allowed to withdraw his Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he desired to give expression to the feeling of the people of this country, whose industries worn likely to be affected by the new French Tariff, with respect to the importance of their being supplied with an authentic translation of the recently adopted French Tariff. A meeting had lately been held by his constituents at Coventry, which was attended by 2,000 or 3,000 persons, and they had urged him not to allow this subject of the French Tariff to proceed without their being afforded all the information he could obtain for them respecting it. Now, if he sent them the Tariff in French, what would be their answer to him? Why, they would at once turn upon him as the author of the work which he held in his hand, and which he had just brought from the Library, and say to him—"Do you, as the author of The Tariffs of All Nations, translated into English, with the foreign weights, measures, and monies reduced to their English equivalents, expect us to understand this foreign document?" The question was by no means a new one. The unwillingness of the Department of the Board of Trade to furnish this House and the country with information as to foreign Tariffs was an old failing. [Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. DILLWYNrose to Order. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was discussing a subject which had been withdrawn, and his conduct in doing so appeared to be approaching the confines of Obstruction.
    MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was in Order.
    MR. NEWDEGATE,resuming, said, that from the year 1817 to 1852 he endeavoured to induce the successive Presidents of the Board of Trade to furnish that information as to foreign Tariffs in English; but successive Administrations supported that Department in withholding that information until, in the year 1852—for that system of concealment was practised equally by the Government of Lord Russell and that of the late Lord Derby—he (Mr. Newdegate) stated in that House that he would undertake the task himself. Here, in the volume which he held in his hand, was the result of that undertaking. This work was to be found in the Library of the House. It was as much acknowledged as an authority in the United States as in this country; and he asked whether the House meant again to devolve upon one of its Members, as an individual, a task that ought to be executed by the Foreign Office or the Board of Trade? The work to which he referred was produced in 1855. He (Mr. Newdegate) took it to Lord Palmerston when Prime Minister, and that noble Lord did him the honour of consulting him with respect to the orders which should be issued to the various Embassies of this country for the purpose of continuing the information he (Mr. Newdegate) had condensed up to 1855. Lord Palmerston did more than that, he showed him (Mr. Newdegate) the orders before he issued them; and if the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would turn to the records of his Department he would find Lord Palmerston's order for furnishing the information in English, which was issued to every Embassy and every Consulate of this country abroad. That order was signed by Lord Palmerston in his (Mr. Newdegate) presence, and if the Embassy in Paris had not furnished Her Majesty's Government with the information which the noble Viscount the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) required, the order given by Lord Palmerston when Prime Minister must have been either cancelled or disobeyed. He (Mr. Newdegate) would not have troubled the House, but he thought the House would find itself at a great disadvantage if
    44
    hon. Members undertook to discuss this matter—the contemplated Commercial Treaty with France—in the dark; in other words, upon imperfect information, or upon data given in a foreign tongue, which the constituents of hon. Members and the people of this country generally did not understand. He held that the production of such documents relating to or descriptive of foreign Tariffs, or negotiations relating to such Tariffs in foreign languages, giving foreign weights and measures and foreign monies unconverted into their English equivalents, was simply inviting this House to debate in the dark; and he now put this question plainly to the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—he asked the hon. Gentleman to inform the House whether the order which he (Mr. Newdegate) had seen Lord Palmerston sign, and which was issued to the Embassies of this country aboad, enjoining them to give accounts of all changes, and of all proposed changes, in the Tariffs of the countries to which they were accredited in English, giving the foreign weights and measures and the foreign monies converted into their English equivalents, had been withdrawn, cancelled, or disobeyed?
    No reply was given to the Question.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MONKgave Notice that, on Thursday next, he should ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he would lay upon the Table the tariff àdiscuter, which formed the basis of negotiations as to the French demands?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, that he would prefer to answer the Question at once. At the last meeting of the High Commissioners on Saturday they had asked their French Colleagues whether the Protocol of the proposed Tariff was a document which might be made public now, or whether it was still to be concealed, as the English Commissioners had no object in concealing any of the documents. The French Commissioners then stated that the negotiations were not at an end, but were merely suspended for some weeks. And they invited the English Commissioners to resume the negotiations in Paris at the end of a month; and they added

    45
    that pending the negotiations the Protocols and-the conventional Tariff were still confidential documents.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRAD- LAUGH)—THE ORDER OF 10TH MAY.
  COLONEL MAKINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of Order. I desire to ask you, whether it is true, as has been stated in the newspapers, that you have received a threatening letter from Mr. Bradlaugh—that is to say, not a letter threatening you with personal violence, but threatening to use violence for the purpose of impugning a Resolution passed by the House; whether it is your intention to take official notice of the letter; and whether you will take such steps as may be advisable for protecting the Serjeant-at-Arms and the other officers of the House from such violence in discharging their duties in pursuance of that Resolution?
  MR. SPEAKER: Before the hon. Member arose, I was about to inform the House that I had received a communication from Mr. Bradlaugh, Member for Northampton; and I was about to communicate that letter to the House. I will do so now. It is in the following terms:——
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Might I, Mr. Speaker, ask you a question on a point of Order, before you proceed to read that letter? ["Order!"] In spite of interruptions from the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker having allowed me to put a point of Order, I insist upon continuing. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is competent for any hon. Member to move, after you have communicated that letter to the House; that it be not inserted on the Journals of the House, that it be not considered by the House; and that you, Sir, be requested by the House not to give any reply to it?
  MR. SPEAKER: The letter, after I have read it to the House, will be laid upon the Table; it will then appear in the Votes, and it will be competent for any hon. Member to found a Motion upon it if he should think proper hereafter to do so. I will now proceed to read the letter to the House:—
  "To the Right Honourable
  "The Speaker of the House of Commons.
  "Sir,
  "I beg most respectfully to submit to your notice the following points;—
  "1. I am advised that the interruption on the 27th April, and my removal on the 10th May last from the House by the Serjeant at Arms, when engaged according to Law and in precise compliance with the Rules and Orders of the House in attempting to perform the duty of taking my scat, was on each occasion absolutely illegal, and was an infringement of my rights and in breach of my privileges as a duly returned Member of the House.
  "2. I am advised that the House of Commons had not any authority either by statute, or according to its own precedents, to pass any Resolution interrupting me or authorising the Serjeant at Arms so to remove me, I being then in the exercise of my lawful right and attempting the orderly performance of my legal duty.
  "3. I am advised that I should have been justified in resisting the use of the illegal and therefore unjustifiable physical force on the part of the Serjeant at Arms.
  "4. I am advised that, notwithstanding the illegality of the said forcible removal of myself by the Serjeant at Arms, I have no remedy in any Court of Law against the said Serjeant at Arms, as the privileges of the House of Commons protect its Officer even in wrongful acts, if such acts are done in pursuance of the Order of the House.
  "5. I am advised that the Order of the House of the 10th May last, a copy of which order has been served upon me, does not authorise the Serjeant at Arms to use force or to employ force to prevent my re-entry into the House, to the Table of which I have been properly introduced, for the purpose of completely complying with the Law in order to take my seat at the time and in the manner provided by the Standing Orders.
  "6. That if such Order should be construed to authorise the said Serjeant at Arms to attempt by force to prevent me from entering the House to complete and fulfil the duty required from me by Law, in the manner provided by the Standing Orders, then that any such user of force would be absolutely illegal, and may be lawfully resisted and overcome by me.
  "I beg therefore, Sir, most respectfully to give notice that I claim to disregard the Order of the House of the 10th day of May last, and to treat the same as not requiring obedience from me, on the ground that such Order is absolutely illegal. I do not dispute the power of the House in its pleasure to vacate my seat if once I have taken it. In such case it would be for the Electors of Northampton to decide on a new Election as to whom they would wish further to represent them. I do not question, nor should I resist, the authority of the House to arrest me, this right it has exercised over Englishmen far more more important than myself, but I do deny, and, if it unhappily becomes necessary, shall feel it my duty to resist, the claim to prevent me, in spite of the Law, and by physical force alone, from complying with the Return and Mandate of my Constituents, whose lawful representative I am.
  "In the name of the Law, Sir, and of my Constituents, I also most respectfully give notice that I shall, in the manner and at the time provided by the Standing Orders of the House, again present myself at the Table of the House to complete the fulfilment of the duty imposed

  47
  on me by Law, and, in the course of the performance of which duty I have been most improperly and illegally interrupted and hindered.
  "I, having obtained the leave of my Constituents to this effect, would have waited, and would still wait the reasonable pleasure of the House, as to any Legislation with reference to the manner of my taking my Seat; but, as the House does not express any opinion on this subject, and does not challenge in any way the lawfulness of my Return, it is due to my Constituents that I should insist on the performance of my duty in my unchallenged lawful right, and thus put an end to a state of things without precedent in the history of Parliament.
  "I have the honour to be, Sir,
  "Your most obedt. Servant,
  "CH. BRADLAUGH.
  "4 July, 1881."
  I have deemed it to be my duty to communicate this letter to the House, because it contests the authority and the Order of the House itself. I may add also that I have given special directions to the Serjeant-at-Arms to enforce the Order of the House of the 10th May.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: In view, Sir, of the last observations that fell from you, that the letter contests the authority of the House, and that you have deemed it your duty to take extra precautions, in consequence of that letter, to see that the authority of the House is not disregarded, I presume I shall be in Order in treating the communication which you have just read as a matter affecting the Privileges of the House, in the same way as the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) proposed to treat the former letter of Mr. Bradlaugh. Sir, I beg to move——
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the noble Lord, who wishes to know whether he can found his Motion upon a question of Privilege upon the precedent of the former letter of Mr. Brad-laugh, that the case upon which the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) made the Motion and the present case are not at all analogous. On the occasion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle making his Motion the matter was one of urgency; but on this occasion the noble Lord is unable to plead urgency.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Does this not affect the Privileges of the House in any way? The letter of Mr. Bradlaugh does not—["Order!"]—I would say that my solo object is to
  48
  prevent the letter being printed in the Votes; and that, I think, is a distinctly intelligible object. But I beg to give Notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of moving that this letter be not inserted in the Journals of the House, that it be not considered by the House, and that you, Sir, be requested to make no reply to it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to ask, as a point of Order, whether the Motion of the noble Lord will come on as a matter of Privilege, or whether it will have to go through the ordinary process of the ballot?
  MR. SPEAKER: A Motion of this kind could not come on as a matter of Privilege; and I may add that, if the noble Lord proposes to take that course, it will be entirely without precedent. I apprehend that any communication which the Speaker makes to the House must, as a matter of course, be printed in the Votes.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did not give the Notice, Mr. Speaker, in any sense as antagonistic to the communication you have made to the House, and I did not know that what I proposed to do would have that effect. What I want to do is to prevent, if possible, a letter of that kind—a letter which is of such a very peculiar character—being printed in the Journals of the House. Of course, after what has fallen from you, I shall not proceed with the Motion of which I have given Notice.
  MR. SPEAKER: I apprehend that if the noble Lord wishes to take the action that he indicates, the best course for him or any other hon. Member sharing his views to adopt will be to move, subsequently, that the letter be expunged from the Journals of the House.
  MR. GORST: Should I be in Order, Sir, if I were now to move that the Order of the House of the 10th May be read by the Clerk at the Table? Sir, you have stated that you have given instructions that that Order of the House shall be executed by the proper officers of the House, and I therefore desire that it should be read at the Table, so that the House may see whether the terms of that Order are such as to give the House the strongest protection against violence or a violent interruption of its proceedings. I will move that the Order of the House of the 10th May be read by the Clerk at the Table.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Surely, Sir, the House would best consult its own dignity and the dignity of the Chair by leaving this in your hands. The action of the House was quite clear some time ago. You have entirely given expression to the feeling of the House, and the House may safely trust this matter in the hands of its Chair.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I entirely concur with what has just fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon. It would, in my view, be imprudent on the part of the House to interfere with its own Executive, so to speak, in the discharge of the duties which appertain merely to that Executive. It is the business of the Executive to look after the fulfilment of the Orders of the House; and, if that were not so, there would be no use in having an Executive. When the Executive finds it necessary to do so, no doubt it will come forward and appeal to the House for the purpose of having effect given to its action.
  MR. SPEAKER: It may be convenient to the House that I should read the Order of the 10th May. It is—
  "That the Serjeant-at-Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh from this House until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."
  MR. DILLWYN: There is one point which I wish to see cleared up before this matter is allowed to drop. It is said that the Motion is absolutely made, and that the letter of Mr. Bradlaugh will be printed, and that the proper course for the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock to take would be to move that it be expunged from the Votes. I should like to ask whether, if the noble Lord moves to expunge it, that Motion will be one of Privilege or not? Can it be sprung upon us without due Notice?
  MR. SPEAKER: It could not.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg to give Notice that I will make the Motion at the earliest possible moment.

  AUSTRO-SERVIAN COMMERCIAL TREATY.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, When the text of the Austrian and Servian Treaty would be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, that he had given orders yesterday
  50
  that it should be pressed forward with all despatch, and he hoped it would be ready that week.

  THE TREATY OF COMMERCE WITH FRANCE.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he wished to ask a Question arising out of an answer given by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). He wished to know, Whether the French Treaty was to be extended for three months after the 8th of November?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, the French Treaty Tariffs would come to an end on the 8th of November, and there was a Bill now before the French Chambers to enable the Government to prolong them for a further period of three months in the event of negotiations for the conclusion of a new Tariff being still pending. The French Government had made proposals to several other Powers to enter into negotiations, and if the negotiations were still proceeding on the 8th of November, the French Government would propose the prolongation of the Tariffs for three months.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—THREATEN- ING A MEMBER.
  MR. MAC IVER,rising to a point of Order, said, he wished to ask Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) was entitled to threaten him in the Lobby of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is appealing to me on a point of Order with reference to a matter which has occurred in the Lobby. I am bound to say I must decline to give an opinion upon occurrences in the Lobby.
  MR. MAC IVER: The hon. Member for Oldham stated that you, Sir, had made a communication to him in reference to a Petition which I presented. I am bound to ask you, whether you did make such a communication to the hon. Member? ["Order!"and"Chair!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, in speaking to a point of Order, has asked me whether I made a communication to the hon. Member for Oldham. I am not aware of that communication; but I must tell him that he should not appeal to the Chair on a point of Order of that kind.
  MR. MACIVER (who rose amid cries of "Order!")said, that he was sorry for the interruption, but to put himself in Order he would conclude with a Motion. The facts were these. The hon. Member for Oldham had, in the Lobby, accused him of having gone much beyond the terms of the Petition which he had presented, and said he had been consulting Mr. Speaker on the subject, and was advised to bring his (Mr. Mac Iver's) conduct before the House. He (Mr. Mac Iver), having a perfectly good defence, wished the hon. Member to do so—if it was true that he had been so advised; but on saying this to the hon. Member, that Gentleman declined to proceed. He was aware that he did use language which was out of Order; but he stated nothing whatever beyond what the Petitioners wished him to say, and he left much unsaid that they desired him to say. He simply wished now to ask Mr. Speaker whether the hon. Member for Oldham had had any conversation with him on the subject; whether he had told the hon. Member that the matter was one which he ought, if he felt aggrieved, to bring before the House publicly? The hon. Member had not done that, but threatened him with a communication from Mr. Speaker, the existence of which he (Mr. Mac Iver) had ventured to doubt, and had, in one of the Lobbies, charged him, in the first place, with having gone beyond the Prayer of the Petition, and, in the second, with obstructing the Business of the, House. That was a charge which could not be reasonably brought against him.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must put it to the hon. Member that he is now abusing the Privileges of the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. If he moves the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of asking me whether the hon. Member for Oldham had a certain conversation with me, he is committing a gross abuse of Privilege.
  MR. MAC IVER,rising amid cries of "Name him" said, he had not the slightest wish to trespass further upon the House. He had only mentioned the matter, because he thought the conduct of the hon. Member for Oldham most improper and unbecoming.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to make a personal explanation. The House is probably aware that the hon. Member for Birken-
  52
  head (Mr. Mac Iver), in presenting a Petition, was somewhat discursive in his remarks. Several hon. Members on this side of the House rose to Order; but, on receiving an assurance from the hon. Member that he was only repeating the Prayer of the Petition, he was allowed to proceed. I, afterwards, ascertaining that the hon. Member had travelled beyond the Prayer of the Petition, consulted the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who is one of the most experienced Members of the House after yourself, Sir, whether the matter was one to which the attention of the House should be drawn. On the whole, we have come to the conclusion that we had better not waste the time of the House when there was so much more important Business before it; but, having consulted with the hon. Member for Swansea in this matter, and meeting the hon. Member for Birkenhead in the Lobby, I thought it more candid to tell him what I had done. I told him, that though. I would not waste the time of the House by drawing attention to an assurance which enabled him to be out of Order, and thereby take advantage of the House, that if such a thing occurred again I should call the attention of the House to it. That is the substance of what passed.
  MR. MAC IVER: One word. The hon. Member spoke of a communication from you, Sir, and said he wanted to——["Order, order"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

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. [TWENTIETH NIGHT.]
    [Progress 4th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    COMMITTEE. [TWENTIETH NIGHT.]
      PART II.

        INTERVENTION OF COURT.
        Clause 7 (Determination by Court of rent of present tenancies).
        MR. CHAPLINhaving placed upon the Paper the following Amendment:—

        53
        In page 8, at end, add the following sub-sections:—
        "(12) If the judicial rent of any holding is less than the rent payable by the tenant at the date when the application was made, the landlord, on showing to the Land Commission that the reduced rent that will probably be actually received from the estate will not be sufficient to pay taxes, rates, cesses, interest, and instalments on public loans, and other charges of a public nature, on the estate, and to keep down the interest or yearly charge for incumbrances thereon, and to leave for the landlord a reasonable surplus, may require the Land. Commission to purchase, and the Laud Commission shall purchase the estate, under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts incorporated with this Act;
        "(13) The purchase money shall be applied and distributed by the Land Commission, first, in discharge of incumbrances, as far as the purchase money extends, and then according to the rights of the landlord and others interested in the estate; and for that purpose any trustees may be appointed by or with the approval of the Land Commission;
        "(14) The application and distribution aforesaid shall be valid and binding to all intents, and, in case of a deficiency, any proportion or part of the purchase money allocated by the Land Commission, and paid in respect of any incumbrance, shall be deemed to be paid and received in full discharge of that incumbrance, as far as the estate was a security for the same;
        "(15) For the purposes of this section, in-cumbrance includes mortgage in fee or for a less estate, trust for securing money, registered judgment, decree, or order, legacy, portion, lien, or capital or other sum charged in any manner on an estate."
        THE CHAIRMAN: It may save discussions upon Order if I state, before asking the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) to propose his Amendment, that I have carefully compared it with the Money Resolution of the 30th May, and that I consider it is within the wide terms of that Resolution. By it the Committee can consider proposals for "advancing or purchasing of estates," no limiting words being attached to such purchases except provisions which may ultimately be enacted in the Bill before us.
        MR. GLADSTONE: On a point of Order, Sir, perhaps you will be kind enough to explain to us the difference between a Committee of this character and a Committee of Supply, in which the power of making proposals for taking money, through the authority granted to it by the House, is entirely limited to Ministers of the Crown? I understand you, Sir, to say that it is open to any hon.
        54
        Member to propose an outlay of public money in a Committee on a Bill, provided only that the terms of the Resolution of the 30th May do not exclude the purpose for which the money is proposed to be taken.
        THE CHAIRMAN: The difference is that in Supply the sums are fixed and may be reduced, but cannot be increased, either as a Vote or a tax, by a private Member. Any increase of a Vote or a tax can only be moved by a responsible Minister of the Crown; but, in a Committee on a Bill, the Ministers of the Crown have no privileges as to Money Clauses beyond private Members, after the House has come to a Resolution regulating the monies to be voted by Parliament for the purposes of the Act. Both are governed by the Money Resolution of the House, and any proposals made within the terms of this Resolution may be considered, whether they are made by private or official Members of the House.
        MR. CHAPLINsaid, the object of the Amendment which had been referred to was to provide for those cases which it appeared to him might possibly arise under the Bill in consequence of a reduction of rent by the Court. He was quite aware it was a somewhat startling proposal to make that landlords or any other classes of the community should be relieved of debts which they had legally incurred, and he quite admitted it was a choice of evils. It was a painful dilemma in which to be placed; but the fault was not his. The fault lay with the Government who introduced this legislation, and it seemed to hint that it would be even worse that any class of the community should suddenly be reduced to beggary and ruin through no fault of their own, but owing to the action of the Government who introduced legislation of this kind. It appeared to him that this was another illustration of the difficulty which Parliament must necessarily encounter the moment it departed from sound principles of legislation, and from that strict regard for the rights of property which had hitherto been recognized by the Administration of every country in the world with the exception of Her Majesty's Government. No doubt, it would be a very considerable shock to those persons and those classes in this country who had invested their money in securities of this nature to find that it was im-

