Sitting of 8 July 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Solent Navigation * [207]; Parliamentary Revision (Dublin County) * [208].
First Reading—Charitable Trusts * [209].
Second Reading—London City (Parochial Charities) [13], debate further adjourned.
Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P.; Removal Terms (Scotland) [8], debate adjourned.
Third Reading—Solicitors' Remuneration * [100], and passed.
Withdrawn—Corn Returns (No. 2) * [76].
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL COMMISSION.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colo-

  359
  nies, If he can state to the House whether the labours of the Transvaal Commission are drawing to a close; and, if no information has been received upon the point, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made of the Royal Commissioners as to the progress they are making, and the probable termination of their inquiry?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, a telegram has been received from Sir Hercules Robinson, from which it appears that if good progress continues to be made, the Commissioners hope to complete the principle portions of their work in about three weeks from the present time.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—AL- LEGED REMOVAL OF THE REMAINS OF THE LATE KING, PANDA.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the alleged digging up and removal of Panda's remains in Zululand have made their Report; and, if so, will he lay it upon the Table of the House?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Commissioners were not appointed; but the Secretary of State for War desired Sir George Colley to report upon this matter, and a despatch was received from him, from which it appeared that no trustworthy information could be procured. A telegram has been sent to Sir Evelyn Wood asking whether any further steps were taken by Sir George Colley. There will be no objection to produce the Papers when they are complete.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT,1880— THE STANDARD OF EXEMPTION— BYE-LAWS FOR SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether one of the results of the passing of "The Elementary Education Act, 1880," has been that some School Boards and School Attendance Committees have lowered the standard of education fixed by their bye-laws for the total or partial exemption of children from the obligation to attend school; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the extent to which the Act has operated in this direction?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Elementary Education Act of 1880 required
  360
  that on or before the 1st of January of the present year every district in England and Wales should pass bye-laws regulating school attendance. The result has been that about 1,200 sets of bye-laws, embracing a population of 6,500,000, have been passed. In settling bye-laws for a Union, composed of a number of parishes, we have endeavoured as far as possible to secure uniform standards for partial and total exemption for the whole Union. To effect this we have, in some instances, had to lower, and in others to raise, the standards in certain parishes. The general effect, however, has been to raise the standards, and in thousands of parishes to supply standards where none were previously in force. In the factory towns and districts the half-time standard has, in some instances, been reduced. This is owing to the fact that before the passing of the Act of last year it was contended that no standard was requisite in the case of factory children. These and all other children are now required to pass a standard before going to work, so that, although the nominal standard has in a few instances been lowered, the effect of the Act has been to raise the standard and increase the efficiency of educational work throughout the country. I have already laid on the Table a Return showing the standards in force in every parish and borough in England and Wales, and this, I hope, will meet the requirements of the hon. Member.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE VOLUNTEER REVIEW AT WINDSOR.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Secretary of State for War, If it be true that the request of Sir Frederick Roberts and Sir James Hill to attend on the staff, on the occasion of the Volunteer Review at Windsor, previous to returning to India, has been refused; and, if so, on what grounds?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, before I answer this Question, I think I ought to gather whether it is the wish of the House to make the selection of officers for the Staff at Reviews the subject of Parliamentary criticism. I cannot find that in either House of Parliament such interference with the discretion of the military authorities has ever taken place, and I must appeal to the House to support me if I decline to answer a Ques-

  361
  tion which would form a precedent for inquiries, in my opinion, quite beyond the province of Parliament.
  THE O'DONOGHUEgave Notice that, in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, he would renew the Question on going into Committee of Supply.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will apply to His Royal Highness the Ranger of Windsor Park to admit Members of both Houses of Parliament wishing to attend the Volunteer Review on Saturday to the reserved spaces in Windsor Park on either hand of the position to be occupied by Her Majesty, and so grant them the same privileges as have already been conceded to others of Her Majesty's subjects? The hon. Member said he heard yesterday, for the first time, that Windsor Park was under the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and that, consequently, no Member of the Government had communicated with the Ranger on the subject of his (Mr. Schreiber's) Questions relating to the Volunteer Review. Therefore, the animated conversation in the House yesterday would be the first intimation received by the Ranger of the wishes of the House, with which he felt sure His Royal Highness would be anxious to comply. He hoped now to hear from the Prime Minister that they would be able to-morrow, as Members of the Legislature, whether enclosed between hurdles or not, to testify their admiration of the fine spirit which would bring 50,000 men to Windsor.
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to state what has been done in this matter. After the conversation in the House last night, I saw Mr. Gore, one of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and we telegraphed to the Ranger of Windsor Park our opinion that, under the circumstances, provision should be made for reserving places at the Review for Members of the Houses of Parliament. Space for 500 is roped off, accordingly, in front of the Royal carriages and to the left of the saluting point, and 300 tickets will be sent to Mr. Speaker for Members of this House by 5 o'clock this afternoon. As to Members' carriages, the Ranger will make the best arrangements he can behind the Royal carriages.

  FRANCE AND ENGLAND—THE NEW COMMERCIAL TREATY—NEGOTIA- TIONS.
  MR. BIRLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the magnitude and variety of the interests involved in the negotiations with France for a renewed and modified Commercial Treaty, he will take measures to afford the utmost publicity to the inquiry now being conducted by the Foreign Office.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I hope the hon. Member will be content with my giving him a general answer, for a general answer is the only answer that can be given. A more particular and pointed Question is going to be put to me next week by the noble Viscount the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon). Before that Question is put, we shall observe the state of things before the Commission, and perhaps I shall be able to say something more. All I can say at present is that the hon. Member himself cannot be more desirous than we are to have the support and advantage of public opinion, and of information from every source. Consequently, to the utmost extent of our liberty we shall desire to associate Parliament and public opinion with us in all the steps we may have to take.

  TELEGRAPH ACTS, 1863 AND 1868— TELEGRAPH WIRES OVER PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the responsibility of local authorities for the safety of the public as regards casualties from the fracture of the wires stretched over the public thoroughfares, Whether he will be so good as to state under what Act of Parliament this responsibility is thrown upon the local authorities, and what power the local authorities have to control the General Post Office or other authorities in fixing the wires; and, whether he is prepared to recommend a departmental inquiry, with a view to the avoidance of the serious risk now incurred to all persons using the thoroughfares under those wires?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, that as this was a legal Question he would answer it. By the Act of 1863, Sec-

  363
  tions 9, 10, and 12, Telegraph Companies were restrained from placing posts and wires along thoroughfares without the consent of the body having control of such thoroughfares. By the Act of 1868 the Act of 1863 was made to apply to the Postmaster General. Therefore, that Act only restrained Telegraph Companies and the Postmaster General; but, in relation to other public bodies and to private individuals placing posts and wires along the public thoroughfares, the responsibility of seeing that they were properly placed so as not to cause danger to the public rested with the body having control of the streets and highways. In the opinion of the Government, nothing had arisen to render necessary a Departmental Inquiry with a view to avoid the risk to persons using the thoroughfares under the telegraph wires. If any wire were erected to which the local authorities took exception on the score of danger to the public, they could restrain the Postmaster General in the matter.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL— CLAUSE 34—THE COMMISSION.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which he had given him private Notice. As it was probable that Clause 34 of the Land Bill would be reached on Monday, Will the right hon. Gentleman direct that the names of the persons who are to compose the Land Commission shall be placed on the Notice Paper this evening, both on account of the very great importance of the question, and the great convenience which will result if the names are submitted to the Committee without delay?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I can promise two things, Sir. In the first place, we will not propose Clause 34 till we are ready to put in the names; and, in the second place, we will not propose Clause 34 without giving Notice of the names we intend to ask the House to put in. I think, however, the most convenient course would be to postpone Clause 34. We have proceeded on the principle we adopted at the time of the passing of the Irish Church Act, on a principle approved by the House then, and a reasonable principle too—namely, that it would be well to determine all the important and material duties of the Commission before we proceeded to name
  364
  them. In point of fact, it is obvious, when we come to consider it, that the selection of the Commissioners implies the acceptance of responsible offices by Gentlemen to whom any offer or proposal could be made, and that they would naturally desire for to know what are the duties to be placed on them before they make up their minds on the matter. It so happens that in this particular instance we have two or three questions that must necessarily stand over, as matters now stand, until we have got through the clauses of the Bill. Whatever may be proposed with respect to labourers, and as to what has been proposed, at least with respect to arrears and other things, these are matters which the Committee have not had an opportunity of determining; and, therefore, probably the best way will be to postpone the matter.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman also intended to postpone the clause relating to the salaries and powers of the Commissioners?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought not. In accordance with the promise he made some time since, he would place an Amendment on the Paper, or describe generally various changes and, he hoped, improvements which they intended to make with regard to the arrangements relating to the Commission. He thought those might be very well considered before naming the Commission.

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. [TWENTY-THIRD NIGHT.]
    [Progress 7th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    COMMITTEE. [TWENTY-THIRD NIGHT.]
      PART V.

        ACQUISITION OF LAND BY TENANTS, RE- CLAMATION OF LAND, AND EMIGRATION.
        Acquisition of Land by Tenants.
        Clause 19 (Advances to tenants by Commission for purchase of holdings).
        On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendment made in page 13, lines 4 and 5, by striking out the words "a solvent tenant would pay," and inserting" would be a fair rent."
        MR. LITTONmoved as an Amendment, in page 13, the omission of the word "may" in line 13, in order to insert the word "shall." That, he said, was a very short Amendment, but it was one of some importance. The provision of the clause was to indemnify the tenant who purchased from the Land Commission against circumstances adverse to the title of the landlord. He thought the Committee would agree with him that it should be the duty, and not the option, of the Commission to indemnify the purchasing tenant under those circumstances.
        Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 13, to leave out "may," and insert "shall."—(Mr. Litton.)
        Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
        MR. GLADSTONE: I hope my hon. and learned. Friend will be content with the word "may." It is a very strong provision, indeed, in favour of the tenant, to authorize the Commission to take upon themselves the risk of doubts and ambiguities appertaining to the title. I am not aware that any such enactment has ever before been authorized as that of allowing any body of persons to take upon the State in the way now proposed the discharge of doubts or ambiguities in future contingencies. I think it necessary that we should preserve the ultimate discretion of the Court.
        MR. HEALYthought the sub-section would only give the tenant a right of action against the Commission in case he was subsequently evicted, and he would ask the Government to give the Land Commission the same power that was possessed by the Landed Estates Court. He would ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether this interpretation was not correct?
        MR. LITTONsaid, he was not so unreasonable as to ask that the Land Commission should make such an inquiry into the title of the landlord as would be sufficient to secure a statutory title. But it seemed to him that where the onus and duty was cast upon the Com-
        366
        mission of selling to the tenant and taking his money for the purchase, they should be bound to give a covenant against encumbrances. If it were left optional with the Commissioners, it would be competent for them to say, "We will give no indemnity," and the purchaser might be exposed to eviction. He was surprised that the Prime Minister did not see his way to accept this Amendment. He did not like, however, to press it against the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, because he deferred to the right hon. Gentleman's opinion very much. Probably the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland could give some explanation as to why the Amendment should not be regarded as a reasonable one. If the purchaser was to be made safe, it could only be done except through the intervention of the Commission, and he ought to get an indemnity from the Commission against any claim that might afterwards be made. It would be very unreasonable for the purchaser to have to defend a law suit with heavy costs by reason of some oversight on the part of the Commission, or of their refusal to give the indemnity which they ought to give. He was very unwilling to set his opinion against that of the Prime Minister, but he entertained a strong opinion upon the subject.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)did not see how the Commissioners were to investigate the title of the vendor unless they had the means of investigation. The Commissioners were merely to act as intermediaries in this matter between the original owner and the purchasing tenant. They should not be bound in every case to make good the title. They would, no doubt, do it in all reasonable cases, and that was really the meaning of the word "may;" but the word "shall" gave no alternative such as ought to be retained. The Court might be trusted to do what was right, and they would give the indemnity where it was reasonable to do it.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought the case might be met according to the view suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), by inserting the words "shall, unless released from that obligation by the grantee." That would provide that the Court should indemnify the purchaser of

        367
        the fee-farm interest, unless the purchaser should release them from that obligation. That would work very well, because in cases where there was a general consensus—where the title was known to be good and sufficient—there would be no costs incurred; but it would be very fair that the Court should put the tenant on his guard in certain cases—the strong inducement for doing which they would have from the fact that they would be liable unless they got an indemity from him.
        MR. GLADSTONE: The Landed Estates Court are armed with the necessary machinery for strictly investigating title; but we could not provide that machinery in the case of the Land Court, and therefore we cannot place upon them the function of the Landed Estates Court to give a Parliamentary title. We have already gone a long way from what was proposed, and we cannot go further. By assenting to a number of these provisions, we have already somewhat strained our original purpose.
        MR. GORSTsaid, he entirely agreed with the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland as to their intention; but he confessed he had some little doubt as to whether the words at present in the clause would quite carry out that intention. He was not sure whether, as the words now stood, the Court would be able to refuse to give an indemnity, because, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware, the word "may" in Acts of Parliament was generally construed "shall." He thought that words should be inserter such as "may in their discretion," or "if they think fit;" or, otherwise, the "may" might be held equivalent to "shall" when the Bill came to be put into operation.
        MR. LEAMYthought that even if the word "shall" were substituted for "may," it might not have an obligatory effect, unless the Commission had some means of satisfying themselves as to the title; for it might be held that an indemnity was not due to the tenant, and that unfortunate tenant might have to pay very large sum. If the Court was to transact the business at all, they ought to be able to investigate title; and it would certainly be much cheaper for them to investigate than for anybody else to do so.
        MR. DAWSONsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had suggested that the words should be "may, if they think fit." But what the words of the clause meant as they stood at present was—"if satisfied with the indemnity given by the landlord." In many cases the Court would make inquiry into title, and they would not put the provision in force unless the necessary conditions were complied with.
        MR. LITTONsaid, that, after the discussion that had taken place, he would not trouble the Committee to divide upon the Amendment.
        MR. WARTONwished to suggest to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, before the Amendment was withdrawn, that there was great force in what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
        SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he had not uttered a single word before during the discussions upon the Bill, and he should not have ventured to intrude upon the attention of the Committee now unless he thought he had good reason, for he knew he might be supposed by hon. Members sitting on both sides of the House to be rushing in where angels and Irish landlords feared to tread. He intended, however, to move the rejection of this clause, as he thoroughly disapproved of it. The grounds upon which the clause was founded seemed to him to be utterly barren, and to have been completely undermined by the experience of the last 10 years, as was shown by the Report of the Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners which he held in his hand. He had listened to the discussion with the greatest possible interest, and had heard the most convincing arguments used against the clause. On the question as to whether four-fifths or only three-fourths of the advances should be provided by the State, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had said that there was one mode of purchasing unanimity all round—by sacrificing the public interest; but the only difference between the right hon. Gentleman, who stood out for three-fourths and those who supported the

        369
        proposal of four-fifths, was the small difference of £5 in each £100—the amount of the advance proposed to be made by the nation being in the one case £80, while in the other it was £75. He (Sir Herbert Maxwell) could not, for his life, see why, if an £80 advance was profligate, a £75 advance should be advisable. And, though that was not the question now before the Committee, he thought the arguments which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) urged against a four-fifths' advance told strongly against the whole clause, because it seemed to him that the clause sacrificed the public interest of the taxpayer upon inadequate security. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had taunted the landlords with having been ignorant in the past, and suggested that probably they might be so in the future. It would be, perhaps, unbecoming in him (Sir Herbert Maxwell) to retort that, in some respects, the right hon. Gentleman himself was possibly not so well-informed as he might be; but he would, at all events, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had seen the Report of Messrs. Baldwin and Robertson, dated the 1st of January, 1880, and only circulated three or four days ago? He did not think that many hon. Members had yet seen that Report, and he did not know why its publication had been delayed so long. They were asked, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to pass the clause because of the success of the establishment of peasant proprietors during the last 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman told the Irish Members last night to comfort themselves with the knowledge derived from the experience of the past—that in no case had an advance of three-fourths failed. But what was found in the 4th page of the Report of the Assistant Commissioners? Why, that in 18 holdings in the county of Armagh—that county being regarded as one of the most promising grounds on which to establish peasant proprietors—the Commissioners gave evidence of having visited every one, and undertook to state the naked facts about them, and, with the exception of one single holding—No. 13 in the Report—the description of each holding was given in the most gloomy colouring. In no instance could they report
        370
        improved cultivation, even though the tenants could have no fear hanging over the investment of capital in the soil, and would not be deterred from making improvements by the anticipation that the rent would be increased as soon as the improvements began to tell. The first holding reached was No. 1, five acres, rent £6. The tenant had had to exhaust his live stock to pay the instalments, and not a beast of any kind was to be found on the land except two pigs. Before the purchase the tenant had had four cows, and had built a good house; the windows and general appearance of the house now told their own tale of pecuniary embarrassment and distress. In case No. 3, the soil was kept in the most beggarly condition, and the tenant gave as a reason for the purchase that he was afraid the land would be bought up by a bad landlord. But that was no argument in favour of this clause, since they were told that after the passing of this Bill there were to be no bad landlords. There was not the least sign of improved cultivation. The tenant in case No. 18 owned three acres, value £3. He used to pay £2 5s., and the purchase money was £47, the whole of which was left at 10 per cent. The owner now paid the rates—he paid none before—and he said that none of the purchase money had been repaid. He had a cow, which the poor man described as "a sort of a cow," but it was a very bad sort. The cow had a calf, but there was no grass or meadow of any kind; there were no roots for winter keep. There was no evidence whatever of any attempt to improve the cultivation of the land or the general management of the holding; and these observations applied to all the holdings described except No. 13, which was bought up by an affluent shopkeeper in Newry. This was not a very encouraging picture of the result of the action of the Irish Church Commissioners in establishing peasant proprietors. He knew there was an idea cherished by some people that there could be no more attractive or desirable state of things than the division of the land among small proprietors. It was a charming idea that every man should rest under his own vine and fig tree; but it should be remembered that they were now dealing with a land where the fig tree did not grow, and that people with families could not live upon farms or holdings of

        371
        five or ten acres. He did not wish to detain the Committee any more; but he could not reconcile it with his conscience to allow the clause to be added to the Bill without saying one or two words.
        Amendment proposed, "To leave out Clause 19."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
        MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) is mistaken in the reference he has made to my few observations of last night. I did not say that in no single case had there been failure, or that in no single case had the tenant fallen into unfortunate circumstances, so that he could not get more than three-fourths of the sum advanced under the Land Act or by the Church Commission. What I said was, that neither under the Land Commission nor the Church Commission had it been found that the sum advanced had been insufficient to allow and to encourage a fair acceptance of purchase on the part of a tenant anxious to become proprietor. If the hon. Baronet bases his reference to what I said upon having himself heard me speak, he will recollect that that was the argument which I used. If, however, he refers to the reports which have appeared in the newspapers, I would only say that they are not very accurate, and are not to be trusted. In regard to particular cases, this much may be said, that some seasons have been so disastrous that not only small holders, but large ones as well, in many cases, have been brought down. The hon. Baronet quoted one case where the holding consisted of three acres. But nobody supposes that, in a bad season, a man can comfortably maintain his family upon three acres: and, even in a good, he would probably be able to live only on the lowest kind of food—on which, to a large extent, the people of Ireland have been accustomed to live. Even in England we know of many large farmers who were men of capital four or five years ago, and who held large farms, but who have now been pulled down by disaster. It is quite outside the case to argue of the future solely in reference to what has happened to very small holders during the last two or three years. The general result, at any rate, is satisfactory, because we have been told that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles
        372
        Russell) was not correct in the statement he made the other day; and it is stated that while the whole sum payable annually to the Church Commission is £119,000, the deficiency is only about £4,000. And of that £4,000, a large proportion of it—I rather think more than half—is owing to one individual having made large purchases from the Commission. If that be so during these bad years, surely the whole case of the Government is supported, and we cannot argue this experience against the proposition of the Bill. When we know, as we do now know, that there is, even under these circumstances, great anxiety to pay, we may be quite sure that the proposition made in this Bill, and which seems to be advanced under this clause, will be such as will enable the tenants to gratify the most laudable ambition of becoming proprietors of their own farms, freeholders in their own country; and, though what the hon. Baronet has said of the vine and the fig tree may be too true in Ireland, I am sure he might have continued the quotation, and said of such peasant proprietors that in the future "no man can make them afraid."
        MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, that, as the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had mentioned Armagh, the Committee would, perhaps, allow him to say a few words with regard to that county. He (Mr. J. N. Richardson) had not seen, as yet, the Papers to which allusion had been made, but he hoped to read them shortly; but, if he did not mistake, the hon. Baronet was to have credit for having selected just the 18 cases in all Ireland that would best support the view he wished to put before the Committee. No doubt, it must be admitted that many of these 18 cases were in the condition stated in the Paper; but there was no difficulty in accounting for that, because the district was an extremely poor, rocky, and miserable one. The tenants on that land purchased at a very high price in 1874 and 1875—which were very good years—and a great many of them borrowed at a very high rate of interest. He was acquainted with one case of a widow, he believed residing in a place called Ballytemple. The holding was purchased for £96, and the whole of that money might have been borrowed from the Commissioners; but she only borrowed from them £56, and the other

        373
        £40 she procured from a local attorney, who was good enough to charge her 20 per cent interest, and to make her out a title for £10. Now, would anyone expect that a woman like that, cultivating a farm in a rocky, barren district, would succeed; and yet that individual, simply through her thrift, was succeeding, and was one of the exceptions in the townland with which she was connected. Another thing he might mention was—he was not sure whether it was in that district or not—that when the Church Commissioners sold a certain estate to tenants living on the lower land, which was more cultivated, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) introduced a Bill in 1878, or 1879, to enable them to got perpetuity of leases—to those who did not feel desirous of purchasing their own holdings. If he recollected rightly, that Bill was thrown out. [An hon. Member here made a communication to Mr. RICHARDSON.] He must retract entirely what he had said with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. He was quite wrong, because he was informed those farms were purchased in 1875; but the argument he should adduce from the Report the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had laid before the Committee was this—not that these 18 cases proved, by any means, that peasant proprietorship would be a failure in Ireland; but that, on the contrary, it was the exceptional circumstances under which the tenants had bought—the high price which they had to give at that time, and the high rate of interest which they had to pay—which had put them in that position. He would argue from that that which was rather inconsistent with the votes he had given last night; but he need not give any explanation on that head, because he had his private and public reasons for not doing so. The argument he would adduce would be this—if the Government had given five-sixths, instead of the amount they did, they would very materially have altered the aspect of affairs.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: If, instead of receiving five-sixths, they had seven or eight-sixths, there would still be great difficulty in the way of these small holdings, because they would require money, not only to purchase, but to stock their farms. The real difficulty
        374
        in which the small holders appear to be placed is this. They are carrying on their business with such indifferent means of their own that they are obliged to borrow at very high rates of interest from the local usurer. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. John Bright) said just now that no man could make them afraid. I am afraid that is rather too sanguine an expectation in cases such as these, where money has had to be borrowed from the local usurer at 10 per cent. I expect the local usurer will be the person who can make them afraid. They will not be made afraid by the landlord, but by the creditor. The matter seems to me always to resolve itself into this—that these small ownerships will answer very well if they are in the hands of persons who know what they are about, and are able to conduct their business properly. You would have a good security for that in cases where the small proprietors have been able either to accumulate money of their own by their own industry or where they are able to obtain credit from, perhaps, members of their own family or from the landlord, or, in a reasonable degree, from a public fund such as that it is proposed they shall borrow from. But if you want to nurse or coddle them too much by artificial advances, and tempt people to believe that if they can only get possession of the land they are going to put themselves into a position of comfort and security, you will be tempting them very often to their own destruction. If they get three or four acres, which, as the right hon. Gentleman very truly said, are not sufficient to maintain a family in bad years, the consequence of what you are doing, no doubt with excellent motives, will frequently be to the disadvantage of these persons. The lesson we ought to learn from the facts is this—not to apply too great a stimulus to these proceedings. I think that we give reasonable facilities, nay, that we give liberal facilities, in the advances we offer; but I do not think we should go beyond what is proposed. I should be sorry to see this clause thrown out. The experiment has answered very well in some cases, and I have no doubt it will answer in others under fair conditions. As to the object of the clause, I approve of it; but it should be taken up with caution. I would say, do not stimulate this matter

        375
        of the purchase of small holdings artificially or excessively.
        MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was very much indebted to the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) who had brought this Report prominently before the attention of the House. It might be quite true that there were circumstances which rendered the tenants of these 18 holdings exceptions to the general rule; but, at the same time, giving the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) full credit for benevolent intentions in promoting this scheme, he (Mr. Newdegate) must call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there were circumstances connected with the future of such tenures that could not be overlooked. There were circumstances that should impress themselves very forcibly upon the attention of every landowner—which individuals were now upon their trial, and in which category he (Mr. Newdegate) himself was to be included. There was before the House the Report of Messrs. Clare Read and Pell concerning their journey to America, and that Report showed that Ireland would have to look forward to competing in agriculture with the United States. The Report said that the virgin soil of the United States would remain unexhausted for the next 25 years, and that the produce of that virgin soil would be able to compete with the agricultural productions of Ireland. They had to remember that the agriculture of Ireland had receded very largely during the last 30 years, in consequence of the competition from America, and they had complete evidence of the fact that that competition was likely to come with increased severity during the next 25 years. As a matter of business, he thought it a very doubtful speculation upon which Parliament was entering when it engaged to provide funds to start these small farmers in Ireland. He wished to state that he did not intend to press the Amendment to a division; but he thought there were circumstances in addition to those which had been adduced by the hon. Baronet below him (Sir Herbert Maxwell) which the House was bound to take into account, as a House of Business, in making these advances. He was disinclined to do anything or to say anything which would have in the smallest degree the effect of preventing the extension of the
        376
        agriculture of Ireland. He considered the extension of Irish agriculture a great national object, and, therefore, so far from participating in the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—although he was, no doubt, aiming at remedying a great national evil—he could not overlook the adverse circumstances to which the experiment was exposed. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman opposite would excuse his having uttered these few words of caution in connection with the undertaking on which they were engaged.
        MR. ECROYDhoped the Committee would allow him its indulgence for a few minutes, as he had not hitherto spoken upon this great question. He was one of those who could not with a good conscience vote against the clause which they were discussing and were probably about to pass; but, at the same time, he should feel that he had not discharged his duty if he did not record his great anxiety as to the actual results which might follow from this legislation. His own observation had taught him that the success of peasant proprietors was very much in proportion to their enjoyment of a southern climate, which produced those agricultural commodities which required a large amount of hand labour, and the production of which was aided by the genial force of a southern sun. Where a northern climate prevailed, peasant proprietors were by no means so successful. Those who had travelled through the Rhine country and parts of Bavaria must be familiar with the fact that the condition of the peasant proprietor there was one of great misery, and that he usually came under the power of the usurers and money-lenders. He had to borrow money at a very high rate at the outset of his career, and so came under a burden which few indeed ever succeeded in escaping from; indeed, from which it was almost impossible to escape. Now, in this measure the Government had been proceeding upon principles which were, to some extent, opposed to the ordinary rules of political economy; and he felt that the success of the clause they were about to pass would depend upon the adoption of some strict regulation which should prevent the usurer doing 10 times more damage than the very worst landlords were to be prevented doing by this Bill.

        377
        He thought the small puchasers would generally find themselves not in possession of the capital required to work their holdings. They would generally borrow money from local money-lenders at a high rate; and he confessed he had great fear that that proceeding would baffle the exceedingly benevolent intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He could not take his seat without bearing his testimony to the great value of the right hon. Gentleman's efforts in that direction during past years; and he most cordially hoped that the effect of this clause might be to produce better results than those which he (Mr. Ecroyd) and those who differed from the right hon. Gentleman dared to anticipate.
        MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he felt it only right to those he represented in Parliament to offer his protest against the principle involved in this clause, and, as that was the first time that he had addressed the Committee upon the great subject that was now before it, perhaps it would allow him its indulgence for a few minutes while he stated the grounds of his objection. He could not disguise from himself that at the bottom of this proposal there lay the fixed idea of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that there should be a general system of peasant proprietors established throughout the Kingdom at the cost of the State. He would not detain the Committee by discussing the arguments which had been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, because they had already been answered a great deal more effectually than he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) could answer them. After the great mistakes they had seen the right hon. Gentleman commit in this matter, they might dismiss his arguments without any further observation; but, with regard to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he was good enough to say last night that as the landlords of Ireland had been ignorant in the past, so they would be ignorant in the future. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was not one of those who would care to poach on the choice vocabulary in the use of which the right hon. Gentleman was so proficient; but he would venture to say that his repose in what they might call
        378
        the "Lethe Wharf" had made him rather forgetful of his own antecedents in this matter, and of all those principles of Free Trade which were involved in this proposal. It seemed to him (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) that the great Free Trade Party had abandoned the principles which they had so long held; and he was told the other day by one of the surviving veterans of the Cobden grand army that the Cobden Club were not going to have their annual dinner this year, but that the shutters were to be put up.
        THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he is going beyond the clause in his observations.
        MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was ready to bow to the Chairman's decision; but he was pointing out in illustration of his argument that the Cobden Club, which represented Free Trade principles, was not going to hold its annual dinner this year. The Chairman would agree with him that Free Trade principles were involved in this question, and that it was evident that, as far as Irish Land Law was concerned, those principles were not to apply to it, and hence it was not surprising that the shutters of the Free Trade Club were to be put up by the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. T. B. Potter), who were the chief priests of that exploded superstition. What was the principle upon which the Government had gone? They had never heard a word about it yet. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman opposite say that the principle upon which advances of public money could be granted depended on this—that when they came and asked for money for the relief of a particular class they were bound to show that the advance was for the general public benefit, such as a larger production of food, or for some other very necessary purpose. He was not in the House when his hon. Friend (Sir Herbert Maxwell) read passages from Professor Baldwin's Report; but it seemed to him to be thoroughly established in that Report that the classes who were referred to, and who were intended to be benefited by this clause, would not, in point of fact, realize the benefits it was now proposed to confer upon them. If they considered that

        379
        question from a serious point of view, let them take instances for the guidance of the Committee from the county with which he happened to be particularly connected—namely, the county of Cumberland. He supposed in that county there had been more peasant proprietors than in any other part of the Kingdom; but latterly they had completely vanished. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, if they had not completely vanished, the greater part of them had vanished, and that was entirely owing to the action of the very Free Trade principles of which he had been speaking. Why were they not entitled to ask for the peasant proprietors of Cumberland that they should have a similar benefit extended to them to that proposed to be conferred upon the Irish tenant proprietors? Why were those advantages to be only for Irishmen? Then, again, in addition to the Report of Professor Baldwin, he had had the advantage, a few days ago, of reading a letter written by the junior Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) in The Weekly Dispatch, descriptive of a tour he had made in the county of Cork. Well, he would ask hon. Gentlemen to rise from the perusal of that letter and say, having seen the condition in which those tenants were, whether they would ever be able to find, out of their own resources, the balance which this clause rendered it imperative on them to contribute; or whether, in the future, they would be able to pay the necessary instalments? All these matters, seriously considered, gave him great reason to doubt whether there would be any success in the present policy of the Government. What hope was there for hereafter? The State was put in possession of the land. Would the State ever be able to enforce payment by these tenants? Would they not have in the future, as they had had in times past, measures of relief brought forward by the Government—measures relieving the tenants from payment of their liabilities in the same manner, and on the same principle, as last year they had a Bill brought forward and made a Cabinet measure to give compensation for disturbance? There was no guarantee that the money would be applied for the public good, and that the State would not be, in the future, obliged to stop the enforcement of the payments. It seemed to him that, at the bottom of
        380
        this, there was no principle whatever which could be intelligible either to Members of the Committee or to the country. He was afraid it was a case, not of principle, but of popularity, and popularity the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) always had at the bottom of his policy. When they had taken off what he (Mr. Cavendish Ben-tinck) might, perhaps, without offence, term the "Brummagem lacquer" on this proposal, they would find under it the true metal, which meant more than helping a few insolvent tenants in Ireland. This was a measure and a proposal that was intended hereafter to attack landed proprietors on this side the Channel, and it was for that reason that he put forward these few words. There were some hon. Members from Ireland, whose cry was—"We want neither rents nor landlords." [Home Rule Cheers.] Those cheers only justified him in saying what he had said; and it was for that reason and on those principles that he should give the strongest opposition of which he was capable to the proposal of the Government, which, he considered, should be contested from every point of view.
        SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, that if he had misquoted the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the morning papers were responsible; but, at the same time, the report in the papers had agreed with his apprehension of what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman last night. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. J. N. Richardson), the hon. Member seemed to suppose that he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had selected these 18 cases; but that was not the fact. They were the only cases in the Report of the Assistant Commissioners, and they were the only cases to which hon. Members had access. In all these cases, except one, which was the case of a wealthy shopkeeper, there was nothing but failure to report. What he had now stated he should have been sorry not to have said, liberair animan meam; and if it was the intention of the Committee to add this clause to the Bill, then it should be done with as little delay as possible. But he had very little doubt that, before many years had passed, a Bill would have to be introduced to create a Deus ex machinâ, to release the new peasant proprietors from their insup-

        381
        portable burthen of debt. He would withdraw his Amendment.["No!")
        Amendment negatived
        MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Member (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had said that some of the Irish Members would like to get rid of Irish rents and Irish landlords altogether. So they would; but they would like to see the Irish tenants buying up the holdings from the landlords; and they thought that one of the faults of this clause was that it did not go far enough, and that it did not make it compulsory on the landlord to sell when the tenant was prepared to buy at a fair and reasonable price. That was what they considered one of the weaknesses of this particular clause; for they believed that the Government were too stingy in their proposals as to the amount of money they would lend. As had already been pointed out, the tenant would have the money which the landlord would give as compensation for disturbance, and that, in the majority of cases, would allow quite sufficient margin of security for the money which he would borrow. He must say that the practical result of the narrowness of the Government proposal must, in the nature of things, be to deprive this clause of its value if the tenants were bound to borrow the £5 which the Government would not advance. The tenants would begin farming with less stock and less capital than they should have, and the result would be very injurious to them. Tenants would be less likely to purchase holdings, or they would receive less benefit from the purchase than it was intended they should by the framers of the clause. He would again appeal to the Prime Minister to re-consider the matter before the Report, and to come to a different conclusion with regard to the amount of money which should be lent on the security of the holding. As to another part of the clause—namely, that which dealt with the fining down of rents, he did not think there was so strong a case as to ask the Government to re-consider the matter; but, where the tenant seemed entitled to purchase entirely the landlord's interest in the holding, he did think the Government would be justified in authorizing the Court, if it thought fit, to lend a larger portion of the purchase money. In dealing with
        382
        this subject, it was a very common practice to talk of "peasant proprietors;" but that was an expression that was very seldom used in Ireland, and they much preferred the expression "cultivating" or "occupying proprietors." The people who would buy, in the majority of cases, would not be peasants at all, but considerable farmers. In the great majority of cases they would be men who had property of their own, and who were in a position to pay back the money advanced. He certainly thought, where the holding was of a good description, and the price paid was held to be moderate, the Court was justified in lending the full amount.
        MR. STORERsaid, this most extraordinary clause was based entirely on a delusion, which was this—that the moment these persons were converted from tenants into peasant proprietors, they would exchange the state of misery and poverty in which they lived to one of prosperity. It was well known throughout a great part of England that the small proprietor could have no worse landlord than himself, because, although he might for a short time flourish, particularly when times and seasons were good—which, unfortunately, they were not at present, and were not likely to be in the future—ultimately, when times grew worse, and when, perhaps, he was old and his family had left him, he would become a prey to the mortgagee and the usurer. That would be the case in the present instance; and it was ridiculous to suppose that the Utopian idea of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—that of universal prosperity—would be realized. Even should it be realized, the English taxpayer would ask why, at a time when he was overburdened with every kind of difficulty, should he be called upon to pay the money to carry out the benevolent intentions of the Government in Ireland? The English taxpayer could hardly be aware of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to advance, he (Mr. Storer) knew not how many millions—for no specific sum had been mentioned—for this object. When the English taxpayer became fully acquainted with the proposal, there could be no doubt but that he would object in the strongest degree to the whole scheme; but there was another matter to be considered. If this Utopian idea were to succeed, what claim had the Irish tenant

        383
        more than the English tenant to be assisted in this way? It was an assumption and a delusion throughout the measure that the Irish tenant was in a worse position than the English tenant. From his knowledge of the facts, he could state, without fear of contradiction, that exactly the converse was the case. The English tenants, in a great part of the country, were in a far worse position than the Irish tenants. Last year they had a season infinitely worse than that which was experienced in Ireland; and, if the bankers could be consulted, it would be found that the Irish had a great deal more money saved than the English tenant. But he did not find the Government coming forward with any proposal to assist the English tenants in any way. Why was there no proposal of this kind? Was it because the English tenants were law-abiding, and did not rise in rebellion, and did not conspire against the law of their country, as the Irish people had done? Were they, if they wished for an amelioration of their condition, to follow the example set them in Ireland? It was a strange thing to say that because they were so quiet and so tame, and because they did not rebel and listen to agitators, that their condition was not to be taken into consideration at all. On these grounds he objected to the measure; and he thought that when it became well known to the taxpayers of the country what was demanded of them, the measure would not be half so popular as Her Majesty's Government seemed to think.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Clause 20 (Purchase of estates by Commission, and resale in parcels to tenants).
        MR. ERRINGTONsaid, the first Amendment stood in his name, and raised a very important question with regard to purchases. It consisted of two portions, the first of which he was now moving. He did not agree with what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) as to the danger of stimulating the growth of peasant proprietorship in Ireland; on the contrary, he thought that to a peasant proprietorship they had to look for relief from the distress from which that unhappy country was suffering. No doubt, that peasant proprietorship should be
        384
        carefully guarded; but there was no chance of having it at all, unless a certain stimulus was given. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) last night, when he had warned the Committee that they must not suppose that after passing this Bill the Irish tenants would be very keen about making repayments. Well, the clause laid down provisions under which the sum advanced by Parliament was to be spent by the Commissioners in purchasing estates for re-sale to the tenants; and, in the first place, he found there was no limitation in the price which the Commissioners might give for these estates. In the second place, there was a very striking, strong, and clear restriction imposed on them, that they should not purchase any estate, unless they were satisfied that a competent number of tenants were willing to combine to purchase their holdings from the Land Commission. What was the effect of that? What class of estates would be dealt with in that way? It was obvious that none would be dealt with except those that were considered to be very well circumstanced; no other estate would fulfil those requirements, and when he said "well-circumstanced" he did not mean well-circumstanced in order to create peasant proprietors, but in a general sense. In this matter, he spoke with a knowledge of particular estates, and there were many of those which could never fulfil these conditions, although they would be eminently suited for the establishment of a peasant proprietary. Landlords would offer their estates, being able to fulfil the conditions, but not being very anxious to sell, and would ask for a high price from the Commission. The Commissioners would be anxious to carry out the objects for which they were appointed, and might, if they could, be prepared to give 20 times the fair rent of the estate. He therefore proposed, in page 13, line 18, after the word "Commission," to insert "for any sum not exceeding twenty times the fair rent of such estate." What would be the advantage derivable from the State purchasing at that sum? If the Commission were able, as he believed they would be, to purchase well-circumstanced estates at the fair rent of 20 years' purchase, the position they would be placed in would be this—the

        385
        State would borrow money at 3 per cent, would invest it at 5 per cent, and would have a margin of 2 per cent left. He would take 1½ per cent of that to form a sinking fund for 37 years, and ½ per cent to cover risks and management. They would be able to make any terms—the most liberal terms—without danger to the State, and to stimulate thereby the purchase by the tenants of their holdings. He hoped the matter would be favourably considered by the Government. He was not sure how far they would be willing to accept both these Amendments, because he saw there might probably be an objection to excluding from the present any estate that might not be saleable for 20 years' purchase; but, on examination, it would be found that the objection had not very much force. He believed there were many estates that would be purchased at 20 years, and he did not see why the Commissioners should give more when they could get estates at 20 years' purchase. However, he should not be inclined to press that part of the Amendment, although he was prepared to insist on the latter part—namely, in line 21, to leave out from the word "and" to the word "Commission," in line 23, both inclusive, in order to insert—
        "In the case of estates so purchased, the Commissioners shall determine accordingly as it may appear just and expedient in each case, and from time to time the amount of the annual instalment of the purchase money of each farm to be repaid by the tenant in the form of rent, and the number of years over which such repayments are to be extended."
        He would point out that they had left very large powers and very great discretion to the Commission; the clause, as it now stood, declared the Commission must be satisfied with the expediency of the purchase, and these words he thought should be left in. They were sufficient in themselves to guard the tenant and the undertaking generally; and he hoped the Committee, if they could not agree to the first portion of his proposal, would, at any rate, agree to the second.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 13, line 18, after "Commission," insert "for any sum not exceeding twenty times the fair rent of such estate."—(Mr. Errington.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. GLADSTONE: I think I cannot too soon nor too clearly express the view Her Majesty's Government take of the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Errington). Its effect would be entirely to break up the scheme of the Government. From point to point, every imaginable plan that comes across the mind of a Member of Parliament is submitted to the Government and has to be considered. It will be impossible for us to go into all of them, to say nothing of accepting them. We are doing, on the whole, perhaps a dangerous act. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, I am aware of the force of the expression I am using; we are doing that which imposes a great responsibility upon Parliament, and a yet greater responsibility upon the Government. Nothing but the gravest motives could have led us up to this point. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), last night, said he had to strain his financial conscience in order to support a clause, and in that sentiment I entirely confess my sympathy. It is the strength of the necessity, social and political, that brings us to make this proposal; our scheme is a scheme for free sale with a view to resale. In order to re-sell, which is of itself a critical operation, and which we are going to perform in a manner most convenient and economical, we are compelled, according to our own proposal, to run the risk of placing the State in the most disadvantageous position which can be conceived—that is to say, of becoming the proprietor of land in Ireland. It is impossible to conceive a position less desirable. ["Hear, hear:!"] The noble Lord cheers; but he knows that what I mean is a position less desirable for the State—I do not mean that the position is undesirable with reference to the security of landed property in Ireland, for the same thing might be said far more forcibly as to the proprietorship of land in England. It is a most undesirable and critical position; but we have fenced it, to a considerable degree, by reducing the proportions of the proposed transactions. But the plan of my hon. Friend (Mr. Errington) entirely breaks up that scheme, and leaves it to the discretion of an administrative Commission, that, after all, will only be indirectly responsible, to determine in its own view the general expediency—how much shall be re-sold, and how insigni-

        387
        ficant a portion shall be given to the tenants, and to what extent the State shall assume that function of proprietors. That is a function which the Commission ought not to assume, not merely for the reason that it is critical and dangerous to the State, but for the reason that the State is utterly incapable of discharging the duties of a landlord. The proposal of my hon. Friend, when I look at it carefully, bristles with objections at every point. These purchases, for instance, are to be confined to cases where the sum does not exceed 20 times the fair rent of the estate. Well, the meaning of that is this—no estate can be purchased by the Commissioners until it has been driven through the Court, and until every holding on the estate has been valued by the Court. Why are we to compel these estates to go into the Courts for the purpose of becoming qualified? They may go, and qualify themselves, and then, after all, the Commission may say, "We do not wish to buy." I have heard the argument used many times in these discussions, that after this Bill passes there will be no purchasers of land in Ireland but the State. I do not believe that at all; but this I must say, that this proposition that the State is to buy nothing, except within a limit of 20 years' purchase, is, in my opinion, most unjust. The Government thought of introducing a limit of value; but I am bound to say that, adverting to the average sales that have taken place, we placed that limit at seven years higher than my hon. Friend proposes; but, finally, we came to the conclusion that it was not desirable to have any limit at all, thinking it wiser neither to stimulate prices nor to artificially reduce them. The first part of the Amendment would not be consistent with equity and justice towards the landlords in Ireland; and as to the second part, I do not know whether, if the first portion is not accepted, my hon. Friend will press it. I do not wish to enter into detail upon it now; but I must frankly state that I consider it would entirely break up the plan the Government propose, and it would not be reasonable.
        LORD BURGHLEYsaid, that it seemed to him the State would have to purchase the property twice over, because, in the first place, when it bought an estate, the money left its hands, and
        388
        then, subsequently, it had to advance money to other people to buy the property over again, so that the transaction must be a losing one.
        MAJOR NOLANsaid, he could not imagine how such a proposition could be made by any member of the late Land Commission, and he was glad the Government were not disposed to accept it.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
        MR. W. J. CORBETsaid, it was remarkable that throughout the discussions of the question of land in Ireland no reference whatever had been made to what he must call the standing grievance of the country—absenteeism. Hon. Members might not be aware of the extent to which absenteeism prevailed in Ireland; but, from the latest Return upon the subject, it appeared that no less than 5,713,496 acres of land, valued at £2,765,500, were held in Ireland by absentee landlords. The result of this lamentable system was, he regretted to say, absentee commerce and absentee trade. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 13, line 23, after sub-section 1, insert the following sub-section:—"Any estate held by a company, or by any absentee landlord, shall, within two years after the passing of this Act, or on the application of a competent number of the tenants, be purchaseable by the Land Commission, at a price to be fixed upon, being not more than twenty-five or less than twenty years' purchase of the net rental of such estate, for the purpose of being resold to the occupiers. For the purpose of this section, an absentee landlord means a landlord who does not reside commonly in Ireland, that is to say whose principal place of abode is not in that country."—(Mr. W. Corbet.)
        THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet) is irregular, and cannot be put. In the first place, it declares that the Commission shall purchase the property of Companies and absentee landlords. This is inconsistent with the discretionary powers given to the Commission in the two previous lines. In the second place, it is inconsistent with the ruling given by the Speaker, when the hon. Member for Londonderry moved an Instruction that the Committee might provide for the compulsory purchase of estates from public Companies. It was then pointed out that compulsory purchase was under certain Standing Rules of this House,

        389
        and could not be enacted by a provision in the clause of a Bill.
        MR. PARNELLasked whether it was the ruling of the Chairman that no Amendment could be moved to this Bill, giving compulsory powers to the Commission under the Land Clauses Consolidation Act or otherwise, to purchase land in Ireland?
        THE CHAIRMANdeclined to give any general ruling on the subject. His ruling was that the present Amendment was not regular.
        MR. PARNELLasked whether the Amendment would not be in Order if the words "under the Land Clauses Consolidation Act" were added after the word "Commission?"
        THE CHAIRMANsaid, if the hon. Member for Wicklow County (Mr. W. J. Corbet) would bring the Amendment to the Table it should be considered.
        LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had intended to move an Amendment to the preceding clause, which he found could be conveniently moved on the present clause. The Prime Minister had stated that morning that they were about to embark in the somewhat hazardous experiment of advancing public money for the purpose of enabling tenants to purchase their holdings, and that the transaction would assume a two-fold form. With regard to the latter form of the transaction, he believed that the second part of the subsection relating to the payment of a fine, and a fee-farm rent, for the purpose of enabling a tenant to purchase his holding, would have considerable effect in the North of Ireland. The Committee had given certain powers to the Land Commissioners, allowing them, as regarded the purchase of a holding for a principal sum, to use their discretion in the matter of security; but as regarded the second part of the transaction there was the following qualification:—
        "Provided that no advance shall be made by the Land Commission under this section on a holding subject to a fee farm rent, where the amount of such fee farm rent exceeds seventy-five per cent of the rent, which in the opinion of the Land Commission a solvent tenant would pay for the holding,"
        It would be seen that no notice was here taken of the amount of the fine; and, consequently, if it were an Instruction to the Commissioners that they were to take cognizance of one of the liabilities
        390
        of the tenant, while no mention was made of the other, the inference would be they were to take cognizance of one liability only. But it was clear that if the fine was merely laid down to free the tenant from future increase of rent, it should be added to the fee-farm rent in the shape of annuity. The Committee having given the Commissioners power to enter into transactions of this class, they should, in his opinion, adopt the precaution of adding to the sub-section the words of the Amendment which he now begged to move.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 13, line 29, after "rent," insert "together with the fine converted into the form of an annuity."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. GLADSTONE: The argument of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) is that in dividing the total value of the landlord's interest between the fee-farm rent and the fine laid down, we take cognizance of only one of those elements. If I understand him, he means that we leave it open to the landlord to exact a fine that may be extravagant. But surely the objection of the noble Lord will not apply. We have provided the general obligation that the Commissioners should be satisfied with the expediency of the purchase, as well as conform to the particular limitations; but we did not impose on them any absolute limit as to the price which might be paid. Why, then, should we impose on thorn any absolute limit as to the amount of fine, where the holding is being purchased partly by the payment of a fine and partly by the payment of a fee-farm rent? I doubt whether the Amendment of the noble Lord will agree with the sub-section of the clause, because the fee-farm rent, together with the amount of fine, gives the whole value of the property which the landlord has to sell, while the sub-section speaks of a particular percentage of value which is not to be exceeded.
        MR. W. H. SMITHthought the question was deserving of consideration. The fee-farm rent being fined down to at least 75 per cent of the ordinary rent, the margin of 25 per cent was not a large one; and if the State advanced one-half of what might be an exorbitant