        55
        perilled by this legislation, or by Amendments moved in consequence of it, and no one regretted more than he did the necessity of moving an Amendment of this nature. But he confessed that he would regard it, to a certain extent, as a mitigating feature of that necessity if it brought home to the general public some sense of the dangers which were incurred at the present time by property of all daises and descriptions through the legislation introduced by the present Government, and the dangers they must necessarily encounter the moment Government or Parliament began to tamper with the rights of property, and devise legislation which he looked upon as nothing less than confiscation. The effect of the Amendment would be this—if the judicial rent was lessened by the Court to such an extent that it was not sufficient to meet, in the first place, either the taxes or the encumbrances of the estate, and, in the second place, to leave some reasonable surplus for the landlord, then the landlord might require the Land Commission to purchase the whole estate under certain terms. The 2nd section provided that the estate, having been purchased in this way, the purchase money should be applied and distributed, in the first place, to the discharge of all the encumbrances on the estate, and, if there were any surplus, it should be applied to the rights of the landlord, or the rights of any others who might possess an interest in the estate. The 3rd section provided for the case where there was a deficiency of funds after the estate had been purchased to meet all the charges and encumbrances on the.estate. In that case it enacted that the purchase money having been allocated by the Land Commission, if there was not sufficient to pay the whole, it should be treated as a discharge of the debt in full—that was, so far as it related to the State giving security. Before he moved the Amendment, however, he wished, on a point of Order, to ask the Chairman's opinion, because he had observed there was another Amendment, somewhat of the same nature, on Clause 20, page 13, line 23, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Sir John Ramsden). He wished to know, by the Chairman's ruling from the Chair, whether, in the event of his moving this Amendment,
        56
        and it being negatived, it would prevent the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire from coming on? If his (Mr. Chaplin's) Amendment were moved and negatived, and the position of the hon. Member's Amendment was not thereby interfered with, he should be glad to go on with his proposal.
        THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) is much further on, and I do not like to give a definite opinion so far in advance of the Business of the Committee. There is a difference between the two Amendments. In the Amendment the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire proposes to move, I apprehend he suggests that if the judicial rent is lower than than which existed before, that the whole estate should be purchased; but in the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding, it is suggested that if the holding has a judicial rent fixed lower than formerly, that that holding should be purchased. But I am not prepared to say whether they are substantially the same, until I have given further consideration to the subject.
        MR. CHAPLINsaid, that as he understood if he pressed his Amendment it was possible that the subsequent Amendment to which he had referred would be placed out of Court, he would refrain from bringing forward his proposal.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
        MR. GLADSTONE: The reason that I rise now is that I desire to state to the Committee what is the view of Her Majesty's Government as to the principles contained in the clause; and that I shall do in the briefest manner, as the discussion has already ranged over a very wide field. It has been observed that there is more than one point involved in the present clause. There, are, however, only two to which I will refer, and the first of them is that which relates to judicial rents, whilst the second is that which concerns the renewal of the statutory term. Those are the two main principles of the clause, and, undoubtedly, those two principles might have been separated and put into two different clauses. This case might have arisen. Some hon. Gentlemen, or important

        57
        numbers of hon. Gentlemen, might have been adverse to, and others in favour of, the proposition; but it would have been perfectly competent for hon. Gentlemen, if they had thought fit, to endeavour to remove themselves from this difficulty, to move to omit from the clause so much of it as to have enabled the portion struck out to be renewed in the statutory term later on. In that way it would have been open for us to bring up that matter on a separate clause. No such difference, however, so far as I am able to ascertain, exists in the views of the Committee as to this clause. The right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote), when he was dealing with the question of judicial rents, stated that he intended—I presume that he intended on behalf of his Party—to record his objection to the judicial rent when the question was put for the adoption or rejection of the clause. Since that, general objection has been taken to the renewable statutory term, so that I conceive that there is no practical difficulty under which we he in having these two questions in the same clause. As to the judicial rent, I shall hardly say a word, because I am under the impression that a very great majority of this Committee—a greater majority probably than voted for the second reading of the Bill—are friendly to the adoption of a judicial rent. And, then, again, this judicial rent was recommended by two Commissions, one of which embraced and in-eluded many Members of this Committee, amongst them being the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). [Mr. CHAPLIN: No.] The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire says "No." The Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners for inquiring into Agricultural Distress was undoubtedly signed by the hon. Member, and it contains a paragraph which appears to me to be a recommendation, and if it is not a recommendation it would be well that the matter should be explained. It contains this statement, that I understand to be a recommendation—"Considering that improvements are generally the work of the tenant." I will not quote the whole of the words; but a general proposition which goes far beyond that principle is embodied in the Report, and the proposition is this—
        58
        "The desire for legislative interference to protect the tenant from an arbitrary increase of rent, does not seem unnatural; and we are inclined to think that by the majority of landlords legislation properly framed to accomplish this end would not be objected to."
        So far as I am able to understand the English language, this appears to me to be a recommendation of judicial rents. It does not say that it is a judicial rent in cases affecting the tenant's improvements, but it speaks of rent at large, and states that legislation, properly framed for checking increase of rent without distinction between rent on improvements and any other rent, should not be objected to. It may be said that this legislation is not properly framed; but that answer can hardly be made, because the framing of the legislation has not been objected to. No other form of legislation of this kind for checking increase of rent has been proposed against it. It has been accepted as, perhaps, on the whole, not perfect legislation, but as being as free from objection as any that we can devise. But that is not the main question as to what is to be said on judicial rent, and on this point I do not propose to detain the Committee. What I wish to say is that there has been language used in this House which, in my opinion, is altogether loose and inaccurate, to the effect that this is a clause for giving perpetuity of tenure. In my opinion, and not in my opinion only, but as a matter of fact, I think it can be shown to be no such thing. I am not saying this in the interest of any particular Party, or to acquire the favour of any particular section of the Committee. There are those who would wish that this clause did confer perpetuity of tenure, and there are those who entirely object to perpetuity of tenure. It appears to me to be absolutely undeniable that this clause does not confer perpetuity of tenure, and that the use of the phrase "perpetuity of tenure" in connection with it is an abuse of language. It is altogether a misapprehension. Now, this is my proposition—is this, or is it not, perpetuity of tenure? What is perpetuity of tenure? I should say that it wits a tenure which was incapable of forfeit even by a breach of covenant; but, whether that is so or not, it is undoubtedly a tenure which is absolutely incapable of being interfered with by the expression of a man's will to take the

        59
        tenancy in his possession, or when he transfers it to another person. If I do not call this clause perpetuity of tenure, I call it durability of tenure, reasonable ecurity of tenure—security such as is intended to obviate apprehensions, reasonable security such as is intended to give confidence, and such as is intended to set free both the mind and the arm of the tenant for the improvement of his holding, and to give confidence that the whole of the fruits of,his labour will be secured for his own use and enjoyment. That is the extent of what we give; and for this purpose, in our judgment, it is absolutely necessary that a durable tenure should be given to the tenant. That perpetual tenure should be given to a tenant is a totally different matter. There are many who urge that perpetual tenure ought to be given to the tenant. With very slight exception, indeed, I think it might be said that the Commission of Lord Bessborough recommended perpetuity of tenure. Even that is not altogether true; but it is not very far from true. But, with respect to this clause, it is, in my opinion, whether as a matter of praise, or as a matter of blame, inaccurate to speak of it as giving perpetuity of tenure to the people of Ireland generally. As regards the people of Ireland generally, many of them may not go to the Court at all. I do not believe there is anyone in this House competent at this moment to form a trustworthy judgment as to what proportion of the tenantry of Ireland will go to the Court. There are some of the conditions under which the Court will operate which will make them very desirous to go before it, and there are other conditions that will make them, in my opinion, very unwilling in some cases to go before it. But, however that may be, many of them may not ask to go to the Court. Many may be absolutely repelled from going, because there are particular cases—such, for instance, as the limited enactment as to estates conducted on what is called the English custom, and this matter as to judicial leases—that may be the means of excluding the action of the Court altogether so far as statutory terms are concerned, and so far as anything except the terminable interest is concerned. Well, that disposes of some people in Ireland. Is perpetuity given to those who go into the Court, whose applica-
        60
        tion is accepted and approved by the Court, and who receive from the Court a judicial rent and a statutory term? And now, what I state appears to me to be so plain that I cannot conceive how it can be contested. I can conceive anyone saying, "this is a tenure of durability which you have no right to give," and I can conceive all sorts of objections on the merits of it; but let the objection be raised on the merits, and do not let it be described as "perpetual tenure." It is not a perpetual tenure for various reasons; because, for instance, of the distinction between present tenancies and future tenancies, and because of the modes provided by the Bill, by which what has been a present tenancy becomes a future tenancy. In the first place, there is the mode of forfeiture of a present tenancy, and the replacement of it by a future tenancy, in consequence of a breach of conditions by the tenant. A present tenancy may cease on any and every of the occasions when a tenant right is transferred. When the landlord exercises his right of pre-emption the future tenancy is entered upon, which does not reserve to the tenant the right to apply to the Court, though it does reserve to the tenant his interest in his holding, and places certain restrictions on his rent. When a tenancy is transferred, there is a power in the hands of the landlord of converting, if he thinks fit, a present tenancy into a future tenancy. But this is not all. It would be no perpetuity of tenure if a man were not free to hand it over to someone else. A tenant is subject to the provision I have mentioned, and he is subject to the choice or the veto of the landlord over the vendee. The landlord can, on any reasonable cause—and the interpretation of a reasonable cause is a thing traditional in Ireland—the landlord can oppose and object to the transfer. This shows, again, that you will be misusing language to call this a perpetuity of tenure. But even this is not all; because whilst a tenancy continues in the hands of the existing tenant, it is liable to resumption by the landlord upon reasonable and sufficient cause. I admit that for 15 years, which is the first statutory period, it is not liable to resumption. The exception which we have made with regard to labourers' cottages is, I am afraid, one of a narrow scope; but whatever it is, it is only for this par-

        61
        ticular purpose, and can hardly be considered as greatly affecting the measure before us. For 15 years there will be, practically, fixity of tenure; and the fact remains, that after every statutory term, where the landlord can show sufficient cause, the tenant can be displaced with compensation, and the holding may be resumed by the landlord. Therefore, when the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, or any other hon. Member, thinks it worth while to refer to speeches made by me against perpetuity of tenure, my answer is a simple one. I can reply simply, that I adhere to the statements contained in those speeches. I do not think perpetuity of tenure desirable. What is desirable, what is necessary, what is absolutely vital to this Bill, and what in this Bill cannot be departed from by its framers, is that we should give the tenantry of Ireland a durable interest sufficient to become the basis of a real practical security. Unless we were prepared to do that, we had better not have drafted the Bill at all. Without a provision of this kind the Bill would be a departure from our duty. It would be a mockery, and would satisfy neither the Committee nor the Irish nation—it certainly would not give peace to that still unhappily disturbed country. We have got to attain this end without granting perpetuity of tenure. Why do we not grant perpetuity of tenure? Because we cannot reconcile perpetuity of tenure with the maintenance, or, still more, the duties of the landlords. I grant you that it was this very difficulty that we endeavoured to deal with; but we made an endeavour to obtain security to the Irish tenant, not only security for compensation when removed from his holding, but something more than that—namely, an assurance that he would not be removed from his holding except for grave and sufficient reasons. We have endeavoured to secure this in a manner compatible with retaining the position, the privileges, and the duties of the landlords. It is difficult, perhaps, to bring these things together; but, Sir, we have made the attempt, and we have endeavoured to adhere to the basis on which the attempt is founded. If, in the future, other attempts are made which are to become the law of that country, they will be attempts which will be likely to be in the direction of greater fixity of tenure. This
        62
        is an important opportunity; this division is an important division, because the maintenance of the clause, which, as I have said, seems to us to be absolutely essential and vital to the Bill, is in the balance; it is a question of the standing or the falling of the labours of the year—the work of the Parliament during the year—and not only that, but upon this rests oar hopes for the tranquillity and good order of Ireland. But I have said that I have no title to restrain the liberty of objection to and impeachment of this clause, and I only wish to express the hope that in all justice we may not be credited with praise that we do not deserve nor be charged with imputations that do not attach to the course which we have taken. I know that what I have said—almost every word of what I have said—will be characterized by hon. Members as depreciatory of the Bill. I am not here to conceal the character of the Bill; I am here, on the contrary, to make its true character appreciated and understood. Take it for what it is worth. It aims to give the tenant a durable interest; it does not aim to give him perpetuity of tenure. Let us discuss this clause and the Bill on the ground that they are for the purpose of giving a durable interest to the Irish tenant without dispossessing the landlord of his social position and the responsibilities that belong to it. We do not seek to dislocate society, and we have never had that object in view; but we cannot offer less to the Irish tenant than is here offered to him, that is, the pledge involved in this Bill—a pledge which is the more consolidated, and, if I may say so, consecrated by the reception which this measure has had from the masses of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland.
        MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that, as he had a Motion on the Paper for rejecting the clause, he might, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words with regard to it. He imagined that the Prime Minister had an object in view in taking the unusual course of commencing a debate on the Motion for rejecting the clause; but with that object he (Mr. Balfour) had nothing whatever to do. It was, no doubt, to warn his followers that he regarded the fate of the Government as depending upon the clause itself. That was a matter of the internal

        63
        policy of the Liberal Party with which he (Mr. Balfour) was in no way concerned. But the first part of the Prime Minister's speech was intended, no doubt, to restrict the area of the discussion on the clause, and with that object the Committee would sympathize. He (Mr. Balfour) should not like to extend the discussion; but the Prime Minister had tried unduly to restrict the discussion, and to put it into limits which, he thought, they on that side of the House would find themselves impossible to keep within. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there were two principles contained in the clause—namely, judicial rent and fixity of tenure. With regard to the second question, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Reports of two Royal Commissions, which, he said, supported the view of the Government. Well, as to the Bess-borough Commission, he (Mr. Balfour) should have thought, after the recent debate which had occurred in "another place," it would have been well to have made no further allusion to it. He should have thought that no Government would have been rash enough to have urged the authority of that Commission in any way. But with regard to the other Commission the right hon. Gentleman claimed that it had pronounced in favour of valued rents; and when the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) dissented from that proposition, the Prime Minister proceeded to read out from the Report words which he regarded as conclusive on the point. He would point out to the Prime Minister that if the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire showed half the ingenuity in explanation that he did not report in favour of valued rents that the Prime Minister had shown in demonstrating that the Bill did not give fixity of tenure, he would find it a very easy task to escape from the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman. What did the Report say? It stated that there was a very general feeling throughout Ireland that valued rents would be desirable, and that many landlords would not object to a measure framed on those principles. He did not think that that bound the Commissioners in any way. He must confess that he (Mr. Balfour) himself should not have signed those words, because they were really a misinterpretation;
        64
        but, at the same time, he was sure that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, when lie came to speak on this question, would find no difficulty in escaping from the net which the Prime Minister had attempted to throw round him. Now, with regard to the question which the Prime Minister had raised as to fixity of tenure, the right hon. Gentleman argued elaborately to show that this measure did not give perpetuity of tenure. He (Mr. Balfour) did not wish to waste the time of the Committee over what was, after all, a mere verbal excuse. The Prime Minister said the Bill gave durability of tenure; but it seemed to him that durability of tenure, which lasted, practically, for ever, was undistinguishable front perpetuity of tenure. The right hon. Gentleman's contention was that to call it perpetuity of tenure was nothing more nor less than abuse of the English language. Those were the two questions which the Prime Minister said were raised by this clause; but there was another question which, though it was intimately connected with them, might be distinguished from them, and, in his opinion, it was by far the most important. That was the handing over to to the Court, with no directions whatever, the regulation of a gigantic industry like agriculture. Yet that was what the Government did in this clause. Was the Court to deal with a country of 5,000,000 of people who practically supported themselves by but this one industry? A little section of the people of Ireland showed a sense of discontent, and the Government came down to this House and actually proposed, as a remedy, that all the most delicate and important interests of that great industry, by which a whole people were supported, should be handed over, without any regulations, to a Court not yet named. It was against this proposal that he should protest, more especially when he voted, as he shortly should vote, against including this clause in the Bill. In deciding this question of rents they could not possibly act without determining also the question of the interest in the capital and the question of wages; because, whatever might be the elements that the Court would take into account in deciding fair rents, there could be no doubt that the Court would have to also take into consideration the fair value of the labour,

        65
        and the fair value of the capital, of the landlord. He admitted that, so far as the Bill went, they were at present only determining the wages of the farmer; but did they think they would be able to stop there? There had already been brought to bear upon the Government a great deal of pressure to induce them to deal with the question of the agricultural labourers. They had dealt with the farmers; would they be able to resist the appeal of 500,000 agricultural labourers when they came and asked them to determine—as they had already determined what was a fair day's rent—what was a fair day's wages? The action of hon. Members who came from Ireland showed that they did not mean to lot the question rest, and they would be weakening their hands when asked to deal with it if they assented to the principle of the clause now presented for their acceptance. This was a subject on which he confessed he felt very strongly; and if there was any one consideration which would make him take a more serious view of it than another it was that the Government and hon. Members opposite appeared to think that in establishing this omnipotent Court they were doing the most ordinary legislative act in the world. No doubt, the Prime Minister had made some statements showing that he fully considered that the position was one not without gravity; but he (Mr. Balfour) had not heard that sentiment echoed from the Benches behind the right hon. Gentleman. Nor did he think there was in the Party opposite, nor in the country at large, a just apprehension on this matter. This was an experiment that had never before been made in any civilized country. [An hon. MEMBER: In India.] He was talking of Western Europe and the civilized world. No country had ever ventured on an experiment analogous to this; and not only was the experiment destined to failure, but it was one that would have serious consequences in the interests of legislation generally. Hitherto they in England had prided themselves on their principles of free contract between man and man, and they had regarded those principles as the highest mark of civilization; and there was a right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench opposite who, during the past 40 years, in season and out of season, had preached
        66
        that doctrine, and who had gained and maintained his popularity by preaching it. He did not know what the right hon. Gentleman thought of it now. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) think of the speeches he had delivered in years gone by on the Ten Hours' Bill, and other measures in which that great principle was involved? Had they any right to suppose that they might not in the future, and in the not very far distant future, see large classes coming to the Government and declaring—"You must step forward and protect us from free contracts?" That was what was said now in Germany. In this country they desired no interference with the operation of the laws of free contracts; and if such a movement ever spread to England, and if large numbers of the working classes of this country ever came, in the future, to the Government, and said—"Our lot is pressing hardly upon us; we are suffering extremely from the want of equality in the distribution of wealth, which is the result of your economic laws with which you can interfere, as you have shown in the case of Ireland that you are able to do"—he wished to know what reply could be given by the Government or their successors? The question was one on which he had already troubled the House at the time of the second reading; and it was one which, he thought, on account of its great importance, ought to be raised again on the third reading of the Bill. He should certainly divide the Committee on the question that this clause be omitted from the Bill.
        MR. VILLIERS STUART: I am much surprised that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour) should have proposed the omission of this clause from the Bill; for, if there is one portion of it above all others justified, not only by the necessity and circumstances of the present crisis, but also by sound policy, it is this clause, which creates a tribunal securing fair rents to the tenant farmers of Ireland. It is the duty of every Government, it is the duty of every statesman who legislates for any country, to see that all obstacles are removed out of the way of the fullest development of national industries. That applies just as much where the national industry is agriculture as where it is manufacture or commerce.

        67
        The statesman would be neglecting his duty, therefore, if he allowed agricultural improvements to be obstructed by the imposition of a fine upon them. In the case of all sciences, the sole sanction for whose laws is experience, Adam Smith defines political economy to be the science which deals with the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Stuart Mill defines it as the science which treats of the production and distribution of national wealth; that which promotes the production of national wealth and prosperity best accords with the principles of political economy. That which hinders it is most opposed to it. What can hinder it more than taxes on industry and enterprize? What can be more impolitic than to leave in private hands the power to tax a national industry by raising rent in proportion to improvement? Theoretically, it is open to the farmer to refuse increased rent; to accept his compensation and go; but, in practice, he has hitherto preferred to submit, though with a deep sense of wrong, because over and above the money value of his improvements was the attachment he felt for the farm, the improvement of which had, perhaps, been the great object and interest of his life. Is it politic to allow the state of the Land Laws to endure which leaves it open to owners to confiscate the capital and labour which tenants have invested in their farms, by clapping on additional rent for every additional improvement? Is not this to make improvement penal? Does this not account for the backward state of agriculture in Ireland? Can legislators, honestly attempting to remedy this evil, deserve the term impolitic? I know that the great majority of Irish landlords would scorn to take advantage of their tenants in this way; they are, in fact, much better than the laws. Most of them are sincerely anxious to deal justly with their tenants; but a very small percentage of grasping and unscrupulous men suffice to do the mischief. Nay, the very fact that the law renders it possible is enough to frighten the farmers and deter them from doing justice to their farms; and, if their present landlord is too just to take advantage of the law, what security have they that his successor will not do so, and thus fine them heavily for their own industry and enterprize? Such a state of law is enough to kill all enterprise
        68
        and all improvement. Is it politic to allow the law to remain unaltered? Is it not the duty of the State to remove out of the way all obstacles to the development of the resources of the country they govern, and I see no better means of remedying this serious evil than the establishment of land tribunals to insure fair play in the matter of rent. If it be objected to on tile principle of political economy, I ask, has there been a divine revelation from heaven on the subject, that we can claim infallibility for the existing theories of political economists? Political economy is not an exact science like mathematics, the premisses and conclusions of which admit of no dispute, nor has any heaven-sent gospel on the subject come down to us; no, it is a science built up by experience, but the conclusions of human experience are continually subject to modification. New experience and new combinations in endless succession arise, requiring us to admit now exceptions to our rules, in the case of all sciences, the sole sanction for whose laws was experience. At all events, in the problem before us, necessity is the unanswerable argument. When the alternative lies between reform and revolt, we cannot afford to be too nice; when a conflagration is in progress, we must use the engine we have at hand, and not wait to consider whether we might not get a better one. Liability to rack rent causes smouldering discontent, which periodically passes from the chronic to the acute stage. A very acute stage prevails at present. When the pasions are aroused, when men are dragged from their beds to be shot in the presence of their families, or murdered while attending a father's funeral, or have their houses blown up, all which incidents occurred last week, it is high time to strike at the root of causes which give excuse for such passions to blaze out. I say the excuse—God forbid that I should say the justification—of the crimes that have been committed, and that are now daily being committed, must fill us with indignation and horror. The state of the law cannot justify them any more than it can justify the unholy work of sowing hatred between class and class of their fellow-countrymen, in which some of the popular loaders have been employed; but defects in the law furnish the excuse, and it is not politic to leave that excuse in exist-