        391
        fine, the bargain might not only be injurious to the tenant, but to the State. He trusted the Prime Minister would consider the point between that time and Report.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it appeared to him the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex simply wished to guard against collusion between the landlord and tenant; but that was an event which, looking at all the circumstances, was not likely often to occur.
        LORD GEORGE HAMILTONbelieved it was the intention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to alter the latter part of the clause, in which case the objection of the Prime Minister would be valid to his proposed Amendment, so he would withdraw it.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        On the Motion of MT. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendment made in page 13, line 31, by leaving out "a solvent tenant would pay" and insert "would be a fair rent."
        MR. LITTONsaid, he wished to suggest that it was unnecessary to confine the action of the Commission by the words of sub-section 3, which required the concurrence of three-fourths in number of the tenants before a purchase could be made. He would rather that the Commission should be guided by what the Prime Minister had called the general rules of prudence, because if they were so guided they would be the best judges of the matter. The same view was also taken by several hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper for the omission of the sub-section. It must be manifest to the Committee that as the sub-section stood, one tenant short of the number of tenants named would be enough to defeat the powers which it was intended to give to the Commissioners; and as it was desirable that those powers should not be defeated by an accident of that kind he begged to move the omission of the sub-section.
        Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 32, leave out sub-section 3.—(Mr. Litton.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsuggested that two-thirds of the whole number of
        392
        tenants would be preferable to the proportion of three-fourths named in the sub-section.
        COLONEL COLTHURSTappealed to the Prime Minister to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) in preference to the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Sir Joseph M'Kenna). He did not think the proposal to relax the conditions on which the Commission might purchase were at all open to the same objections as were applied to the proposal to allow them to advance four-fifths instead of three-fourths of the purchase money of a holding to a tenant. There appeared to him to be no danger in leaving it to the discretion of the Court to settle the proportion of tenants able and willing to purchase.
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, a slight change might be made by the substitution of two-thirds value for the three-fourths named in the sub-section, to meet the case where, perhaps, two large tenants were unwilling to purchase, while many small tenants were willing to do so. The Committee would recollect that they were imposing on the State, not only the remote risk of difficulty in lending money on land, but the certain and serious disadvantage of becoming itself a landlord. The State would become the landlord, not only of fractions of the property purchased, but would become the landlord of the worst fractions of the property, which tenants would not be willing to buy. Moreover, these worst fractions might be scattered all over Ireland. There was an immense disadvantage in the State having to take up as landlord the residue of the property. Under the circumstances, he hoped it would not be thought unreasonable on his part not to accede to any farther change than the substitution of two-thirds value for the proportion of three-fourths named in the sub-section.
        MR. DALYsaid, the Prime Minister evidently thought that a great deal of danger would result to the State from its being in possession of the residue of the properties purchased; but it must be well known that outside the tenants on the estate there would always be a large number of persons ready to take up the remaining portions of the land. For his own part, he thought the State ran no risk whatever with respect to the residue of land.
        DR. LYONSregretted that the Prime Minister did not see his way to omit the sub-section. When attempts were made to combine a number of tenants for the purpose of purchasing in the Estates Court, it was found that, although at first the requisite number was forthcoming, as things went on there was a tendency on the part of the tenants to fall away and the proposal fell to the ground. As he thought it most desirable that this clause should work extensively in Ireland, he wished to see the greatest possible facilities afforded for the purchase of holdings, and therefore trusted the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the question. Under the 1st sub-section of the clause, he did not see that the Court was necessarily bound to consider that the whole estate was involved; and he believed it was possible for them to consider any portion of the estate as the estate for the time being for sale.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, from an expression dropped by the Prime Minister, it would seem as if he contemplated that the Commission should have the power to buy up the interests of middlemen when they held property under a fee-farm rent, in order to allow the subtenants to become owners. But what would become of the head rent? Would it not be possible to introduce words to enable the Commissioners to purchase it? Otherwise the Commissioners might be deterred from purchasing the interest of the middleman altogether, and the sub-tenants would thereby be deprived of the benefit of the Act and would not be able to become owners.
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would be difficult for Parliament to undertake to specify the mode in which the Commission should deal with the relations between intermediate holders and the head occupiers of estates. He did not see his way to insert any provision for dealing with that subject.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        On the Motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, Amendment made, in page 13, line 35, by leaving out "three-fourths," in order to insert "two-thirds."
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 13, line 35, to leave out the word "rent," in order to insert "rental" instead thereof—(Mr. Warton.)
        Question proposed, "That the word 'rent' stand part of the Clause."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the word "rent" was deliberately introduced, and used in the proper sense. He believed, on examination, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would see that this was the case, and, therefore, trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MAJOR NOLANsaid, that as the clause stood, a certain proportion of tenants on the estate must agree to purchase. He thought it would be an improvement to make the qualification one of value instead of number, and, therefore, proposed to substitute for the wording of this part of the sub-section the words "tenants paying not less than one-half of the whole rent of the estate."
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government considered that the tenants who were partly able to purchase should only form a certain proportion of the number willing to purchase. It was necessary, in their opinion, to introduce the limit, that one-half should be ready to enter into a contract with a view to complete purchase.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLventured to submit that it was inexpedient to limit so strictly the number of tenants who might purchase under the fine and fee-farm system. That was a system under which the tenant might be able to obtain fixity of rent. There might be an estate in regard to which the landlord and tenants in a body agreed to the purchase of the tenures in the shape of a fee-farm rent, and it would be undesirable to shut out the estate under those circumstances. He did not think the State would suffer, if the landlord and tenant agreed together that the estate should be purchased in this form, by assisting in carrying out the arrangement. It would put an end to future litigation in the way of appeals to the Court to fix a fair rent.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 13, line 36, leave out from estate," to the end of the sub-section.—(Sir George Campbell.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
        MR. GLADSTONE: It would be no matter of dissatisfaction to us to see the

        395
        clause work extensively; but I must point out that this is a very exceptional measure, authorizing large public advances to be made with reference to one specific object—namely, the creation of occupying ownerships. The purchase by fine and fee-farm rent may be a good process in itself; yet, certainly, it is quite distinct from the method of creating proprietorship to which I have referred. It, therefore, has not a claim upon us to undertake difficulties and risks on behalf of the State to anything like the extent to which the other has. Our view is that where the Commissioners are dealing with the question of making these advances, the major part of the transactions shall be with the view of creating pure and proper proprietorships.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought the Committee would pardon him for having spoken with some partiality for the system of purchase by fine and fee-farm rent. The favourite form of peasant proprietorship in Scotland was that of feu, of which there were many instances in the burgh which he represented. He was willing to withdraw his Amendment in the hope that the Government would re-consider the matter before the Report.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        On the Motion of Mr. WARTON, Amendment made, in page 13, line 37, after "are," by inserting "able and."
        MR. VILLIERS STUARTsaid, there were in almost every agricultural parish in England labouring men who had saved up enough money to buy small plots of land, and these were invariably the most industrious and best conducted of their class. He was anxious that opportunities should be given for establishing a similar class in Ireland. He was anxious that some provision should be made in the Bill which would have the effect of promoting in the whole body of agricultural labourers a sense of independence and self-respect—something that would raise them in the social scale and lead to a general improvement of their condition. A deputation had that morning waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which laid before the right hon. Gentleman some most instructive facts. One case was
        396
        quoted of a man earning only 4s. a-week, who, besides supporting a large family, paid £2 for the rent of half an acre of land during 20 years. In another case, £2 a-year rent was paid for only a quarter of an acre, and the tenant himself had built a house upon the land. The amount in the latter case represented a rent of £8 an acre. Now, if the Amendment he was about to move were agreed to, these men would have the opportunity of purchasing their holdings from the landlords by an annual payment of 12 s. 6d. per annum in the case of the half acre, and by an annual payment of 6s. 6d. in the case of the quarter of an acre, instead of the exorbitant rent which they were then paying, and which would actually buy up the fee simple of the land in six years. The average price of land in Ireland was about £25 per acre; and, therefore, at 5 per cent per annum, the sum required to buy up the principal and interest would be 25 s. per acre, or 12 s. 6d. per half acre. The transaction would be perfectly safe for the State to enter into, for this reason. The State could borrow money at 3¼ per cent, while the charge for the advance would be 3½ per cent, and out of the difference of ¼ per cent a guarantee fund could be created. Besides that, there would be the security of the holding itself, in case the tenant failed to pay up the instalments. He thought some concession was due to the labourers of the kind he had indicated. As the Bill stood, the labourers would be in a worse position after it became law than they were in at present. Hitherto it had been possible for a labourer who had put by a little money to take a small farm without payment of a fine; but by the 1st section of the Bill, which dealt with free sale, a monopoly was created in favour of existing tenants against all other classes in Ireland, and the labourers would henceforth have no chance of rising to the rank of tenant farmers without payment of a fine. Therefore, he said, it was worth consideration by the Government whether some concession should not be made in this Bill to the labourer, and the question should not be left to stand over to a future time. He was satisfied, moreover, that unless some concession were made, a very serious and troublesome agitation would arise; indeed, there were symptoms of it already at that moment. For these

        397
        reasons he hoped the Government would not hastily reject his Amendment; but if they were indisposed to accept it at once, he trusted, at all events, they would take the matter into their consideration, and try to introduce into the clauses which they had promised to bring up on behalf of the labourers some provision in the desired direction.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 14, line 3, after "tenant," to insert "or in the case of a tenant whose holding does not exceed one half of an acre, and who is a labourer, the whole of the said price or fine as the case may be."—(Mr. Villiers Stuart.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. GLADSTONE: I need not say that very great credit is due to my hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers Stuart) for the active zeal he has shown in endeavouring to secure the introduction into this Bill of some beneficial provision on behalf of the Irish labourer. I can assure him that in the course of a few days he will have evidence of the reality of our sympathy with him in his proposal in the clause which my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. W. E. Forster) is preparing for the purpose of dealing with this subject. We feel that we can do some good by providing means and opportunities which will be very beneficial to the labourer as securing him accommodation. But accommodation is one thing—accommodation, first of all, in the use of dwellings, and, secondly, in suitable allotments; and the proposal of my hon. Friend is another. I do not complain myself of his having marked out the particular area of land named in his Amendment; but I say my hon. Friend's Motion is not to provide the labourer with the practical use and benefit of dwellings and of suitable allotments; it is to create labourer proprietorships. Now, with regard to that, I must say that I am very doubtful indeed whether it is absolutely a desirable thing for the labourer that he should invest his small savings in land. It is open to this doubt particularly. What is, above all things, desirable for the labourer is that he should not be tied down to some plot of ground which he may hold, and which positively fastens him to one spot. If you effect this you greatly deteriorate the value of the main commodity which he has to sell—namely, his labour, by
        398
        increasing the distance he has to travel in order to sell it. Therefore, I do not think that special facilities ought to be given by the State for the purpose of enabling him to become proprietor.
        LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was disposed to agree with much that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister with respect to that particular Amendment; but he thought the Committee ought not to put out of consideration what might and probably would be the condition of the agricultural labourer in Ireland, on those holdings which ceased to be tenancies, and became estates belonging to a new class of proprietors. It seemed to him that unless something was done to give facilities for the erection of labourers' cottages, and perhaps the creation of allotments on the estates, which, by the operation of this clause, they were going to turn into small proprietorships, they would deteriorate the actual position of a good many of the respectable labourers in Ireland. He thought that consideration should be impressed on the minds of the Government at a time when they were preparing, as he understood they were, a clause or clauses in behalf of the Irish labourer.
        MAJOR NOLANthought the Prime Minister might possibly be right in the view which he had taken of the effect of the Irish labourer being tied to one spot. But that, he believed, was not the intention of the hon. Member (Mr. Villiers Stuart) in moving his Amendment. From his (Major Nolan's) own knowledge, there were in some cases on the farms in Ireland small plots of ground in the occupation of labourers; and he presumed the hon. Member meant that when those small plots were being sold the tenants should be assisted to purchase them. He thought the labourers ought to be dealt with even more liberally than the large farmers in the way of assisting them to purchase their holdings. The cost of this to the Exchequer would be very small indeed; and he thought the Government would do well to stretch a point in their favour, finding the whole of the purchase money, instead of advancing only a certain portion of it. Nothing would tend to popularize the measure more than a provision of that kind, which would be regarded as a great boon to the labourer.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped that the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers Stuart) would not press his Amendment. There were a great many things to be considered before the plan of making labourer proprietorships could be carried into law. He thought the Committee ought to be satisfied with the statement of the Prime Minister, that the subject should have the attention of the Government before the Bill left the House of Commons. In legislation of this kind it was very necessary to guard against one thing—namely, that the labourer, having got possession of, say, an acre of land, should feel that he had no longer occasion to remain a labourer for the man who had provided a house for him. He had had considerable experience in providing residences for labourers, and he knew that it was necessary to guard this point very strictly.
        MR. O'SULLIVANhoped the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers Stuart) would not press his Amendment to a division, but wait to see what proposal the Government had to make. If that was not satisfactory the hon. Member could bring up the matter again on Report.
        MR. VILLIERS STUARTsaid, after the kind and sympathetic tone in which the Prime Minister had referred to the proposal before the Committee, he was willing, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw his Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        THE CHAIRMAN: With regard to the next Amendment on the Paper, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Carrickfergus (Mr. Greer), I have to say that that Amendment makes it compulsory on the Commissioners to purchase any estate offered by an owner at 25 years' purchase, if three-fourths of the tenants on that estate are willing to purchase their holdings. This compulsion on the Commission is inconsistent with the part of the clause already agreed to, in which it is provided that the Land Commission shall not purchase any estate unless they are satisfied with the expediency of the purchase. The Amendment cannot therefore be put. Then, with regard to the next Amendment—namely, that in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), that Amendment cannot be put, as the Money Resolu-
        400
        tion
        tion of the House would not authorize the Committee to frame provisions attendant with charges on the Public Funds for drainage or agricultural improvements
        MR. A. MOOREsaid, the provision contained in the 5th sub-section, which said that the costs should be included in the purchase money, was a great boon to the tenants. He wished to know whether the Government would hold out any hope that there should be a regular system of fees in all cases of procedure in the Court? The Committee must remember that that was an attorney's Bill, inasmuch as it would bring every landlord and tenant in Ireland to the office of his attorney. He assured hon. Members that persons who had very great experience in these matters feared that the measure would result in a good deal of law, and there was not the slightest doubt that the tenants had been most shockingly imposed upon in recent proceedings under the Act of 1870. He had himself been present when an attorney's bill of £400 was claimed for in connection with the sale of only 56 acres of land, the attorney afterwards consenting to accept £300.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that the matter referred to by the hon. Member would be considered with the view of supplying what was required.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        Clause 21 (Sale to public of parcels not purchased by tenants).
        THE CHAIRMAN: With reference to the Amendments next on the Paper, in the names of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), and the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), I have to point out that they appear to me to overrule the clause which has just been passed. Their object would be to give to every tenant who did not desire to buy a grant in perpetuity upon a fixed rent. But the last clause only authorized the purchase of estates for the purpose of re-selling them to tenants, and the fact of there being a residue not taken by the tenants does not exonerate the Commission from limiting themselves to the purposes for which they are authorized to buy estates. As these Amendments are inconsistent with Clause 20, and would, to a great

        401
        extent, overrule that clause, they cannot be put.
        MR. LALORsaid, there was no doubt that if the Commission had power to sell any quantity of land to one person a large number of so-called land-jobbers would make their appearance in Ireland. These persons would, perhaps, purchase land in largo quantities and become landlords, thereby diverting the land from the object intended by Government—namely, the real benefit of the community. The men in possession of the land, in his opinion, ought to be the bonâ fide tenant farmers who would work it themselves; and as it was his desire to promote that condition of things in Ireland, he proposed to limit the quantity of land sold to one person to 50 acres.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 14, line 22, after "other," insert "provided the quantity of land that may be sold to any one purchaser shall not exceed fifty statute acres."—(Mr. Lalor.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the hon. Member (Mr. Lalor) would not press his Amendment. The powers of sale of the Commission ought not to be restricted, because they were for the purpose of enabling them to recoup the money advanced to purchase the estate, and by their exercise the interest of the tenants could not possibly be damnified.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had very properly put the case of land in the occupation of small tenants; but a case might arise in which the present tenant occupied a very large quantity of land, and in which it was desirable that powers should be given for more or less subdividing the holding. The case of his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) was that the buyer from the Commissioners would probably be a land-jobber, who would charge an exorbitant rent for the property through a middleman. That had been the case with land bought from the Church Commissioners, when the occupiers were not themselves the buyers of the holding.
        MANOR NOLANhoped the Amendment would not be pressed. The question of these residues was the great difficulty that the Commission on which
        402
        he sat had to deal with, and they would constitute the practical difficulty in this case. He could not see that it would be of any benefit to the tenants to have landlords limited in their estates to 50 acres.
        MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out that the enormous difference in the value of land was another objection to the Amendment. The value of 50 acres of land, for instance, in the mountainous parts of Ireland would be very small as compared with the value of 50 acres in other parts of the country.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to move the omission of the middle paragraph of the clause, which provided that the Land Commission might advance to any purchaser of a parcel under this section, on the security of such parcel, one-half of the principal sum paid as the whole price or of the fine. He did not see upon what basis this portion of the clause rested. It was easy to understand the advance of the money to a tenant, and the object of that was perfectly plain to the Committee; but here was a purchaser who might be anybody but a tenant. He would not be one of the tenants on the estate, because, if he were, he would get an advance of three-fourths instead of one-half of the purchase money. The individual would be one of the public, probably a land-jobber; at any rate, he would be a person who would have no title to claim an advance of money from the State for the purpose of making a purchase. Further, he would point out to the Government that if this purchase was bonâ fide, the purchaser would have no difficulty in raising one-half of the money in mortgage. He could not conceive any reason why the Government should advance any portion of the purchase money to persons who had no claim for such assistance. It might be urged that this was to be done in order to facilitate the disposal of land by the Commission; still he was not quite clear that this was a sufficient justification for the money of the State being advanced to such individuals as would, in all probability, apply for it.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 14, to leave out all the words from "The," in line 23, to "fine," in line 25, both inclusive.—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment. The object of the clause was, of course, to replace the money spent by the Commissioners. The case referred to by the noble Lord did not constitute any real advance; it was simply the taking of a mortgage on the land.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment—namely, that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) is open to the same remark as I have applied to the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), and the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan)—namely, that it is not within the Money Resolution of the House, and therefore cannot be put.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
        MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that as the Amendment he had given Notice of.could not be put, he wished to speak on the clause itself. If the clause were put into operation in the West of Ireland, the Commissioners would find themselves in possession of portions of estates absolutely worthless for sale, and not fit to be inhabited by human beings. What he wanted was to give the Commissioners power to deal rationally with such property for the purpose of improving it. The Bill would be of no use whatever in the West of Ireland. The 25th clause enabled the Board of Works to do something for reclamation, but did not enable the Commission to do anything with the portions of estates which would remain on their hands unsold. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He saw that the Government and the Committee were so impatient to finish the Bill that it would be useless for him to proceed with his observations; but he protested that the Bill would not settle the Irish Question, if the tenants of the West of Ireland were left in their present condition, which had been described during the last two or three years as shocking to the ideas of all Englishmen, and as a disgrace in the eyes of Europe. Unless
        404
        something were done in the direction he had indicated the Land Question would, in a very short time, again present itself.
        LORD ELCHOsaid, they had just heard from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that the Bill would be of no benefit whatever to the West of Ireland; but he (Lord Elcho) was under the impression that it was especially for the West of Ireland that the Bill had been introduced. Would the hon. Member for Galway kindly inform the Committee to what part of the population of Ireland it would be a benefit?
        THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was impossible to allow a general discussion upon the state of the West of Ireland to take place upon the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Clause 22 (Terms of repayment of advances made by Commission).
        MR. CHARLES RUSSELL,who rose to propose the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, that it was undoubtedly true that there was no law by which they could interfere with the disposition of property once the owner was owner in fee simple. Under Clause 21 of the Bill, which he merely referred to by way of illustration, the Land Commission, as long as any portion of the advances made to tenants was not repaid, would have it in their power to prevent anything like sub-letting or the sub-division of the holding. Personally, he was anxious to establish a state of things which should lead to permanent safety and security, and it was on that ground that he recommended the Amendment to the consideration of the Committee. By its adoption security against sub-division and sub-letting would, in many cases, be secured for a period of 52 years.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 14, line 36, to leave out the words "for thirty-five years of five pounds," in order to insert the words "which shall redeem both principal and interest within any period not exceeding fifty-two years at the discretion of the, Land Commission, such annuity to be calculated at a rate which shall secure to the Laud Commission interest at the rate of three pounds ten shillings per annum,"—(Mr. Charles Russell,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the words 'for thirty-five years' stand part of the Clause."
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthought that the argument with which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. C. Russell) had supported the Amendment ought to be conclusive with the Committee. There was no doubt whatever that the moment nine-tenths of the owners found themselves in a condition to sub-let, they would sub-let, and would sub-divide the holding among their families, and with sub-letting and subdivision would occur all the evils Parliament were now desirous of curing. They had given to the Commission the power to prevent sub-letting; but the Committee ought to bear in mind that both Professor Baldwin and Mr. Robertson were strongly of opinion that an extension of time was necessary for the repayment of the advances. The resources of the tenant and the lessening of the burden of repayment would tend to prevent the old evils from recurring. He therefore thought, on the grounds of the argument of his hon. and learned Friend, and on the ground of making the terms easier to the tenant, the Committee would do well to accept the Amendment.
        MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the term of 35 years for repayment was that adopted under the Act of 1870. He believed that under the Irish Church Act the period was 32 years, and a considerable number of the tenants were anxious to repay long within that limit. It was considered very undesirable to extend the period of years, and he could not, therefore, support the Amendment, which proposed to prolong it from 35 to 52 years, or to carry it over nearly three generations, whereas 35 years only meant two generations. Surely, two generations formed quite as long a period as the repayment ought to be spread over. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the instalments, together with interest, were only to be repaid at 5 per cent; and, therefore, it was wise to retain the period of 35 years. If they could secure the holding against sub-division for 35 years, it was all they were called upon to do.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped that the Government would not hesitate to make to the tenants the small concession that was asked from them. It would make things easier to the tenant occupiers than they were under the clause as it stood. Five per cent upon the purchase money would be a very
        406
        heavy drag upon them, and it appeared to him that it would be a great thing to set them going hopefully for the first six or seven years. If the instalments were made easier they would be more regularly paid, and the Irish purchasers would be able to keep the estate in a better condition than if they were to place a heavy burden upon them, which at first might be a strain upon them they would be unable to get over. He invited the attention of the Government to this point. The main thing that was important to the State was that the money should be repaid, and that the people should feel a moral obligation upon them to pay it. Some additional burden, spread over a longer term, would be thrown upon the tenants by the adoption of the Amendment; but one effect of it would be to increase the value of the security for repayment, because the payment would be rendered easier, and more certain. If there were an extension of time from 35 to 52 years, not only would the security remain as good as at the commencement, but it would improve from day to day. It never could be worse, and the Committee had already taken care that only three-fourths of the requisite purchase money would be advanced by the State. He hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would impress upon his Colleagues the desirability of consenting to the Amendment. He ventured to say that there had not been a single point brought under discussion from the time the Bill was introduced until the present moment that was of more practical importance than that now raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell). He said that with a very lengthened experience of Ireland. He thought nothing would give more general satisfaction, or go further towards proving the sincerity and the desire of Parliament and the Government to ameliorate the condition of the Irish people generally, than for the Committee to agree to that proposition. In many cases it would make the difference between absolute struggling for the next seven years, and the rendering of things comparatively easy, and it would be giving to the poor tenants a gleam of blue sky, which had hitherto not been held out to them. He felt satisfied that his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), if he were to enter the House, and find that this Amendment had been accepted,

        407
        would retract every word he had said about the operation of the Bill in the West of Ireland. The proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk was the only one thing needful in order to destroy the predictions of the hon. Member for Galway as to the effect which would be produced by the passing of the Bill in the West of Ireland. And he would say, further, that nothing could go forth from the House that would more effectively show the desire of Parliament to improve the condition of Ireland. Under these circumstances, he implored the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to give the Amendment the most favourable consideration. He was satisfied that there had not been a single Amendment proposed to the Committee which was anything like as important as this.
        MR. GIVANjoined with his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) in impressing upon the Government the desirability of acceding to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell). It did not ask for any further sum of money, but merely for an extension of time. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) said the time was longer than that fixed by the Irish Church Commission; but the right hon. Gentleman omitted to add that the position of the estates belonging to the Irish Church and of the tenants who were affected by the Bill was very different. He had attended a great number of meetings of the tenants with respect to various matters dealt with by the Bill, and he had been constantly requested by the tenants in the most earnest manner to endeavour to obtain an extension of time for the repayment of the instalments of the advances proposed to be made to them. A tenant farmer might have a couple of sons and four or five daughters; he might invest in a farm for the benefit of his sons; but he might not deem it desirable to expend the whole of the money in his possession during the first 30 years in accumulating land for his sons. He would, therefore, be desirous of reducing his liabilities to a minimum. It would be very hard to ask a man within his own life to expose himself for 35 years to heavy difficulties in repaying the whole of the purchase money, and it was not a
        408
        question of loss to the State. If the State was likely to lose anything he would not press the matter as he felt bound to do now.
        MR. H. H. FOWLERthought, if his memory served him aright, that when the school boards were first established in this country, and certainly for a considerable number of years after 1870, the Public Works Loan Commissioners lent money to the school boards of England for the erection of school-houses, in regard to which the repayment of the principal was spread over 50 years, the annual payment which covered both principal and interest being only at the rate of 4¼ per cent. Therefore, as an English Liberal Member, he appealed to Her Majesty's Government to treat the Irish tenants, under the circumstances of the case, in such a manner as to give them real, actual, and substantial relief, and to place them in as good terms as the school boards obtained when they borrowed money from the State for the erection of their schools. He thought his hon. and learned Friend below him (Mr. C. Russell) would feel inclined to accept a term of 50 years at 4 per cent for the repayment of principal and interest. Having regard to the present state of the money market, and the present state of credit, 3½ per cent was really a sufficient rate of interest to charge when the security was ample.
        MR. GLADSTONE: I am far from disputing the title of my hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to speak with authority on this subject; but from our point of view he cannot speak, and from our point of view I am bound to say that we cannot consent, on any consideration, to accept the Amendment. My hon. Friend put the ease of the school boards. We were then imposing, for the first time, a heavy tax upon the localities of the country, and we strained to the uttermost the action of the Government in order to lessen the burden the present generation would bear. There has hardly been a case—I know of no instance—in which by legislation so considerable a burden was imposed upon the localities as that which was imposed by the Education Act; but we must remember what it was for. In the present case, a great favour and a boon are being offered to the tenants. I do not depreciate the value of the security which we should have upon these hold-

        409
        ings; but who can compare that security with the security of the permanent rate-able property of the country, which property is permanent, absolute, and unquestionable at all times and under all circumstances? From the arguments which have been employed one would really think that the loans to be granted are to be made repayable within four or five years. The proposal contained in the Amendment involves a serious straining of the financial conscience of the Government. But there are points beyond which it cannot be strained, and I feel that I should not be keeping my implied obligations to the Members of this House, representing English and Scotch constituencies, who have consented to accompany the Government in the great length we have asked them to go towards meeting this real necessity if we were not to adhere in its main outline to the Bill we have proposed, and of this main outline this is, undoubtedly, an important feature.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwas extremely sorry that Her Majesty's Government had put down their foot upon this proposal. Last night he had supported the Government upon a different question, and he thought they might have dealt more leniently with the Amendment now submitted to them. They were, he thought, with great respect, making a mistake in the matter, the nature of which had been pointed out to them by Professor Baldwin. It appeared from the Report of the Comptroller General that the arrears of interest in connection with the advance out of the Church Fund on the half-yearly instalments upon the mortgaged landed property were, in 1878, £3,197, in 1879 £7,472, and in 1880 £11,817 He thought those facts proved positively that the conditions upon which they made these advances were too hard. What they ought to try to do was to make the conditions so favourable that the tenants would be able to repay the money borrowed without a heavy strain upon them. Professor Baldwin and Mr. Robertson both proved that, by extending the repayment over a longer time, they would secure the advances being repaid to the State without risk. What did it matter to the State whether it was paid back within 50 or within 35 years? Surely it was better to impose the longer term rather than run the risk in the course of
        410
        a few years of creating a general outcry in Ireland for repudiation. The figures given by the Church Temporalities Commission afforded a lesson which ought not to be passed over lightly, and it certainly appeared to him that Her Majesty's Government were about to commit a grave mistake.
        MR. GLADSTONE: I ought to notice another point, which seems to have been raised in the nature of argument and protest. We were told, and told with perfect truth, that in the case of the Irish Tithes Commission we had extended the arrangement to about 50 or 52 years. That was so; but it was a case very nearly analogous to that of the school board rates, for this reason. The Irish landed proprietary, being generally Protestant, had had up to that time their religion—if I may so speak—provided for them at the expense of the State, by what was termed a National Institution. Undoubtedly, the effect of that Act was, at a moment's notice, to throw on that class of persons a burden which it was quite proper they should bear, and which it was not proposed to enable them to obtain by a gift of money from the State. But having a burden thrown upon them which they and their ancestors had been free from, it appeared to Parliament that it was a very good policy—and, indeed, it was a good policy—to ease them by throwing the burden over a greater number of years than otherwise would have been done. The noble Lord has made a reference to the Report of Professor Baldwin and Mr. Robertson; but I think he has made a mis-statement as to the effect of that Report. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I read it very carefully.] The general effect of that Report is to show that, in the minds of Professor Baldwin and Mr. Robertson, there is very great doubt about the propriety of the whole transaction. As far as their arguments go, the effect of the Report is to throw great doubt upon the whole scheme; and as to the rapid growth of arrears, the noble Lord must remember the bad seasons through which Ireland has just passed.
        MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYthought that the scheme of the Government might be imperilled if they insisted upon retaining 35 years as the term of repayment. He believed there were very few Irish Members who would be found unwilling to pledge the security of the country on

        411
        an Income Tax to be raised in Ireland for repaying the annual advances under the Bill. They would be quite willing, if they could get the advances now from the House on fairer terms, that they should stand pledged to the taxpayers of England and Scotland, not only on the credit of each individual farm and holding, but on that of the entire community of Ireland, in order to meet the annual repayments. That was an offer which he saw was not objected to by hon. Members sitting around him, and it was a test of the bona fides with which they were entering into the matter. Undesirable as it was that the repayment should be concluded within one generation, there were other matters that were worthy of consideration. It was not unworthy of consideration by the Prime Minister that, by giving some additional time, he would undoubtedly increase the security of the State for the repayment, because he would make the payments smaller during each year; and, consequently, the payment that might have to be met after a year of distress would be more easy to bear. Last night the Committee refused to the people of Ireland to change the total advance made by the State from three-fourths to four-fifths. He would not go back upon that question now; but having refused that proposal, it was not unfair that they should be asked now to consider whether the tenants might not be relieved in another way by an additional extension of time for repayment. He thought it would be far more advantageous to the Irish tenants to obtain some slight extension of time rather than an extension of the advances. He was not one of those who were desirous of making a peasant proprietary by placing a man in the position of mortgaging his property without any equity of redemption. He thought that would be a most unfortunate state of things; but if, without danger to the State, if without any of the evils which, no doubt, they ought to fear in transactions of this kind, they could give further facilities to the tenants of Ireland, they would do of all timings that which was most necessary to make the Act a marked success. What they ought to do was this. If the Bill was to produce social content in Ireland, if it was to make the people believe, what he trusted they would be brought to believe, that they had friends in that House, and
        412
        that the House was inclined to do them justice and to make some reparation for the past, let them feel that they had some benefit coming to them from the operations of that Bill. He would take the case of a man who paid £500 for his tenancy. If they got him to pay that sum in 35 years at 5 per cent, the annual payment would be £25; whereas, if they reduced the amount of each repayment, as proposed by the Amendment, that sum of £25 would be diminished to something like £18 or £19; but a difference of £6 or £7 in an annual payment of £25 would be an enormous boon to the tenant, and would certainly increase rather than decrease the security of the State. It might be that the extreme suggestion contained in the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend of 52 years was too long a period over which to extend the repayment, and it might be the opinion of the Prime Minister that a less period ought to be taken than 52 years without going down so low as 35 years. [Cries of "No, no!" from the Home Rulers.] He would remind his hon. Friends who called out "No!" that "half a loaf was better than no bread;" and if they could not get 52 years, let them endeavour to press the Committee to fix some intermediate period which would give some relief to the purchaser and might be conceded by the Government. The proposal in the clause was that a man should pay 5 per cent for the next 35 years in discharge of the purchase money. Of course, that would discharge the principal as well as the interest; but, nevertheless, while the man was paying it off it would very seriously affect him to have to pay so high a sum as 5 per cent, a rate of interest they never would advise anybody to borrow money at for the purpose of purchasing land. He trusted, under these circumstances, that either now or some time before the conclusion of the Committee on the Bill, some extension of time would be given for the repayment of the purchase money, because he seriously believed that upon such an extension of time would depend the development of the principle of the creation of a peasant proprietary in Ireland.
        MR. SHAWregretted very much that the Prime Minister seemed to have decided against the Amendment. He (Mr. Shaw) had as strong an opinion as the

        413
        right hon. Gentleman could possibly have in favour of concluding such a transaction between a private individual and the State in as short a time as possible. But it did not follow that the adoption of the Amendment would have the effect, to a very large extent, of prolonging the time of repayment. It would only be in exceptional cases that the extension of time would be taken advantage of. The Irish tenantry would be anxious to wind up the transaction as quickly as possible, so that they might be in a position to deal with the property. His own opinion was strong that the average time of repayment would not be anything like 35 years. He thought there was a want of elasticity in the Government proposal. It would afford very great relief to a large class of the tenantry; but his own opinion was that the Commissioners should have the power even of taking a reduced payment for the first five or 10 years of the time. He knew a case where a man with a farm of 50 acres would, the moment the Bill passed, become the purchaser of his holding; and he did not see why the Commissioners should not have the option of taking 4 per cent at the beginning of the period and 6 per cent during the latter part of it. He thought that, upon the whole, there should be more elasticity in the clause, and more power given to the Commissioners to deal with the different cases on their individual merits. He was satisfied that such elasticity would give far greater success to the scheme; the State could not possibly lose a single shilling, because all that was asked for was a mere extension of time for repayment, full interest being given. He sincerely hoped that either in this way or in some other way tenants below a certain value would be treated more liberally. He did not think that the large tenants would be very anxious to obtain better terms; but he was sure that there was a class of tenants upon the smaller holdings to whom the State might fairly give an extension with very great advantage to all parties concerned.
        MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he was not sure that there was very much utility in continuing the discussion. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) said the Prime Minister had put his foot down upon this proposition. It might be said
        414
        that he had ground it under his heel, and not merely set down his foot upon it. The right hon. Gentleman refused the proposal with great energy, and he (Mr. Macfarlane) regretted extremely that the Prime Minister should have taken that course. Although he could say nothing upon the subject which had not already been said, yet it sometimes happened that the same thing said by a great number of persons in the end produced its effect. The Prime Minister referred to the case of the school boards, in which he had given 50 years for the repayment of the sum advanced, his object being to make it easy for the existing generation. That was precisely what they wanted to do in the case of the Irish tenants. They did not want to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Irish tenants to repay the advances. He agreed with the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), when his hon. Friend said, with his usual judgment, that the success of the Bill would be materially interfered with if that rigid line was maintained by the Government. He would, therefore, appeal once more to the Government, and ask whether, if they would not allow 52 years, at any rate to grant 45 years, and if they would not grant 45 years, let them lower the rate of interest to 3 per cent, which was about the value of the public securities throughout the Kingdom, and there would be no loss to the Crown upon the transaction. Three and a-half per cent was too high a rate to charge, with 1½ per cent for a sinking fund. If the Prime Minister insisted in securing the repayment of the money in 35 years, he would appeal to him to make the terms more easy.
        MR. GOSCHEN: I do not think it fair towards Her Majesty's Government that they should alone have to conduct this debate in defence of the Consolidated Fund. I feel sure that the silence which has been observed by English and Scotch Members on this occasion is not because they disagree with Her Majesty's Government, but because they do not wish to prolong the discussion. For my own part, I wish to take my full share in any unpopularity that may be incurred in the resistance of this Motion for the further extension of time upon the Consolidated Fund. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) said it could not possibly matter to the State

        415
        whether the money was repaid in 30 or in 50 years. Is the credit of the State such that that doctrine can be applied to every possible advance? Are we to adopt the principle that it is immaterial whether loans are made, either to public bodies or to individuals, at one scale of payments or another? I entirely agree with what has been said by the Prime Minister, that the financial conscience of the Government has been strained to the utmost in making the proposals they have made, and I trust that the financial conscience of the House and the financial conscience of the Committee will not be more elastic than that of the Prime Minister. The Government will find plenty of support when they, acting upon their judgment, yield to some of the demands which are made upon them; but I think Her Majesty's Government ought to be equally supported when they are defending the Consolidated Fund, however unanimous may be the opinion which seems to be brought to bear from one quarter of the House against it. On this point, also, let me ask whether the effect of raising the scale from 30 to 50 years might not be to increase the price which the tenants would have to pay? I think that the tenant who can borrow at 50 years is more likely to be called upon to pay a higher price to his landlord than one who could pay in 30 years. [Cries of "No, no!"] I think it cannot be seriously contested that the easier the terms upon which you can borrow the higher the price you will have to pay. I have been unwilling at any previous stage, owing to the fact that I was not present at these debates, to interfere with the discussion of the Bill; but I have felt it my duty on this occasion to assure Her Majesty's Government, as I am sure I can, that there are a number of Members on both sides of the House who are grateful to them for the energy they have shown in resisting this proposal, and I hope they will persevere in that course.
        SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYmerely rose for the purpose of endorsing everything the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had said. He felt quite satisfied that no Government could agree to the proposal to extend the time of payment.
        MR. DALYsaid, he had not intended to take part in the debate; but he would
        416
        strongly recommend that, if the object of the Government was to allow the poorer classes of the tenants to purchase their holdings, the burden should be made as light as possible, and the repayments spread over a lengthened period. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) that it would be much better for the tenants to have a small annual payment now, even if they had a larger payment of 8 or 9 per cent to make during the last 15 or 16 years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), who had just sat down, had made a somewhat curious observation. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the term for the repayment of the loan was extended, the price paid by the tenant would be greater. That would probably be true if the transaction were between the actual borrower and the actual lender; but he could not see how the price would be affected by giving a power to the tenant to purchase and to repay the purchase money within a long period, when the purchase money itself was to be advanced by the State. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had referred to money advances by the Public Works Loan Commissioners for a period of 52 years for the erection of school board houses, and the right hon. Gentleman said that Parliament had fixed the term of 52 years because it was about to impose a very heavy tax and a very serious burden upon the people. He (Mr. Daly) humbly submitted that the same consideration ought to apply here. It was obvious that if it applied to a wealthy and prosperous people like that of England, it ought much more to apply when they were about to impose a burden upon a poor and impoverished people already suffering from other burdens which had been entailed upon them. He was one of those who had all along welcomed the introduction of this Bill. He was one of those who looked to it as likely to affect very greatly the future of his country; and he was satisfied that if the scheme of the Government were carried out fairly and generously, it would tend very much to insure the prosperity not only of the occupiers of agricultural holdings, but of all classes of society in Ireland generally. He would appeal to the financial conscience of the Prime Minister, and would ask the right hon.

        417
        Gentleman if the Bill were made a real source of prosperity to the agricultural population of Ireland, what would inevitably follow? There would inevitably follow an increase in the deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks; and, as a natural consequence, it would inevitably follow that the money would be lent to the Government at £2 10 s. per cent, so that it was impossible in the long run, if the scheme was to work well, that the Government would lose anything by extending the repayments over a period of 52 years. There was another matter which was also of great importance. The primary thing the Government had to consider was how they could best in Ireland help the lame dog over the stile; and just as the poor tenant was able to realize a substantial advantage from the Government proposals, so would he become more thrifty and industrious, not only for his own interests, but as an example to his sons and daughters and the rest of his family. When, after 25 or 28 years of thrift and economy, such a man would only be too ready to say—" I am getting stronger and inheriting more money every day, and therefore I will free the land from the restrictions which now prevent me from sub-dividing and sub-letting." That was only human nature; and there was no question whatever about the security. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself admitted that the security was quite as good for 52 years as for 35 years. Nor was it a question of principle, because the principle had been conceded to the wealthier population of England; and the poorer class of Ireland had a perfect right to ask for the same concession. Indeed, it would be an unreasonable rebuke on the part of Her Majesty's Government if they declined to make the same concession to the demands of the Irish Members. The claim was one which was based upon justice, and it involved no financial loss to the Imperial Exchequer; and although it was sought to spread the repayment over a period of 52 years, he believed himself that, except in a very few instances, it would not mean more than 30 years.
        MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish to point out that the good effect of the proposals made by Her Majesty's Government must depend not merely upon the liberality of the State and of the
        418
        House and of the taxpayers generally, but in the efforts which are made by the recipients themselves. I understand the proposal now made to be this—that, instead of any efforts being made by the tenants themselves, they should go on paying just about the same sum they are paying now in rent, and that, in the end, they should obtain possession of the freehold. Now, this means no effort at all. We appeal to them to make some slight sacrifice themselves, in order to obtain the benefits of this Bill; and I very much think that if we put it as a claim on their part to become prospective landlords, we shall produce a great effect in the social character of the Irish people. It is not as though we were about to deal with a people who are inaccessible to the advantages of thrift. That is a popular delusion. They are not inaccessible to thrift. It has been prophesied that the scheme will fall through on account of the short time we have fixed for the repayment of these advances—namely, 35 years. I am perfectly certain that we run no danger of this kind. We have been told that we must nurse the people into the new arrangement; but that is not the way we should treat them. We should give them an opportunity at once of doing something for themselves, and of developing a little energy and resolution. One or two hon. Members have said that there is no elasticity in the Bill. On the contrary, I believe that there is great elasticity in it. There is elasticity up to 35 years, and surely that is elasticity enough. What other cases are there in which a borrower is not required to complete a bargain in 35 years? Some reference has been made to the generations over which the repayment is likely to extend. Now, I really think that if you were to fix the period at 52 years there is hardly a man who would incur the responsibility, expecting to clear off the advances within the term of his own life. I will only mention one other fact. Allusion has been made to the advances that were made for the purposes of education. I quite agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that we were throwing an entirely new burden upon the ratepayers, and that it was our duty to make it as easy as possible. I may add that I was somewhat interested myself in

        419
        getting that bargain effected, and I thought that I made a very good bargain for the ratepayers. I am sure of this—that if the matter had been thoroughly discussed at the time, I should not have made the bargain I did, but that it would have been found inconvenient, and would have been regarded as setting a bad precedent. In all probability the bargain would have been re-cast; and I may add that the loans now made to school boards are on very different terms.
        MR. MELDONsaid, that he rose to continue the discussion, although he was very anxious that the Bill should make as rapid progress as possible. But, in so doing, he wished to express his opinion that the most important Amendment which had come under the consideration of the Committee was under consideration at the present moment. The real question raised by the Amendment was, whether or not the Government scheme should, to a certain extent, fail or not? He had spoken to many of the farmers upon the subject—he had advocated its principles, and he had carefully studied the whole question over and over again; but he had always been of opinion, and he had invariably pointed it out to the poor farmers, that the scheme for establishing a peasant proprietary could not be of any good to the present generation. It was all very well to tell the farmers that they were laying aside a store for their children, and their children's children; but what they said was—"What will we, who are now in the occupation of the land, gain by becoming owners of the fee simple instead of paying rent?" The farmers in Ireland were a very clever and business-like set of men; and when they made their calculations, they ascertained that not only would they derive no benefit from the scheme at all, but that they would actually be called upon to pay—in the shape of the instalments necessary to repay the advances—a larger sum than they paid at present by way of rent. He had himself pointed out to the farmers the importance of having a freehold for their children, which at the end of 30 or 35 years should be free; but their reply almost invariably was—"Let us take care of ourselves, and let our children do the same. Why should we impose burdens upon ourselves for posterity?" Precedent, over and over again, had been
        420
        set for fixing a lengthened period for the repayment of instalments of borrowed money where the security was good. They had the precedent of the school boards, and the same precedent had been established, over and over again, in connection with other public bodies of the country. Many of them had been in the habit of borrowing money repayable in as long a period as 60 years, and the only question considered was whether the security was good. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland asked why the tenant farmers should not be called upon to do something for themselves. He wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that before any of these advances could be obtained at all the tenant farmer was himself bound to provide one-fourth of the purchase money, and that was doing a great deal for himself. Perhaps the Prime Minister would allow him to point out that the security the Government would have for the repayment of the instalments would be increasing year by year; every farthing paid by way of instalments made the security of the Government better. He did not think that the Irish people had been fairly treated in the way in which the proposal had been received by the Committee. There seemed to be a how against the Irish Members, as if they wanted a grant from the Consolidated Fund. They wanted nothing of the kind. The security was admitted to be perfect. As he had pointed out, it would be year by year increasing in value. He had also pointed out that over and over again there had been precedents for granting loans extending over a much longer period for purposes by no means as desirable as in the present case. It must also be borne in mind that this was a scheme which Parliament itself was fostering. Parliament desired the creation of a peasant proprietary, and had no doubt of its usefulness. He possessed personally very considerable knowledge of the subject, and he was prepared distinctly to tell the Government that they were taking upon themselves a very great responsibility if they refused the Amendment now before the Committee. No one had given more consideration to the question, and talked the matter more constantly over with the farmers, than himself; and he was in a position to de-

        421
        clare that they were thoroughly alive to the fact that, under this scheme, they would be called upon to provide not only a great portion of the purchase money, but a larger sum in the shape of annual instalments than they were now paying by way of rent. Unless the Bill was amended in the way the Irish Members desired, it would be found that scarcely three tenants would avail themselves of it; whereas, if a slight extension of the time for repayment was given, five would take advantage of it. He did not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) said about the amount of the purchase money being increased. That would not be so, but the number of cases in which the purchase would be made would be enormously increased. If it was necessary, it would be easy to give the Commissioners some discretion as to the amount of money they would advance. They would not allow the landlord to sell at an exorbitant price, because that would be a fraud; therefore, it was idle to suggest any difficulty of that kind would arise if they extended the period within which the instalments were to be paid. Hitherto he had not taken up the time of the Committee during the progress of the Bill, but, on the present occasion, he felt that he could not remain silent; and he wished to warn the Government in the most solemn way that the rejection of this Amendment would put in great peril the success of this most important part of the Bill. He certainly hoped that the Prime Minister would seriously consider the question before he rejected what was really the most important Amendment which had yet been moved.
        MR. CHAPLINsaid, he could not, as everyone knew, share the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in regard to the future effects of this part of the Bill. On the contrary, for his own part, he should be agreeably surprised if the clauses which related to the acquisition of land did not turn out in the long run to be clauses to pauperize Ireland. He quite recognized the force of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen); but if they were to embark in this scheme, they ought, at all events, to do all they could to give it a fair trial.
        422
        Judging from all he had heard, if they did not extend the time over which the repayments were to be made, he thought they would be throwing away the money they proposed to advance altogether. There was much valuable advice contained in the Report of the Sub-Commissioners, which had only just been laid on the Table of the House of Commons. In passing, he would express his astonishment at the absence of that Report for so long a time. He observed yesterday that something passed upon the subject, and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland said that some inquiries ought to have been made of the Richmond Commission, in order to account for the absence of the Report. Now, the fact was that the Report was sent in by the Richmond Commission in the month of January last, and its receipt was acknowledged by the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but from that time to this, for some reason or other, whether it was neglect or inadvertence he did not know, it had been withheld by the Government until quite a recent period. He certainly thought it was desirable that the Committee should have some explanation upon the point from the Government. And now what were the recommendations contained in that Report? Most of it was unfavourable to these purchase clauses altogether; but the Commissioners pressed upon Parliament that if the scheme was to be successful at all, the instalments ought to be extended over a longer period than 35 years. The Commission referred to the case of a man with a holding of 14 acres. They described the condition of that holding, and said that the state of affairs was not very favourable. The Report then went on to say that if the tenant, in addition to his rent, had to meet the instalments for the repayment of borrowed money, he would be very hardly pressed; and if the Government desired to give the system of creating a peasant proprietary a fair trial, the repayments of the instalments must be extended over a larger number of years, so that the actual payment each year would not be much more than the present rent. Personally, he saw the evils of the old system, and be should not have ventured to propose such a scheme as that at all. But what he was afraid of was that if the period for the repayment of the instalments was not ex-

        423
        tended, they would run the risk of throwing away the money altogether. The Commissioners pointed out that, whatever might be the condition of tenants elsewhere, the indiscriminate sale of holdings on such terms and conditions as those offered by the Commissioners of the Irish Church Temporalities had not done much towards creating a satisfactory class of peasant proprietors. The terms offered by the Church Commissioners differed in no material respect from the terms offered in the present Bill. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Except in regard to interest.] The Sub-Commissioners were, therefore, of opinion that if the present scheme was worth anything at all—and they were not inclined, from what they knew and had seen, to believe that it was—the period for the repayment of the advances must be considerably extended. Under these circumstances, he should feel inclined to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), if the hon. and learned Member went to a division, and principally for this reason—that he (Mr. Chaplin) was afraid that if some extension of time were not given they would run great risks of the money advanced being thrown away altogether.
        MR. DAWSONbegged altogether, on the part of the Irish people, in whose interests the measure was being proposed, to repudiate the idea, often put forward, that this proposed advance was an act of liberality, and a gift on the part of the British people to the Irish nation. It was nothing of the kind. In whatever way the money might be employed by the Irish people, the interest of the Imperial Exchequer was amply secured, and the whole of the advance would be repaid. He, therefore, entirely repudiated the idea that the English taxpayers were to put their hands into their pockets for the purpose of granting a charitable dole to the people of Ireland. The proposal of the Government was that the tenants should repay the advances at 5 per cent, under conditions that would be most expensive to them, nor would they receive an advance of the entire sum necessary for the purchase, but only three-fourths. The tenant would be left to his ingenuity to raise the rest, and the amount of the tax imposed upon him by way of repayment would be most severe. The right
        424
        hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to look at other cases. They had been supplied to him ad nauseam in the course of the debate; but he would quote another. Some time ago he had asked the Prime Minister to issue a small Commission, in order to enlighten the people of this country and hon. Members of that House as to the method in which similar questions were dealt with by other Governments. In Germany, if a tenant wished to become an owner, he could borrow the purchase money and repay it with interest. He asked the attention of the Committee to the figures, because they were more eloquent than any speech. The facts which he was referring to were published in a work upon Land Tenure by the Cobden Club. When a tenant in Germany desired to purchase in this manner, the repayment was spread over 45–12ths, or 56–12ths, according to the period at which he elected to free the holding from encumbrance. The tenant was offered 56–12ths at 5 per cent, and yet, in this case, the Government were only proposing to give a good tenant 35 years. The case he referred to in Germany was a parallel case; but a larger extension of time was granted to the tenant in that country, although the credit and the financial position of Germany was not at this moment one-half so great as that of Great Britain. He thought that afforded a complete answer to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that he could not, with safety to his financial conscience, extend the period proposed by the clause. Personally, he (Mr. Dawson) did not think that the financial conscience of the right hon. Gentleman, or his financial capacity—which could not be over-estimated—had anything to do with the question. But, on the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman displayed too great a willingness to give in to the idea that the English taxpayer was always to be the benevolent benefactor of the Irish nation.
        MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the Irish tenants had quite enough to do to pay their present rent, and he was sure they would not see the justice of paying a large sum in addition, in order that they might purchase their holdings for the benefit of their sons and their grandsons. If a man had to repay the purchase money in the course of 35 years,