        69
        ence. Of course, State interference in what have been regarded as matters of private contract do clash with the notions which have hitherto prevailed. But I am one of many landlords in Ireland who have been compelled to come to the conclusion that such interference is necessary, and that it would have been well for us if it had taken place long ago. I have no hesitation in saying that it is for the interest not only of the tenant, but also of the landlord, that this interference should take place. I believe the Reports of the two Commissions prove that the great majority of the Irish landlords would shrink from exacting an exorbitant rent; but, unhappily, there are a small minority of landlords who are not guided by the just and humane principle of "Live and let live," who regard their tenants as mere rent-paying animals from whom to wring the last farthing that can be extracted. The mischief which even a small number of such men can cause is immeasurable. Men of the class I refer to have no scruple in turning their own improvements against their tenants, and in pushing up the rent in proportion to the amount of improvement that has been effected upon the farm. There is nothing which the Irish farmer dreads so much as having his improvements turned against himself in this way. Any one single case of this kind will frighten all the farmers in an entire district; and it is impossible to over-estimate the mischievous consequences to the development of Irish agriculture which have followed from this cause. The State is undoubtedly justified in interfering in the matter of rent—for what might happen if they were absolutely precluded from doing so? It was the State that originally conferred their land upon the landlords; but there must always have been this condition reserved—that they should not use the powers conferred to the detriment of the State. The landlord who tried to carry out to its extreme logical conclusion the theory that he had a right to do what he liked with his own would soon find out that there were limits to that right as regards the public. It would be intolerable, for instance, if he were to proceed to convert a populous manufacturing district into a grouse moor by evicting the entire population, and levelling every town and village upon it; but he might do
        70
        this if the State had no power to interfere in the matter of rent, for he might demand impossible rents. In this last resort, therefore, the State is justified in interfering in the matters of rent; and it is for the Government of any country to determine when such a crisis has arisen as renders it expedient to interfere; this right to interfere is not limited to land, it was at one time deemed expedient to interfere with the interest to be charged for money, as was done in the case of the usury laws, when it was declared unlawful to exact a higher rent or rate of interest than 5 per cent. A still more arbitrary exercise of the right to interfere with the interest to be charged for the use of that which is a man's own property in a sense more absolute than can be predicated of land is the case of the London cab-drivers. Their cabs, their horses, and their time is their own. Yet they are precluded from charging what they please for the use of them. And a fair rent has been fixed for them in a very arbitrary fashion, and the plea in this case was not necessity but convenience. There is, therefore, plenty of precedent for interference by the State in the case of land rents. Of course, it is open to dispute whether the necessity for such interference has arisen. But the most impressive argument in favour of the necessity is the united testimony of two special Commissions, one of them appointed by a Conservative Administration, the other by a Liberal one. I joined an association last Autumn called the Land Tenure Reform Committee, of which such landlords as Lords Monck, Monteagle, and Emly, and Judge Longfield were members; they were all unanimously of opinion that a Land Court, as a security against rack-rent, was necessary; and a number of the most enlightened landowners in Ireland have come to see the danger of their own order, which is threatened, if some security against the unlimited exactions for rent is not devised. Nor have I seen any other effective measure for this purpose suggested, except tribunals empowered to control and regulate the relation between landlord and tenant, and insure to the people the use of the land at a fair rent. Speaking as a landlord myself, I would say that it is vitally necessary for the landlord as for the tenant that this interference should now take place. Had

        71
        such control been established long ago, we should not be involved in the dangerous crisis which now prevails.
        MR. CHAPLINsaid, his first objection to the clause was that it was wholly unpractical and unworkable. That would become more apparent when they considered, on the ground of time alone, the work the Court would have to do. The first and most elementary duty of the Court would be, after hearing the parties and considering all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, to fix a judicial rent for all the parties who might apply to it. He was informed by the highest authority that, at a moderate estimate, it would take two hours to hear each case; and he understood there were about 600,000 tenants in Ireland. There were three classes of tenants in Ireland—the highly-rented, the lowly-rented, and the moderately-rented. The highly-rented tenants would all, of course, go into the Court at once; while the Government had now empowered the landlord also to go into Court; and it would be unfair to suppose that if the landlord were taken into Court by the highly-rented tenant, the landlord would not be likely to take the low-rented tenant into Court. But they were told by the Prime Minister that rent was not the only thing which would induce the tenant to apply to the Court; that he would go into Court to obtain stability also. What would be the consequence? The whole case of the Government was that this stability of security which the Bill insured to the tenant was the one thing which the tenants in Ireland wanted, and that it was the absence of that which the tenants complained of. That was the essential grievance which they said they were about to remove; and the consequence would be that unless the Bill had been introduced on grounds totally false, the great majority of the tenants in Ireland would go into Court at once, not on account of rent only, but in order to get the stability which the Government said was essential for them, and which they also said was one of the main causes for the introduction of the measure. If that were so, he entreated the Committee to consider for one moment, before the clause was finally accepted, what was the gigantic, the impossible task they were about to impose on the Court. He
        72
        might quote the words of the Prime Minister on the first introduction of the Land Bill, when he said—
        "I have very great doubts indeed whether—if we were, by compulsory law, to refer the ultimate regulation of every bargain relating to land to a Judicial Commission sitting in Court—any judicial authority you could create would not break down under the weight so imposed upon it."—[3 Hansard, cclx. 907.]
        Well, it did not appear to him to matter much whether the action of the Court was to be compulsory or permissive, the result would be the same, that the great majority of tenants would go into Court. He would take the number applying to the Court at the moderate estimate of half of the entire number—namely, 300,000; and, on the supposition that each case would take an average of two hours to try, it would require 600,000 hours to decide all the cases, and, allowing that the Court sat six hours each day, something like 12 years would have passed before all the cases could be decided. Such was the position in which the Court would be placed, and after all the inducements they had held out to the Irish tenants, after the manner in which the Irish people had been excited, what, he asked, would be their feelings, when they found everything brought to a dead-lock, and the security offered to them a sham and a delusion, because, owing to the weight and bulk and clumsiness of the Bill, it was absolutely unworkable? But if the primary difficulties were got over, what were the particular difficulties that remained? He regretted to detain the Committee; but he would remind hon. Members that that was the last opportunity they would have of discussing the most novel, if not most revolutionary, proposal that had ever been submitted to the House of Commons. He asked the Committee to consider what were the principal difficulties in the way of arriving at a judicial rent by the machinery provided by the Bill; and here he must refer to some of the observations which fell from the Prime Minister upon this point, and in support of his (Mr. Chaplin's) contention, because he was aware of his inability to adduce any arguments so able and so unanswerable as those which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman himself. What did the right hon. Gentleman say 11 years ago as to the difficulties attending the valuation of rents in Ireland? He said—

        73
        "Now, look at its practical difficulty. We are to value these rents. What an army of public officers are you to send abroad to determine from year to year the conditions of the 600,000 holdings in Ireland, conditions which are settled with comparative ease when settled by private intercourse, but conditions the fixing of which beforehand by a public authority would be attended with tenfold difficulty."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 1846.]
        The right hon. Gentleman added—
        "How are these rents to be valued? What is the test? The prices of produce? Of what produce? Of one kind of produce or of all kinds? Can any man fix by law any system upon which it will be possible to adjust rents by calculation founded upon prices of agricultural produce of all kinds.……It is impossible, in my opinion, to get the prices of produce so as to found the rent upon them by a public authority; and if you could get them it would be absolutely impossible to apply a standard according to the varying circumstances of each particular holding, and its capacity to produce this or that kind of produce. But what are we to say with regard to the quantity of produce? Supposing the quantity of produce is doubled, is the landlord to receive the same price for the increased quantity, or is he not? If he is to receive the same price for the increased quantity where is the tenant's inducement to increase the quantity? But if the quantity is to remain the same, by what authority do you cut off the whole of the landlord's interest in the prospective increase in the quantity of produce? "—[Ibid. 1847–8.]
        And the right hon. Gentleman wound up by saying—
        "If I state these things it is that I may provoke confutation. I disbelieve in the possibility."—[Ibid. 1848.]
        He (Mr. Chaplin) disbelieved in it too, and he could not but say that he thought the Committee had been treated very unfairly throughout the discussion, because no Member of the Government had risen in his place to say in what respect the Prime Minister in those days was so completely deceived. But what was the objection of applying that principle of valued rents to Ireland? He must again trouble the Committee by quoting the right hon. Gentleman, who said—
        "If I could conceive a plan more calculated than anything else, first of all, for throwing into confusion the whole economical arrangement of the country; secondly, for driving out of the field all solvent and honest men who might be bidders for farms, and might desire to carry on the honourable business of agriculture; thirdly, for carrying widespread demoralization throughout the whole mass of the Irish people, I must say, as at present advised—to confine myself to the present and until otherwise convinced—it is this plan, and this demand, that
        74
        we should embody in our Bill, as a part of permanent legislation, a provision by which men shall be told that there shall be an authority always existing, ready to release them from the contracts they have deliberately entered into."—[Ibid. 1845.]
        He regretted extremely that the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place; but he asked, was it conceivable, on any principle of morality or justice, and in the face of those declarations, that neither the right hon. Gentleman himself, nor any of his Colleagues, should not have had the manliness or courage to explain, maintain, or contradict them? But the right hon. Gentleman had said that he (Mr. Chaplin) was a party to that plan; that the Richmond Commission had recommended it, and that his name was affixed to the document which, as he had endeavoured to explain to the Committee, distinctly recommended the adoption of the plan by which rents in Ireland should be fixed by some judicial tribunal. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman thought nothing of the fact that he had repudiated all connection with such a plan or such a recommendation; and, further, he supposed it was nothing to him that that recommendation had also been repudiated by the President of the Richmond Commission in "another place." If the Committee would allow him to explain, he would, in a very few words, endeavour to show that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. His (Mr. Chaplin's) contention had always been that the institution of a Court of public authority was not necessary to give the tenant legislative protection against the arbitrary raising of rents. There were a variety of ways in which that protection might be given. He would submit one to the Committee—he did not say it was the right, or the only one; but it would insure protection to the tenant, and was preferable to the clumsy machinery of that ingenious Bill, introduced for the purpose of puzzling tenants, and enriching all the lawyers in Ireland. What objection was there to this—when a tenant made improvements on a farm to give him power by statute, before the landlord was allowed to raise his rent, to call upon the landlord to buy up all the improvements? So in the case of tenant right. Where the tenant had been encouraged to give large prices for tenant right he had always said it was both reprehen-

        75
        sible and undesirable to allow the landlord so to raise the rent as to eat up the tenant right. What was the objection in such cases to giving the tenant the same power to call upon his landlord, before the rent was raised, to purchase the tenant right? This he mentioned in order to show that there were other ways of carrying out the recommendation of the Richmond Commission besides the way proposed by the Bill. Again, the right hon. Gentleman had dwelt at some length upon the subject of perpetuity of tenure, and knowing, probably, that "conscience doth make cowards of us all," said "that he did not care what quotations the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire made from his speeches delivered in 1870." He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not present, as he believed he was in a position to convince him by his own words that perpetuity of tenure was in the Bill. What did the right hon. Gentleman say as to perpetuity of tenure? He said—
        "My proposition is that if you value the rents you may as well, for every available purpose, adopt perpetuity of tenure at once. It is perpetuity of tenure, only in a certain disguise. It is the first link in the chain; but it draws after it the last."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 1846.]
        Well, the right hon. Gentleman had argued at great length, in 1870, against perpetuity of tenure; and what was the description of the scheme against which his arguments were directed? He would give the right hon. Gentleman's description of it, and leave it to the Committee to say whether his speech delivered that day was consistent with that which he delivered 11 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman said—
        "As I understand it, the scheme itself amounts to this—that each and every occupier, as long as he pays the rent that he is now paying, or else some rent to be fixed by a public tribunal charged with the duty of valuation, is to be secured, for himself and his heirs, in the occupation of the land that he holds, without limit of time."—[Ibid. 351.]
        There was, at that moment, on the Treasury Bench the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Had either of those right hon. Gentlemen the manliness, courage, or candour to get up and state to the Committee in what respect the scheme denounced by the Prime Minister differed from that which was
        76
        now proposed; and why did the right hon. Gentleman object to perpetuity of tenure? He objected to it because of its effects—its malevolent effects, as they might be called. The words of the right hon. Gentleman were—
        "As I understand it, the scheme itself amounts to this—that each and every occupier, as long as he pays the rent that he is now paying, or else some rent to be fixed by a public tribunal charged with the duty of valuation, is to be secured, for himself and his heirs, in the occupation of the lands that he holds, without limit of time. He will be subject only to this condition—somewhat in the nature of the Tithe Commutation Act—that with a variation in the value of produce the rent may vary; but it will be slightly, and at somewhat distant periods. The effect of that provision will be that the landlord will become a pensioner and rent-charger upon what is now his own estate. The Legislature has, no doubt, the perfect right to reduce him to that condition, giving him proper compensation for any loss he may sustain in money."—[Ibid.]
        What distinction was there, he asked, between the two cases—that denounced in 1870, and that advocated in 1881 by the Prime Minister—which justified him in refusing compensation to the landlord to-day, seeing that he had said in 1870 that the landlord ought in justice to receive compensation? Under this Bill every tenant might apply to the Court to fix a judicial rent; when that was fixed, it became subject to a statutory term of 15 years, and the tenant might apply from time to time for the renewal of that statutory term; and the sole limitation upon it was that, by the 10th section of the 7th clause, no renewal could take place until the end of the first statutory term, and that the rent could not be altered at a less interval than 15 years. However much the Prime Minister might choose to play on the words, the real effect of the Bill was that it gave the tenant optional perpetuity of tenure—a perpetual lease with the option of a break at the end of 15 years, but with regard to which no option whatever was given to the landlord. If that were true—and he defied any hon. Member opposite to contradict his description—what were they to think of the speech delivered that day by the Prime Minister, and of the consistency of his Colleagues? He had never withheld or concealed his opinion of the Bill. He believed it to be a bad Bill, an unjust Bill, and a confiscatory Bill from beginning to end. But there was something worse which

        77
        he had seen in the course of those discussions, and it was the levity with which expressions of opinion on the part of the Prime Minister of England, not on matters of fact or circumstance, but expressions of opinion on the great principles of morality and justice, were brushed aside by the transparent special pleading they had heard, and dismissed apparently without a thought or feeling of compunction, and in a manner which he could not but feel would be fatal to the public life of England, when the people of this country reflected on the character for consistency of their foremost public men.
        MR. W. E. FORSTERobserved, that the charge just made by the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin), that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government was capable of treating that or any other important subject with levity, was one which would be regarded with surprise by all who heard it.
        MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to misrepresent him. He had made no charge against the Prime Minister of having treated this question with levity. What he said was that the right hon. Gentleman brushed aside, without, apparently, the smallest thought or feeling, all allusions to his statements in former years, with regard to which he (Mr. Chaplin) had charged him with inconsistency.
        MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he distinctly heard the expression "levity of opinion of the Prime Minister." He was very much struck by it at the time.
        MR. CHAPLIN: I said nothing of the kind. I alluded to the levity with which the right hon. Gentleman treated allusions to his past statements. I used the word "levity" deliberately, and I adhere to it now.
        MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was quite content to accept the hon. Member's explanation, although he thought it would not carry conviction to the country. He was not, however, going to take up the time of the Committee on that subject. He would not say that the hon. Member would not have used the same words if his right hon. Friend had been present; but when he charged Members of the Government with want of courage and manliness in not answering his charges, he had to remind
        78
        him that his right hon. Friend had over and over again done so. He was willing to leave the defence of his right hon. Friend to what he had said that day, and to what the House, the Committee, and the country would think of what his right hon. Friend had advanced. The hon. Gentleman had dwelt, as he had dwelt before, on the fact that his right hon. Friend had expected better results from the Bill of 1870 than it had produced; and he congratulated the hon. Member on the industry with which he had read the speeches of his right hon. Friend. But it was too late then to bring forward those speeches, as both on the second reading of the Bill and in Committee they had been repeatedly explained. They had now to consider a very important matter—namely, whether they would accept the clause; whether, in fact, they would accept the Bill, for without the clause the Bill would never have been brought in by the Government. He might, in passing, refer to the inconsistency of the hon. Gentleman in signing the Richmond Report. If the hon. Gentleman thought he had acted consistently, let him, by all means, remain of that opinion. He (Mr. Forster) would only refer him to the speech of the hon. Member who had given Notice of moving the rejection of the clause (Mr. A. J. Balfour), because it conveyed to the Committee that the impression of the hon. Member's inconsistency was not an unnatural one. But they had got more or less into a second reading debate. He did not complain of that, because that clause, the 7th, was the most important clause of the Bill. Its principles had been challenged on the second reading, and fully discussed. Nobody supposed on either side of the House that the Government would, as a matter of choice, have created a tribunal for the fixing of rent; but the majority of the House had recorded their belief that, in the present circumstances of Ireland, they must create such a tribunal. And he asked hon. Members opposite, if they were in power and administering the affairs of Ireland, would they leave matters as they now were? Almost every person who had studied the question felt that, in the present exceptional circumstances of Ireland, they were bound to have an outside tribunal to fix the amount of fair rents. Several hon. Members had tried

        79
        to frighten the Committee by drawing fancy pictures of the view both landlords and tenants would take of the Court. But in a very short time after they had begun to have any experience of the working of the Act both landlords and tenants would get a pretty close idea of what the decision of the Court was likely to be in any particular event, and they would settle the rents for themselves, and so avoid the trouble and expense of going to the Court. He could assure the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire that if he would make inquiries in any part of Ireland, alike of landlords and tenants, he would find that no such feeling existed with regard to the Court as that with which he credited them. So far from that being the case, they looked forward to the establishment of the Court as their hope and resource, in order to enable them to get out of their present difficulties. If the hon. Member for Hertford were to be successful in getting the clause struck out of the Bill, it would be a matter of great disappointment, he might even say of dismay, to the receivers of rent, as much as to the payers of rent. He did not mean to say that the working of the Court would not be attended with inconveniences and difficulties; but he maintained that these would not be so great as the inconveniences and difficulties which they would remove. He doubted whether they could continue to use the power of the law in the landlord's interest, in order to compel the fulfilment of a contract, when they knew that the tenants had not been by any means as free to contract as they ought to be, and as free as tenants were in other countries. The hon. Member objected to the proposal of the Government on the ground that it would give perpetual tenure to the tenant. The Government did not so regard it; and he could not see how it could be so regarded by anyone in view of the fact that it gave to the landlord power to resume possession of his estate at the end of 15 years. They did not for a moment deny—indeed, it was their pride and boast—that though the Bill did not enact perpetual tenure, it would give great stability and security of tenure, and unless it did so the Bill would not be worth the paper on which it was drafted. He did not think that any measure short of that which the Government had introduced
        80
        would, in the present strained state of relations between landlords and tenants in Ireland, have done any real good to either party. He could not complain that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had taken another opportunity of referring to the speeches of the Premier and explaining away his own Report. There were, however, no points in regard to the clause on which hon. Members had not had ample opportunity of forming, and probably had formed, an opinion; and he, therefore, hoped the Committee would go to a division without further delay.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It may be perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that there are no points which can very well be raised with regard to this Bill upon which hon. Members have not probably formed their opinions; but I will endeavour, in a few words, to show why I think, at the present moment, on the passing of the 7th clause, it is important that we should put on record the impression made upon us by the manner in which the clause has been handled since it went into Committee. It is not my intention to throw myself into the controversy which has been raised with regard to the consistency of the Prime Minister; but, at the same time, I would point out that I think it ought to be borne in mind, when references are made to the previous opinions of the Prime Minister, they are made in these circumstances. Ten or 11 years ago the right hon. Gentleman, after great care and study of the question, brought forward a scheme for dealing with the land system of Ireland. In so doing, he discussed at great length, and with very great ability, several leading and fundamental questions connected with the tenure of land. He laid down certain principles, and argued them out with great ability, thought, and clearness. We are now brought face to face with a measure, also introduced by him, in which we find a considerable number of the principles adopted by him in former times set aside, and we complain that no sufficient reason has been given, either by the Prime Minister or any of his Colleagues, why those views are now set aside. Therefore, while I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) ought to be rebuked for the course he has

        81
        taken, I think we should not be wise to spend much time upon this question. What we have to consider is the 7th clause, which has been truly said to be the most important part of the Bill, and concerning which I will say that, as originally drawn, it was very different in character from the clause as we are now asked to pass it. It began, in the first instance, by providing that the tenant should have the power of demanding a fair rental to be fixed by the Court, and it went on to define the manner in which the Court were to arrive at what a fair rent would be. The clause, as it originally stood, contained rather minute and complicated directions to the Court—namely, that, in settling what the fair rent would be, they were to take into account what was called the "tenant's interest," and the manner of calculating this was set out at full length in the clause. On looking at that part of the clause I was of opinion that the manner in which it was proposed to calculate the tenant's interest was unfair, in that it would not only have given to the tenant that which I believe he had no right to claim, but also more than had been claimed for him, especially in recent years, by as great a friend of the tenant as the late Mr. Butt. It was my intention to challenge the definition given as to the manner in which the tenant's interest was to be arrived at, and, if possible, to make the definition correspond more precisely with that which would meet, as I believed, the fair justice of the case. But before we reached the discussion of that part of the Bill, the Government changed their view and struck out those minute directions intended for the guidance of the Court, and which I intended to oppose, and in place of them proposed that it should be left to the Court, with due regard to the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, to fix what was to be the fair rent. If the matters had been so left, I think it might have been satisfactory, because we could then have concentrated our attention on the construction and constitution of the Court and the powers which ought to be given to it. And, as I have said, the clause in its amended form would have been one which we might have been content to allow to pass unchallenged, in order to concentrate our attention on the Court, to whose power
        82
        of discernment the question of the fair rent was to be intrusted. But, Sir, in the course of the discussion an alteration was made, not by the Government, but on the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), who took an active part in the discussion and with very great ability. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk introduced some words which I think may lead to some difficulties hereafter—I mean the words "having regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively." These sound very harmless words; but I think that, to a certain extent, they are words which may be held to imply that very direction to the Court which it was our object to do away with. [Cheers from the Home Rule Members.] The cheers from that part of the House rather confirm me in my opinion, and render it all the more important that we should bear in mind what the possible effect of the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, and what effect they may have on our future proceedings. Our view has been that it is necessary, and I am far from saying that, in my own view, it may not be necessary, to make, as a temporary arrangement, under the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, provisions for fixing the rent. If it is necessary, then I think it should be made without letting in a principle which is of such a character that I do not think the Committee ought to accept it. It is a principle which has been recognized almost accidentally, and without the knowledge even of the authors of the Act of 1870—certainly without the knowledge of a large portion of Parliament who accepted and passed that Act, and it is a principle which not only recognizes the right of the tenant, but largely extends it. When we say that the right was not only recognized, but intended to be stereotyped by the clause relating to compensation for disturbance, we certainly did feel that the proposal was one which must necessarily challenge a great deal of criticism on our part. Then there is the other point to which reference has been made, and upon which I will not delay the Committee now—the question of perpetuity, or fixity, or durability, or whatever else it may be called. Undoubtedly, the effect of these clauses is to give something very much beyond the mere rent

        83
        for a statutory term of 15 years. The effect is to give a power of renewal, and a power of renewal which may, subject to a few exceptions, be exercised over and over again for all time, and which I think can hardly be distinguished from what may be called perpetuity of tenure. Exceptions they are, but they prove the rule and go beyond the necessity which we recognize in the case; and, under these circumstances, it becomes our duty to express our opinion by dividing against the clause. I think that is necessary, for this reason—if we did not divide against the clause in its present shape, we should always be told in future discussions on other parts of the Bill—"Oh, but that was included in the 7th clause, which, after a great deal of discussion and a great deal of amendment, was accepted by the Committee without a division." Therefore, I am not prepared to accept it without a division. While I recognize in the Bill some things which are not bad, I recognize also in it some things which I think we are bound to protest against; and, therefore, it is my intention to advise my hon. Friends to join me in dividing against the clause.
        MR. SHAWsaid, the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment (Mr. Chaplin) had made a reference to the Bessborough Commission which he (Mr. Shaw) considered most unfair. Indeed, it was not the first time that unfair references had been made to that Commission, and he thought it would be much better if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would give Notice of a Motion in regard to that Commission. There might have been a dozen witnesses who gave their evidence very absurdly; but he was quite prepared to defend the recommendations of the Commission and the conclusions to which they arrived. The hon. Gentleman also referred to a debate which had taken place in "another place." Until that day he (Mr. Shaw) had not read the speech of the Duke of Argyll. He had been more pleasantly occupied in taking a few days' holiday; but he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that a more incorrect and a more unfair speech he had never read. [Cries of "Order!"]
        THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is at present referring to a debate in the other House, and he is not in Order in so doing.
        MR. SHAWthought he might be allowed to refer to the debate in question, seeing that the Chairman had not interposed when it was referred to by a previous speaker.
        THE CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the reference, or I would have stopped it at once.
        MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if it was not a fact that a noble Lord in "another place" referred to a speech made in the House of Commons this Session by the Prime Minister?
        THE CHAIRMAN: I have no knowledge whatever of what has taken place in "another place."
        MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to ask a question on a point of Order.
        THE CHAIRMAN: The point of Order is already settled.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to ask a question on another point of Order. Of course, it was perfectly clear that any Member of that House would not be justified in referring to what had been said by a Peer in "another place;" but would he not be justified in referring to a published report of that Peer's speech which had appeared in the newspapers?
        MR. SHAW,continuing, said, he had been asked by a friend whether he did not intend to reply to that speech, and his answer was that he could not very well, in the present hot weather, answer it by a letter in The Times. It was only a Scotchman who was able to do that. However, he had expressed his willingness to answer the speech at any time in the place in which it was made. [Cries of "Oh!"] He did not mean what hon. Members seemed to think he meant. He hoped that Providence would preserve him from acquiring a right to speak in that House; and what he meant was, that ho was ready at any time to appear at the Bar of the House of Lords and answer the speech, and he had no doubt that Baron Dowse would also be quite ready to appear there. [Cries of "Order!"] He really did not think he was out of Order; but he would address himself now to the clause under discussion. He regarded it as containing what he understood to be a real and perfect security for the present tenant, and for the present tenant alone. As such the Irish Members had always regarded it; not as giving security in perpetuity, but as

        85
        giving security to the present tenants. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister were now to withdraw the clause, he (Mr. Shaw) was sure the Irish Members would entirely dissociate themselves from the Bill, and cast upon the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who threw out the clause the responsibility of passing the measure. He considered it absolutely essential that on every change of tenancy the tenant right and the improvement rights of the tenant should be purchased, and he understood that to be the recommendation of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire.
        MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had not stated that he recommended that as the right plan to adopt; but he had mentioned it to show that the recommendation of the Commission was not inconsistent with the possibility of doing it.
        MR. SHAWsaid, he could not understand why the hon. Member should propound a plan of this kind without being prepared to give the Court power to carry it out. He understood that the hon. Member propounded it as a great political scheme; but it was a plan that would work absolute and entire ruin to the landlords.
        MR. CHAPLIN: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why?
        THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire desires to make an explanation he will have an opportunity of doing so after the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) is concluded.
        MR. SHAW,continuing, said, it had been suggested that he should move an Amendment to the clause; but he believed that the clause as it stood was sufficient to protect all the interests concerned. It was absurd to suppose that any valuer in Ireland, being required to enter into the whole question of the interest of the tenant and of the landlord, would not take everything into consideration.
        Question put.
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 289; Noes 157: Majority 132.—(Div. List, No. 291.)
        Clause 8 (Equities to be administered by Court between landlord and tenant).
        MR. BIGGARsaid, that as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the County of Roscommon (Dr. Commins) was not present, he would move formally
        86
        the Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. Friend, in order to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland an opportunity of deciding whether the substitution of "inequitable" and "inequitably" for the words "unreasonable" and "unreasonably" would make any difference in the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As a non-legal Member, he (Mr. Biggar) could see no difference; but, on the other hand, there might be a difference in the legal mind. If there should prove to be a material difference he would not press the Amendment. He begged to move, in line 31, to leave out the words "unreasonable" and "unreasonably," and substitute for them the words "inequitable" and "inequitably."
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 8, line 31, to leave out the Word "unreasonable," in order to substitute the word "inequitable."—(Mr. Biggar.)
        Question proposed, "That the word 'unreasonable' stand part of the Clause."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he must decline to accept the Amendment. If the landlord demanded too high a rent, it would come under the word "unreasonable," as the Court would have to decide whether the demand was unreasonable or not. The insertion of the word "inequitable" would not be any improvement.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, that after that explanation he would withdraw the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. GIBSONmoved, as an Amendment, in line 34, after "same," to insert "or postpone the same." It would be grossly unjust to the landlord who had originally placed a farm in the hands of a tenant in a thoroughly good condition to give power to the Court to accede to the tenant's application, and declare the landlord's conduct unreasonable so long as the farm continued in a bad condition. He wished to have these words inserted in the clause in order to indicate to the Court that it should have power to say to the tenant—"I will not give any decision yet as to rent, owing to the scandalous condition into which you have allowed the holding to run; but if you will come back to me

        87
        in two or three years' time, I will then consider your application, and, in the meantime, you must put the farm into good heart and condition." The Court in such a case would be able to say—"I do not dismiss your application absolutely; but I postpone the consideration of it for two, two and a-half, or three years, and at the end of that period you may come back, and I will then see what the condition of the farm is." The tenant might receive the farm in a perfectly good condition, and might by the worst conceivable husbandry reduce it to the worst possible condition, in which it might be worth only 2s. 6d. an acre. The words he proposed to insert in the clause were "or postpone the same," subject to certain terms; and the terms he assumed. Would be that the tenant should put the holding into something like a reasonable tenantable condition. The Court would always have an opportunity of seeing whether the tenant had bonâ fide carried out the terms and conditions of the clause.
        Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 34, after "same," insert "or postpone the same."—(Mr. Gibson.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not like to refuse anything proposed to him by his right hon. and learned Friend; but he did not see that it was desirable to accept the proposal now made, which was altogether unnecessary. When a man entered upon a farm, he ought to be wise enough to keep his farm in the highest possible state of cultivation, so that he might realize the highest possible sum from it. If a tenant who had allowed his farm to run out of condition applied to the Court, the Court would at once be able, under that 8th clause, to deal with it at its discretion. It might consider whether the tenant had done anything that was unreasonable, and might thereupon refuse the application. But there was nothing to prevent the Court from entertaining the application again at the end of two or three years. The clause, as it stood, would enable the Court either to grant the application, or to refuse it until the tenant had restored the holding to a satisfactory condition. When the farm had beer placed in a tenantable condition, there was nothing
        88
        to prevent the tenant from making an application again; and if the application was a proper one, it would, no doubt, be heard.
        MR. BIGGARfailed to see that any advantage would be derived from the adoption of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). The Court would have power to take into consideration the rent that was substantially paid, and in a case where the holding had been very much impoverished and allowed to run into a very bad condition the interest of the tenant would be exceedingly small. The case put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, where a tenant had allowed a farm worth 30 s. an acre to become so impoverished that it was only worth 2s. 6d. an acre, was a very extreme one; and the Court had ample power, as the clause now stood, to deal with such a case.
        Question put, and negatived.
        MR. GIVANsaid, he proposed to move the omission of the last paragraph of the clause, which provided that—
        "The Court in considering whether the landlord or tenant has unreasonably refused any proposal made by the other, may take into account any proposal that may have been made of the grant by the landlord to the tenant of such a lease as is hereafter in this Act referred to as a judicial lease; but the conduct of the tenant in refusing the grant of any such lease shall not be deemed unreasonable unless the Court is satisfied that the interest of the tenant, having regard to the value of his tenancy, would have been sufficiently secured by such lease."
        The object of that part of the clause was to protect the tenant from any undue force the landlord might bring to bear upon the tenant to compel him to accept a judicial lease, and then from setting up such lease in opposition to the tenant's claim. The clause, in the first paragraph, provided that—
        "Where the Court, on the hearing of an application of either landlord or tenant respecting any matter under this Act, is of opinion that the conduct of either landlord or tenant has been unreasonable, or that the one has unreasonably refused any proposal made by the other,"
        the Court might do certain things specified in the second paragraphs of the clause, and which were to be a direction to the Court in regard to the matters that were reasonably left to its discretion. The words, as they stood in the first part of the clause, were, he thought,

        89
        quite sufficient, and it was not expedient to drag into the clause the offer of a judicial lease to the tenant for the purpose of enabling the landlord to go before the Court with what he might consider to be a reasonable offer in satisfaction of the claims of the tenant. At the present moment, he proposed to move the omission of the third paragraph of the clause.
        Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 38, to leave out from the word "justice" to end of Clause.—(Mr. Givan.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to left out stand part of the Clause."
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLhoped that the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood. The provision which the hon. Member proposed to strike out was only an invitation to the landlord and tenant to settle their differences out of Court. The paragraph itself simply enabled the landlord to draw the attention of the Court formally to the lease which the Government proposed to call a judicial lease; otherwise the Court might not have regard to the perfectly equitable and fair terms of the lease. It was open to the tenant to refuse it if he thought it would bind him too much; but, on the other hand, if he did accept it, the landlord ought to be able to take advantage of it.
        MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not attach very much importance either one way or the other to the Amendment. As to the paragraph of the clause against which the Amendment was directed, he did not think it improved the first part of the section, which might be described as the general equity section. The first part of it was sufficiently comprehensive in its general terms to give the Court power to deal with all applications by the landlord or tenant; and he did not think it good drafting, after having laid down general principles, to proceed to point out particular cases.
        MR. SYNANthought the tenant was protected by the words at the end of the sub-section—
        "But the conduct of the tenant in refusing the grant of any such lease shall not be deemed unreasonable unless the Court is satisfied that the interest of the tenant, having regard to the value of his tenancy, would have been sufficiently secured by such lease."
        90
        In fact, the lease was not forced by the landlord on the tenant; but it was a lease accepted by the Court on behalf of the tenant, and approved by the Court on behalf of the tenant. It therefore stood upon entirely different lines from the clause of the Act of 1870, which provided that a 31 years' lease should take the tenant out of the Act. This clause did not take the tenant out of the provisions of the Bill; but it left it directed that a lease, when accepted by the tenant and approved by the Court, should be binding upon the landlord. If the Court said that the refusal of the tenant was not unreasonable, that would be a sufficient protection for the tenant.
        MR. LITTONsaid, he was of opinion that it would be undesirable to allow the Court to say that the offer of a judicial lease was to be a receipt in full to the tenant for all claims under the Act. He did not suppose that a single tenant out of a lunatic asylum would dream of accepting a lease of 31 years in lieu of the benefits conferred by the Act. Now, what were the benefits of the Act? The right of getting a perpetual renewal of a term of 15 years, so long as the tenant thought proper to go to the Court and prove that he had observed the conditions of a statutory tenancy. What, then, could be the object of placing the Court—recollecting that the Courtwould probably be the County Court Judges in Ireland, who, whatever their abilities were, had their feelings—would it be wise or just to place upon them the invidious duty of determining that a lease of 31 years offered to the tenant was a lease that ought to be accepted by the tenant? It was quite true that the words were "thirty-one years or upwards;" and it might be contended that the County Court Judge, before he refused the application, might say that unless it was a 41, or a 51, or a 61 years' lease, he would not consider it reasonable. Under all the circumstances, he apprehended that it would be a great improvement to the Bill if these words were struck out, as was proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Monaghan (Mr. Givan). They were quite unnecessary for the general purposes of equity; and, under the first part of the clause, the matter might very well be left to the discretion of the Court.
        MR. LALORwished to remind the Committee and the Government that

        91
        many of the evils which afflicted Ireland at the present moment had arisen out of the power given by the Land Act of 1870 to force judicial leases upon the tenants. Much bitterness of feeling and heartburning had originated from that practice. He said that the leases had been forced upon tenants. They had never been more forced upon them than now. It might be said that the tenants were open to refuse them; but if they had refused them they knew what the inevitable consequence would be. He was satisfied that no man in Ireland would accept one of these judicial leases in lieu of his rights under the present Bill.
        MR. GLADSTONE: Two distinct questions have been raised in the course of the observations of hon. Members who have taken part in the discussion. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) did, however, place the matter suggested by the Amendment on its proper ground. The suggestion is this—the two first paragraphs of the clause are quite ample to cover any judgment the Court may form as to the offer of a judicial lease. Now, I think it is not expedient to argue, on the present occasion, the question whether these leases are desirable, or, if they are desirable, what should be their precise terms. The Committee will have to consider that question under the 9th clause, and they will have not only to consider the whole of the terms of the leases, but to give their judgment upon the 9th clause itself. Therefore, I would respectfully suggest that we would do well to postpone that subject entirely, and confine ourselves now to the narrow question whether it is expedient for the purposes of the Bill that after investing the Court with general power to consider and determine and draw its own conclusions upon every question of a reasonable offer between the parties we should proceed to point out one particular kind of reasonable or unreasonable contracts. I am bound to say that I think we should do much more wisely to trust to the general powers contained in the first part of the clause. No doubt, under the general powers conferred by the clause, it will be in the competency of the Court to deal with the question of unreasonable contracts; and the refusal to entertain the offer of a lease would, under the
        92
        first part of the clause, undoubtedly come within the jurisdiction of the Court. The closing words of the first paragraph in line 31 are—
        "Or that the one has unreasonably refused any proposal made by the other the Court may do as follows."
        Then the clause goes on to say what the Court may do, and the alternative is that—
        "It may refuse to accede to the application, or that it may accede to the application subject to conditions."
        Under these circumstances, I think it will probably be bettor to drop the third paragraph, especially as the matter may be considered better on the 9th clause, which contemplates the duration and consequences of judicial leases upon the settlement of the whole condition of the tenancy, whereas this clause does not contemplate such matters, but only the settlement of the amount of rent.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthought the Government had acted very unwisely in giving up this section. Judicial leases were the particular invention of the Prime Minister himself. He recollected quite well the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect—"We recognize that there are good landlords in Ireland, and we wish to make a distinction between them and bad landlords, and to keep them, if possible, out of Court by permitting them to make arrangements with their tenants. We wish to give them an opportunity of continuing to their tenants, for some considerable time, the benefits the tenants now enjoy under them; and, therefore, the tenants who enjoy judicial leases will not come under the clause." The offer of a judicial lease was to be considered by the Court as a reasonable offer, not to be refused by the tenant; but the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to leave the Court to say that the tenant might be free to refuse it or not. As the clause originally stood the tenant could not refuse a judicial lease, as long as it preserved the fair interests of the tenant. He thought the concession of the Government was really a very important one; and he deprecated the readiness which they displayed in abandoning their proposals in order to meet the views of the extreme Party.
        LORD JOHN MANNERSregretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had not, on other occasions, displayed the same readiness to make concessions which he had manifested now. He (Lord John Manners) also entertained an objection to the mode in which it was proposed to deal with judicial leases; and if the 3rd section of the present clause had been allowed to remain in it, it would have been his duty to move the insertion of the larger and more liberal words which appeared in the 18th section of the Act of 1870. The Act of 1870 was not to be displaced from the Statute Book; and as they had heard nothing in condemnation of the operation of the 18th section, he thought, if the words of the present clause were to be changed at all, it was expedient that the Amendment should be in the direction of adopting the phraseology of the 18th section of the Act of 1870. Therefore, if the section had been retained he should certainly have felt it necessary to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
        MR. WARTONwished to put a question to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman, if he understood him rightly, seemed to be abandoning the third paragraph of the 8th clause of the Bill on the ground that judicial leases were not worth having. He wished, therefore, to know whether it was also the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to abandon the 9th section?
        Question put, and negatived.
        Words struck out accordingly.
        MR. WARTONsaid, that nothing in the conduct of the Bill had struck him with more surprise than the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) upon the meaning of the word "unreasonable." He did not dispute that there might have been cases since the passing of the Act of 1870 which the Court might fairly hold to be unreasonable; but if they were to make the Bill understood and effective they ought not to leave out of consideration the important question of the deterioration of the holding. As the clause was at present drawn, the only questions the Court could really consider were questions relating to that which happened at the time the landlord and tenant came into Court, or nearly about that time;
        94
        and, in reality, they did not go back far enough into the history of the conduct of the parties, and especially into the important question whether the tenant had or had not deteriorated the condition of the soil. In passing, he wished to put a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon a point which had agitated his mind very considerably, in regard to the provisions of the 4th clause. Long as it was since the Committee disposed of that clause, some of them would remember that, in the 4th section, a number of conditions were defined which were called "statutory conditions." At first it was thought that a breach of these conditions would lead to the loss of the holding and to the re-entry of the landlord. It was now found that, nevertheless, the tenant was to be compensated by damages. He wished to know whether, in the event of the tenant breaking any of the statutory conditions, such, for instance, as breaking up the farm and sub-dividing it, that was a question which was to come up for the consideration of the Court, because the words of the clause, as they stood, were—"Or that the one has unreasonably refused any proposal made by the other, the Court may do"—certain things. All the statutable conditions made by the 4th clause were interfered with by the present clause; and he was, therefore, anxious to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 9, line 4, at the end of the Clause to add—"Provided always, That in considering the question whether the conduct of the tenant has or has not been unreasonable, the Court May take into consideration whether 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."—(Mr. Warton.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND(Mr. LAW) hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept the same answer as that which he had given to his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Gibson). The word "unreasonable," which was already in the Bill, would include waste, and all the deterioration which the hon.

        95
        and learned Gentleman wished to guard against was already provided for by the Bill.
        MR. WARTONintimated that, after the clear statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he was satisfied, and would withdraw the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to; and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      PART III.