        425
        he would have to pay the whole of it himself; whereas, if it was extended over 52 years, his sons and his grandsons would have to contribute. He thought the Amendment was a reasonable one, and he would support it by his vote.
        MR. BIGGAR(who rose amid cries of "Divide!") said, the subject was too important a one to be decided in an offhand manner; and he therefore wished to reply to some of the arguments which had been adduced, and to point out one or two considerations in the case which had not yet been placed before the Committee. It was alleged that the persons who bought up their holdings ought to make some effort on their own behalf; but the Government ought to know that the 25 per cent of the purchase money which the tenant had to pay before he could obtain an advance was a very heavy item for the tenant to raise, either from his own resources or by means of borrowed money. It was very desirable that the terms on which the Government lent the money should not be too onerous. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) strongly deprecated lending the money by the State for a very long term. In this case the length of time would depend very much on the circumstances of the case. If the State lent money on landed security, and only lent 75 per cent of the entire value of the holding, and charged 5 per cent for interest, he thought they ought to be prepared to extend the period of repayment over a considerable number of years. It certainly appeared to him that the terms on which the Government lent money to school boards and other public bodies, and on the security of buildings in towns, were much more liberal than those upon which they proposed to make those advances to the tenant farmers of Ireland. He believed that money lent on the security of land possessed a security immeasurably higher than money lent on buildings of such a fanciful nature as the present school board houses. Therefore, he thought that the proposition of the Government was altogether untenable. The object of the Government appeared to be to pass a Bill through Parliament which would look exceedingly well upon paper; but if it was to be passed in its present shape, he was satisfied it would be
        426
        found thoroughly unpractical when they came to bring it into working order. He trusted that they would withdraw their present proposition, and frame a clause that would not only be workable, but offer fair inducement to the Irish people to avail themselves of it. If the Government placed the terms of the advances too high, they might depend upon it that the Irish farmers would not take advantage of the provisions of the Bill. Upon all these reasons, he appealed to the Government to reconsider the question, and see whether or not they could not adopt some reasonable and bonâ fide Amendment.
        MR. BYRNE(who rose amid loud cries of "Divide!" said, he regarded the question as one of very great importance, and as likely to unsettle all the good that might otherwise be done by the Bill. It was believed when the Government introduced the Bill that their intention of allowing the tenant farmers to become peasant proprietors was a bonâ fide intention, and that they would offer the tenants substantial advantages for the purpose of enabling them to purchase their holdings; but, having drawn the line at an advance of three-fourths of the purchase money, it was unfair not only to restrict the amount of the advance, but also to limit the period for the repayment to 35 years. The principle of buying property in that way was not a new one; but it had been solved in England by the working men themselves, who had established societies for the purpose of purchasing freehold property, and had successfully carried out their operations in Rochdale, Birmingham, Bradford, Liverpool, and all over England; but hitherto these freeholds had been purchased for a political purpose, in order to confer the right of citizenship and the possession of votes upon the purchaser.
        And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again this day.
        And it being now five minutes to Seven of the clock, House supended its Sitting.
        House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Progress resumed.
  Clause 22 (Terms of repayment of advances made by Commission).
  Amendment again proposed,
  In page 14, line 36, to leave out the words "for thirty-five years of five pounds," in order to insert the words "which shall redeem both principal and interest within any period not exceeding fifty-two years at the discretion of the Land Commission, such annuity to be calculated at a rate which shall secure to the Land Commission interest at the rate of three pounds ten shillings per annum,—(Mr. Charles Russell,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'for thirty-five years' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BYRNEsaid, that in asking the Committee to approve of and adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), he desired to point out that it was of vast importance to the tenants of Ireland, and not only to them, but to the people of England and to Her Majesty's Government in preserving law and order, and in establishing a proper Government in Ireland. He would venture to say that if the clause was amended by the extension of time suggested, it would be a stronger weapon in the hands of the Chief Secretary than all the police and all the soldiers and bayonets in that unfortunate country. They had heard from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House that in discussing this Bill they ought not to be too critical as to the number of years given for payment, as by so doing they would be looking a gift horse in the mouth. This Bill, as it stood, however, was not a gift horse. It was a white elephant, and he was not disposed to be very thankful for it. A horse he could manage, but an elephant he was not so sure of being able to take in hand. If this clause was to be operative, if it was to be used and not to be a dead letter like other clauses in previous Acts of Parliament, the Committee should see that it was possible to work it as it was, or as it was to be amended. It would not be sufficient for the tenants to get the advances if they did not, in the first place, get the land at a fair price. They must extend the time for repayment over such a period that it would be possible for the farmer to pay the periodical
  428
  instalments to the Company or Association, or whoever had advanced the remaining 25 per cent to him. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) had looked upon this question more as a Money Vote, and as a matter affecting the National Exchequer, than as a question of Liberal policy or of statesmanship. In this matter, however, there was nothing specially for the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, indeed, for the opinion of any official. They were discussing the question of a broad and proper policy for the Government of this or any other country to act on. It was admitted by the Prime Minister that the question of security did not arise, or that it was ample. And then it had been said that the matter should be looked at from a commercial point of view. He, however, was of opinion that it should not be looked at from a commercial point of view. The state of things in Ireland at the present time was such that most Governments would regret, if they were not actually ashamed of it. Ireland being a part of what was called the United Kingdom, it was entitled, if not to liberality, at all events to justice and fair play. It was admitted by right hon. Gentlemen now on the Government Benches that in the past Ireland had not had justice. The condition of things which had prevailed in that country was the cause of the Committee being now engaged on this Bill. It was the cause of the Bill being now before the House, because, without some such measure of justice being meted out to Ireland, it was very doubtful what the results would be. They had also the authority of the Prime Minister for saying that if the Bill did not pass this year, the next time it was introduced it would be a stronger measure, more in favour of the tenants and less in favour of the landlords. This was not a question between the English and Irish people, but it was a question on which the English Government had arrived at that stage when they found it necessary to say—"We must, in justice to the people of Ireland, give them some instalment of that which has so long been their due." They had arrived at that part of the Bill in which they had to say by what means that instalment of justice should be given. Well, the Government in the clause that had been passed offered e certain advance to assist

  429
  the tenants to buy their freehold, and the Committee had now come to the clause which specified the terms on which that assistance should be given. The Government proposed that the repayment of capital and interest should cover 35 years, and the Amendment was to the effect that that time should be extended to 52 years; and it was stated that it would be uncommercial and un-business-like to look for a period beyond that. He was very happy to hear from a previous speaker that this was a time when finance was easy and when funds could be easily raised at 3 per cent; and he, therefore, could not see why the extension asked for could not be granted. It had been said that other countries had advanced money for longer periods and, in some cases, at lower rates of interest. There was one country which had not been mentioned—namely, Belgium. He would remind the Committee of this—that in the case of house property in the city of Brussels, the Government had advanced money for the purpose of acquiring house property for as long a period as 66 years. If that had been done merely for the purpose of assisting the citizens of Brussels to ornament the city, and make it something like the handsome city of Paris, surely Her Majesty's Government would be justified in extending the period of the advances to the Irish tenants from 31 to 52 years. In doing that they would not be going beyond precedent; and, over and above the red-tape view of the matter taken by Finance Ministers, there was the question of settling the disturbed state of Ireland, and assisting the Irish people at no cost whatever to England. They were not giving this money away. They were only lending on what was called good, ample, and sufficient security; and that being so—as the money was absolutely certain to be repaid—there was sufficient reason why they should extend the time for repayment. They ought, also, to keep this in view—that every year's and half-year's instalment would make the security better, and that there was scarcely any possibility of having to face, under any circumstances, a bad debt. He might refer to several instances in this country where the line was not drawn at lending three-fourths of the purchase money. In all the great towns of England, if an artizan wanted to buy his house, he could always
  430
  get the necessary sum advanced—especially in Manchester, where there were some very sharp people living, and where seven-eighths could be obtained. In this way a man could easily acquire a stake in the country. Nothing made a man a greater admirer of law and order than to hold property, and to have a stake in the country; and, in order that these happy results might be brought about in Ireland, he asked the Prime Minister and the Government to accept the Amendment and increase the period over which these repayments could be made. If they did, he hoped the Prime Minister would live for many years to see the good results of his handiwork.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, the people of the West of Ireland suffered a great deal more from bad harvests than did the people in other parts of the country, and they would be much less able to pay in 35 years than any of their more favoured countrymen. Seeing that the people of Ireland had set their hearts so much on having peasant proprietors, the Government should not neglect their wishes.
  MR. MACLIVERsaid, the hon. Member for Wexford County (Mr. Byrne) deprecated this question being treated as a commercial one. It was, however, entirely a commercial question. It was a question of money. It had been suggested that the Government might issue paper, and need not advance money; but that was a complete fallacy, because, if paper were to be issued, it must surely be represented by something behind it. And then, again, the Government could not be expected to advance money for an indefinite period. The system of the Government advancing money at all in this way was something totally unusual in their experience in this country. What would be thought of an English trader if he went to the Government and said he could not take certain premises unless the Government advanced him 75 per cent? It would be delusive, if not ruinous, to do such a thing; and he was surprised that any Irish Members who had any commercial experience, or knew anything at all about monetary affairs, could come to that House and claim as they did, not merely this 75 per cent, but a great deal more—an extension of time for repayment which would be altogether out of place in any private business.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDdoubted if hon. Members opposite had seen the full bearing of the proposal they were advocating. It would certainly be to the interest of the landlords if the period for repayment of these loans were prolonged to 50 years. There could not be a shadow of a doubt that if the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) were adopted by the Committee, every tenant in Ireland who set out to purchase his estate would have to give more for it than he would under other circumstances, because it would be represented that payment would be spread over 50 years instead of 35, and, therefore, that he could afford to give more for the property. He (Mr. Arnold) supported the clause, and thought that if the Committee had a close and economic regard, not only for the interests of the State, but for the interests of the tenants, they would accept the proposal of the Government. When the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Byrne) had spoken of what the towns had done in this matter, and when he mentioned the great district from which he (Mr. Arnold) came, he could not but remember that at the time when Lancashire was so sorely and deeply distressed, an Act was passed allowing loans to be granted, in which it was stipulated that these advances were to be repaid within 30 years. He should support the proposal of the Government.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, it had been stated that this was purely a commercial question. He could not help thinking it was a question of the pacification of Ireland. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members said "No!" but those Liberals who had told them that they had been doing their best for Ireland for many years past ought to know that the great cause of the present discontent in Ireland was the land system. Why did they press the Amendment on Her Majesty's Government? It was because they believed that the solution of the Land Question would be found in the substitution of occupying ownership for the present system, and that, by passing the Amendment, they would facilitate the creation of that system of occupying ownership. The Government had spent a great deal of time and trouble over this Bill; and he was willing to admit, from a legal point of view, that its pro-
  432
  visions effected a great revolution in the law of real property in Ireland. But could it be denied that before they had proceeded to effect this revolution by their Bill a social revolution had already been effected in Ireland—that the land system had been broken down by the people. The Government were now merely attempting to patch it up by a change which, if made 10 years ago, would probably have settled the Land Question. It had been said that they must consider the question of the British taxpayer. He wondered whether they considered the interests of the British taxpayer when they plunged into and spent millions upon foreign wars? Were they consulting the interests of the British taxpayer when they kept 40,000 armed men in Ireland to keep down a defenceless and disarmed people? ["Question!"] This was the Question. They knew that if they did not settle the Land Question effectually, they never could withdraw their troops from Ireland. If they had to keep 40,000 armed men in Ireland for years, then the British taxpayer would suffer immensely. The only way for them to settle this matter was by extending the provisions of this part of the Bill; and before 12 months had passed he feared the Government would be of the same opinion. The best way to convince men that you were right was to let them see that they were wrong; therefore, he was content to see the Bill pass in its present form. When they saw litigation taking place in Ireland of a character never known before, when they saw that every man whose rent was raised was dissatisfied, and every man whose rent was lowered was dissatisfied, and when they saw, also, that all the landlords were dissatisfied, they would see the mistake they were now committing. There was one part of this Bill which had met with a good reception from all classes of Land Reformers—namely, the part before the Committee, taken in connection with the Amendment proposed. When the Government saw that all Irish Members of different politics were in favour of the Amendment, why did they not support it? It was the fashion to say—"Oh, you Irish Members are not united; if you were united, and came with a fair and reasonable proposition, it would be accepted." Well, they came now with a

  433
  fair and reasonable proposition. Reference had been made to the Report of the Assistant Commissioners, and it had been pointed out that the sales which had been held under the Irish Church Act had not, in all cases, been to the benefit of the tenants. Let them take two cases, and hon. Gentlemen would see why these purchases had not been to the benefit of the tenants. In one case a woman had saved £20 before the purchase. She was the tenant of six acres, on which she resided, and she used to hire four other acres. When she obtained these 10 acres of land from the Commissioners, she had to get indentures of conveyance, and she had to pay her £20 to a local attorney for costs. She was compelled to borrow £36, and on that she had to pay 25 per cent, and she had to raise £14 on a loan at a high rate of interest. She regretted very much that she ever purchased; and hon. Members would not wonder at it. The charge upon this woman, for interest and capital, had been more than double the old rent, and, in addition to that, she had had to pay all the rates. The Irish Members asked the Government to extend the period of payment, to lower the rate of interest, and to allow these poor people, if possible, to become purchasers of their holdings at no greater annual cost than the rent which they had been paying. If these people had been maintaining themselves on their holdings at a certain annual rent for the last 30 years, they had every reason to believe that they would be able to maintain themselves for 50 years at the same rent. Every day they were feeling more and more convinced that the time was coming when they would be owners of the land, and they would, therefore, have the stimulus to work which came from ownership of the soil. They were told that the prosperity of the State was increasing; but the Irish tenant had not improved his position—and why? It was because of the fear he had always had of being turned out of his holding. He would ask the Prime Minister whether he thought the system of occupying-ownership was good for Ireland? If he did, it was fair to ask him why he did not increase the facilities for bringing it about? The right hon. Gentleman mistook the character of the Irish people, if he believed that when one-third could, on easy terms, become the
  434
  owners of their property, the other two-thirds would remain satisfied and contented. The Government had now a splendid opportunity for putting an end to this agrarian agitation—an agitation which had come up from time to time for centuries, sometimes under a social and sometimes under a political phase. The right hon. Gentleman had his chance now. He had the whole of the great Liberal Party at his back; the landlords and tenants in Ireland agreed in the provisions of the Bill. Would the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment, which would, by lessening the amount the tenants would have yearly to pay, considerably lighten their burdens, and enable them to look forward to becoming the owners of their own farms?
  MR. BARRYsaid, the Amendment was the most important which had been submitted to the Committee, and he was sure that if it were adopted it would greatly enhance the value of the Bill in the eyes of the Irish people. This was the one part of the Bill which had raised something like hope and confidence in the Irish people; but he was greatly afraid that that hope and confidence would be seriously diminished if the Amendment were not accepted. In the face of the almost unanimous opinion of the Irish Members—in the face of the strong expressions of opinion they had heard in favour of the Amendment from both sides of the Committee—it was a great mistake for Her Majesty's Government to offer such a stubborn resistance to the proposal. The Prime Minister should remember some of the circumstances of the passing of the Bill of 1870. The Government of that day might have heard some very strong expressions of opinion from the Irish Members, but they turned a deaf ear to them—they successfully resisted the appeal made to them—and what was the result? Why, it was this—that the Bill which had been looked forward to for so many years was nothing but a fiasco and a failure. The only argument offered from the Treasury Bench against this Amendment was that its adoption would be an outrage upon the commercial conscience; but that seemed to him an insufficient reason to advance. If it were an outrage on the financial conscience, from whence did the pressure come? The risk was not increased,

  435
  the security to the State would not be in any way diminished. They were not asking for a grant from the Consolidated Fund, but only that the time of payment should be extended from 35 to 52 years. This would be a great boon to the Irish people, and no less to the Government; and, looking at the great uncertainty which attended the agricultural future, not knowing what would be the effect in the next few years of foreign competition, in the interest of the public it should be the policy of the Government to render the burden on the shoulders of the Irish tenantry as light as possible. He sincerely hoped Her Majesty's Government would reconsider this matter. He had been in correspondence with many individuals of that class of farmers who were likely to become purchasers under the Bill, and it was their unanimous opinion that if the time of payment could be slightly extended the advantage to their position would be very great—very much wider and more general. There was another important reason to be advanced in support of the Amendment—namely, that it would go a long way towards meeting English opinion on the matter of sub-division. By its adoption sub-division would be prevented for a much longer period than would otherwise be the case. He did not himself think there was much fear that in many cases the full 52 years would be taken advantage of. His opinion was that the time of repayment would be considerably shortened by the adoption of the Amendment. The effort that would be made by the Irish tenantry to secure a quarter of the purchase money would be such a severe strain on their resources that they would be left extremely bare, and with little or no capital to commence those improvements which were necessary and which they would be anxious to make after purchasing their holdings. If the term were extended it would enable them to accumulate capital, and they would be able in a few years, by the profits on their investments, to increase their instalments and to pay off the debt in a shorter period. He knew how intense was the feeling in Ireland on this subject; and he earnestly hoped the Government would re-consider their decision, and that the right hon. Gentleman would not so stubbornly refuse to concede what was demanded.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, it must be a matter of mortification to Her Majesty's Government to see the spirit in which this proposal had been, he could not say received, but met by some hon. Members; and he could not help thinking that the Government, in this matter, had gone a long way towards the pacification of Ireland. It appeared to him that they had gone to the very utmost limit to which they were justified in going, or to which they could expect to carry the Committee. They were doing that which no public Company and no individual in the country would do—namely, proposing to advance, at a very low rate of interest, three-fourths of the value of any holding that a tenant might choose to purchase. He considered that the State in that respect was in the position of a trustee for the taxpayers, and that they were bound to observe those rules which a prudent trustee would observe in a transaction of this kind; and he ventured to say that no trustee would be justified, even on the very best security, in carrying advances further than the Government now proposed to do. The Government had not only to consider this, but they had to consider what their position would be in making these advances. It was necessary, and they were perfectly justified in requiring, that the party to whom they made this advance should afford some security for the propriety of that advance by a contribution on his part of a certain amount. Unless they had that guarantee they might be wasting public money by making advances to those who were totally unfit to receive them. As he had said, the Government were engaged at this moment in operations that no private individual in the country would undertake, and they must consider not only that, but what their position would be in the future when they had to require the repayment of these advances. They would be in the position of mortgagees of property, and not only mortgagees in an ordinary sense, but mortgagees of tenantry who were impoverished, and who would have large claims upon their consideration when the instalments were in arrear through agricultural depression and other causes. They might find great difficulty in enforcing payment, and might be met by continual claims on their compassion outside the precincts

  437
  of the House as well as within. All these things should be present before the Government. Her Majesty's Ministers had before them the Report of Messrs Baldwin and Robertson with regard to the advances made by the Church Temporalities Commissioners. The Government must have had those advances in view when they contemplated the operations of this Bill. It was, therefore, not only that they were going to the fullest extent that they could go; but they had before them circumstances that must throw grave doubts upon the success of the operation, even to the extent they now proposed to go. For his own part; he did not think the Government should carry the matter one step farther than they now proposed to do. They had given the tenant every opportunity of purchasing his holding which a Government ought to afford, and beyond that they would not be justified in going.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he concurred in the view that had been expressed that it was the duty of the Committee to join the Government in resisting assaults upon the Exchequer, in order to assist agricultural operations in Ireland. He hoped the Government would resist every advance beyond the limit of 75 per cent; and he could not disguise from himself that even going to that length they had made a great stretch of their financial conscience. It was idle to deny that they were advancing further than any private individual would go at this moment in regard to landed property, and it was to be justified not on considerations of financial policy, but on general considerations. But, having taken that step, he did not think the question of whether the sinking fund would best extinguish the debt in 35 or 52 years was an important one, or one involving any financial difficulty. There must be a risk in any case, and he did not think it would be increased by adopting the longer in place of the shorter period. The risk would occur in the first few years. The first three or four years would be the critical period. The danger he feared with regard to these advances was that supposing a general repayment was fixed according to the scale on which rent was paid in Ireland, and if, soon after that was done, they had a repetition of the extremely bad seasons they had lately experienced, or an in-
  438
  crease in American competition, the Irish tenants would fall into the same plight that, he believed, the majority of English tenants had fallen into. Under the Quick sinking fund, no doubt, as much would be paid up in four years as would be paid up in five years under the slow sinking fund; but, on the other hand, he thought the slow sinking fund would be more likely to enable them successfully to get over the critical period than the other. If he were, as a private individual, making the advance, he was by no means sure that he should not prefer the longer sinking fund to the shorter. With regard to the advances made to private Companies or to Corporations in England and Scotland, he did not think the case was analogous to that under discussion. The advances were made on local considerations, and not on considerations of public policy. As a matter of public policy, these advances were rather discouraged than otherwise; but, in the case of the tenants of Ireland, it was right to assume that for purposes of public policy it would be wise to encourage individuals to avail themselves of these advances. The question was one of general policy; and, from that point of view, he did not think there was much to choose between the two proposals. If the Government could see their way to meeting the wishes of the Irish Representatives, he, for one, should be very glad of it; but, on the other hand, he must say that if, after due consideration, they thought it necessary to stand on the clause, and take it to a division, he should certainly vote for them, for the reason that, like the country generally, he owed a deep debt of gratitude to the Government for having brought in the Bill, and for the manner in which they had conducted it. He could not help feeling, as a practical man, that the best way to pass the Bill was to give up their own crotchets and particular views, and to give the Government, on these contested questions, as large a majority as possible, in order that difficulties might be avoided in "another place." He would advise hon. Members opposite not to press this Amendment to a division, because they must know that they could not carry it, and that great difficulties would be placed in the way of its re-consideration by the Government. No doubt, if between this and the Report the Govern-

  439
  meat re-considered the matter and found they could meet the wishes of the Irish Members, they would do so.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that, as he was responsible for the Amendment, he would say a word as to the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Laing). He (Mr. C. Russell) very much regretted that a division had not been taken on the Amendment before this. The division should have taken place at the Morning Sitting; but he was not responsible for what had occurred. He would say at once, in answer to the hon. Member (Mr. Laing), that if the Prime Minister were to hold out any reasonable expectation that the not pressing of the proposal might meet with a favourable result—he did not ask for a definite pledge with regard to its acceptance—as far as it rested with himself he should not press the Amendment to a division. But if the Prime Minister had—to use an expression more than once adopted during these discussions—put his foot down, then he failed entirely to see what he had to gain by not pressing the Amendment. Before he sat down he must say that he utterly and entirely repudiated the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), and the suggestion which had come from the other side, that this was an attempt on the part of the Irish Members to make an attack upon the Consolidated Fund. Hon. Members who said that entirely misunderstood the position of this question. The question of the amount of advance which was to be made by the Land Commission out of the Consolidated Fund was already settled, was a thing past and gone, and he did not hesitate to say yesterday—at the risk of some misconstruction on the part of some hon. Members in the House, and on the part of many more people out of it—that he did not and could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), who desired to give discretion to the Land Commission to advance the whole, and moved to render it compulsory upon the Land Commission to advance four-fifths. He did not wish to see the growth of a peasant proprietary artificially forced on those who were not willing to make efforts to secure ownership. But what he (Mr. C. Russell) had advocated was that the Land Commis-
  440
  sion should have the power of lending up to four-fifths and no more. His Amendment had been spoken of as one which would render it compulsory on the Land Commission to allow 52 years for repayment; but that was an entire mistake. All that was desired was, in the appropriate language of the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), that there should be, in this respect, a reasonable elasticity in the Bill. In the measure, 35 years was laid down, and all that they proposed was that there should be a proper elasticity between 35 and 52 years. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister should have such an intensity of feeling as he had several times manifested on this question, when the sum and substance of the whole matter was simply to give the Land Commissioners the power, if they chose in a proper case to exercise it, to extend the period for repayment. He (Mr. C. Russell) was extremely pained to hear the Prime Minister, during the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, applaud the suggestion that he was extremely mortified at the course taken on this Amendment. He (Mr. C. Russell) should be extremely sorry to be a party in that House to giving mortification to the right hon. Gentleman, unless compelled by a sense of duty to do so; but the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him for saying there was not the slightest cause for pain or mortification. No one had said more emphatically than he (Mr. C. Russell) had himself, over and over again, that this was a Bill of a great statesman. He had said it out of the House, and he had said it in the House, and he should never cease to think so. But surely the Prime Minister was too magnanimous to be mortified at their strenuous efforts to make this Bill, upon which his (the Prime Minister's) fame would so materially rest in the future, effective for the objects for which he sought to pass it. He might be wrong in the Amendment, and he should be sorry pertinaciously to set up his judgment against the right hon. Gentleman's; but each man must act to the best of his belief. The opinion he (Mr. C. Russell) had formed, from communications made to him from many and different quarters, was, as had been already observed, that the really trying time of the operation of this Bill