        EXCLUSION OF ACT BY AGREEMENT.
        Judicial Leases.
        Clause 9 (Lease approved by Court during its continuance to exclude provisions of the Act).
        MR. LITTONmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out "thirty," and insert "sixty." He thought that 30 years were too short a term, and that 60 or 61 years would be much better. He was, however, unwilling to press the Amendment, unless he had reason to believe that it would be favourably received by the Committee. He should, therefore, ask the Chairman to put the Amendment.
        Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 12, to leave out "thirty" and insert "sixty."—(Mr. Litton.)
        Question proposed, "That the word thirty' stand part of the Clause."
        MR. GLADSTONE: As the hour for reporting Progress has nearly arrived, it is hardly worth while to call upon the Committee to discuss the Amendment, which is of some importance, now. I will, therefore, move that the Chairman report Progress.
        Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
        Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
        And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock the House suspended its Sitting.
        House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

      LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
      Progress resumed.
      Amendment again proposed, in page 9, line 12, to leave out the word "thirty," and insert "sixty."—(Mr. Litton.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Clause."
      MR. LITTONexplained, that he proposed the Amendment with a view to ascertaining the views of the Government upon the subject. It appeared to him that it would be a very great advantage, where an equivalent was to be offered to the tenants, that a real equivalent should be offered, and not simply 30 years, which appeared to him to be totally inadequate. He did not wish to press the Amendment, if the Government did not see their way to accept it; because he thought the necessity was somewhat removed by reason of the Amendment made on the latter portion of the prior clause. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was able to state to the Committee that he preferred to keep the term "thirty years" in the clause, he (Mr. Litton) would withdraw the Amendment.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not know what the intention of the Government was as to this particular Amendment. Under the clause, as it at present stood with 31 years, the tenant, instead of being entitled to a renewal from time to time at the end of 15 years, would, at the end of 31 years, become a future tenant. That was an objectionable provision, because a landlord might bring pressure to bear on the tenant, and threaten that if he did not agree to his terms he would take him into the Court and put him to expensive litigation. Although provisions of leases heretofore had not been always insisted upon by the landlords, it had been customary to put in leases conditions which would be thoroughly unreasonable if acted upon, and would deprive the tenant of his rights. Nothing could be more natural than that a landlord should say that the provision was the same as leases which had been signed from time to time; and thus the tenant of a large property might be induced to accept leases entirely taking away his rights.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Committee must remember that the position

      97
      of the tenant would be very different after this Bill became law from his position hitherto, and the power of the landlord to force the tenant, or to bring pressure to bear upon him, in order to take away a lease, would be very much diminished; because, by this clause, the Bill would enable a tenant, under pressure or threat, to apply to the Court in cases where there was a judicial rent to resist more or less the powers of the landlord. Everything which would apply to the Act of 1870 would not apply now; the landlord would not be able to force upon the tenant a lease as he could under the Act of 1870, and the arrangement would not in future be one-sided. It was not absolutely to the advantage of a tenant to have a long lease; on the contrary, it might in many cases be an advantage to have a shorter lease; therefore, he thought the proposed Amendment was not desirable. If they were to look forward to the judicial lease at all, they must take care not to make the tenancy so large as to take away the landlord's interest. Both sides ought to be considered.
      CAPTAIN AYLMERwas glad the Government did not support the Amendment. He would remind the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) of the necessity of not making more absentee landlords, and that, he feared, would be the result of the Amendment.
      MR. LITTONasked permission to withdraw the Amendment.
      MR. BIGGARobjected to the Amendment being withdrawn, observing that Irishmen had not derived any advantage in past times, and did not expect to do so in times to come, as to leases. It was perfectly well known that since 1870 landlords had been constantly urging their tenants to agree to leases. If a tenant was to be entitled to appeal to the Court with regard to leases, he had better not have the powers proposed as to leases at all; for if he were a free agent be could please himself whether he agreed to a lease or not, whereas under the Bill the lease must be subject to the whim of the Judge.
      MR. LALORhoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he rose to propose an Amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Har-
      98
      court). The clause, as it stood, provided that the landlord and tenant might agree to a lease mutually made, "if sanctioned by the Court, after considering the interest of the tenant and the value of his tenancy." His hon. Friend, however, proposed to insert, instead of "the interest of the tenant," the words "rights and interests of the landlord and tenant respectively." He had not the slightest doubt that the Government in introducing this Bill desired to do justice to all parties, and he, therefore, felt sure they would agree to the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 9, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "interest of the tenant and the value of his tenancy," in order to insert "rights and interests of the landlord and tenant respectively."
      Question proposed, "That the words 'interest of the tenant and the value of his tenancy' stand part of the Clause."
      MR. WARTONagreed with the object of the Amendment, but objected to the words "rights and interests of the landlord and tenant respectively;" because that might imply that the landlord only had rights and the tenant interests. He suggested the words should be "rights and interests both of the landlord and the tenant."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)regretted that he could not accept the Amendment. He explained that a judicial lease was not a lease which the landlord of his own mere motion was to have the power of granting to a tenant. The Court was brought in not to look after the interest of the landlord—who was perfectly well able to take care of himself—but to protect the tenant, and it was with that view that the Court was to be empowered to sanction a lease.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, he understood that the object of this clause was to carry on in this Bill the policy which was introduced into the Act of 1870—namely, the system of leases, which exempted a landlord from the provisions of that Act. The object of the clause, as he understood it, was to introduce a similar provision; but the intervention of the Court was to be permitted. He did not wish to insist on the language of the Amendment; but he desired the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to explain exactly what was the mean-

      99
      ing in this clause of the words "after considering the interest of the tenant, and the value of the tenancy?"
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. LAW)explained that it would be the duty of the Court to ensure the interests of the tenant being respected.
      CAPTAIN AYLMERpointed out that the clause distinctly stated that the landlord might propose, and the tenant agree to accept, a lease, and the thing would then practically be done on such conditions as the parties agreed upon. Then came the words "if sanctioned by the Court," and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said the Court was to see the interests of the tenant respected; but surely they ought to look at both sides of the question, and it was monstrous to say that the Court was only to look after the tenant's interest.
      MR. GIVANthought the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Aylmer) was labouring under a slight misapprehension, for he seemed to forget that in accepting a judicial lease the tenant surrendered certain important rights which he possessed if he had not accepted the judicial lease. He had a right to go and get a statutory term and have the rent fixed; but as he surrendered those rights by accepting a judicial rent, the clause properly provided that the Court should have supervision over his interests. It was not necessary that the rights of the landlord should be protected, because those rights were subsisting rights which were not surrendered. The tenant might be an ignorant man and not understand the effect of the clause, and so he might be induced to accept a lease which would be prejudicial to his interests, while he surrendered all the privileges he would have as a statutory tenant; and that was the reason, as he understood, why the rights of the tenant and not those of the landlord were to be protected.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthought the argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Givan) was based entirely upon a misapprehension as to the meaning of the words. The judicial leases were suggested by the Government, because the Government recognized that in dealing with the Land Question in Ireland, they had to deal with two distinct classes of landlords—good landlords and bad landlords. Good landlords
      100
      would allow their tenants to hold on for a great many years at a moderate rent, while other landlords would, to a certain extent, rack-rent the tenant. The good landlord, who had been in the habit of allowing the tenant to hold on at a certain rent for many years, would have power under this clause to suggest to the tenant that they should not go to the Court to fix a rent, but should agree together to continue the tenancy on its old terms. In that way he would exclude the action of the Bill; but he would give the tenant a certain amount of permanency in his lease. That was the object of the clause. The landlord would grant a judicial lease which would be accepted by the Court, and the landlord's and tenant's interest would be equal. He considered the Amendment on the whole a reasonable one, and the only ground upon which he disliked the language of the Amendment was that it was the same as the hon. Member for Dundalk had inserted in the 7th clause, to which he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had objected as having an insidious meaning. It had, no doubt, an insidious meaning in that clause; but he did not think it would have in this clause. He attached very considerable value to the provision as to judicial leases, because the landlords in Ireland who had managed their property fairly and well would be glad to give the tenant for 31 years or more all the advantages they had hitherto enjoyed, but on the understanding that the tenant was not then to be at liberty to take hostile proceedings against the landlord. That was the value of the judicial lease, and he considered that it was being seriously interfered with by the Amendment which the Government had accepted earlier in in the Sitting, and with regard to which he should, on Report, move the reinsertion of the words then omitted.
      MR. PLUNKETsuggested that the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Aylmer) should not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon the Amendment. He still preferred the language of the Amendment to that of the Bill, and he could not understand the necessity of the words "after considering the interest of the tenant." If any reference was to be made to the interests of either landlord or tenant, it would, he thought, be better not to have a one-sided affair. But, under the cir-

      101
      cumstances, he would advise the withdrawal of the Amendment if the Government persisted in opposing it.
      CAPTAIN AYLMERobserved, that there was nothing in the clause to bind the tenant to give up his statutory term, and that if he accepted a lease he did so by his own free will. Both landlord and tenant were on equal terms, and he maintained that the interests of both parties ought to be considered by the Court in deciding whether the terms on both sides were just. He regretted that the Government did not look at the matter in the same light; but he would not take up the time of the Committee by dividing. At the same time, he thought it was extremely unfair and unjust for the Government to refuse the proposal.
      MR. WARTONasked, whether it would still be in the power of the landlord and tenant to agree to a lease on any terms apart from the lease?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Certainly not.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLproposed, in lines 15 and 16, to leave out "and the value of his tenancy;" and explained that if any hon. Member thought it necessary to raise a discussion he should not press it.
      Amendment proposed, in page 9, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words "and the value of his tenancy."—(Mr. Charles Russell.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be struck out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in agreeing to the Amendment, he did not think the proposed words were required.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, he did not wish to raise a controversy upon the Amendment, and he should not therefore oppose it.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLpointed out that "the interest of the tenant and the value of the tenancy" might be two distinct things. "The interest of the tenant" meant what was established under the Common Law, fortified by the Act of 1870; but "the value of the tenancy" meant any sum of money which the tenant had paid on going into the farm; so that all the Court had to consider was what the Common Law assigned to him. Therefore, he thought that the
      102
      framers of the Bill were not open to the charge of tautology, and it was not necessary that all judicial leases should take into account "the interests of the tenant and the value of the tenancy," because the two things were distinct. On the whole, he was inclined to think that the clause would be better as it stood, than if amended as proposed.
      Question put, and negatived; words struck out accordingly.
      MR. PLUNKET (for Mr. NORTHCOTE)proposed an Amendment. The Amendment would do no possible harm, and he thought the Government would not object to it.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 9, line 16, after "tenancy," to insert "and where such lease is made by a limited owner, as defined by the twenty-sixth section of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' the interest of all persons entitled to any estate or interest in the holding subsequent to the estate or interest of such limited owner."—(Mr. Plnnket.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law)agreed in the object of the Amendment, but explained that that object was already provided for in the 18th section of the Bill.
      MR. WARTONpointed out that the 18th section applied only to a fixed tenancy, and not to a judicial lease.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)replied, that that might be quite true; but the clause with regard to rules met the difficulty.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. A. M. SULLIVANproposed an Amendment with the object of introducing, at that point of the Bill, that system of Parliamentary tenant right with which the name of Judge Long-field was associated. When the Land Act of 1870 was passing through Parliament, Judge Longfield, in a letter to The Times, on the 26th March, 1870, pointed out, or gave expression to, some apprehensions he had as to the failure of that well-intentioned measure, then being carried through Parliament, in some respects, and he made a suggestion as to a principle which he called "Parliamentary tenant right," which was that leases might, on the agreement of the parties, be indefinitely renewed,

      103
      with a self-adjusting mechanism for settling a fair rent without reduction. He (Mr. Sullivan) hoped the Committee would agree that in this Bill it was desirable to introduce this principle, which could be introduced without dislocating or damaging in any way any of the other useful provisions of the measure, especially if it could be shown that the Amendment would enable the landlord and tenant to adjust the question on a fair rent from time to time without approaching the Court. The proposal which Judge Longfield made was that every tenant in Ireland should be made to purchase a Parliamentary right in his holding equivalent to the Ulster tenant right, which the tenant might have purchased for a considerable sum of money. In Ulster, a tenant would have the Parliamentary tenant right based upon the sum which the tenant had paid for his interest in the holding. Outside Ulster, Judge Longfield proposed that a similar system should be introduced by enabling the tenant to buy the tenant right in either one of these ways—by the payment of a sum of money down, or by money paid by the lessee to his predecessor in title with the expressed or implied consent of the landlord, or by money to be spent in improvements agreed on by the parties; or, in a vast majority of cases, which under this Bill were called present tenancies—that was to say, tenancies outside Ulster where the Ulster Custom had not been localized, but where the tenants, nevertheless, had succeeded, through many generations of occupancy, to an interest in the holding, as well as to their actual improvements—he would allow the tenant right to purchase by estimating the value of such equitable interest as the tenant had in the farm, including therein the Ulster tenant right where it existed. The question of fair rent would be adjusted in this way. The tenant having agreed upon a fair rent for a certain term of years, which the Amendment proposed should be 15, if, at the end of the 15 years, the landlord claimed a higher rent, the tenant might either assent to it or elect to go out; but in the latter case, the landlord would be bound to pay the tenant 10 years' purchase of the increased rent which he demanded. On the other hand, if a tenant demanded a reduction of rent, and the
      104
      landlord did not consent to the reduction, the tenant would be bound to sell to the landlord at 10 years' of the reduced rent. The effect of this proposal would be this—if the tenant attempted to extort from the landlord by demanding a reduced rent which was less than a fair rent, he would be cut by the landlord, who would buy from him, on the basis of 10 years' purchase of the reduced rent; on the other hand, if the landlord endeavoured to extort from the tenant by asking an increased rent, he would be cut by the tenant, who left the farm, and received 10 times the increase asked for by the landlord. In that way it would be the interest of the landlord not to ask too much, and the interest of the tenant not to insist upon too low a rent. That would be what he would call a self-acting mechanism for effecting a fair rent without recourse to litigation, and by the simplest of all processes—namely, self-protection and self-interest, which enabled both landlord and tenant to prevent either over-reaching the other. The system had been in operation on some farms belonging to a relative of Judge Longfield, in Ulster; and not only had the instalments of the money advanced to tenants to purchase tenant right been regularly paid, but there was not at this moment on any of those farms one farthing of uncollected arrear even for past bad seasons. The security which this Parliamentary tenant right had given to those tenants had, somehow or other, brought about a thrift and a saving on the part of the tenants, which tenants elsewhere had not exhibited. He, therefore, wished to move this Amendment, the nature of which he had explained. The power to be created by the Amendment would be purely permissive, and the Court might or might not permit a lease on which the landlord and tenant had agreed.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 9, line 20, after "applies," insert "Provided always, That a judicial lease may be a lease for a Parliamentary tenant right, according to the form in the Schedule to this Act annexed, or such similar form as the Court may prescribe from time to time."—(Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)thought it would be certainly inconvenient to introduce

      105
      the Amendment into the clause, and he pointed out that, as the clause stood, there was no reason why the Court should not adopt leases such as those indicated by the hon. and learned Member, if only they were agreed upon by landlord and tenant. The Court had to see that the conditions were fair, and it would be quite competent, under the clause, for the Court to consider and adopt the Longfield Lease if they liked.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, the proposal had attracted a great deal of attention in Ireland, and, like everything which Judge Longfield had brought before the public, it was extremely ingenious. It was brought forward in 1870—but then he (Mr. Plunket) thought rather as a rival scheme to the Bill of the Government—and during the debate the Prime Minister had announced that if it was intended as a rival scheme, he preferred his own proposal. He (Mr. Plunket) should not regret the adoption of the scheme in the present Bill, and he thought it had some recommendations as compared with the general scheme of the Government. In the first place, it avoided the constant interference of the Court, and would work easily, if voluntarily adopted by both parties. In the second place, it did, to some extent, make provision for bad years and varying seasons, for it regulated the rent at times when the landlord might be inclined to ask for increased rent, or a tenant might be inclined to ask for a decrease. If, however, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had stated, the Longfield Lease might be adopted under the present clause, he would not now advance any further argument.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, he believed that the proposal for the Longfield Lease was brought forward in 1870, not as a permissive proposal, but rather as something the Court might do instead of giving the tenant compensation for disturbance under the Act of 1870—that the Court might, upon application, grant such a lease. It appeared to him that the great objection to the Amendment, as at present proposed, was that it would not be operative. As had been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, practically speaking, the Court could adopt this lease under the present Bill if it chose; and undoubtedly the
      106
      9th clause was sufficiently wide to cover the Longfield Lease, if the parties agreed to such a lease. But he (Mr. Parnell) should like to see the Amendment brought forward in a different shape—in the shape of a new clause, after the 7th clause, empowering the Court, after it had, on the application of the landlord or the tenant, determined upon a judicial rent, to grant to the tenant some such lease as this, instead of on a 15 years' statutory term. In this way the difficulty as to fixing the future rent after the expiration of the statutory term, might be got rid of. The rent would be fixed according to the arrangement under the Longfield system. The landlord and tenant would be able to agree upon the rent at the expiration of the statutory term, and there would be no more reference to the Court. This would provide a certain practicable plan for settling future rents, after the judicial fair rent had been once settled. This was a subject which he thought well worth the consideration of the Government in the interval before coming to the new clauses; and if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) were to withdraw the Amendment now, in order to see how he might bring it up again as a new clause after Clause 7, the Government might perhaps be induced to agree to some such proposal. The proposal, if adopted, would get rid of a great deal of the friction which would undoubtedly arise under the provisions of the Bill, as it at present stood, with regard to future revision.
      MR. GLADSTONE: The whole of this debate has been exceedingly interesting, and the tone of the Committee is pacific. I have not the slightest inclination to vary it. But there is nothing to prevent the inclusion of the Amendment within the terms of the judicial lease. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) wants to have a judicial lease fixed, and the Bill fixed, so as to have the movement of the rent according to the Longfield Lease, and not according to the statutory judicial lease.
      MR. PARNELL: To give power to the Court.
      MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, on the application of the parties.
      MR. PARNELL: Not of both parties.
      MR. GLADSTONE: It appears to me that the proposal of the hon. and learned

      107
      Member for Meath is for both parties, and it would be dangerous to start it as a provision which might be adopted on the application of one party only. Under the judicial lease it will be the duty of the Court to see if the rent is a fair rent; and therefore, if the parties agree, it is clearly within the power of the Court to give a judicial lease with the Longfield Lease, subject to a statutory term of 15 years. But if it is to be adopted on the application of one of the parties only, I confess I think that is rather a peculiar plan, and one which it would be unsafe to start.
      MR. GRAYobserved, that the Long-field Lease was theoretically perfect; but it appeared to him to be utterly inapplicable to small tenancies. It would only be applicable to large tenancies, where the tenants were able to deal at arms-length with their landlords. It gave power to the landlord at any time to propose an increased rent, and the only remedy the tenant had was to demand a decrease. In the case of tenants holding large interests, this was a substantial check on the landlords; but in the case of small tenancies it was no check whatever, because the extra power which the tenant gained would be no compensation for his increased rent, and he would agree to an excessive rent rather than risk being paid off. He thought it was tolerably evident that the Long-field Lease must be one of the many forms of judicial lease sanctioned by the Court; but it was a different thing to introduce it by a Schedule; and although he would object to any power imposing the Longfield Lease on the tenant, it would be desirable in cases where hardship existed to encourage the adoption of that lease. When the Longfield Lease was first brought before the public in 1870, there was a marvellous consensus of opinion in its favour in Ireland—Conservatives and Liberals and all classes united in pressing on the Government the desirability of adopting that lease as a permissive lease under the Act. But, at that time, the Prime Minister held different views from his present views, and he was so opposed to it that the proposal had to be pressed to a division. If there was no substantial objection to the Longfield Lease itself—and he had not heard of any objection—it might be well worth the consideration of the Government whether they would
      108
      embody it as a permissive lease in the Bill.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought the proposal would cause great complication in many cases, and he hoped it would not be pressed upon the Committee, but that the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) would be satisfied with the general approval which had been expressed by the Government.
      CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, it was not often that he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Meath; but in this case he did agree with him, and his view was not a thing of the moment, because, last year, when the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was under consideration, he spoke to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland about the advantages of the Long-field Lease. At the same time, while he would support the Amendment he would not exactly follow the Schedule which the hon. and learned Member proposed to attach, because he thought the Schedule of the Longfield Lease required some alteration. It was sound in its general principles, but in some parts it was defective. Some landlords had altered it, and had then found it work well. He hoped the Government would adopt the proposal.
      MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he was exceedingly rejoiced to hear from the Government that this was a lease which it might be quite within the power of the Court, under Clause 9, to award. His own conception of the lease was that it must necessarily be a matter of agreement between the parties. The object of the Longfield Lease was to avoid friction, and he thought the virtue of the plan would be destroyed if it were to be imposed on the parties. He should ask permission to withdraw the Amendment, with a view to consider whether, at a later stage of the Bill, he could introduce something which might give expression to as much of the agreement of opinion as he had collected from the speeches of hon. Members.
      MR. BRODRICKthought it would be well if, before the Amendment was finally withdrawn, the Committee should be aware of the previous views of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) on this subject, and of the change that had taken place in those views: The hon. and learned

      109
      Member wrote a letter to The Freeman's Journal on October 5, 1880, in which he said the idea of a reduction of rents over all Ireland would be entirely repugnant to the principles of commercial freedom of the English people.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the Amendment.
      MR. BRODRICKsaid, he was merely going to point out that there had been a great deal done since that time; and that the principle which the hon. and learned Member now wished to withdraw and re-introduce in a fresh form as an alternative, was one which the hon. and learned Member, representing, no doubt, a large section of the Irish people, previously held up necessarily as sufficient to meet the case at issue. He thought it was not legitimately brought forward as an alternative. If the lease proposed was held sufficient nine months ago to preclude the necessity of any revision of rents, it was equally so now; and if the hon. and learned Member brought it forward, he ought to be prepared to vote against any interference with the provisions in the 7th clause.
      MR. BIGGARthought it was rather hard on the Irish Members, that each of them should be held responsible for what his Colleagues might have said 10 years ago.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. PLUNKET (for Mr. GIBSON)moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 21, to leave out after "lease" to the end of line 24, and insert "the landlord shall be entitled to resume possession of the holding." This, of course, was a serious and important proposal; but he hoped to be able to show that it was a fair proposal and well worthy of consideration. Supposing that the proposal of the Government were adopted, and that after the expiration of the judicial lease, the lessee should be deemed to be the tenant of a future ordinary tenancy from year to year at the rent and subject to the conditions of the lease, so far as such conditions were applicable to such tenancy, that amounted, practically, to perpetuity of tenure. What was the good of contracting this judicial lease, and having all the conditions of the tenancy laid down by the Court for a certain period, if, after the
      110
      termination of the period, the landlord was again to find himself face to face with what was called a future tenant? The present clause applied not only to the landlord and tenant of any ordinary tenancy, but also to the landlord and tenant of a proposed holding to which the Act applied, which was not subject to the conditions of an existing tenancy; and in that case, though the lease offered by the landlord and accepted by the tenant was entirely fair, and the lease would be submitted to the Court and sanctioned by the Court, still when the lease expired the landlord would find that the tenant stood in the position of a future tenant. The clause, at all events, so far as concerned the eases to which he had referred, was of a very extraordidary character, and the Committee would perceive that although the number of years mentioned was 31, there might be a 60 or 100 years' lease; and, no matter how long it lasted, at the end the tenant would be in the position of a future tenant. What the Amendment suggested was that at the expiration of the judicial lease the landlord should be entitled to resume possession. That seemed to him to be a fair and natural conclusion to a tenancy which was strictly guarded against all those infirmities which were supposed by some to attach to contracts of tenancy made in Ireland, because this lease, voluntarily entered into between landlord and tenant, was supposed to have already obtained the sanction of the Court. Therefore, with great confidence, he submitted that the Amendment would make the state of affairs more logical, and was more in consonance with the idea of freedom of contract than the proposal of the Government, that in all cases where a judicial lease was granted, whether in the case of an ordinary tenancy or not, the landlord should afterwards find himself face to face with a future tenant. He moved the Amendment accordingly.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 9, line 21, after "lease," leave out to the end of line 24, and insert "the landlord shall be entitled to resume possession of the holding."—(Mr. Plunket.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'the lessee, &c.,' stand part of the Clause."
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not understand the difficulty felt in

      111
      this matter. Where was the hardship of the landlord's position, if, at the end of the lease, he could exercise the landlord's ordinary power of control by raising the rent, and could compel the tenant to go or pay an increased rent? [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] He said "Yes," certainly; and his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) was, he submitted, quite wrong upon the point. Applying this to the case of a future tenant, he could not go to the Court for a judicial rent. He failed to see the object of the proposed Amendment, or, rather, what was the hardship it proposed to remedy.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, at the end of a lease a tenant became a future tenant, so that if the landlord demanded an increased rent, and the tenant did not pay it, he could take him into the Court. That was what, in plain English, seemed to him to be the position of the matter; and if the point required any further explanation, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would get up and give them the necessary information. To his mind, there could be no doubt at all about it. The tenant, by the words of the Bill, became a future tenant at the expiration of the judicial lease. He thought the words of the Bill were very much better than those of the Amendment, because he was clear upon this point, that the landlord, upon the termination of a judicial lease, could evict the tenant if he liked, just as a landlord could evict the tenant of any holding where the lease had expired. The tenant became an ordinary yearly tenant, and was no longer protected by the Bill, and the landlord could go and evict him. What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) propose? He said that the landlord should resume possession of the holding, and that was an artificial expression which they had had some conversation about before. The resumption meant the question of very full compensation.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLreally thought that the words proposed to be omitted could not, and ought not, to stop as they were. It might be desirable to leave to the parties freedom of contract as to new tenants coming in; but this section would apply to an existing tenant, and especially to a present tenant. ["No!"] Well, if it did not apply to a present tenant, he had nothing more to
      112
      say. He had read the clause, and it appeared to him to be the fact that any present tenant who accepted a lease under this provision would sacrifice his tenant right. He thought they should encourage the landlords to grant long terms and keep themselves out of the Court.
      MR. GREGORYthought it would be desirable that they should have some explanation from Her Majesty's Government as to what would be the practical operation of this provision, because he confessed for himself, it might be from ignorance, that he felt considerable difficulty about the matter. If it was a matter of English law he should not feel that difficulty, because there the principle was clear that a tenant, after the expiration of a lease or agreement held under the terms of such lease or agreement, and subject to all the conditions of a yearly tenancy as regarded notice to quit. But now the tenant was turned into what was called a future tenant; and what a future tenant in the Bill really meant he was at a loss to know, and it was upon this point that he thought the Committee were entitled to some information. If the position of a tenant, after the expiration of a judicial lease, was to be the position an English tenant would occupy under similar circumstances, there would be an end of the matter. He would merely hold at the will of the landlord; but if there was anything beyond, any inchoate right to the continuance of the tenancy, he thought the Committee ought to know it.
      MR. LITTONsaid, that if the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) were agreed to, the clause would read thus—
      "At the expiration of the judicial lease the landlord shall be entitled to resume possession of the holding."
      Now, he would ask what was the object of putting in this Amendment? Because this was the state of things that would follow in the absence of any words of the kind. The Amendment ought, therefore, to have been to strike out the clause, because precisely that result would follow if the clause were not there. There was no distinction whatever between the law of England and the law of Ireland as regarded an over-holding tenant. An over-holding tenant might be evicted at the expiration of a lease.