  441
  would be the earlier years; and, therefore, it was desirable that the tenants should not be denuded of every penny they had in the world in the first two or three years after the purchase, they should be left some small capital to work upon. The tenantry, when they acquired possession of the land, should be in a position to develop their holdings with advantage to themselves and to the State. He begged again to repeat that this was not a question of putting their hands any deeper into the pockets of the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) has expressed the pain he felt at having to differ so widely from my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government upon this matter. I may say that I feel the same pain that I have to differ on the subject of this Amendment with the hon. and learned Gentleman, who knows a great deal about Ireland, and has not only written very ably about it, but has in this House rendered much assistance in carrying through many portions of this Bill. Therefore, he will understand that I do not rise immediately after him for the purpose of quarrelling with what he has said, or the temper he has shown in the observations he has made. And when I say temper, I mean the moderate and proper temper he has shown. It seems to me that the discussion of the question before us is very much like that which we had yesterday. The Government proposed £75, and Members from Ireland were, I think, unanimous in wishing that the advance should be £80 in the £100. Some who were in favour of the whole £100 being advanced by the Government moved an Amendment for the larger sum. The question, as it presents itself to my mind, and as I think it would if I were not an occupant of this Bench, is this—looking at it as a whole, 75 per cent and 35 years for repayment appears to be a broad, generous, and reasonable offer. It cannot be an unreasonable proposition. I think it might be accepted almost as unanimously by the Irish Members as it has been by some, and by Members who are not from Ireland. I hold it, therefore, to be a reasonable and great proposal, and one which I think, were I an Irish Member or an English Member sitting upon any other Bench, and looking to the mea-
  442
  sure as a whole, I should be willing to support the Government in endeavouring to carry through Committee. As I said yesterday, I have as strong a feeling in favour of this portion of the Bill as any Member of this House can possibly have, and I object to the Amendment as a friend of the policy of creating proprietary occupiers in Ireland. I object to it simply on that ground. If I did not care so much about it, if it were not a matter of interest to me, I should feel less on this question than I do at this moment. One thing is certain. If you adopt 52 years, you postpone for every man who becomes a buyer the time when he becomes entirely the owner of his property, and I think in that way you diminish in some degree the interest that he feels in his holding, and I am afraid you will thus diminish—and that was the argument used by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland—the stimulus you wish to give the cultivator—and which is nowhere more required than in Ireland—to do his very utmost to redeem himself and the land from the burden which for so many years must rest upon him. I think one of the great misfortunes of Ireland, partly owing to the system of land tenure, and partly to long habit, is that there is great slovenliness in cultivation. I say nothing as to the desire of the Irish people to save money, because I believe they carry their thrift absolutely to penuriousness, and make more sacrifices to save than probably any other class of persons in the Three Kingdoms. But, owing to the state of things in the country, there is great slovenliness of cultivation, and, therefore, the stimulus ought to be the greater. Another thing presents itself to my mind. If you were to agree to advance the whole of the amount, and then fix a long period for repayment, you would have every tenant in Ireland immediately anxious to become the purchaser of his farm. Hon. Gentlemen would say it would be a very good thing if all the tenants were in possession of their farms. I do not deny that at all in bulk; but I say there are a great number of tenants to whom, at present, I think it would be no great blessing to be in the position of owners. I have no wish to drive out landed proprietors from Ireland. I should like to see estates in Ireland from £10 up to £10,000, so long as land is free, and

  443
  not held by the force of law. Then let great, and middle size, and small estates exist, as they naturally would exist, throughout the country. Any proposal for driving out proprietors from Ireland is one which I should say was not warranted by a sense of justice, or a real knowledge of what is best for a population. Suppose you gave a larger advance, or a longer period for repayment, you would, in my opinion, urge beyond what is reasonable and useful, the tenants of Ireland to buy their farms on any terms, and I believe the result would be that there would be, as there always is—I am not blaming the Irish tenants for it, for probably all men would do the same—there would be a rash rushing forward to obtain possession of farms at almost any price, and I believe that would tend very much to increase unduly the price of land in Ireland. Perhaps you might give the proprietors whom you get rid of—and that might be a consolation to Gentlemen opposite—a larger price than they would otherwise get; but I believe the ultimate result would be that the tenantry would lose as much on the one side as they would gain on the other. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, following the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), spoke of elasticity in regard to this matter. Why should not the Commission have power to do as they liked for the 52 years? Elasticity must act within 52 years, and by the present Bill within 35 years. But if you put 52 years in the Bill, the very same thing would happen as with 35 years. The 52 years would become the rule in the one case, and the 35 years would become the rule under this Bill. We know there are persons—I hope there are many such persons—who would not require 35 years; who would be anxious to pay off their liability much within that time; and, in so far as the action of the Commission went, I believe that if the Amendment were carried it would be laying down a rule from which the Commission could not in any considerable degree, if at all, swerve, and the 52 years would be a common line with regard to this question. That, I think, answers the argument upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman laid some stress. The fact is, there never was a Commission or a Court established, I believe, by any sane assembly that had more power
  444
  given to it, and in which there was more elasticity, than there will be in regard to this Court. When you come to a question of money, and it has to be advanced or repaid, it appears to be absolutely necessary and wise to fix the point beyond which the Commission shall not go. If you do not fix upon such a point, we know not where they will go; but if you fix the point at 52 years, I have not the smallest doubt that that period will become the rule throughout the whole of the transactions under this Bill. I said I was as much interested as any living man in the success of this measure; but my opinion is that the success of the measure will be more consulted by adopting the line of 35 years than the line of 52. I do not wish to see a great rush of the tenantry of Ireland to get all their farms under this Bill. I would rather see it work steadily, beginning with a moderate number of applications on two or three considerable estates in the first few years, and increasing as experience followed with the growth of the whole scheme; but I believe it is possible you might invite or induce so many tenants to buy that in ease there should be any considerable fall in the value of land, and in rents a corresponding fall, and a fall in the price of products in the next few years, you might have hundreds, and possibly thousands, of tenants who, having become possessed of their farms under this Bill, found themselves in great difficulty, and would then turn upon Parliament and the Government and say we had invited them and urged them to a course which had produced great embarrassment, and possibly ruin, to many of them. That is one very strong reason we have for adhering to the 35 years' rule. I am sure that in great transactions like these it is far better to proceed steadily, and within lines which you feel you understand, than to go beyond them and run the risks we think we might if we were to invite tenants, with little consideration and much recklessness, to endeavour to become the owners of their farms. These are the reasons which make me believe—and not because the 35 years' limit is in the Bill, for I held this opinion before the Bill was framed, and which I should hold now if I sat on any other Bench—these are the reasons why I am satisfied, profoundly anxious as I am that this Bill,

  445
  and this particular part of it, should become a great success in future years, we shall do wiser by taking the Bill as it stands than by taking the Amendment offered by my hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he would confess that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Bright) staggered his intention to address the Committee; but there were one or two considerations which he thought would justify him in intruding on the Committee for a few minutes. He felt that the Premier in making the offer of a three-fourth's advance for 35 years had, from his point of view, done a very generous thing for the Irish people, and made a concession for which the Irish Members would be grateful. When, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) intervened in the debate, his respect for that right hon. Member's financial conscience was not equally strong. The difference between the consciences of the two right hon. Gentlemen was as wide as the poles asunder. He felt a little "riled"—if the Committee would forgive a homely expression—at the unfriendly spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) had spoken of Irish interests. It ill-became the right hon. Gentleman to manifest such a spirit, and his financial conscience should not be so tender. His financial antecedents might have made him less liberal on questions of this kind; but when he assumed a tone of authority, and pronounced strongly against the Irish people, he (Mr. M'Coan) felt it his duty to express his opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's action. Both the Irish people and the Government appeared to be in accord in the feeling that the real solution of the Irish agrarian difficulty was the establishment of a peasant proprietary. The Irish people and the Irish Members had looked forward to this part of the Bill as the one grand cure for the evils of the present land system in Ireland; and they had hoped, when the limit of 35 years was fixed, that that term would be extended, or, failing that, that a lower rate of interest than 3½ per cent would be charged, if the whole of the purchase money were not granted. But when the Government put their foot down and adhered to 35 years, they were not carrying the concessions in this Bill very much beyond the Bill of 1870,
  446
  which was practically a non-success. The main inducement to the Irish tenants to avail themselves of these purchase provisions would be the hope of purchasing at a cheaper rate than their present rents. The existing generation of Irish tenants would not be greatly tempted to go and buy their land at the cost of an increase; but they would be tempted by an extension of the term for repayment, or a reduction in the rate of interest. Unless the tenant was shown that by purchasing his farm he would obtain a practical reduction of his present rate, he would not buy, but would leave his sons or grandsons to do so, and be content to avail himself of the "three F's" clauses. Seeing that the Government would incur no danger, he thought it was not asking an undue concession from the Government to ask the Prime Minister before Report to re-consider the determination to which he had hastily come to-day. If the Premier would make some concession, however small, it would be gratefully regarded by the Irish Members; and in the future stages of the Bill the Prime Minister might, he believed, rely upon their support.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I must say that I think that this discussion is an illustration of the inconvenience which arises from boldly throwing aside all the rules of political economy, and telling us that there are higher motives which ought to guide us in our dealings; but really I do think that the proposal which is now made is one which the House would be very unwise to assent to. We have before us a most liberal proposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and I own I think, if it sins at all, it sins on the side of being too liberal. The immediate effect of a proposal of that sort is to suggest demands for something further; and if I rightly understand the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. M'Coan) his contention is that the tenant should pay something less than his present rent, and finally become the owner in fee simple of the land he occupies. These suggestions remind me of the passage in Horace—
  "Dam septem donat sestertia, mutua septem Promittit; persuadet uti mercetur agellum."
  We are to give certain advantages to the tenant with one hand, and promise him loans with the other, persuading

  447
  him by all means to be so good as to buy his holding. We are told that his position as a tenant under the Bill will be so excellent that he will need a great deal of persuasion to buy, and we must offer something still sweeter than we have offered him before. If we go on in this way, heaping temptation on temptation to induce the tenant to take our terms, the conclusion one must come to is that we are on a wrong path. For myself, I confess that I do not like the proposals which have been made by the Government. I have endeavoured, as far as I can, to accommodate myself to them; but I am certainly not disposed to go beyond them.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he wished to join in the appeal to Government to re-consider the position they had taken in regard to this Amendment. The Irish Members had been met with a plea that this touched very nearly the financial conscience of the Prime Minister; but that financial conscience of the Prime Minister was not so tender when he was heaping additional financial burdens upon Ireland some years ago. They had found out, from time to time, all through the history of their country, that the consciences of English Ministers, and of the English Government, had stood very much in the way of justice to Ireland. At one time a religious conscience was in the ascendant, and Ireland suffered centuries of persecution. England's political conscience had imposed subjugation on Ireland, and the destruction of Irish liberties.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is going much beyond the Question.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he was using these illustrations to show that the idea of a financial conscience ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of any concession of ordinary justice to Ireland. The commercial conscience of England had resulted in the ruin of the trade of Ireland. What should be the first dictate of the financial conscience? To pay what you owe; but had England paid to Ireland what she owed her? No; neither from the financial point of view, nor, indeed, any other, had she discharged her debt to Ireland, and the Prime Minister had admitted the fact. England owed Ireland hundreds of millions of money; England had pauperized Ireland, and still owed her a very large
  448
  debt of reparation. England had robbed Ireland by over taxation.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not confining himself to the Question before the Committee, which is whether 35 years shall remain in the clause?
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN,continuing, said, they were told that the Prime Minister had put his foot down; but a well-known American writer had said that no man could go through the world with his foot down. The Prime Minister had put his foot down before now, and had also had to take it up again. There was quite as much honour sometimes in taking a foot up as there was in putting it down; and he thought the present was an occasion when the Prime Minister might very properly, if he had put his foot down, take it up again. It was all very well to speak of smoothing the passage of this Bill; but surely the great object was not to smooth the measure in Parliament, but rather to smooth it for Ireland. The proposal was a reasonable one. It would cost nothing to the English Exchequer; and he urged the Prime Minister, seeing that Irish opinion was so unanimous, and that the proposal was supported by reason and common sense, not to stand upon the financial consideration he had dwelt upon, but to improve the Bill in order to commend it to the Irish people, thereby adding to the chance of its producing the great results desired.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 70: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 297.)
  MR. M'COANproposed, in page 14, line 37, to leave out the word "five," in order to insert "four." The Government, he remarked, had resisted the appeal of the Irish Members to extend the term of 35 years, and they had been justified in that by the division; but he felt that he had just as much faith now as he had before in the friendly desire of the Government to do what was right to the Irish farmers. He would, therefore, urge upon the Prime Minister, as he would not consent to extend the term for the advance, he would consent to a reduction of the interest to be paid on the advance. The proposal would not prejudice in any way the Imperial Exchequer, and he hoped the Prime Mi-

  449
  nister would therefore be disposed to accede to it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 37, to leave out the word "five," in order to insert the word "four,"—(Mr. M'Coan,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GLADSTONEthought the hon. Member could really not be serious in making this proposal, because it was asking the Government to deduct £20 out of every £100 which was to be paid back to the Government. That was a proposition which only required to be stated to be rejected, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not think the proposition was so absurd as the Prime Minister supposed, and thought that the right hon. Gentleman rather overstated the case against the Amendment when he said that the Amendment asked the Exchequer to make a present of 1 per cent to the tenants per annum.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not say that; it is one-fifth for the whole of the advance.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he understood that the State in this country could borrow money at 3 per cent. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Oh, no.] He understood the State could borrow even at 2½ per cent, Consols being above par. If that were so, the Government would be able to pocket½ per cent per annum from the transactions under this Bill, at the very least. That would be charging the Irish tenant l½ per cent more for money advanced than they would have to pay themselves. When they saw the United States Government funding its National Debt—the old Debt—at 3½ per cent, and looking forward to a time when they would be able to fund it at 3 per cent, it was not unreasonable to suppose that the Government would always be able to borrow at 3 per cent, and for a short time at 2½ per cent. He would suggest that, as the interest had been calculated at 3½ per cent, in making out the financial payment at 5 per cent, leaving 1½ per cent for a sinking fund, 3 per cent interest should be taken, that being the rate at which Government were borrowing money in the open market, and that these holdings should be charged with an annuity of 4½ per
  450
  cent over 35 years, instead of 5 per cent; otherwise the Exchequer would make an annual profit of ½ per cent on every £100 they advanced.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that what he had stated was a very simple proposition—a much more intelligible plan than any other. But when the Government proposed to obtain 5 per cent for principal and interest for 35 years, 4 per cent was offered them, and that meant deducting 20 per cent of interest and 20 per cent of principal. With regard to the hon. Member's description of the money market, and the power of the Government to borrow, he must say it was exceedingly kind of the hon. Gentleman to instruct them on questions of finance; but he denied that the British Government could borrow at 3 per cent. If they went into the market at the present moment for £20,000,000 at that rate they could not get it. But that was not the question. It was not like the case of £20,000,000 for the emancipation of the slaves, when the Government had to borrow the money at once; for in this case that would have to be done over a series of years, and 3¼ per cent was the rate at which over a series of years the Government could borrow. But did the hon. Member suppose that all the operations could be conducted, the balances kept, offices maintained, and salaries paid without any addition to the charge? Did he (Mr. Parnell) suppose that if he were turn banker he would be able to lend money at the same rate at which he borrowed? This sort of instruction was a thing no one who had been in a responsible position could accept, and he could not but regret the pertinacity with which these proposals were followed up one after another in a matter where it was impossible for the Government to yield.
  MR. SHAWhoped the Amendment would not be pressed, and said, in a case where the Government were making concessions which might amount to a large sum of money spread over many years, it would be impossible for them to lend so close up to the borrowing rate. They must have a margin, and he thought the margin was so small that the Government would not gain anything. At the same time, he hoped the Prime Minister would not think the Irish Members acted unnaturally, for this was a question which had been

  451
  very prominently before the Irish farmers, and the Irish Members were anxious to see the Bill made as acceptable as possible to the farmers. Still, he hoped his hon. Friend would accept the provision as it stood.
  MR. M'COANsuggested, with a view to saving the time of the Committee, that "four and a-half" should be substituted for "four" in his Amendment. He did not, he said, do this in any haggling or bargaining spirit, but with the hope that 4½ per cent would supply a sufficient margin for the Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot amend his Amendment in that way. The proposal before the Committee is that the word "five" stand part of the Bill. That is a question which it is possible to withdraw, but not to make an Amendment to.
  MR. M'COANasked permission to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. GLADSTONEobjected to the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthought the objection of the Prime Minister to the withdrawal would not do much to promte the progress of the Bill, and said there was no precedent for an hon. Member being refused leave to withdraw an Amendment, not by the Committee, but by the Prime Minister.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not insist upon the Amendment at all, but the time of the Committee was occupied by a multiplication of these proposals; and if this Amendment were withdrawn without the judgment of the House being taken upon it, it might be revived on a subsequent occasion, and further time taken up by discussing it.
  MR. E. STANHOPEpointed out that the question was whether "five" should stand part of the clause. The Committee could perfectly well decide upon that, and then "four and a-half" could be proposed.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, the Irish Members attached very great importance to the difference between 5 and 4 per cent, and suggested that the Government might make up the difference by means of the Church Surplus Fund.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYwished to remind the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that whatever the rate upon which a country might borrow money at a particular moment, its credit depended upon whether there was peace
  452
  within its borders. The reason why the United States could borrow at a reduced rate was that they had composed their differences, and become one united nation. The hon. Gentleman had been engaged throughout in reducing the credit of this country.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is travelling altogether beyond the Amendment.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYfailed to see that an argument showing why the Government of this country could not always borrow at 3 per cent was not germane to the question. He denied that the Government would make a profit on it advances; and he was convinced that the rate at which a country could borrow depended entirely on the relations she had with the external world. These proposed advances would be made, not on the credit of England, but on the credit of the United Kingdom; and that credit depended on whether this Bill would make the country so united that there would be no desire for a dissolution of the Union, and whether people would be willing to pay the proposed rate for 35 years. If they were not, they could not borrow at 3, or 6, or even 7 per cent; and Gentleman who accepted the low rate were bound to maintain the credit of this country by ceasing their efforts to dissolve the Union.
  MR. RITCHIEstated, that of all the witnesses examined before the Agricultural Commission in Ireland, not one advocated a less interest than 5 per cent on advances for the purchases of holdings. He was sure the Government could not advance money safely at a less rate.
  MR. BIGGARremarked, that the Prime Minister seemed to think that the Committee should agree at once to his terms without hearing what could be said against them; but, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Biggar) did not think that was the proper way in which to conduct an important Bill. A charge had been made against the Irish Members collectively that whenever an attack was to be made on the British Exchequer, they were unanimous in support of that attack; but, for his part, he had as frequently voted against proposed grants for Irish purposes as in favour of them. As to the present question, it was known that 3 per cent was rather above the market

  453
  price, and he did not see why the Government should make a profit of ½ per cent on loans, when the interest and security were undoubted. The principle upon which the Government were now acting was very different from the principle on which they acted in regard to the Bill of last year. When they were proposing to lend money to landlords, they offered the loans at 1 per cent, and gave one or two years free; but when they were dealing with the unfortunate tenants, they wanted 3½ per cent from the first day of the advance. A great deal was said as to the gratitude due to this very Liberal Government; but he failed to see with any great clearness that, if the farmers had to borrow at this high rate, any great gratitude was due.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 35: Majority 161.—(Div. List, No. 298.)
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 23 (Provision as to purchases and sales by Land Commission).
  THE CHAIRMAN: There are several Amendments to this clause of the same kind as that of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan)—namely, to require corporate bodies to sell their property upon compulsion. One Amendment makes it compulsory on Corporations and Companies, and a further Amendment extends the obligation to limited owners to sell their estates to the Land Commission. Parliament has been careful to protect the rights of property by various Standing Orders. These Orders are ordinarily applicable to Private Bills; but wherever it appears that private rights of property are affected by a Public Bill it is usual to refer such Bill to the Examiners in order to ascertain whether the securities provided by the Standing Orders have been afforded to the parties interested. On no matter has Parliament been more particular than in making provision for the compulsory purchase of lands. Undoubtedly, there is a distinction between a Private Bill and a general measure of public policy; but I believe it to be without precedent for a Committee on a Public Bill to entertain an Amendment which, without Notice and without the consent
  454
  of the parties interested, proposes to take compulsorily the lands of a particular class of proprietors, and, so far as I am concerned, I am not prepared as Chairman to make a new precedent. This Amendment, therefore, cannot be put.
  MR. LITTON: Does this ruling apply to the Amendment at line 12?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; I do not think it does.
  MR. LITTONsaid, he had placed an Amendment at line 12 which he thought would be of great value. The Irish Church Commissioners, under the Irish Church Act, were not only authorized but directed before they sold Church property, to offer to the tenant of that property the opportunity of purchasing their holdings by way of a right of preemption; and he suggested that the Committee might add a similar provision to this clause. The question of corporate estates in the North and other parts of Ireland had excited a great deal of interest; and if corporate bodies, looking forward to future legislation, were disposed to offer their estates for sale, it was desirable that they should not be at liberty to sell to private individuals until they had offered to the tenants the right of buying on equitable terms. The words he proposed to introduce were taken from the Church Act of 1870, and would carry out the principle of that Act, that public bodies should not be allowed to sell their estates to private individuals regardless of the claims of the occupiers.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 16, line 12, at end of Clause, add "No body corporate, public company, trustees for charities, commissioners or trustees for collegiate or other public purposes, shall sell to the public the fee simple of any land which is held immediately from or under them by virtue of any lease or tenancy in writing until they have given notice to the lessee or tenant that they are willing to sell the fee simple to him for a price to be fixed by the Land Commission, and such lessee or tenant has declined to accept their offer within the prescribed period."—(Mr. Litton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he had to make the general acknowledgment to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Litton) that there was in this Amendment and in the subject-matter with which the Amendment was connected, what well deserved the attention of Parliament; but he was afraid that he could not go

  455
  further than that there were many observations to be made on it. One, for example, was that many of those parties had no power to sell, as he (Mr. Gladstone) understood, their estates. They had power given them under the Bill to sell to the Commission, but no sale otherwise than to the Commission. Then, it must be very hard upon any body, whether they held the land under mortmain or not, to place them under limitations of this kind with respect to each particular part of an estate which they held, because they might produce such a honey-combing of their estates as might be inconvenient and objectionable in the highest degree. But he would base his objection on the more general ground—namely, that however important it might be, it was not in its place in the middle of the clause. These were clauses for regulating purchases by the Commission, and this proposal was entirely independent of that. He would rather, therefore, stand on that point as a more comprehensive objection than to prosecute the matter in its present shape. It did not even take in the matter on grounds of public policy.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to elicit some information from the Government with reference to the question which they had just decided; and, to put himself in Order, he would end with a Motion. ["Oh!"] Well, for reasons which were perfectly justifiable to his mind, he was entitled to take that course. If he caught the ruling of the Chairman aright, the Committee were precluded from considering the question of compelling Companies principally in the North of Ireland to sell their estates—that was, that it would not be permissible for a private Member to propose in this Bill the insertion of any clause to have that effect.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Without safeguards provided already by Parliament for that purpose?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Quite so; without the necessary safeguards. What he wished to do was at once to learn from the Government whether they were prepared to take that matter in hand, because the ruling would be quite compatible with a Minister of the Crown dealing with this question. From what he knew, especially of the North of Ireland and from several Members of that part, the opinion there was very strong
  456
  that the experiment of establishing peasant proprietary should begin with the properties that were under the control of those Companies; and therefore he thought it was only due to the people of the North of Ireland, who were looking forward to this matter with the gravest anxiety, to tell them whether they had any reason to hope that the Prime Minister would, in the course of the next week or so, consider whether there was any way of dealing with this question. To put himself in Order he would move that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  MR. T. COLLINScould scarcely believe it possible that the Chairman should rule that power should be denied to a private Member upon a question of public policy in a Public Act to move any single clause dealing with the rights of private individuals, and to allow a Minister of the Crown that power. It was impossible to conceive that Ministers of the Crown had any special privileges of that kind.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would appear that Ministers of the Crown had certain duties or privileges with regard to the taxes laid upon the people and to questions affecting the property of the Crown; but they had no privileges with regard to property other than those which he had described. In answer to the questions which had been put to him, he must repeat that it was really and absolutely beyond his power and that of his right hon. and learned Colleagues, engaged, as they were, with the Bill and the consideration of Amendments upon it, in the course of their ordinary Business to touch this matter. He made this frank admission, that if he endeavoured to introduce it into the subject-matter of the Bill, even if it were politic, that it could not be done.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the question of corporations and absentees was undoubtedly a very important one. He did think that it might be in the power of the Government to draw some distinction between absentee landowners and residential landowners. It had always, in Irish legislation, been the practice to draw a practical distinction

  457
  between absentee landowners and those who resided in Ireland; and there were a great number of the large owners in Ireland whose estates were rented at the present moment at a fair rent, but who, very probably, under the provisions of this Bill, might be tempted to raise those rents. A practical way to meet the absentee difficulty would be to prevent absentee owners from raising their rents any higher than they were at present. It surely would not have been too much to ask for the tenants on the estates of absentee owners that the Government should consider whether it would be fair to allow those owners the same right to raise their rents as other Irish landowners had, or whether they might not impose some limitations on them. This was a matter which would not press upon the absentee landowners very hard—at any rate, those of them who had allowed their estates to remain at a fair rent; but some of them might feel that when this Bill was put into operation that they were put on their strict rights, and they might make a move in the direction of rent-raising, which might cause great confusion and strife on the estates in Ireland. Therefore, he hoped when the Government had had its attention called to this matter that they would consider whether they might not insert a clause in the Bill depriving absentee landowners of the right of raising their rents any higher than they were at present.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that he had paid a great deal of attention to this subject, and he had come to the conclusion that from an Irish tenant point of view there were no landlords so good as the absentee landlords. They did not worry their tenants or interfere with them, and they did not take excessive rents. What he had found was that the agents of the absentee landowners were something like Indian collectors, for they had a great deal of sympathy with the people, and they entered into their feelings and were inclined to do the best they could for them.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy sometimes told them that they were wasting time by discussion. He hoped that the hon. Member would except the present discussion from that censure.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would withdraw his Motion to report Progress.
  458
  He did not wish to interfere one moment longer than was absolutely necessary; but he had a strong impression that the Companies themselves would be as glad to sell as their tenants would be glad to buy, and he was sure that there was nobody in "another place" who had the least desire to preserve these Companies in their property.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LITTONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment, remarking that the explanation of the Prime Minister was most satisfactory.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 24 (Conditions annexed to holdings whilst subject to advances).
  MR. GLADSTONEproposed to omit sub-section
  "(a.) The holding shall not be sold by such proprietor without the consent of the Land Commission until one-half of the whole charge has been discharged."
  They had considered this matter, and they had come to the conclusion that this limitation was unnecessary, and would restrict the purchaser's power of borrowing. He did not see that the Land Commission had any interest in this restriction.
  Amendment agreed to; sub-section struck out accordingly.
  MR. LALORmoved the omission, in page 16, line 22, of the words "or sublet." He said it was generally agreed in Ireland that tenants would purchase under this Bill, and if these landlords were allowed to grow up in Ireland on the strength of this Bill they would be the very worst class of landlords. The people of Ireland had a great objection to these purchasers being allowed to sub-let the land. Instead of sub-letting, however, it would be in the power of the Court to allow them to sell it, and thus get rid of it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 22, to leave out the words "or sub-let."—(Mr. Lalor.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or sub-let' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the hon. Member (Mr. Lalor) wished to take