      113
      With regard to the question what should take place on the termination of a judicial lease, that divided itself into two branches. There might be a judicial lease in the case of a present and of a future tenant. The question might arise, what should be the position of a judicial lessee on the termination of his lease?—first, where he happened to be a present tenant; and, secondly, where he was a future tenant. It was manifest that the position of the two ought to be different; and it was quite clear that the man who was a present tenant, and came and took from his landlord a judicial lease, should, on the expiration of that lease, be in the position of a present tenant and not a future tenant.
      MR. GLADSTONE: Her Majesty's Government do not propose to accept this Amendment. I am not quite certain—indeed, it would be presumption in me to say what would be its legal effect—but I take it, as expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it (Mr. Pluuket), to be a notice to the tenant who accepted the judicial lease, and at the end of all the relations between him and the landlord, that all the tenant's interest should terminate. That is exactly the thing to which the Government cannot agree, and if we did agree to it the clause would be rendered absolutely a dead letter. No tenant in Ireland would accept a lease on conditions that at the end of that lease his whole interest should expire. I will quote a very ancient anecdote upon this point, but is also a very short one. It is one which the late Lord Devon, who was at the head of the Commission of 1843, told me. He said that when inquiries were going forward in Ireland it was found to be usual for a man who held a lease for life to bequeath it on his death-bed to somebody else. That was the expression of a deeply-engrained idea, and the Government are not prepared to come into conflict with that idea. I do not say anything about the other Amendments that may be moved, but I must object to this one.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, that, speaking with great frankness, his opinion as to the judicial lease and the subsequent proposal as to fixed tenancies was that they partook very much of the nature of padding. He did not attach very much importance to all this elaborate phraseology about judicial leases, and he thought
      114
      that fixed tenancies, to which two clauses of this remarkable Bill were devoted, would not be called in question 10 times during the next 100 years. As, however, the clause was there they should try and give it something like an intelligible construction, and try to arrive at something like a reasonable conclusion upon it. The reason that he had put down on the Paper the Amendment which had been moved by his right hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Plunket) was that he wished to arrive at a clear and definite idea—if Her Majesty's Government had one—as to what would be the position of a tenant of a judicial lease at the termination of it. They appeared to intend, by adding this second paragraph to Clause 9, to give a construction to the position of a lessee on the termination of his lease entirely at variance with the construction that would be put upon his position on the termination of an ordinary lease. It was intended, by adding the second paragraph at the end of Clause 9, practically to give real perpetuity of tenure in that case as in all others—real, but not avowed. Now, what was the position of the tenant of an ordinary lease, leaving the word "judicial" out of the case altogether? If the tenant of an ordinary lease was permitted by his landlord to continue in occupation on the termination of his lease, and if the landlord elected to accept from that tenant payment of rent, that tenant became a tenant from year to year upon the terms and conditions of his lease which had just expired. There could be no question about that; but the Government did not leave the tenant over-holding on the expiration of his judicial lease to the legal implication which every lawyer understood. They stepped in and said that at the very moment the judicial lease terminated the tenant became clothed with all the powers and authorities of a future tenant; and it was there that he thought it right to step in and present to the Committee nakedly and clearly what it was that they were asked to decide in this clause. What was the meaning of saying that the lessee would be deemed to be the tenant of a future ordinary tenancy? Did the Government mean to suggest that that was exactly the same position as if the landlord of an ordinary lease, on its expiration, had permitted the tenant to con-

      115
      tinue in occupation, had accepted rent from him, and had so accepted him as a tenant from year to year? If they did mean that, why did not the Government put it in the clause? As a matter of fact, they must mean something more, because they had, in the preceding part of their Bill, given to future tenants certain rights entirely independent of a tenant holding on at the expiration of a lease. For instance, under sub-section 2 of Clause 3, the tenant of a future lease, if asked by his landlord to pay an increased rent, had a right to sell his tenancy, and to compel the landlord then to pay the amount of difference that the Court would hold was lost in the purchase money by the fact of a rise of rent being asked in excess of what the Court would hold was a fair rent. The tenant would have the right of free sale, and it might be that they would compel the landlord by these words, instead of having an absolute right to resume possession on the termination of a lease, to admit that the very day the lease terminated a future tenancy was created. They would compel the landlord, if he wanted to get possession, to serve a notice to quit. They would, therefore, compel the landlord, by the words which the Government now said meant nothing—[Mr. GLADSTONE: I never said so]—it had been suggested by silences and by gestures, which were sometimes liable to be misinterpreted; but, no doubt, he had made a mistake, as his statement had not been accepted. But, at any rate, as he had understood it, it was suggested by several speakers that these words in the second paragraph of the 9th section really said, in reference to a lessee on the termination of a judicial lease, that he was to be in exactly the same position as a lessee on the termination of an ordinary lease. He (Mr. Gibson) ventured to say that that was not a fair way in which to treat the landlord. The Prime Minister said that nothing could be more absurd than to say that this Bill contained anything in the nature of perpetuity of tenure; and, unless he was very much mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman lead said that it was an abuse of language to use any such phrase in connection with the Bill. Well, he (Mr. Gibson) spoke with entire sincerity, and with great respect for the opinion of the Prime Minister on a question of this
      116
      kind; but, really, with some misgiving, he must venture to say that, although he might lay himself open to the same charge from the Prime Minister of being absurd, he had arrived at the conclusion that, though not avowed and put in terms, there was actual, real, and substantial perpetuity of tenure in this Bill. He was not going into any other clause of the Bill except for the purpose of illustration; but if a tenant from year to year expanded to a statutory 15 years' tenancy, and then at the end of 15 years he could expand that tenancy into another 15 years, he called that, if Dot perpetuity of tenure, at any rate, the best imitation of perpetuity of tenure that he had ever heard of. The Court could, with the sanction of the parties, give a judicial tenancy for 31 years as a minimum, and might go up to 500 years, or even 1,000 years. Few of them would really speculate as to how long the world was likely to last; but if a lease was granted for 300 or 400 years, or for 1,000 years, it was a tolerably substantial instalment towards perpetuity. But take it that it stopped short of that, the tenant could have the holding for 31 years, and that was the minimum. He asked in what time on the expiration of a lease had a landlord the shadow of a ghost of a chance of resuming possession? He could not do it, because they did not give him the power. They said a tenant at the end of the lease was a future tenant, and they clothed the tenant with the character and fixed conditions under which the landlord could not resume, possession. ["No, no!"] Yes, that was the case. The landlord could not get back possession, except under conditions where he would have to buy over again the fee-simple of the tenancy. Was that giving the landlord any power whatever of resuming possession? To deny that the Bill gave perpetuity of tenure was the merest play upon words. He called it perpetuity from the landlord's point of view. No matter how the tenancy might change, or what machinery might be contained in the Bill with regard to change or sale, there could be no doubt that the proposal of the Government involved perpetuity of tenure as against the landlord, who could not, under any circumstances, resume possession of the holdings. The proposal contained in the clause cer-

      117
      tainly, in his mind, involved perpetuity of possession as against the landlord; and he ventured to say that the proposition could not be gainsaid, or even qualified. It had been his (Mr. Gibson's) good fortune to hear almost all of the speeches which had been made by the Prime Minister on this Bill, and he had endeavoured to derive all the instruction and information that was possible from them. The Prime Minister had addressed the Committee that afternoon, with his usual force and eloquence, to this particular branch of the matter before the Committee, and had endeavoured to show that it was an abuse of language to suggest the idea that the Bill intended or was framed to procure perpetuity of tenure; but in doing that the Prime Minister looked at the question only from one point of view, and absolutely ignored every other. The right hon. Gentleman said it was an abuse of language to say that the Bill involved perpetuity of tenure, because in certain conditions one tenant might be compelled to sell his interest to another tenant; but he ignored the fact that all this might be mere bye-play on the part of the tenant, and that it did not bring the landlord one whit nearer the possibitity of resuming possession of his estate. The tenant in possession, or the one who might succeed him, had in his hands perpetuity of tenure as against the landlord, in that the landlord could not resume possession, but could only under certain conditions compel his tenant to transfer the tenancy to someone else, which would not bring him an atom nearer to the re-possession of his estate. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that on the previous evening he had been prevented, by a ruling from the Chair which was defended by the hon. and learned Solicitor General in a well-considered speech, from raising this question on Clause 7, and he was now dealing only with the particular clause under discussion. He did not wish to go back upon Clause 7, except for purposes of illustration as far as his present argument was concerned. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech that day, denied that the Bill contained the principle of perpetuity of tenure—in saying that he (Mr. Gibson) ventured to urge that he was not misrepresenting what the right hon. Gentleman said—but asked why there was not perpetuity
      118
      of tenure? He would give an answer to this which he thought no one who had considered what occurred on the previous evening would gainsay.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,rising to Order, said, he wished to ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was discussing the Amendment now before the Committee or one in Clause 7—a matter which had been disposed of at the Morning Sitting?
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) was certainly illustrating his argument very fully by references to what had taken place in the course of the previous Sitting.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, his complaint was that the perpetuity of tenure, which in his view the Bill certainly involved, was disguised instead of being thoroughly and frankly avowed. He supposed this was due to the fact that in the year 1870 the highest authority in the House laid down the proposition, and supported it by the most persuasive reasoning, that if perpetuity of tenure was granted as against the Irish landlords they would have an absolute claim to compensation. It was in order to avoid——
      MR. GLADSTONErose to Order, and said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) bad been speaking for nearly 20 minutes, and had said no single word on the subject of the Amendment before the Committee.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that, as far as he could gather, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had certainly addressed his observations much more to Clause 7, and the arguments which were used in support of it, than to the Amendment immediately before the Committee.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, the clauses were absolutely connected together. He did not wish to refer to the speech which the Prime Minister had made in the course of that day, further than to say that the right hon. Gentleman had committed himself to the opinion that the Bill was free from the charge of giving perpetuity of tenure. He had endeavoured to show that this clause in its 2nd paragraph, instead of giving to the landlords a right to resume possession of the holdings which they had let, so hampered the landlords as to imperil, if not altogether to prevent, their right

      119
      or power to resume possession. He was, therefore, asking why the Government, instead of frankly, plainly, and directly giving perpetuity of tenure, were doing that particular thing in a round-about, involved, and disguised way, so as to obscure the landlord's right to compensation? The object of his Amendment was to bring into perfect clearness the landlord's position. This was a perfectly clear proposition which, if denied by the Government, made it clear to his mind that there was something, at all events, very like perpetuity of tenure to be granted under this Bill.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he thought his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) had been labouring under some delusion in respect to this clause, or that his brain was oppressed by the weight of arguments which he had intended to bring forward on a previous occasion. To contend that the clause practically conferred or involved perpetuity of tenure, disguised in some marvellous way, required a considerable amount of courage, and that courage had, he must admit, been displayed by his right hon. and learned Friend on the present occasion. His right hon. and learned Friend had told the Committee that the Court might give leases for 30 years, 100 years, or even 500 or 1,000 years, as against the landlords, the fact being that the Court could give nothing, but that the landlord could give what he pleased in agreement with his tenants. To talk of what the Court could give, as against the landlords, was, therefore, only misleading the Committee. If his right hon. and learned Friend would look at the last paragraph of the clause, he would find that a tenant, at the determination of his lease, became the ordinary tenant of a future tenancy. His right hon. and learned Friend then went on to ask how the landlord was to regain possession of his property, and to urge that he might be deluded by a series of mock ejectments—in short, he had mixed up the clause now before the Committee with the one which preceded and the one which was to follow it, without any over scrupulous reference to the matter with which the Committee was now asked to deal. But, after all, what did the whole of this come to? Everyone who knew anything of Irish agricultural life knew that a lease only
      120
      meant a settlement of the amount of rent for a certain number of years; and that, although according to the letter of the lease, the landlord, at its termination, was to get back possession of the holding, still, according to the almost universal custom, the landlord, instead of resuming possession, had a revision of the rent, and on the revised scale the tenant retained possession. A judicial lease, as proposed by the Bill, was a pure matter of agreement, to which the landlord was not compelled to assent if he thought the terms proposed to him were unjust. His right hon. and learned Friend had suggested that the clause would not be used in many cases. This might, or might not, happen; but, in any case, it was clear that the landlords were not bound to grant leases on terms which they thought would be unfair to themselves. He could see no injustice in a proposal which, in accordance with the Irish custom, allowed tenants, on the expiration of their leases, to retain possession of their holdings, subject to a revision of rent. No one could suppose that a man would take a 31 years' lease of his holding if he was liable to be turned out of it on the clay following the completion of his term. If the tenants were expected to accept these leases, they must be presented to them in a form likely to be acceptable.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, there were two points which seemed to arise out of this Amendment. The first was, whether, at the end of a lease which, in Scotland, was, as a rule, 19 years, and in England far less, the landlord was or was not to resume possession of his holding? The value of an estate in Ireland was from 22 to 25 years' purchase, yet it was proposed to give leases for 31 years; and he asked whether it was fair that, in such circumstances, the landlords should not have a perfect right to resume possession of their properties? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland said that course would have the effect of being contrary to all Irish opinion. The second point was that which had been raised by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), which was whether a future tenant would have a right to a statutory term in the event of his rent being raised?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, it was an essential feature of the Bill, as set forth in Clause 3, that the future tenants were not entitled to go to the Court in order to have a rent judicially fixed, or procure a statutory term. It was only the present tenant who had those privileges.
      MR. SYNANsaid, the mistake into which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had fallen was in confounding the "future tenant" with the "future ordinary tenant," the different phrases being used in different clauses of the Bill. He should be glad to see the word "ordinary" struck out of the clause; but unless that was done, there must remain a marked distinction between tenants under this and under the 3rd clause.
      MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, he would admit that, according to the Irish custom, it was not usual for tenants to give up their holdings at the expiration of their leases, but to go on after there had been a re-valuation and a re-adjustment of the rent; but, on that point, he thought there was somewhat of ambiguity in the clause, as it stood in the Bill, in relation to the meaning of the words "a future tenant."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they on that Bench had not been arguing about the clause as it stood, but as to the Amendment which had been proposed. When that had been disposed of, they would consider what should be the ultimate form of the clause, bearing in mind the importance of several of the suggestions which had been made.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be disposed of forthwith, in order that they might get at the substance of the clause which the Prime Minister said had yet to be reached.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he had altered his Amendment as it stood on the Paper. Hon. Members would see that, as it had first stood, it applied to all cases in which a judicial lease was agreed to between a landlord and tenant, without making any distinction between the case where a judicial lease was accepted by a present tenant or a future tenant. The object of the Amendment was to make a distinction between
      122
      those two cases. He said "the Amendment," but there were really two Amendments—although the first was only formal and rendered necessary to make the other intelligible. Possibly, the second Amendment would, in the eyes of many hon. Members opposite, raise a very important question. The question was one that must be raised and dealt with by the Committee, if justice was to be done. There were two classes of cases—first, those where the future tenant, so-called, had had no previous relations with the occupancy or contact with the landlord, as in the case where a previous tenancy was determined, and a future tenant came in fresh, as referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), where a landlord let out some of his demesne lands. The distinction drawn in the Bill between future and ordinary present tenants—although he agreed that there probably ought to be some distinction—was too sharp; and he therefore trusted that that sharpness, which would cause inconvenience, would be avoided. But, for the moment, he did not wish to deal with that. He wished to deal with the case of the man who was a present tenant of the land, and who agreed with his landlord to take a judicial lease—that was, a lease which received the sanction of the Court. The Bill, unless amended as he proposed, said that the present tenant—such at the time of the acceptance of the judicial lease—was, by reason of his acceptance of the judicial lease, altogether to lose at the expiration of the lease the character and advantages given to a present tenant. If this were to be the case, they would get no people to accept these judicial leases. The Government ought to be consistent, and, after the course they had taken yesterday with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), they should accept his (Mr. Charles Russell's) proposal. The hon. Member's (Mr. Balfour's) Amendment was to the effect that the statutory term should come to an end at the end of the second statutory term—in other words, the statutory term for the purpose of his Amendment should be two terms of 15 years, equal to 30 years. The Government, desiring to see this an efficient Bill, resisted that Amendment. But, having resisted the Amendment, which sought to fix 30 years as the limit