  459
  away one limitation, in order to impose one of a different character. The Government thought that they ought not to sub-let while being largely indebted to the Commission. But considering the Amendment, and fully admitting that there was considerable practical truth in what the hon. Member had said about the abuse by the small landlords of their powers, still he did not think that it was possible to affect with a perpetual disability a certain proportion of the land of the country in regard to the powers which the proprietor of that land possessed of setting out the land as he pleased. However well the Amendment might be meant, it was one that they could not agree to.
  MR. PARNELLwas sorry that the Prime Minister did not see his way to accept this Amendment. The large holders of Ireland might purchase them under the Purchasing Clauses; and he very much feared that one of the results would be that pointed out by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor), that they would have such persons, after having benefited by the action of the State in putting an end to one system of landlordism, setting up another and a worse system of landlords than that which existed before. He thought that the principle which his hon. Friend sought to have recognized was a very fair one. The State stopped in and did a very unusual thing. It offered to lend money to those tenants for the purpose of enabling them to become owners of their holdings. It did that from the point of view of public policy; and, of course, if the State pleased to impose on that transaction a condition that that land should not be sub-let by the new owners, he did not see how the new owners, taking advantage of the arrangement, could grumble at such a limitation. If they did not wish to be owners under that limitation, they could remain tenants, and they would have nothing to complain of. But if they wished to become owners under the limitation that the House of Commons pleased to affix, he did not see why they should complain of the limitation. There was another way in which this question might, perhaps, be dealt with—namely, by making them the present tenants, instead of future tenants, as they would be under the operation of the present Bill. In that way they would encourage
  460
  a system of sale where an owner had more land than he could profitably employ or cultivate himself; and he thought it was to the encouragement of the system of selling land in Ireland, instead of letting it, that they must look to escape from the present entanglement. Owing to a variety of circumstances, which it was not necessary to allude to, the system in Ireland had been to let and not to sell land. Both owners and occupiers generally preferred to let it or rent it. If they encouraged the system of selling land, instead of letting it, and thus perpetuating the pernicious system of landlordism, it would be much better.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it appeared to him that the point deserved earnest consideration. Of course, so far as the security of the Treasury or the Land Commission, or whoever might be regarded as the person who advanced the money, was concerned, there could be no doubt that it was very reasonable that proposals should be made which should secure the repayment of the money; and, as sub-letting or subdividing, without the consent of the Land Commission, might endanger the repayment, it was very reasonable that there should be a proposal that the holding should not be sub-divided or sub-let without the consent of the Commission. All the Commission would do would be to see that what was done did not imperil the security on which they had advanced their money. Well, but the hon. Member proposed to leave out the words "or sub-let." That would appear, at first sight, as if he intended to allow a purchaser, under this clause, to sub-let Without the necessity of going to the Land Commission; but lie proposed, subsequently, to put in words which restrained the proprietor, who had purchased under those peculiar conditions, from sub-letting at all—that was, from turning himself into a landlord. He understood that the whole of this proposal was to get rid, sub-modo, of landlordism, and he understood that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was to carry that into effect—that was, to prevent the present tenants from becoming landlords. If it were otherwise, they would have all the evils of landlordism brought up again, and the land would be in the hands of persons who had been assisted to become landlords by the aid of the

  461
  State in turning out the previous landlords.
  MR. SYNANwas at a loss to understand how an owner in fee, which at least a purchaser would be at the end of 35 years, was to be restrained by law from exercising his ownership in fee by attaching a condition to it which would be totally inconsistent with the estate. Who was to enforce the condition? Was the State to enforce that condition against an owner in fee, and say that he was not to sub-let or sub-divide his ownership in fee? He did not care whether he had 1,000 or 10 acres, the condition was inconsistent with the estate, and they could not have such a condition on any estate in this Bill or any Bill.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsuggested that the object of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lalor) could be met consistently with the view which his hon. Friend (Mr. Synan) had recognized, to some extent, by making a distinction between the present tenants and those who came after.
  MAJOR NOLANwas quite satisfied that some such provision as this Amendment contained would be necessary before the tenants would become the proprietors. On the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), it was made quite clear that they could not prevent the purchasing tenant from mortgaging, or sub-letting, or doing anything he liked with his land. He must become the natural proprietor, and that would be the chief inducement to pay the instalments during the 35 years.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, they must not look only to the present requirements, but to Free Trade in land in Ireland. They could not hamper it. It was in that way that many of the provisions of the Bill which seemed now to hamper the relations of man and man with regard to land were to be remedied; and he thought it was utterly impossible to restrain purchasing tenants by any such conditions as were now proposed in this Bill. He thought it would not be possible to prevent the consolidation of these peasant proprietary holdings in Ireland in face of the difficulties which must be obvious. As far as subletting was concerned, they would have to contend in Ireland with the same difficulties which had been experienced
  462
  in other countries where what was called land hunger had prevailed. There would always be found intending tenants ready to take land at high prices; but that did not, in his opinion, refute the objection which he held to any attempt to prevent the free sale of land in Ireland or elsewhere. He did not think it was possible to trace any of the difficulties now complained of to the wish of a large section of the Irish people for freedom of sale in land.
  MR. LALORsaid, he objected to the clause on the ground, mainly, that it would work gross injustice to the tenants in the case of re-letting of estates.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, his main objection to the clause was that it would give ample opportunity for the exercise of their calling to land-jobbers in all parts of the country, and would effect such a change in the legislation as could only have the effect of injuriously affecting tenants who would be powerless for their own defence.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, the clause was bad enough; but it would not work so injuriously if the Amendment was adopted, for no one could doubt that, in the point of view of the tenants, a system of sale was preferable to one of sub-letting.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, whatever might or might not be the relative merits of sale and sub-letting, he did not think any hon. Member could legitimately urge that it was raised by the present Amendment. He thought when the Committee came to consider the whole principle involved in the clause they would arrive at a somewhat different view of the matter from that which had been laid before them by some hon. Members.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORobjected to the clause, and supported the Amendment on the ground, mainly, that it would not have the effect of facilitating the sale of land in Ireland. It was not only the ideal but the real land system in many European countries, and particularly in France, that the ownership of the land should be distributed over as large a number of the inhabitants of the country as possible; and he hoped that principle would not only be recognized in theory by the Government, but would be acted up to in practice.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed,

  463
  inasmuch as in his view the present was not the most opportune moment for raising the great principle which was involved in it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LALORmoved, in page 16, line 22, to leave out the word "sub-let."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; word struck out accordingly.
  MR. LALORmoved to insert the word "let" in place of the word "sublet," just struck out.
  Amendment agreed to; word inserted accordingly.
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendment made in page 16, line 30, by leaving out the words "or judgment."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Reclamation of Land and Emigration.
  Clause 25 (Reclamation of land).
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLmoved, in page 17, to leave out line 15, and insert the words "the Land Commission may, with the concurrence of the Treasury." The general impression among a large section of the Irish people was that the Irish Board of Works had not used their powers for the benefit of the country at large, and had thus become very unpopular and were ineffective.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 17, leave out line 15, and insert "the Land Commission may, with the concurrence of the Treasury."—(Mr. Charles Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'The Treasury may authorise the Board of Works to' stand part of the Clause."
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHopposed the Amendment.
  MR. GIVANsaid, the Board of Works in Ireland was entirely made up of a system of red-tape, and it was impossible to get a loan through the Board for any purpose under the sun without an immense amount of unnecessary trouble. As a justification of what he said, he might mention the action of the Board with regard to advances under the Act of 1870. In the clause that
  464
  enabled the Board to advance money to the tenant, the words were—
  "Where a tenant is desirous of purchasing his holding he may apply to the Board of Works to advance any sum not exceeding two-thirds of the whole amount;"
  but the Board actually refused to advance the tenants any money, unless they applied before they purchased at all to the Board for an advance on an amount which they did not know, because it was said the words of the Act were—"Where the tenant is desirous of purchasing." They, therefore, held that a purchase made by the tenant without consulting the Board first of all, while the transaction was inchoate, and which, in fact, was no purchase at all, did not comply with the provision, "where a tenant is desirous;" and the Board would not advance any money at all. The result was, that numbers of purchasers, supposing they had a clause in the Act of 1870 enabling them to purchase, went into the Landed Estates Court and made a purchase of their holding, having one-third to pay; but, when they went to the Board, the Board said they could not advance the two-thirds balance because the application was not made before the purchase. And so an Act of Parliament had to be passed through the House to get rid of this miserable technical objection that the Board raised to defeat the object of the clause altogether. No wonder the Board of Works was unpopular, because no more frivolous objection was ever made than this under the 47th section of the Act of 1870. If the Land Commission was to have the working power under the present Bill to carry out the peasant proprietor part of the scheme, it should have in itself all that power, and certainly a part of it should not be relegated to the decision of an unpopular and obstructive Board.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, of course, it was easy to find fault with the Board of Works; but that Board was a Department that had assigned to it one of the most important, delicate, and invidious duties it was possible to discharge. The history of the case was this. Parliament was prepared to sanction advances of certain money for certain purposes in Ireland under certain restrictions. The conditions under which the advances were to be made were laid down in an Act of Parliament, and ex-

  465
  pressed in that Act the mode in which it should be done, and charge of the machinery. The Board of Works was devised as the machinery for the work being carried through; and it was the duty of those gentlemen who formed the Board to adhere strictly to the orders that were given by Parliament. If Parliament had made its orders more strict than necessary, they might require alteration, and the House had the opportunity of making alterations in the conditions on which Parliament chose to advance money; and it was open to Parliament to make those conditions more or less stringent, as it pleased. But do let them have fair consideration for those who had to carry the orders into effect; they were pressed in every manner, as any body was which had in its charge the disposition of public money; and it was the duty of the House to support those engaged in this administration. He was not prepared to say that the Board of Works had made no mistakes in their administration, or that there had been no mistakes in the administration of the Treasury in relation to these matters; but he was certain that great honesty, great ability, and great firmness had been shown in cases where, if these qualities had been wanting, the public would have been serious losers. He therefore hoped that justice would be done to those employed in a disagreeable, but important, task. He thought that the Board of Works, under the authority of the Treasury, was the best proposal for the machinery that could be devised, and he hoped that proposal would be adopted.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he gave his concurrence to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), and he wished to point out that only one particular case had been stated against the Board of Works as to the manner of their administration in which there had been something like a miscarriage. In regard to that—first of all, it must be said that the duty imposed upon the Board of Works was an exceptional duty outside its proper functions and province; and, secondly, he would go further, and say that he thought it was impossible, if there was blame due—he was not saying whether this blame was due, or was not—it was not possible to stop at the Board of Works; it must be carried to
  466
  the Treasury, for the Board of Works was simply an instrument of the Treasury, and it was impossible to bring any serious charge against the Board without the Treasury taking that charge on its own shoulders. As to what had been said about the unpopularity of the Board of Works, perhaps that made less impression upon his mind than it did on the minds of some. He had never heard that the Treasury was popular—it might be so, and he hoped it was—but the fact had never come to his knowledge. Under an economical Administration, it was held to be extremely penurious in the disposition of public money; and when the Administration was more disposed to be liberal, then the appetite grew faster than the supply, and the Treasury was never enabled to establish itself permanently in the good graces of those who made the demands. In furtherance of what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, he must say that, seriously, the faults of the Board of Works were those of the Treasury; and, if they existed, it was in Parliament and before the House that the Treasury were liable to be questioned, and were bound to answer; there they could be tried, and the blame should not be laid upon a body which, after all, was but instrumental and subordinate. He did not wonder that, at first sight, the notion should impress itself that this work should be intrusted to the Commission; but let the Committee consider whether they had not gone far enough in the duties they had charged upon the Commissioners. There had been laid upon them the working of a judicial duty connected with the administration of new Land Laws; and, having done that, having gone into a new system, and a new application of a system of advances, the working out of which had been laid on the Commission, a part of the Bill was now reached entirely separate and distinct from these matters, and which, in point of fact, was an extension of what now existed, and had nothing to do with the subject-matter on which the Commission would be engaged. It was to extend an Act that now existed, to allow public money to be advanced in aid of private and individual purposes in Ireland, and, therefore, the Committee must look beyond the machinery of the Bill. Having done their part, the Commission would not

  467
  have the experience, the engineering staff, nor, he might be allowed to say, the leisure to discharge this new duty. He confessed he almost trembled when he thought of the calls that would be made upon the care, the mind, the thought of the Commissioners; but where there was a body which had an engineering staff and great capacity, and which, also, was an authorized body under the responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown, he could not help thinking that the mind of his hon. and learned Friend would be satisfied, and that he would himself think that the Government were right in maintaining the position of the Bill as it stood.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, the very work that the Board would have to do was the very work it did most successfully, until, unfortunately, some years ago, the system was changed, and drainage was taken from the direction of the Board of Works and handed over to Drainage Boards. Therefore, it seemed to him that the Board of Works was specially qualified for any work in the nature of drainage and the reclamation of waste lands. As to the charge which had been made against the Board, he did not wish to undertake their defence; but he was certain that the accusation made against the Board in relation to the "Bright Clauses" was not due to their own action, but the course they took was imposed upon them by the Treasury. There was one thing, however, he would mention in reference to the Board of Works. A Committee, some years ago, recommended the reorganization of the Board and the retirement of the Chairman, and he would appeal to the Government to consider whether that recommendation could be carried out. No doubt, the Chairman was an old and valuable servant; but there was no doubt, also, his ideas were not in harmony with what was expected from the Board, and, surely, he might now be relegated to that retirement he had so well earned.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) would not press his Amendment to a division. It was evident that the Board of Works was best qualified for the work. He was far from saying that the Board did not want improvement. It did; but the Board had the staff and means of
  468
  carrying out the work which the Commission would be unable to carry out, unless a similar staff was created. As to the charge brought by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), he was very much struck by what he said, that after the Board had raised technical objections abiding strictly by the rules laid down, the point had to be made the object of another Act of Parliament to enable the thing to be done as tenants desired; and that, at all events, showed that it was not the Board of Works or the Treasury which had to bear the blame, but it was due to a defect in the Act of Parliament.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he would, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no!"]
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, it was remarkable that both the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had said how excellently qualified was the Board of Works for engineering operations such as the reclamation of land in Ireland; but what had that to do with this clause? Would the hon. Members who vindicated the efficiency of the Board of Works for drainage and other improvements look at the clause, and they would find not a word about engineering operations, but a great deal about executing money-lending operations. Now, he had heard a few people confess that the Board had completely discharged its duty in one or two engineering operations, but he had never heard one man say that the Board of Works did anything but obstruct the advance of public money for useful purposes; and he would ask his hon. Friends who pointed out the advantage of handing the administration of this clause to the Board of Works, to remember what it was. The Treasury might authorize the Board to advance from time to time monies for objects they might think expedient, and for which there was sufficient security; therefore, all that the Board would have to do would be to look after the security for the money. If the Government had any idea of making the clause what it purposed to be—merely a matter for the working out of the Act in harmony with the spirit of a great scheme—surely they should not commit a part of the scheme to one supreme authority, and

  469
  another part to another. Already in Ireland there was a sufficient number of divided authorities working over the same ground; in fact, he had often said it was one of the banes of the country. Five distinct bodies over the same ground—different taxes, different tax collectors, different officials, different secretaries, and different instructions—and now there was going to be an addition to the evil in this case! If all that Clause 25 proposed to do was to advance money to Companies and look after the security for the money, he would suggest that the Land Commission should be the authority, because the Land Commission would, in the discharge of other duties, have cognizance of the reasons that would justify the recommendation of a particular advance. It was the Land Commission alone that would be charged with the knowledge of all the operations taking place under the Bill, of the reclamation and value of land, and with a knowledge of the whole working of the Act, where it might be that reclamation was needed to relieve the congestion of, population and where not. If, then, the clause had not any purpose but to see that the money had full security, then the Land Commission was the proper authority. This was really so large a subject that it was quite impossible, utterly impossible, to discuss it now; and, therefore, since it was obvious that several hon. Members wished to speak, he might as well say what he had to say and not divide it between to-night and Monday, and he would, therefore, ask the attention of the Committee to one of the reasons why he thought the Government should give the Commission the authority over the reclamation of waste lands in Ireland. He would like to know whether some effort could not be made by the Government to extend this clause to the taking in of foreshores—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is going considerably beyond the Amendment.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he must have failed to convey his meaning with sufficient clearness. The Committee were discussing whether the Board of Works or the Land Commission should have charge of Clause 25, and his argument was that if this was only to be a money lending operation, his contention was that the Land Commission could do that as
  470
  well as the Board of Works. But if it was to be for the purpose of conducting engineering operations, the clause must be altered to give the Board or the Commission, whichever it might be, the power of undertaking these operations. That was his argument. But he did not think anything was to be gained by trying at this part of the clause to make any suggestions, or use arguments in connection with the reclamation of land; and, as they would be more in Order at a further stage, he would reserve his remarks.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Bill would not throw a great deal of work on the Board, and whether it was not a fact that the additional work under the Relief of Distress Act of last year absolutely broke down the Board of Works? Did not the clerks in the office work day and night, and were they not absolutely broken down? Further, he would like to know, was is not notorious that when works were undertaken by landlords under that Act, the Inspector of the Board of Works went down and certified for the work being done, when in fact it was not done, and it was popularly believed, and indeed in some cases known, that the money supplied on account of the work supposed to done was spent in buying heifers—the gentleman sent down by the Board of Works certifying for the work after dining and wining with the landlords? Was it to a body so universally distrusted in Ireland that the carrying out of important provisions in the Bill was to be intrusted? The late Conservative Government a few years ago promised to have the Board represented in the House, but it was never carried out. It used to be the custom, whenever comments were made on the Board of Works in the House, for the Irish official to say—"It's none of my child;" and to state that he was not responsible for the mismanagement, nor would the Secretary to the Treasury acknowledge he had any responsibility. Certainly, if the Board of Works were intrusted with the authority proposed, it would take away any confidence as to the working of the Act.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,said, it was quite true that the Boards of Works was not under the control of the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary; it was

  471
  under the Treasury, and his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had acknowledged the responsibility. But a question had been asked as to the action of the Board of Works during the distress of last year, and he really must say that, so far as his knowledge went, and what he heard of their action, and especially speaking from his contact with the Board from his official connection with the Local Government Board, he thought that the conduct and management of the Board during the great pressure of the time of distress was such that no fault could be found with it. True, the clerks were hard worked, and so they were in the office of the Local Government Board and other offices under the great pressure; but he confessed his own opinion of the Board of Works was raised considerably by the manner in which they got through the necessities of the distress. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) alluded to particular charges of which, of course, he (Mr. Forster) knew nothing, and he did not think it was fair to bring forward such charges as acknowledged facts, when he did not suppose any Member of the Committee had heard of them before.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the Committee could not decide on this important question, on which the whole of the clause depended and upon which Amendments hereafter would hinge, at such a late hour, and he would therefore suggest that it would be reasonable for the Government to assent to a Motion to report Progress and to adjourn the discussion to Monday. The Board of Works was introduced into the Bill now for the first time, and the effect was important.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to know whether the Government intended to make any other alteration of procedure in respect to the Bill besides those announced by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the evening? He had stated that when the Committee arrived at Clause 34, he would move that it be postponed; and he (Sir Stafford Northcote) desired to know whether it was the intention to proceed in regular order with the other clauses—
  472
  and especially he would refer to Clause 36 and the Emigration Clauses; and whether it was intended to proceed with the other clauses having reference to the duties of the Court?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the question should have been put to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; but, to the best of his (Mr. Forster's) knowledge, there was no intention of making any other alteration beyond the postponement of Clause 34.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether the Emigration Clauses would be proceeded with?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Yes; certainly.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the Committee was getting on quickly, and would very soon reach the clauses dealing with the constitution of the Court and the functions of the Land Commission, upon which he understood the Prime Minister was going to make a statement on Monday. It seemed to him that the Government Amendments would not appear on the Notice Paper till Tuesday, and hon. Members, if not satisfied with the Government Amendments, would have to put in manuscript Amendments, and this would be a little hard upon the Committee. What he wished to ask was, that the Government would make known their proposals and give hon. Members full opportunity of considering them.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that the Amendments were not expected till Tuesday?
  MR. GIBSONsaid, they were not on the Paper now, and, unless given in within the next 10 minutes, would not appear till Tuesday.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked, would they appear on Monday morning?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: No.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, then, in that case, the Committee would not see them till Tuesday.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, would the Government undertake not to discuss them until after they could be seen on the Paper?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURhoped that they would not be discussed until they had appeared for a day in print, so that they could be seen with other Amendments.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Government would do their best to put

  473
  them on as early as possible; but they could not undertake to postpone the proceedings for a day.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he thought they had been waiting at least a month; and he did not see how it would be possible to discuss the constitution of the Court until the Amendments of the Government and of other responsible, and irresponsible Members were before the Committee.
  MR. HENEAGEurged the Government to put their Amendments on the Paper as soon as possible, and said that he had had an Amendment on the Paper for nearly two months, for doing away with all reference to County Courts, and he should be in a difficult position if the Government only produced their Amendments on the day when the clause came up.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  LONDON CITY (PAROCHIAL CHARI- TIES) BILL.— [BILL 13.]
  (Mr. Bryce, Mr. Pell, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Davey.)
  LONDON CITY (PAROCHIAL CHARI- TIES) BILL.— [BILL 13.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment on Second Reading [25th May], and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. R. N. Fowler.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. W. H. SMITHappealed to the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) to withdraw his opposition to the second reading, believing the Bill would be of great service to the City of London.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that having appointed the Commission to inquire into the subject dealt with by the Bill, he thought it would be a great mistake not to read the Bill the second time, and he implored the hon. Member to take off his opposition.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he had not been aware that the Bill was down,
    474
    for that evening; but he would confer with those who were interested in the matter with regard to the course they would take as regarded it.
    Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

  REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (Mr. James Stewart, Dr. Cameron, Mr. Patrick, Mr. Mackintosh.)
  REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    [BILL 8.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. James Stewart.)
    MR. ORR-EWINGmoved the adjournment of the debate on the ground that the Bill ought not to be discussed at so late an hour.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Orr-Ewing.)
    MR. DONALD CAMERONobserved that the Bill appeared to have entered upon a new phase. As long as the Bill stood in the form proposed by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. James Stewart) he saw no harm in it; but when the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr-Ewing) put down his Notice, a great many of his (Mr. Cameron's) constituents objected to it. If, as was reported, the Government accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbarton, the intention of the original Bill would be reversed. In that case, he must oppose the Bill; but he hoped the Government would announce what their intention was one way or the other.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURhoped the debate would be adjourned, for this was a Bill interfering with local customs all over Scotland, and it would be impossible to get through a debate on such a measure in less than an hour and a-half or two hours. After the House had been working at high pressure all day and every day on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, it was impossible to expect Members to discuss measures like this in a sober and clear spirit.
    MR. GORSTalso objected to discussing the Bill at that late hour.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.

MOTIONS.

  SOLENT NAVIGATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ASHLEY, Bill to make provision with respect to the Navigation of the Solent between the Isle of Wight and the mainland, in the county of Hants, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ASHLEY, Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, and Mr. TREVELYAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 207.]

  PARLIAMENTARY REVISION (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to enable the Lord Lieutenant to appoint a Revising Barrister for the revision of lists and the registration of Parliamentary Voters in the County of Dublin, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 208.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Alsager Chapel (Marriages)* (153).
Committee—Report—Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension * (136); Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure * (140).
Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (68); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) * (125); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * (135); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * (122).
Third Reading—Court of Bankruptcy (Ireland) (Officers and Clerks) * (133), and passed.

PRECOGNITIONS (SCOTLAND).

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF MINTO,in moving for Returns upon this subject, apprehended that the Government would have no objection in granting what he desired; but the question in the latter part of the Motion involved a proposal entirely novel, and one to which there might be a little objection. He submitted, however, that it was only right and reasonable that when it was known that investigations into cases of death under suspicious or unknown circumstances were being made, the results should be communicated to the public. The way in which he proposed this should be effected was, that the procurator fiscal should communicate the information to the Clerk of the Commissioners of Supply, and the reason why he selected that official was that he was the clerk of the representative body of the proprietors, who were responsible for the expenses of the county. Therefore, he thought the Clerk of Supply was the proper officer to whom this information should be given. He hoped the Government would agree with his proposal. The noble Earl concluded by asking Her Majesty's Government whether they are disposed to give instructions that a Return of the number of cases of sudden death or of death under suspicious or unknown circumstances which have been the subject of precognition by procurators fiscal in each county in Scotland should be com-

  343
  municated monthly to the Clerk of Supply of each such county, with a statement of the result of the inquiry in each case, and specifying the cases in which the investigations were from the first connected with charges of murder, culpable homicide, &c.?
  Moved for,

  1. Return from each county in Scotland of the number of cases of sudden death or of death under suspicious or unknown circumstances which have been the subject of precognition by procurators fiscal in each of the years 1879 and 1880; specifying the number of such cases as have been the subject of criminal trials: Such Returns not to include cases in which the investigations were from the first connected with charges of murder, culpable homicide, &c.:

  2. Similar Return from each county in Scotland of the cases in which the investigations were from the first connected with charges of murder, culpable homicide, &c.—(The Earl of Minto.)