      123
      at the end of which time a tenant was to cease to be a present tenant, in the sense of having the benefit of any application which he might make for a statutory term, it seemed to him that the Government must accept his Amendment as giving effect to the action they had already taken. In the case of the Ulster tenants there was an express provision that at the end of their leases they should have the benefit he wished to give to tenants under judicial leases.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 9, at end of Clause, add—"Provided always, That, at the expiration of such lease either the landlord or the tenant shall be at liberty to apply to the Court to fix the rent, and thereupon the Court shall make such order as, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall seem to be just."—(My Charles Russell.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. W. H. SMITH: I certainly think the time has come when the Prime Minister ought to give us some statement as to the views of the Government on the subject of this clause. It appears to me that if the words of this clause are adopted, the occupier under a judicial lease will be in a position of having agreed with the landlord for that which will enable him to say—"I am now entitled to compensation for disturbance if, at the end of this judicial lease, you do not agree with me either for a new tenancy or a new lease." This, in reality, transfers to the occupier so much of the property of the landlord as is expressed by the compensation to be given to him, and enables the occupier to say to the landlord—"Make terms with me, or I will place you under this fine." The landlord will say—"It is true I have agreed with you for a judicial lease." Well, I suppose he may not have agreed, because a judicial lease is different from any other document which, in the past, has been looked upon as a lease. Hitherto it has always been understood that at the end of the lease the property reverts to him who granted it; but it is not to be so in this case. The tenant is to enjoy his occupation for 31 years; and the landlord, at the end of that period, is to be subject to a fine, if an arrangement is not come to which is satisfactory to the leaseholder. That is a real transfer of property from the one to the other. If they are to negotiate a new lease, the tenant says to the landlord—
      124
      "Here is my right to seven years' rent, in the case of a £30 tenancy; five years' rent, in the case of a £50 tenancy." And in that way he extracts from the landlord—who does not wish to be subject to a fine—an arrangement. That can hardly be the intention of the Government. It is not just. It places the tenant at the end of a lease in a better position than he was at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord may have fulfilled all his engagements; and it cannot be the intention of the Government that at the end of the lease he should be in a worse position than at the beginning.
      MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), I am afraid, has not gathered the effect of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman is under the impression that the tenant will be invested with a kind of indefeasible tenancy, which it will rest with him to retain, which he has a right to retain, and on account of which, if he is not allowed to retain it, he may demand from the landlord compensation. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is entirely incorrect. The tenant may continue in the tenancy under the terms of the lease, and, if he demands any modification of those terms, the only mode of enforcing it will be by quitting the tenancy; and, if he does that, the only privilege accruing to him will be the privilege of selling his interest. That will be the position of the future tenant at the expiration of the lease under this clause.
      MR. W. H. SMITH: Then I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that a lease for 31 years becomes a lease practically for ever, according to the terms and conditions of the lease. ["No, no!"] Well, at the expiration of the judicial lease, the lessee is to be deemed to be the tenant of the future ordinary tenancy from year to year at the rent and subject to the conditions of the lease, and he can only be turned out—that is to say, the landlord can only resume possession—under the penalties contained in the Bill; in other words, by giving compensation for disturbance. Under the Act of 1870 these leases were subject to the conditions of all leases, and at the end of them the landlord could resume possession, or a new arrangement was come to by the parties. There was no idea of compensation for disturbance at the end of the lease.
      MR. GIVANsaid, the matter was one of considerable gravity. They should be able to carry with them on this clause——
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the Committee that the discussion is going very much on the whole clause, instead of on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell).
      MR. GIVANsaid, it was on the Amendment that he was about to speak. It was important that they should carry with them the sense and judgment of those who were inclined to agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson), who had a facility for putting matters in such a way as to carry many people away with him. In order that the Committee might understand the position of the tenant under the judicial lease it was necessary that the Committee should consider what was the present position of the tenant from year to year. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what was the position of a tenant under an existing lease? Well, they would see in a moment whether the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) was reasonable or not, when they considered what was the position of the tenant under the existing lease. The tenant, under the existing lease in the Province of Ulster, was entitled to tenant right at the end of that lease, because the lease, in most cases, had been proved to be a mere interregnum in the tenancy; consequently, at the end of the lease, all the incidence of the tenancy returned, and the tenant became entitled to all the rights and privileges he enjoyed previous to the date of the lease. Then, what was the position of the lessee outside the Ulster Custom? Under the 4th clause of the Act of 1870, he was entitled to his improvements. Now, if the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had been carried, or if the tenancy was to be a future tenancy under the Act, not only would the tenant not have the privileges of the Ulster tenant under the 4th clause of the Act of 1870, but he would be turned out of his improvements and altogether deprived of his holding. Therefore, it was clear with regard to future tenancies created after the passing of the Act, where there had been a pre-
      126
      contract between the landlord and tenant, and where he had no existing interest in the land, the true principle to adopt, and the principle which the Bill enforced was this—that the tenant should, at the determination of the lease, become a future tenant; but if the tenant had at the commencement of the judicial lease an interest in the land as a tenant from year to year, then why should he be deprived of the tenancy by accepting a judicial lease? Unless the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) were accepted a tenant now accepting a judicial lease would be put in the position in which no tenant ever was before. He would neither be a tenant under the Ulster Custom, nor entitled to full compensation for disturbance under the Act of 1870.
      MR. GIBSONwanted to ask a question of the Government. As he understood the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), it was this. He proposed to leave the drafting of the second paragraph of the clause as it stood, and then to say that as to certain tenants who might have been present tenants at the commencement of a judicial lease, they should maintain their status as tenants at the expiration of the judicial lease. If the hon. and learned Member would look at the earlier words of the clause, he would find that it was not at all general—it did not purport to give power to all tenants coming under the Act to obtain a judicial lease. It was limited to two very specific classes—first, the landlord and tenant of an ordinary tenancy; and then, the landlord and tenant of any holding to which the Act applied which was not subject to a subsisting tenancy. That was all. He could not exactly reconcile the Amendment with the glossary. He asked for information—whether the clause contemplated, in its rather peculiar phraseology, that the present tenant could at all have entered into a judicial lease?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the first sentence of the clause expressly included both present and future tenancies.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwished to know what they were going to do with regard to this Amendment? When the Prime Minister rose, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had hoped that he

      127
      would say something as to the view the Government took. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not done so. It appeared to him (Lord Randolph Churchill) that if they accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), they would be altogether departing from the plan they had in view when they inserted these judicial leases in the Bill. He had tried to point out before dinner, but had not been successful in his endeavour to attract the attention of the Government, that the Amendment they had accepted to the 8th clause seriously interfered with their plan. They had cut out that which was part and parcel of their plan. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk was accepted, judicial leases would be wholly worthless. He wished to disembarrass the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member from the consideration raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith). He could not understand the contention of that right hon. Member that any part of this subsection, as it stood, conferred perpetuity of tenure. It appeared to him to be nothing more nor less than what would be the existing law with the modification that the tenant at the end of the lease could be put out on an ejectment. By this clause he became ipso facto a yearly tenant, and would have to be put out by a notice to quit. But a future tenant at the end of a lease was as unprotected from eviction as any tenant in Ireland. And, more than that, the future tenant at the end of a judicial lease was debarred from claiming compensation for disturbance under the Act of 1870. He could not imagine that that point would be pressed by his right hon. Friend so as to embarrass the Committee in deciding the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk. He attached great importance to this question of granting judicial leases, and he thought it distinctly in the interests of the landlords. The advantages were these—the landlord would be saved from hostile litigation on the part of the tenant, who would be bound by the conditions of his lease. There would be many landlords who would say—"We do not want to be bothered by going to the Court; we will give them judicial leases for 31 years, that will
      128
      last our lifetime, and when our heirs follow us they will have to make their own arrangements with the tenants on the basis of free contract." But if they made a tenancy at the end of a judicial lease of a present tenant, they would destroy any advantage that could be got in this way, because the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk wished to put judicial leases on the same basis as leases executed before the passing of the Act. The hon. and learned Member appeared to forget that a tenant under a judicial lease used all the rights that the Act would confer upon him. He had great advantages. He obtained security for two statutory terms; the landlord had no right of pre-emption at the end of the second statutory term, and he could not raise the rent. It was said that no tenant would take a judicial lease. Certainly he would not if they accepted the Amendment. As the Bill stood, under certain circumstances, the tenant would have no option but to accept a judicial lease.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I would point out to the Committee that the Court would still be enabled to judge, under the 8th clause, whether a refusal to give a lease is or is not unreasonable. Upon what principle is the Court to proceed in order to judge this question? It would ask the tenant to show whether it was or was not to his interest to accept a lease; and if we pass this clause we must take care that the interests of the two parties are so balanced that there can be no reason why, if the landlord offers a lease and sees his interest in offering it—because, of course, he cannot be compelled in the matter—the tenant should not have a reasonable interest or inducement to accept it. As the clause stands, I confess that I am bound to say it is not drafted so as to meet all the merits of the case. The clause as it stands is applicable both to present tenants and to persons who are not present tenants; but the general effect is to give somewhat less than is due to present tenants and somewhat more than is due to persons who are not present tenants. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) will, I think, find his horror at the clause considerably diminished if he bears in mind that our intention really is this—the future tenant shall fare

      129
      subsequently like any future tenant, so that he will come in at the end of his judicial lease like any other third party. But I admit that, as the law stands, he gets more, because he gets a lease; whereas, if he came in as a future tenant, the landlord would be entitled, when he had separated his holdings into several parts, to fix upon whatever initial rent he pleased; whereas, those who are not present tenants may be willing to take leases under favourable conditions, yet we may release the landlord from all special restraints at the termination of the lease, and allow him to deal with respect to the initial rent just as he would if there had been no judicial rent at all. It is not to be doubted that it is the result of general testimony with regard to opinion and practice in Ireland that the reputation of leases is at this moment not good in Ireland. There is an ill savour about them in the nostrils of the Irish tenant generally, and he will be very cautious indeed about taking a judicial lease, and the Court will certainly not consider his refusal to take a judicial lease as an unreasonable refusal, unless it can be shown on the face of the lease that the conditions of that judicial lease are constructed upon the principles of a fair balance, giving him an equivalent for his rent. Therefore I believe that, as regards tenants, the foundation of sound legislation with regard to this matter of judicial leases will depend upon our drawing a distinction, in the first instance, between persons who are not present tenants at the outset of the lease, and persons who are. As regards persons who are not present tenants at the outset, I believe their case will be quite provided for, and the Court will have the utmost discretion and jurisdiction in regard to them, if we drop the words in the second portion of the clause. But then there is the question of those who are present tenants. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. C. Russell) proposes to provide a declaration that, whatever the length of the lease may be, at its termination the tenancy should be a present tenancy. We are rather disposed, I think, to meet my hon. and learned Friend half way, and to say that there are cases in which, where leases of great length are given, we think it might fairly be expected that, in compensation for such security, the tenant
      130
      should give up the advantage of being a present tenant at the expiration of the lease. For the sake of argument, I may refer to the amicable conversation we have had to-night upon the Longfield Lease, which, it appears, is a lease for 500 years. I confess I do not see any necessity for providing that, at the termination of a Longfield Lease in the year 2381, the holder of that lease shall be a present tenant. But what my hon. and learned Friend evidently has in view is the currency of leases such as are usually given in Ireland upon agricultural holdings. We have taken that here as 31 years. What I think we might do is that we might accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend with regard to all judicial leases which do not extend beyond a certain term of years; but we must place that term of years sensibly higher than 31 years, or, if the practice of 31-year leases were adopted under this clause, it would be entirely inoperative if we adopt the provision of my hon. and learned Friend. If we are to have judicial leases at all, we must make it reasonably worth the while of the tenant to accept them, or the Court would never give them. I think we may say that if the currency of the lease does not extend to 60 years or upwards, we shall, in all those cases, accept the Amendment, and that would fairly strike the balance between the various interests involved.
      MR. GIBSONcould not see how the suggestion of the Prime Minister could be worked in with the Amendment now before the Committee. He thought the Amendment ought to be withdrawn for the present, and then it could be brought up again subsequently in an altered form. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. C. Russell) seemed to think it reasonable that the present tenant should be dealt with in an entirely exceptional way, and that he should be reinstated at the expiration of his lease as a present tenant. He (Mr. Gibson) thought, however, that the best thing to do would be to leave the question to be dealt with on Report, when he was sure his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would present the matter in a way which they could all understand.
      MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he would be quite willing to do whatever was reasonable; but, as a matter of

      131
      drafting, he thought he could easily accommodate his Amendment to the suggestion made by the Prime Minister. He was, however, willing to leave the necessary Amendment conceded by the Government to be dealt.with by the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law).
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLunderstood the Prime Minister's proposal to be that the present tenant should not be altogether thrown on one side at the expiration of the lease. He quite approved of that proposal, and thought it quite wrong that the present tenant should be so sacrificed, though he did not so much care for the future tenant.
      MR. MACARTNEYpointed out that the present practice in the North of Ireland was, as a matter of custom or of law, that upon the expiration of the lease the tenant should continue as a tenant from year to year until he was disturbed; but he had no right to remain on if the landlord gave him notice to quit. The right which belonged to him was the tenant right, which he was able to dispose of to another tenant who wanted to come in, or to the landlord who might wish to purchase. He (Mr. Macartney) thought he had understood the Prime Minister to say that the future tenant, after the judicial lease had expired, though he would not be subject to the conditions of the Act in regard to other matters, would have a right to sell his holding. Had he correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman?
      MR. GLADSTONE: What I said was that, as the clause now stands, it is too much to place him in a better position. There is no reason when a man gets a judicial lease why he should, at the expiration of that lease, be in a better position than another future tenant, and the landlord would fix the initial rent. We propose, therefore, to leave the main subject to the general operation of the law.
      MR. MACARTNEYwished to know whether the tenant, at the end of his judicial lease, was to have the right which the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. C. Russell) would give him, and which would place him in as good a position as the tenant who had had two successive statutory terms, and was entitled to a third? He did not know whether the Bill intended to give that power, even to the present tenant.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Fixed Tenancies.
      Clause 10 (Present ordinary tenancy converted into fixed tenancy).
      MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. MEALY)moved the omission of the word "present" in page 9, line 26.
      Question, "That the word 'present' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Words struck out accordingly.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, in page 9, line 26, the omission of the word "ordinary," lest it should have the effect of precluding the parties from entering into any voluntary arrangement at the end of the first 15 years.
      Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 26, to leave out the word "ordinary."—(Sir George Campbell.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'ordinary' stand part of the Clause."
      MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think any inconvenience would arise from the retention of the word "ordinary;" because at the close of the statutory term the tenancy would become an ordinary one.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLmoved, in page 9, line 26, the omission of the word "tenancy," in order to insert the word "holding."
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 9, line 26, to leave out the word "tenancy," in order to substitute the word "holding."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'tenancy' stand part of the Clause."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)trusted that the Committee would allow the word "tenancy" to stand, for it had been deliberately determined before that the word "tenancy" should be used when the interest of the tenant was spoken of.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLpointed out that the definition of "tenancy," as given in the Interpretation Clause, was "the tenant's interest in a holding." But the words in this part of the clause were governed by the word "landlord." Now, there could not be a

      133
      landlord of an interest—he must be the landlord of a holding.
      MR. WARTONthought there was a great deal of force in the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). The fact was they were rapidly drifting away from all the definitions given in the Interpretation Clause. They had just omitted the word "ordinary," without considering what an "ordinary tenant" meant; and now they were going to do worse, by leaving the word "tenancy" where it should be "holding."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      MR. GREGORYwished to make an inquiry on behalf of an individual who had been ignored throughout the Bill—he meant the mortgagee upon Irish estates. The Bill, as he understood it, enabled any landlord and tenant to enter into any contract to convert any holding into a fee-farm rent. All he asked was that the mortgagee should have an opportunity of being heard when the landlord and tenant proceeded to any such conversion, and that it should not be done behind the mortgagee's back. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to consider the question before they came to the Report. If some protection were not given, the only result would be that all securities on Irish property would be called in, or otherwise the interest of the mortgagee might be completely annihilated behind his back.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSShoped an assurance would be given in accordance with the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory).
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he certainly would consider the question; but he wished to point out that the 18th clause would deal with limited owners.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause 11 (Conditions of fixed tenancy).
      MR. GREGORYmoved to insert, after the word "tenancy," in page 9, line 34, these words—
      "And as in the case of a landlord who is a limited owner, as defined by the 26th section of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,
      134
      the Court shall approve, after considering the interest of all persons entitled to any estate or interest in the holding, subsequent to the estate or interest of such limited owner."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. HEALY)moved as an Amendment in page 9, line 38, to leave out "and," and insert—
      "Provided that in case of the re-valuation by the Court under this section of any such fee-farm rent, such Valuation shall be conducted on the principles prescribed for fixing a fair rent under the seventh section of this Act."
      He presumed the Government would accept this Amendment, and therefore it was not necessary for him to occupy time by supporting it with argument.
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not see how a fee-farm rent could be dealt with on the same principle as an ordinary rent.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the principle of the Amendment was unobjectionable; but perhaps the hon. Member for Wexford would allow it to stand over until Report, for it would require some consideration on the point of drafting.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, a fee-farm rent might or might not be subject to re-valuation, as might be agreed upon between landlord and tenant; and, surely, the conditions of re-valuation would be matter of agreement.
      MR. H. R. BRANDsaid, if the words "by the Court" were left out of the Amendment, that would meet the objection.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that there was no objection to the Amendment. As he understood the Bill, it simply meant that the re-valuation should take place in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But, seeing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had agreed to the principle of the Amendment, and had undertaken on Report to bring in such words as would carry out the idea of the Amendment, he begged leave now to withdraw it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. ERRINGTONsaid, he had an Amendment to move on a subject that excited much interest in Ireland. This question of fixity of tenure, which the Committee were discussing, was really

      135
      considered the most important and most useful portion of the whole measure. His proposal was to omit the word "and" in line 38, and insert these words—
      "Which rent, or any part thereof, he shall be at liberty to redeem at any time of such term, subject to such regulations as the Court shall deem fair to both parties."
      This was to facilitate the purchase of an increase of the tenant's interest. The importance of the provision in the clause for the purchase of the land by the tenant was agreed, but few tenants would be able to avail themselves of it to the full extent, and he was anxious that they should be enabled to acquire it by a gradual process. It would be a great inducement to offer to the tenant this means of fining down the amount of his rent, and by the gradual increase of the tenant's interest in his farm the tenant's security would be increased and the general tranquillity promoted. The words he proposed to introduce would safeguard the interest of the landlord, for the Court would make the regulations and lay down the terms on which the fining down should take place, and the means by which the money should be paid, and probably there would be no difficulty in the Court making arrangements for the investment of the money if this course were determined upon.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 9, line 38, to omit the word "and," and insert "which rent, or any part thereof, he shall be at liberty to redeem at any time of such term, subject to such regulations as the Court shall deem fair to both parties."—(Mr. Errington.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought there was a great deal of force in the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Errington) up to this point, that when the landlord had become a rent-charger, and was no longer in the true sense a landlord, there should be arrangements for this rent-charge being redeemed. But this was a matter for the Court. He did not wish to insert more than the conditions to bring in the action of the Court, and it would be better to leave the matter until the action of the Court was reached.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, a fee-farm rent could not be so fined down.
      MR. ERRINGTONsaid, he did not wish to press the Amendment. He only hoped that the principle was in the Bill as it now stood.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he would formally move an Amendment, of which his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had given Notice, though he did not think that, as the law stood, it was necessary.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 10, at end of Clause, to add new sub-section 3—"A fixed tenancy shall be created by deed executed, or note in writing, signed by the landlord or his agent thereunto, lawfully authorized in writing."—(Mr. Biggar.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the object proposed to be carried out by the Amendment was the existing practice under the ordinary law. It was desirable that there should be a formal document.
      MR. BIGGAR,seeing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman shared the opinion which he held himself, would not press the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    PART IV.

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTAL TO PRECEDING PARTS.
      Miscellaneous.
      Clause 12 (Sale of tenancy without notice of increase of rent).
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked, did the Government intend to proceed further? He had an Amendment of importance on the Paper; but it seemed to him that the clause had really been practically dealt with by the sub-section in Clause 3. Perhaps the Government did not intend to proceed with it; but if they did, he should move in page 10, line 7, after "tenancy," to insert "under the provisions of this Act and."
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would agree that this was a con-

      137
      venient point to report Progress. He did not think the Government wished to retain the clause, and he did not think they could have a better stopping place for the night. The Committee had made considerable progress, and it would be pressing them unduly hard to proceed further. He would move that Progress be reported.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHhoped there would be some information as to whether the clause was to stand; it would be very inconvenient for hon. Members not to know.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had a Notice to omit the clause, and it would be satisfactory to know if the Government intended to persevere with it or not.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not wish the Committee to go beyond this clause.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not quite apprehend what had been said. In consequence of the Amendments already made in the Bill, the Government would probably see that all the topics dealt with in the clause had been disposed of; but if they proceeded with the clause at all, it must lead to long discussion, and, it was obvious, could not be disposed of tonight.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, it was not reasonable to ask what the Government intended to do on the Motion to report Progress.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, if the Government did not intend to press the clause, he would withdraw his Motion; but he would decline to do so if the Government retained the clause, in view of the fact that it must lead to a long discussion and the House met at 12 to-morrow.
      MR. CHAPLINsuggested that the Government should allow Progress to be reported, and then say if they intended to retain the clause. It would be a matter of convenience to all.
      MR. BIGGARthought it was unreasonable to ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite to make up their minds as to striking out the clause in the absence of
      138
      the Prime Minister, who had charge of the Bill; but, at the same time, it would be unreasonable to ask the Committee to sit later in view of the early Sitting next day.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would consent to Progress being reported; but he must consult with his right hon. Friend as to the clause.
      MR. WARTONwished to make two suggestions—one was, that the amended clauses should be reprinted as far as the Committee had gone; and the other was, that as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had promised to consider an immense number of points on Report, a list of these should be printed and added to from time to time, to give some notion of the proposals that were to come.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION BILL.— [Lords.]
    (Mr. Attorney General.)
    SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION BILL.— [Lords.]

      [BILL 100.] COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1 (Short title; extent; interpretation).
      Amendment proposed,
      In page I, line 26, after "1866," to insert "'Provincial Law Societies or Associations' means all bodies of solicitors in England incorporated by Royal Charter, or under the Joint Stock Companies Act, other than the Incorporated Law Society above mentioned."—(Sir John Holker.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)asked what was the position of those bodies of solicitors incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies Act?
      SIR JOHN HOLKERsaid, he could not give the information. The Amendment was proposed by the Provincial Law Societies; they were anxious to have it inserted, and he had got them to draw it.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if necessary, it might be amended on Report. He did not quite know to what it referred.
      Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 (Power to make General Orders for remuneration in conveyancing, &c.).
      On the Motion Of Sir JOHN HOLKER, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 4, after "Society," to insert—
      "And the President of one of the Provincial Law Societies or Associations to be selected and nominated from time to time by the Lord Chancellor to serve during the tenure of office of such President."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 3 and 4 severally agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 5 (Security for costs, and interest on disbursements).
      On the Motion of Sir JOHN HOLKER, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 15, leave out "on money disbursed by a solicitor for his client."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Remaining clauses agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      House resumed.
      Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

QUESTION.

  ADJOURNMENT—ORDERS OF THE DAY —ENTRIES ON NOTICE PAPER.
  MR. WARTONasked how it was that the Bills printed in the Orders of the Day were, in the first instance, a long list subject to alterations consequent on the Morning Sitting; and then in the evening a much shorter list was furnished?
  MR. SPEAKER: At the early Sitting of the House the House ordered the consideration of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill in Committee to be carried forward. That was done on the Order of the House.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (147).
Second Reading—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1)* (125); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (126); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * (135); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * (122); Lunacy Districts (Scotland) (108); Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act (1855) Amendment (131).
Committee—Summary Procedure (Scotland) Amendment (99).
Report—Veterinary Surgeons* (127); Summary Jurisdiction (Process) * (124).
Third Reading—Gas Provisional Orders* (97), and passed.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Sir Odo William Leopold Russell (commonly called Lord Odo William Leopold Russell), G.C.B., G.C.M.G., Her Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Emperor of Germany having been created Baron Ampthill of Ampthill in the county of Bedford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ARMY—DEATHS BY SUNSTROKE AT ALDERSHOT.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the Under Secretary of State for War as to a statement appearing in the morning papers that at the Review at Aldershot yesterday two men died from the effects of the heat, while two more were not expected to survive, and a number of others were admitted to the military hospitals suffering from the effects of the heat. He would be glad to hear any facts with regard to the matter, and any explanation of how it was that the troops were exposed several hours to the greatest heat of the day.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I regret to say that a certain number of men who took part in the Review at Aldershot yesterday were subsequently admitted to hospital suffering from the effects of the extreme heat, and no fewer than four have since died. This is a very sad occurrence. The Secretary of State for War, on hearing of it this morning, telegraphed to the General commanding at Aldershot for information. We have not yet received as full information as we could wish; but if my noble Friend will repeat his Question

3
on Thursday I shall probably be able to answer it satisfactorily.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I was actually present at Aldershot yesterday, and I had no idea that anything of the kind had occurred. I was so astonished when I heard of it, that I did not believe a word of it. When I came home from Aldershot, everybody said—" What a dreadful day you have had!" I said—"No; it was warm, but not unpleasantly warm." I asked my Staff, who gave the same answer. It certainly was a very hot day, but there was a very fair breeze on the hill, and it only became unpleasantly warm as I came towards London. I have certainly been out at field exercises 50 times on much hotter days, and I can assure your Lordships that there was nothing unusual in the weather, and as for falling out, I never saw so few men fall out on a field-day. There was no review at all; it was a simple field-day. The troops were ready to advance when I arrived, and the whole of the affair was over in a short time. There was no standing in the sun for a long period. The troops only marched past on their way home, and did not even come round again. I never was so surprised in my life, and I do not see how these accidents could be prevented.

LUNACY DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 108.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
LUNACY DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 108.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the aim of the Bill was to amend a state of matters created by the Prisons Act of 1877. Previous to that time power to alter the lunacy districts was vested in the Commissioners of Lunacy, who were able to act on receiving an application through the local Prison Board. The Prisons Act, by abolishing the local Prison Boards, deprived the Lunacy Commissioners of the initiative by which alone they were able to act. By this Bill the powers would be conferred on the Commissioners after the permission of the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been obtained.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 99.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 99.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHasked for an explanation of the 4th clause of the Bill, which provided that a table of fees in Schedule A and no other higher fees would be allowed on taxation. A subsequent clause provided that the costs in a case under this Act should not exceed £1. How was that clause to be carried out when Schedule A provided a higher scale of fees, for if Schedule A fees were to be exacted under the Bill they would amount to a larger sum than £1. How, then, was this consistent with the other clause of the Bill that no more costs than £1 were to be exacted?
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he could not answer the Question; but if their Lordships would allow the Bill to pass as it stood, he would undertake to get the explanation of that point when it came forward on the Report.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, he was satisfied with the promise of the noble Earl.
  An Amendment made: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

BURIAL GROUNDS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1855, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 131.)
(The Earl of Camperdown.)
BURIAL GROUNDS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1855, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 131.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its objects was to give to parochial authorities increased powers with regard to burial grounds or cemeteries in Scotland. At the present time, when a parochial authority wished to supply a burial ground they were obliged to set aside the half of the ground for the use of the poor. It was found, in practice, that the portion set aside for

  5
  general use was all allocated before that reserved for the poor was used up. It then became necessary to purchase new ground, which had to be subdivided in the same proportion, notwithstanding that the ground of the poor was not nearly exhausted. The arrangement was needlessly expensive, and the proposal of the Bill was that, with the consent of the Sheriff, the parochial authorities should be allowed to allocate burial grounds for such purposes and in such proportions as might be found most convenient.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

TRIPOLI.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  EARL DE LA WARR,in rising to ask a question of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the alleged statement of M. Tissot, the French Ambassador at Constantinople, to the effect that instructions had been given to the general in command of the French troops to cross the Tunisian frontier into Tripoli, if necessary for the preservation of order; also if any information can be given with regard to the military organization which is stated to be taking place in Tripoli under the Turkish governor, Nasif Pacha, in consequence, as alleged, of the occupation of Tunis by the French; also to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for papers and correspondence relative to Tripoli? said, he felt that he ought to offer an apology for again bringing this question under the consideration of the House. His apology was the great urgency of the case, and the more than usual reserve on the part of Her Majesty's Government in withholding information, and in not giving the least information as to what would be their policy on a question which, he was sure, the noble Earl opposite would admit was one of a very grave nature. Arising on all sides were alarming indications of what might result in massacre and bloodshed, and what had begun in Tunis might not end there. Already we heard of a large mobilization of French troops, of the probable bombardment of Sfax, which was not very far distant from the Fron-
  6
  tier of Tripoli, of the pillage of the town by the Natives, of British subjects being killed, of hundreds of Europeans, including British subjects, taking refuge on board ships, though no English ships of war were there; of the probable occupation by French troops of the town of Cabes and of the Island of Djerba, near the extreme limit of the Frontier of Tunis adjoining Tripoli—these, and other rapidly progressing events, pointed most unmistakably to two things—the French occupation of Tripoli, or a rising among the Natives, which could only be repressed by military force. Granting, as he believed the noble Marquess below him (the Marquess of Salisbury) did, that there was a legitimate exercise of French influence in Tunis, of which this country need not be jealous—granting this, he would say that the question had now assumed a new phase, as the occupation by French troops of a portion of the territory of Tripoli might at any moment take place. It had been stated, and if incorrectly, he hoped the noble Earl opposite would say so, that the French troops had received instructions to cross the Tunisian Frontier into Tripoli, if necessary, for the preservation of order. Now, there was a very remarkable resemblance between this statement and what had occurred in connection with the crossing of the Frontier between Algeria and Tunis. A pretext was only wanting, and an Arab Tribe had only to be irritated, and the pretext was at hand. But what would be the consequences? Tripoli was an undoubted portion of the Ottoman Empire. It was protected by Treaties as fully as any other part of the Sultan's Dominions; and was it for a moment to be supposed that Turkey would allow French troops to enter any portion of the territory of Tripoli without the consent of the Sultan? He trusted that the noble Earl would tell their Lordships whether the Governor of Tripoli had not been making military preparations in the event of this emergency. Was it likely, he asked, that Italy could remain unmoved by events which were passing almost within sight of her own shores—events which must have a great influence upon her future prospects? This country had long been on friendly terms with the countries of Northern Africa, and they had placed confidence in England's good faith and in English

  7
  influence; but their trust had been much shaken by recent events. He desired to give credit to Her Majesty's Government for their intention to serve the interests of this country, and he regretted to be obliged to differ from them upon this important question. He sincerely hoped, however, that they would be able to give some indication of the policy which would be pursued with regard to the daily increasing difficulties in the countries of Northern Africa.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the recent complaint of the French with regard to the measures taken for the protection of Tripoli had no more foundation than the complaint of the wolf against the lamb. Tripoli was 12 degrees to the East of the Province of Oran, where the Algerine insurrection had taken place, and it was impossible for news to have been carried in that short space of time from Tripoli to near Oran through the Desert. There were, besides, no direct lines of communication between Tripoli and the district South of Oran, for in the Sahara the roads ran mostly North and South, and there were no lateral communications. The cause of the insurrection in Algeria was due to the French themselves, and to their conduct only, in invading Tunis, and to the excesses committed by some of their forces on entering the Regency of Tunis. Since that it was reported that the division of General Logerot, on its way back to Constantina, about 12 days ago, had burned the crops and date trees of the tribes, and carried off 18,000 cattle and 700 women, the women having been subsequently released. The French papers had also lately adopted a plan of writing of affairs which were totally distinct and geographically distant in the same paragraph, so as to mislead ignorant persons to imagine that they were connected with one another. Thus they had connected the Khroumirs with the slaughter of an expedition in the Sahara, and now they were mixing up a rising in Tunis with that in Oran. It had been stated that the French Government had entered into a Convention or understanding with the Spanish Government under which Spain was to occupy Morocco and France take Tripoli. He did not believe that such an understanding had been actually come to, but it was probable that it had been attempted; and he would ask the
  8
  noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he had any information on the subject? In the recent insurrection in the Province of Oran a large number of Spaniards had been killed and taken prisoners. From the accounts in the French papers it appeared that the civil and military authorities were mutually casting the blame upon one another for the neglect of proper precautions, which had rendered possible the loss of life which had occurred, and the feeling in Spain had been turned against the French on account of their neglect of their countrymen; and it was not to be feared that this unnecessary loss of life would lead the Spaniards to assist the French in their designs, since it was clear that the French alone were to blame for it. If the Government continued to be as inert as it had lately shown itself to be, more harm would be done, and a beginning on the part of the French would be made, when it would be more difficult to stop them than before they had entered upon a further course of aggression on Tripoli. Moreover, it was not Tripoli only that was threatened; the French papers were preparing the way for designs on Syria. He valued the friendship and goodwill of the French for this country as much as any man did; but the goodwill of Her Majesty's Indian Mussulman subjects, and the goodwill of the population of Western Asia, was equally valuable and necessary to this country, and Her Majesty's Government appeared to be quite indifferent to the loss of it. If Tripoli were interfered with by the French a very large British trade would be lost, for the trade with Central Africa went from Tripoli through Mourzuk, and not from Tunis, as had been stated on a former occasion. He therefore trusted that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would take steps in conjunction with the Ottoman, Italian, and French Governments in order to prevent further aggressions.
  Address for papers and correspondence relative to Tripoli.—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am bound to say that the noble Earl opposite (Earl De La Warr) always gives me Notice of the numerous Questions which he is in the habit of address-

  9
  ing to me, which my noble Friend at the Table (Lord Stanley of Alderley) does not. I imagine that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), to whom the noble Earl referred, and all your Lordships agree with the Government that the cases of Tripoli and Tunis are of a perfectly distinct and separate character, and that any arrangements which may be arrived at in respect of Tunis are not in the slightest way applicable to Tripoli. I agree so far with the noble Earl; but I repudiate the noble Earl's interpretation of my great reticence about this matter. A Government is placed in great difficulty in regard to giving information, charged, as they are, with the affairs of the country in relation to foreign Powers, and is under a disadvantage in furnishing information to the public that depends upon the consent of foreign Governments. But no Government can be blamed for not giving information which they have not received, and, therefore, do not themselves possess. My noble Friend at the Table, who gave me no Notice of his Question, asks me to give him information as to what has happened between France and Spain with regard to the partition of Morocco. Now, all I can say is, that I have not heard a word of any Treaty concluded between France and Spain with regard to Morocco. I utterly disbelieve it; and it is, therefore, impossible for me to give any information about it. The noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) complains of my not having given information as to the first part of his statement in reference to M. Tissot. But I have to say that I have heard nothing about the military occupation of Tripoli. The only report we have heard was that on the 28th of last month a Turkish ship of war had arrived at the port with a Turkish General of Division on board and two battalions. That is the only report we have heard. The noble Earl moves for Papers. I shall be only too ready to accede to his request if he thinks they will be of the slightest importance to him.
  Address agreed to.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in rising to present a Bill to amend the
  10
  Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, and for other purposes, said, that the Bill was, in some respects, of considerable importance; but he hoped that it would not excite much difference of opinion. A number of changes were proposed, some of considerable magnitude, others comparatively simple. Their Lordships were aware that the High Court of Justice had contained three separate Divisions called respectively the Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas, and the Exchequer Divisions, and that these three Divisions had recently been consolidated. In consequence of that consolidation there was now but one Division on what was popularly called the Common Law side of the High Court, and one Lord Chief Justice. There had been five ex-officio Judges of the Court of Appeal—namely, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and the Lord Chief Baron. Owing to the cessation of the two latter offices, the ex-officio Judges were now reduced to three. The Court of Appeal further consisted of six ordinary Judges; and a vacancy had lately taken place in that number by the loss of a Judge whose merits it would be very difficult to do justice to and impossible to exaggerate—Lord Justice James. He spoke from long knowledge, and an intimate personal friendship of many years; and he could not speak of his official services to the country without recollecting the generosity of his noble nature, which greatly endeared him to his numerous friends. But, speaking of him only as a Judge, he would say that the country had never been served by a Judge of higher character—of a sounder and more rapid discrimination; a more ardent love of justice as distinguished from technicalities; a more accurate knowledge of law, or a greater power of immediately applying that knowledge, with an uncommon share of common sense, to the determination of the cases which came before him. For several years those qualities had been exhibited by the late Lord Justice as a Vice Chancellor, and for more than 10 years in the Court of Appeal; and whatever arrangements might be made for filling the vacancy, it would be impossible for any man to bring to the fulfilment of the duties of the office higher qualifications, as a lawyer and

  11
  a man, than those possessed by Lord Justice James. Now, with regard to the Court of Appeal, although the business of the Court had been ably administered, and arrears prevented from accumulating, yet it was of an arduous and important character, and it required strong Judges, as well as able Judges, to prevent it from falling into arrear. When the question arose what should be done to meet this state of things, it was impossible not to call to mind the proposals which had been made by the Judicature Commission. In their first Report, on which the Judicature Act of 1873 was mainly founded, they advised that the Master of the Rolls for the time being should be a Judge of Appeal only, and that there should be in the Court of Appeal three Judges of the Court of First Instance, annually selected by the Crown. This proposal was not followed in the Act of 1873, which provided for one Final Court of Appeal, comprehending all the judicial strength now distributed between the House of Lords, the Privy Council, and the present Court of Appeal as actually constituted. But that arrangement, as their Lordships were aware, was afterwards changed; and, in the Act of 1875, his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) proposed to introduce into the Court of Appeal three Judges of First Instance—and, under extreme circumstances, it would have been possible to have four—affording temporary assistance. Now they had come to a time when the number of ex-officio Judges was reduced from five to three. What he asked their Lordships to do with regard to the constitution of the Court of Appeal was this—He proposed, in the first place, to take the opportunity of reverting to the recommendation of the Judicature Commission with regard to the position of the Master of the Rolls in connection with the Court of Appeal. Of the special qualifications of the Master of the Rolls he need not speak; they were well known and appreciated by the country at large. It was his proposal that the Master of the Rolls for the time being should be transferred to the Court of Appeal. The present Master of the Rolls was willing to undertake that position. Instead, therefore, of filling up the vacancy now existing among the ordinary Judges in the Court of Appeal, he proposed that the Master of the Rolls should take
  12
  up the position which seemed more in accordance with the superior rank of his office than that of being one of a number of Judges of First Instance, sitting separately in different Courts of the Chancery Division. At the same time, the Master of the Rolls would continue to exercise all the duties of his office as Keeper of the Rolls, and would retain his present rank, salary, and official patronage. The Master of the Rolls, therefore, would be—he did not say transferred—but confined to the Court of Appeal; and, practically, that would make it unnecessary to fill up the present vacancy in that Court. Then he came to the consideration of the ex-officio Judges. There were now two less than had been contemplated, and if the Master of the Rolls was removed from the High Court, there would be three less. He proposed that the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, who was not now an ex-officio Judge of the Court of Appeal, should, without any other change in his position, become such a Judge. He proposed, in the next place, that three other Judges should be annually selected from the Judges of the High Court of Justice, who might serve in the Court of Appeal when their other duties permitted. The question remained—in what way should those annual appointments be made? He did not propose that they should be nominated by the Crown. A more convenient mode of selection, he thought, might be found; they might be selected as the Election Judges were now chosen. The Judges of the High Court might meet together, and from year to year nominate for the succeeding year three of their body to serve in the Court of Appeal. They would not be called upon to do duty in the Court of Appeal, so as to interfere with their primary obligations as Judges of the High Court; they would be called upon to assist when the state of business in their own Courts admitted of that assistance being given. Provision was, of course, made for the appointment of a new Judge in the Chancery Division of the High Court, to take the place of the Master of the Rolls. These proposals would not subject the country to any substantial increase of expense. It was also sought to remove a doubt as to the effect of the Act of 1877, under

  13
  which an additional Judge of First Instance was appointed for the Chancery Division of the High Court. The language of that Act did not make it absolutely clear whether it authorized an appointment on a single occasion only or an appointment from time to time. He proposed to remove that doubt, and to enable the power given by that Act to be exercised from time to time. Occasion had also been taken to alter, in some respects, the existing law as to appeals. By the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Acts certain appeals from the Divorce Court Judge were given to a Court which was called the Full Court for Matrimonial Causes. He had consulted with the learned Judge who presided over that Court, and found that he, as well as others, was of opinion that it would be desirable that that appeal, which was, practically, to that Judge himself, with the assistance of others, should no longer be to the full Court for Matrimonial Causes, but should, like all other cases, go to the Court of Appeal. He also proposed, very much at the instance of that eminent Judge, to correct what, in practice, had turned out to be an unsatisfactory provision in the same Acts, which gave the right to appeal from decrees for dissolution or nullity of marriage, not in the first instance when the decree nisi was given, but when it had been made absolute after a certain lapse of time, which, if no cause were shown in the meantime, was a matter of course. He proposed that, for the future, the appeal should be from the decree nisi, and there should not be a further appeal. With regard to the Acts which related to Parliamentary registration and elections, they had proceeded on the footing of giving final authority on matters of law to the Court to which Parliament had thought fit to intrust that class of cases. This was overlooked, or not sufficiently considered, when the Judicature Act of 1873 was passed; and no distinction was then made between orders on those subjects, and other orders of the High Court. It was now proposed to make the decision in such cases final and conclusive, unless the Court thought fit to give a right to appeal, in which case the Court of Appeal would have jurisdiction. The Bill also gave a power to regulate the holding of Assizes, which, having
  14
  hitherto been limited to Winter Assizes only, would now extend to all Assizes, by which means it was hoped that an inconvenience, at present felt, would be mitigated. The measure likewise dealt with the power under the Act of 1875 for making rules to govern the practice of the High Court. It also contained a clause enabling the time of holding the Sessions of the Central Criminal Court to be fixed, not, as was now required by Act of Parliament, by eight Judges, but by four Judges of the Queen's Bench Division. It further contained provisions as to the appointment of officers of the Courts and the filling up of vacancies in the staff of all the Courts. There were various other minor provisions in the Bill, on which he need not now trouble their Lordships.
  Bill to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts; and for other purposes—Presented (The LORD CHANCELLOR).
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, it became desirable to re-consider the question of the construction of the Appellate Court when it was deprived of two of its ex-officio members, the Lord Chief Baron and the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend that the occurrence, so much to be lamented in regard to the Court of Appeal, of the death of Lord Justice James made it necessary to consider the constitution of that Court. In all that his noble and learned Friend had said about that very eminent man and his loss he wished to express his entire concurrence. He himself, like his noble and learned Friend, had known Lord Justice James for a very long time, and had been an observer of the manner in which he discharged his duties; and he must say that in his experience he had never seen a Judge who brought to the discharge of his duties a more admirable knowledge of the law which he had to administer, and a more admirable share of common sense—which, after all, was as great a quality for a Judge as a knowledge of the law—than the late Lord Justice James had always done. Turning to the Bill which his noble and learned Friend had presented to their Lordships, he did not desire to express any definite opinion as to some of the changes which were now proposed. He could only say he was glad that the

  15
  Master of the Rolls was willing to preside in the Court of Appeal. With regard to future holders of the office of Master of the Rolls, he did not know what would be their position as regarded emoluments. The present Master of the Rolls received a higher salary than the Judges of the Court of Appeal. Of course, it was quite proper that the present Master of the Rolls should have that advantage continued to him; but, with regard to future holders of the office of Master of the Rolls, it appeared to him that it would be somewhat objectionable to have one Judge receiving a higher salary than that of the other Judges. He could not quite follow the noble and learned Lord as to the position of the new Judges to be selected annually from the rest of the Judges to be Judges of the Court of Appeal. He would, therefore, reserve any expression of opinion on that proposal until they had the Bill before them. All he would say was that the reason for having ex-officio Judges in the Appeal Court was that they should be independent of the Court below; but he did not see how that was to be secured by taking the Judges by election annually from the Court below. If it was necessary to strengthen the Court of Appeal he should prefer to do that by adding another Judge.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to say it was proposed that every future holder of the office of the Master of the Rolls should receive the same emoluments as the present Master of the Rolls, because the holder of that office had certain duties to perform with regard to the Record Office.
  Bill read 1a; to be printed. (No. 147.)

UNITED STATES—ATTEMPTED ASSAS- SINATION OF THE PRESIDENT.
  OBSERVATION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am sure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble and learned Earl opposite will forgive me for the irregularity of interposing in the Business of the House; but I wish to inform your Lordships that later telegrams which have been received this evening give a much more favourable account of the condition of the President of the United States than those received in the earlier part of the day.

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LAND LEAGUE.
THE EARL OF ANNESLEYasked the Lord Privy Seal, Whether it was true that Mr. Farrell, the president of the Local Land League at Mullingar, who was confined in Galway Gaol under the provisions of the Coercion Act, and was lately liberated on a medical certificate, was still on the commission of the peace, and signed several commitments to gaol last week?
EARL SPENCER,in reply, said, that Mr. Farrell was still a magistrate, and he believed it was true that he was in the discharge of the duties of the office; but the Irish Government had brought the matter under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he understood that Mr. Farrell was an official officer.

CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, 1881—PRELIMINARY REPORT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Census Act requires that the Preliminary Abstract of the Census taken on the 4th of April last should be laid before Parliament within three months after the 1st of June. It is satisfactory that the Registrar General has been able to complete this abstract at so early a date. This is not the time to go into particulars; but it may be interesting to know that the total population of England and Wales is now 25,968,286, being an increase since 1871 of 3,256,020. The rate of increase was higher than in any decennium since 1831–41. The birth-rate was unusually high, while the death-rate was still more unusually low. The higher birth-rate in 1871–81, as compared with 1861–71, implies the addition of 26,774 persons beyond the number according to the previous rate, while the lower death-rate implies that 299,385 persons survived, who, according to the previous rate, would have died—a result which seems to show that modern sanitary legislation has produced useful and important effects. It may be added that the population of the Metropolis is now 3,814,571, showing an increase of 560,311, while the population of the City of London has decreased by 24,414.

  17
  Preliminary Report and Tables of the Population and Houses enumerated in England and Wales and in the Islands in the British Seas on 4th April 1881: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.