  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in reply, had to say, on behalf of the Government, that there was no objection whatever to grant the Returns which had been moved for by the noble Earl. As to the Question with which the noble Earl had concluded, the Government would endeavour to give such instructions as would have the effect of attaining the object which the noble Earl had in view. The instructions at present to the procurators fiscal were that communications between parties in suspected cases should be regarded as strictly confidential, and also that the criminal investigation at the instance of the Crown should also, in a strict sense, be private and confidential, but in practice, when, in the course of inquiry, the procurator fiscal was asked by parties outside to give information, he then communicated with the Crown Agent, who consulted the Advocate Depute as to the advisability of his doing so. The Secretary of State for the Home Department would give such instructions as would meet the noble Earl's views.
  THE EARL OF MINTO: May I ask to whom the information will be given?
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: The information will, of course, be in the hands of the fiscal, who will give it, if so advised by the Advocate Depute, to the party who asks for it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Returns ordered to be laid before the House.

CLAIMS OF PEERAGE, &c.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE,in rising to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present state of the law as to claims and assumptions of titles of peerage in the United Kingdom and in Scotland and Ireland respectively, and the means of proving and establishing the same; and as to the proceedings and claims to vote at elections of Representative Peers of Scotland and Ireland respectively; and as to the position and order of precedence of Scotch peerages upon the Roll called the Union Roll and in the Decreet of Ranking of 1606; and whether it is desirable that the present state of law or practice as to any of the matters aforesaid should be amended: And also to inquire into the present procedure and practice of this House in its Committee of Privileges, and whether such procedure and practice can be amended so as to diminish the delay and expense incident to the determination of claims of peerage and claims to vote at elections of Representative Peers of Scotland and Ireland respectively,"
  said, the subject with which his Motion dealt was one in which their Lordships took a deep interest; but it did not call upon them to express any opinion whatever on the merits of the question, but only to pronounce that an inquiry was desirable in this matter. With regard to the first part of the Motion, he would point out that, under the present state of the law, the course adopted by a claimant to a title or Peerage was this—He presented a Petition to the Crown, that Petition was referred to their Lordships' House, the Lord Chancellor investigated the case, and, if he thought that everything was satisfactory, he reported to the House that the noble Lord had made out his title. If the Lord Chancellor was not satisfied, the case then went before the Committee of Privileges. In Ireland, for a considerable time, every Peer who wanted to prove his title was obliged to come before a Committee of Privileges, a very tedious and, in some cases, a very expensive process; but in 1857, by a Resolution of their Lordships' House, the course adopted with regard to Irish Peers' claims and votes was assimilated to that which took place in the case of English Peers. In Scotland, however, the Peer was not called upon to prove his title, as in the case of English and Irish Peers; and, as a consequence of this, it sometimes happened that persons presented themselves at the election of Scotch Re-

  345
  presentative Peers, and claimed to vote, whom, perhaps, very few people ever heard of before, and it was nobody's business in particular to object. Individual Peers might object, and generally did object; but the result only was that the elections were sometimes characterized by scenes that were not very dignified. He thought it might be desirable to inquire whether, in this respect, it might not be well to assimilate the usage with regard to Peers claiming to vote in the Scottish Peerage, and to put them on the same footing as persons claiming Irish and English Peerages. Well, then, the Committee which he asked their Lordships to grant was to inquire as to the position and order of precedence of Scotch Peerages upon the Roll called the Union Roll, and in the Decreet of Ranking of 1606. Well, he saw the noble Lord (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) objected to that part of the inquiry, and had placed a Notice on the Paper that the words be left out; but he confessed that he did not see how they were to go into an inquiry of this nature, leaving out, at the same time, all reference to two very important documents which, after all, were the basis of the claim of precedence of the Scotch Peers. To the next part of his Motion, whether it was desirable that the present state of that law should be amended, he thought it was generally admitted that some inconvenience had arisen from the present state of the law of Scotland, and that these inconveniences had been very generally recognized. He thought that was apparent from the fact that at various times Committees had been appointed to investigate this subject, and their Lordships had at various times passed Resolutions with the view of altering or improving the state of things as regards the method of establishing Scotch Peerages. In 1832, in 1847, in 1869, and in 1874 Committees were appointed to inquire into the various branches of this whole question. The Committee of 1874, of which his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) was Chairman, was rather wider in its scope than that which he asked to be appointed, because they went into the political question, which he hoped this Committee would not have anything to do with. They recommended that all Scotch Peers should be called up to their Lordships' House, and that the
  346
  Roll should be as in Ireland—a Roll of individuals, and not Peerages. He did not think that any of the recommendations of that Committee had been acted upon except one, which was, that a Petition should be presented to the Crown, praying Her Majesty to create no more Irish Peers. He had pointed out some matters in which, more particularly as regarded the election of Scotch Peers, this Committee must inquire; but perhaps the last paragraph in the Motion was the most important. He believed there was no doubt that very great delays took place before their Lordships were able to give judgment; and he thought it would be well to consider whether some means might not be adopted by which these delays would be obviated. It was not always possible to obtain the services of noble and learned Lords for Committees of Privilege when they were very much engaged at the time. It was very difficult indeed, sometimes, to get lay Lords to sit in sufficient numbers to form a quorum. He was not surprised at this, because lay Lords had no voice in the decision of the tribunal. They had to listen to long, abstruse, and highly technical legal arguments, which they were often not capable of following; and, in fact, as far as the lawyers were concerned, it did appear to him that the whole thing, not to speak disrespectfully, was a solemn farce. He served once upon one of those Committees, and although he was not desirous of shirking any work that might be useful, still he could not see any advantage of sitting the whole day long, listening to speeches which it was utterly impossible, from the want of legal knowledge, to understand. He thought, therefore, it was very well worth considering whether some modification might not be made in the constitution of the tribunal, so as to insure some approach to expedition in its proceedings. Then the expense was very great; indeed, he was told that Lord Balcarres, in the process to establish his title, had to spend upwards of £20,000; and he understood in the case of the Duke of Montrose, who did not succeed in establishing his claim, the trial cost him much more. It would, he submitted, be very desirable to obviate the great delay and expense attending upon cases of this kind.

  347
  Moved, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present state of the law as to claims and assumptions of titles of peerage in the United Kingdom and in Scotland and Ireland respectively, and the means of proving and establishing the same; and as to the proceedings and claims to vote at elections of Representative Peers of Scotland and Ireland respectively; and as to the position and order of precedence of Scotch peerages upon the Roll called the Union Roll, and in the Decreet of Ranking of 1606; and whether it is desirable that the present state of law or practice as to any of the matters aforesaid should be amended: And also to inquire into the present procedure and practice of this House in its Committee of Privileges; and whether such procedure and practice can be amended so as to diminish the delay and expense incident to the determination of claims of peerage and claims to vote at elections of Representative Peers of Scotland and Ireland respectively.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH,in rising to move the omission of the words—
  "And as to the position and order of precedence of Scotch Peerages upon the Roll called the Union Roll and in the Decreet of Ranking of 1606,"
  said, that before moving his Amendment, he wished to say a few words on that part of the Motion which he did not oppose. He did not object to it, but he did not think that any case had been made out for going into the whole of the inquiry suggested by the noble Earl. At the same time, he would not urge the point upon the House, provided the higher legal authorities in the House were willing that such an inquiry as this should be undertaken. He thought the inquiry was not required, because the state of the law as to claim and assumption to title in the Peerage of Scotland was perfectly well known. The numerous Committees that had sat upon this question had thoroughly established to the satisfaction of everybody what the state of the law was. This question was, he believed, fully discussed before a Committee of the House so long ago as 1832; and the Committee issued a Report recommending, among other things, that the claimants to Scotch Peerages, and persons claiming to vote in Scotch Peerages, under which no vote had been recorded since 1801, should not be allowed to vote without first going before the Committee of Privileges. They also recommended that in all cases when claims were made for Peerages, on succession by collaterals, except brothers of the last noble, a cer-
  348
  tificate should be issued by the Lord Chancellor in the same way as for Irish Peerages. The first of those two recommendations was not acted upon till 1847, the other had not been acted upon at all. The Act of 1847 provided also that whenever any Peer or Peeress should have established his or her right to any Peerage, or the right to vote in respect of any Peerage, and the same should have voted at any election of Representative Peers, then the Lord Clerk Register, or Lords of Session, should not, during the life of such Peer or Peeress, allow any other person claiming to answer to such title to take part in any such election, nor should it be lawful for any such Lord Clerk Register, or Lords of Session, to allow the vote of any other such person unless directed by the House of Lords. That was a perfectly clear enactment, and if it had been acted on, he believed some of the painful scenes which had occurred at late elections of Representative Peers at Holyrood would not have occurred. At all events, they would not have occurred a second time; and now that this section had been brought under the notice of those who were in the habit of attending these elections, he should think there was very little danger of these scenes occurring again. The one false step which had been made in this matter was the rescinding, in 1862, of the Resolutions which obliged all claimants for Peerages, who claimed to succeed in any other way than in a direct line, to come before the Committee of Privileges. He thought the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch), who moved the rescinding of the Resolutions in 1862, had publicly expressed in this House his regret at having taken that step with regard to claims for the possession of Scotch Peerages. He was of opinion that if that Resolution were re-enacted, it would meet all the difficulties under which they now laboured. With regard to the last part of the Motion, he must say that a very good case could be made out for inquiry into the practice and the procedure of the Committee of Privileges. Their practice and procedure, it might safely be said, required amendment on several points. In addition to the delay caused, and the very unpleasant position which lay Peers were called upon to occupy, there was the enormous and overwhelming expense to the unfortunate

  349
  claimant, and those who opposed the claims before the Committee. The Earl of Crawford had spent, it was said, £20,000 in pursuing his claim before the Committee. His noble Friend near him (the Earl of Mar and Kellie) told him he had spent a very large sum in prosecuting his claim. He himself had unfortunately very intimate knowledge of the amount which he, and his father before him, were obliged to spend in making good his claim to the Peerage which he now had the honour to enjoy. He thought, therefore, a very good case could be made out for inquiring into the practice of the Committee of Privileges. But when they were asked to inquire into the position and order of precedence of Scotch Peerages on the Roll called the Union Roll, and in the Decreet of Ranking of 1606, he must ask their Lordships to pause before they started on any such course. The Motion, as he understood it, was to inquire into the position and precedence of individual Peerages on the Roll; and he must say that he thought, whether that settlement was perfect in all respects or not, it would be exceedingly unwise to re-open the whole subject, after the settlement had existed for upwards of 250 years, on account of some minor imperfections which were alleged to exist in it. Perhaps their Lordships were not aware how that Decreet and Ranking took place. It took place in 1606, and the cause of its being ordered by King James was the constant quarrels and bickerings which took place among the Scotch Peers as to their precedence, when they were in the habit of going in state from the Palace of Holyrood up to the Scottish Parliament, and it was with the view of composing those differences that this Decreet was ordered. The Commissioners were instructed to summon the Peers before them, and place the Peerages in their proper order. He believed some went before them, and some did not; at any rate, the matter was gone into very hurriedly, and the result was that even greater dissatisfaction was caused than had existed before. According to the Union Roll, Peerages were not put in anything like complete consecutive order, according to the dates of their creation. The Decreet of Ranking never gave satisfaction; but, nevertheless, he thought that to upset a document which had been a settlement of the question for upwards
  350
  of 250 years would lead to a great deal more trouble and annoyance, and perhaps a great deal more ill-feeling, after the new settlement had been arrived at, than if matters were left as they were. He could not conceive anything more unfortunate than re-opening such a question. He should pity the Committee that had to undertake it, because it would take a large number of years to get through it. There was, besides, machinery existing for putting right any defects on the Roll. If any Peers felt themselves aggrieved by the position they held on it, there was machinery by which such a man could protest and get himself placed above one who was wrongly put above him. He believed their Lordships had more than once asked the Court of Session, as in 1740, to provide a more perfect Roll than the Union Roll, and that the Lords of Session protested that the matter was too difficult for them to solve, and that they could not really undertake to do it and settle it satisfactorily. He would further like to ask of legal authorities whether it, was competent to their Lordships to undertake such inquiry? He had always understood that questions of precedence, except so far as related to seats on the Benches of this House, were not within the cognizance of their Lordships. It might be said that, under the Motion, the Committee would not be instructed to inquire into and settle the precedence of individual Peerages, but only into the state of the law on the subject. If that was so, surely it was not an inquiry which it would be worth while going into; and he could not see how it could be dissociated from the much larger question to which he had referred. In conclusion, he should be guided by the amount of support he received in the discussion as to whether he should press to a division the Amendment which he had put on the Paper. The noble Lord then moved his Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out ("and as to the position of order of precedence of Scotch Peerages upon the Roll called the Union Roll, and in the Decreet of Ranking of 1606.")—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he would suggest that the time allowed between the issue of the Writ and the making of the Return in regard to the election of Representative Peers should

  351
  be shortened from 52 days to 32, in consequence of the increased facilities of communication now existing.
  LORD BLANTYREsaid, after much dissatisfaction had been expressed lately at the manner in which the Union Roll had been dealt with at the elections at Holyrood—there had been a number of Protests at every election—it was all the more necessary that inquiry should be made into the matter, and there was no sort of reason why inquiry should be evaded.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, there were two subjects which must be of paramount interest in that House, and as to which every information desired ought to be put before it. The one was the claims to Peerages which would confer a seat in that House; the other was the claim to vote for Representative Peers who were to have seats in that House. The greater part of this Motion proposed an inquiry into the state of the law as to claims to Peerages, as to the manner in which they ought to be substantiated, and into the procedure which should be resorted to in case they became the subject of dispute. If Her Majesty's Government, in a matter of that kind, particularly where the Prerogative of the Crown was concerned, thought it right to accede to such an inquiry, he certainly should not be disposed to offer any opposition to it; but, on the contrary, thought that advantage might arise from the inquiry. With regard to an observation of his noble Friend behind him (Lord Balfour of Burleigh), as to the Committee of Privileges, he did not say that the procedure of that Committee might not be improved, and especially that part of it which required the presence of seven Peers; but any persons who fancied that the Committee of Privileges and the proceedings before it could be made an inexpensive matter would, he believed, find themselves disappointed. But there were matters connected with claims to the Peerage—the manner in which the country, and even the national archives, would have to be ransacked for ancient documents, the character of the evidence which had to be brought to bear upon those documents, the time over which search must extend, perhaps for years, the manner in which documents must be printed and submitted for most careful examination—all those were things which could not be deter-
  352
  mined without a very great amount of expense. He did not mean to say that the expenses were not greater than they ought to be; but these must necessarily be very expensive processes. So far, therefore, as the Motion proposed inquiry into the procedure of the Committee of Privileges, he did not object to it. It was a Motion which concerned not only Scotland, but England and Ireland also. It touched them all. But then, in the centre of his Motion, the noble Lord proposed certain special inquiries with reference to Scotland, and this seemed to him to be open to objections, and he thought their Lordships ought to be careful before they acceded to that part of the Motion. A claim to a Peerage, or a claim to vote for a Representative Peer, was one thing; a claim to simple precedence was a wholly different thing. It had nothing whatever to do with the question of right to a seat in this House, and precedence was a matter which, except so far as it had been taken out of the control of the Crown by Act of Parliament, was for the Crown. They knew that the great statute of precedence—51 Henry VIII.—stated on the face of it that the regulating and granting of precedence was for the Crown; and, therefore, it proceeded to declare that the establishing of precedence of Peers in Parliament was within the Prerogative of the Crown. No precedence beyond that remained for the Crown to regulate. Now, for what purpose were they to inquire into this subject? Was it to raise again the question of the Mar Peerage? He hoped not.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, it was not.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he was glad it was not to raise that question. The Union Roll and the Decreet of Ranking might have their faults; but, if so, let individual cases stand upon their merits. Let them not have a Committee to inquire specifically as to the value of the two documents which were mentioned in that Motion, and which related to Scotland alone, and did not deal with the question of the Peerage generally, but only with precedence. If there arose a dispute as to which Peerage was the more ancient and had a right to sit above the others, that was a claim, not to a Peerage, but to precedence in that House. He did not believe that that question had arisen in the memory of

  353
  any Member of that House, or for 100 years. He thought, therefore, that their Lordships would have done enough—if he might offer that advice—by intrusting to the Committee the very important investigation which the rest of the Motion would give to them. To go beyond that would, he believed, cause great embarrassment, delay, and trouble, without answering any good object.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to say for the Government that I am not prepared to offer any objections to the Motion of the noble Earl. There can be no doubt, I think, that it would be a good thing that inquiry into the succession to Peerages and claims to vote should take the same course, and be under the same law, in all parts of the United Kingdom. At present it is well regulated in England and in Ireland, and it may be a consequence of that regulation that nobody in England or Ireland thinks of making a claim to a Peerage before it has been investigated in this House, or perseveres in it when it has been disallowed after investigation in this House. No doubt there have been cases in which titles have been assumed which have not been substantiated; but those have been cases depending upon questions of fact, and as soon as decisions of this House have been obtained, such claims as are contrary to them have ceased to be made. But it must be known to all your Lordships that that which is the rule in England and in Ireland is not the rule in Scotland, and that from time to time various titles to Peerages have been assumed in Scotland by persons who have not taken the means which were open to them of submitting their claims to investigation in this House; and hitherto there have been no means provided by law, except under particular conditions, for causing those claims to be inquired into; and one consequence of that has been that some discussions, very inexpedient and undesirable, as to the grounds of particular decisions of your Lordships' Committee of Privileges, have been raised in the way of general debate in this House. To put the course of procedure, in all such cases, on a uniform and well-regulated footing, seems to me a desirable thing. With respect to the last part of the Motion, as to the procedure and practice of this House in its Committee of Privi-
  354
  leges, while I entirely agree with what my noble and learned Friend has said, that in most cases, or at least in many, there must be much unavoidable expense, yet I think it is something like a scandal that from year to year, from Session to Session, nobody knowing how much time will be occupied in one Session, or how many protracted stages there may be, the same claims are allowed to drag on and continue very much at the convenience of those who are interested in conducting those cases out-of-doors. I cannot but think that, although it may be impossible strictly and literally to apply to those claims exactly the same rules which are applicable to ordinary cases of civil litigation, yet a very much greater approximation might be made—that is to say, claimants might be required within reasonable limits of time, and in something like a regular course, to bring in their evidence, and take the judgment of the Committee of Privileges upon its effect. You might not be able, in all cases, to prevent them from being renewed, but you could prevent claims from being protracted over a very great length of time. The question of precedence does not directly interest this House, except so far as it may affect either the weight or value of evidence in cases of Peerage claims, and the relative precedence in this House of any Representative Peers from Scotland, as between whom questions of precedence may arise. Precedence stood originally upon the Royal Prerogative; but, as the noble and learned. Lord has said, so far as relates to England, the legislation of the Reign of Henry VIII. has put it upon the footing of law. As to the Scotch Representative Peers, they, by the Act of Union, take rank in this House as at the date of the Act of Union. Among themselves, they take rank when the dignities are of the same degree, according to the dates of their creation. If it so happened that an Earl of Rothes, for example, and some other noblemen now standing above the Earl of Rothes upon the Union Roll, were at the same time to be returned as Representative Peers, the question of precedence between them might arise. Now, the matter stands in this peculiar way. The Decreet of Ranking of James I. is not an instrument by which the King, in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, granted any precedence. It was the

  355
  result of the Commission of Inquiry issued by authority of that King to look into the documents upon which the actual rights of priority or precedence would depend, and to report accordingly. The King established the result of these findings; but the Commission, at the same time, provided that if anyone should be aggrieved by the order of precedence so settled, he might appeal to the Court of Session, and that Court might pass a decree to rectify any mistake that might have been committed. Under that power the Court of Session, at the beginning of the Reign of Charles I., altered, in one instance (that of the Earl of Buchan), the precedence fixed by the Decreet of Ranking; and an Act of Parliament was passed to confirm that change. One or two other cases were brought forward; but, so far as I have been able to trace the matter, they came to nothing, and the claims were dropped. So that, except in the case of the Earl of Buchan, no actual rectification has been made; and as to all other Peerages, the Union Roll simply represents the Decreet of Ranking. It may be a matter of serious doubt whether the Court of Session would now consider that it has authority to entertain any such question of priority, seeing that the only original authority was derived from King James' Commission, and that, in the single case in which the order of precedence has been changed, it was thought necessary to have an Act of Parliament to confirm the decision in Lord Buchan's favour. It appears to me that, in that state of things, it might be desirable, not to inquire whether this Peer or that is in the proper place in the Union Roll or Decreet of Ranking, an inquiry which I should deprecate quite as much as my noble Friend who moves the Amendment; but into the state of the law as to the means of correcting such errors (if any) as may exist in those instruments. As I understand the Motion, all that is intended is that the Committee should inquire, not into the position and order of precedence of the Scotch Peerage upon the Roll, but into the present state of the law with regard to several matters, of which this is one. I have explained the reasons which led me not to anticipate the objections which have been made on this point. My mind is perfectly open upon the subject, and I do not desire in the least to influence your
  356
  Lordships if you think this part of the proposed inquiry unnecessary.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he did not rise to take any part in the discussion; nor did he think that the matter was of great importance as to whether this Committee sat or not. The fact was, that all the information the Committee required was in the hands of the House. The main points that were raised with respect to the Scotch Peerage, which were sufficiently obvious, were already fully laid before the House in the Report of the evidence of the Committee of 1874; but if there was any anxiety on the part of their Lordships to sit on another Committee, he saw no reason to prevent their doing so. At the same time, he would point out that what was wanted was not a Committee or information. There were various important recommendations of the Committee now in evidence before their Lordships. They had been in the hands of their Lordships for some years, and there had been no tendency whatever to take any action upon them. The matter was one of so much delicacy and of dignity, as affecting a large section of the Peerage, that it could only be introduced upon the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government; and certainly, considering the present state of Public Business, it was not to be expected that the Government would be prepared to bring in such a measure this year. As regarded that very difficult point, which was not merely a question of precedence but a question of seemliness at the election of Scotch Peers, they had a suggestion that, instead of a Roll of Peerage to which there were likely to be a dozen claimants, and which had led to scenes almost giving one the idea of personal combat, these scenes might be avoided by making the Roll one of individual Peers and not of Peerages to which people could lay claim. The preparation of such a Roll would require a Committee of great lawyers, and a Committee that would sit with great labour and patience for, he should think, a considerable number of years, and when that was done they should have some hopes of getting the question put into a satisfactory state. He wished to point out that a mere collection of information was a very flabby and endless mode of dealing with this question. He did not know if noble Lords were anxious to sit upon another

  357
  Committee, but he was quite certain that it was not by Committees that this subject could be settled. This Committee would have to guard itself very strictly against the danger pointed out of descending into the usual controversies concerning the Mar Peerage.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)thought that it would be unwise to re-open this question, which had long been settled, for good or ill. An inquiry into a Peerage claim was very different from any other legal proceeding, in consequence of the number of years that the inquiry extended back. In the Annandale Peerage case, for instance, the Committee had to investigate a line of descent commencing in the 15th century. He had received a letter from a noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleugh) who had taken much interest in the matter, in which he stated it would be impossible for the Committee to go into the whole of the details of the subject unless they were prepared to sit for many months, or perhaps years, and that it would involve a large expenditure of money, public as well as private. He agreed with the remarks that had fallen from the noble Lord who had just sat down, and he hoped the House would agree to the Amendment of the noble Lord behind him.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, the only object of the part of the Resolution objected to was to investigate and see whether this Decreet of Ranking was a document of value, without the intention of going into any particular Peerage He could not but hope their Lordships might think it best, therefore, to accept the Resolution proposed by his noble Friend opposite in its entirety, after hearing the remarks of the Lord Chancellor on the subject.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that, in accordance with the feeling of the House, he was willing to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Balfour of Burleigh).
  On question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the motion, resolved in the negative; and motion, as amended, agreed to.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE WINDSOR REVIEW.
EARL GRANVILLE: Perhaps it would be convenient that I should state to the
358
House the arrangements that have been made for the accommodation of Members of both Houses on the occasion of the Royal Review at Windsor to-morrow. Space for about 500 has been roped off in front of the Royal carriages and to the left of the saluting-point. The Ranger will do his best to provide accommodation for Members' carriages behind the Royal carriages.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It may also be for the convenience of the House that I should state that arrangements have been made for special trains for the conveyance of Members of both Houses to Windsor to-morrow; but that no arrangements have been made for special trains for the return journey. [Laughter.] Perhaps I ought to modify that statement by saying that at present I have not received information that any arrangements for return special trains have been made.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE WINDSOR REVIEW.

  ALSAGER CHAPEL (MARRIAGES) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to legalize certain Marriages celebrated in the Chapel at Alsager, in the parish of Barthomley—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of YORK; read 1a (No. 153.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.