Sitting of 19 July 1881

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 18] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Bills of Exchange* [218].
Second Reading—Customs (Officers)* [210].
Select Committee—Poor Relief and Audit of Accounts (Scotland) [182], Sir Edward Colebrooke and Mr. Arthur Balfour added.
Committee—Land Law (Ireland) [135]—R.P. Third Reading—Reformatory Institutions (Ireland)* [190], and passed.
Withdrawn—Teachers' Registration* [42].

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY—AUXILIARY FORCES—VOLUN- TEER OFFICERS—OPTIONAL EXAMI- NATION IN MODERN TACTICS.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will consider the advisability of establishing for the benefit of Volunteer officers an optional examination in the elements of modern tactics?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I can only now say that in the course of the ensuing autumn and winter, I propose to take up a good many questions connected with the Volunteers, and that I will then consider his suggestion; but I fear that there will be considerable difficulties in carrying it out.

  HIGHWAY RATES—ASSESSMENT AND POWER OF COMPOUNDING.
  MR. HICKSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is a fact that the Local Government Board has given an opinion to the effect that the 13th and 14th Vic. c. 99, by which owners of small tenements have been liable for payment of Highway Rates levied on their tenants, has been repealed by the 32nd and 33rd Vic. c. 41, s. 6; and, if this is so, whether the Government will bring in a short Bill to place the owners of small tenements in the same position as regards Highway Rates as they now are as regards Poor Rates?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, it is not a fact that the Local Government Board have advised that the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 99, by which owners of small tenements could be made liable or could compound for the rates assessed on their tenants, has been repealed by the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41, s. 6, as that section only repeals the latter Act so far as regards the poor rate. The Board have, however, advised that the Act 13 & 14 Vict. c. 99, has, as regards the highway rate, been repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 66). There can be no doubt that it is desirable that highway rates should, as regards the assessing of owners and the power to compound, be placed on the same footing as poor rates; but I am afraid I could not undertake to introduce a Bill for the purpose during the present Session. At the same time, I am considering the expediency of amending the law relating to the making and collection of rates with a view to its simplification, and hope to be able to deal with the matter next year.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD, R.M.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that Mr. Clifford Lloyd ordered four respectable young ladies to be summoned and brought before the Kilmallock Petty Sessions on the 8th instant, for simply standing on the public street in that town; and, if it is a fact that on several occasions during the last four weeks, when four or five respectable farmers and shopkeepers happened to be conversing together, that he (Mr. Lloyd)

  1253
  had sent policemen to take down their names; and, if so, how long will this official be allowed to act in this manner? The hon. Member also asked, If it is true that in the case of the old woman Colman (sent to prison by Mr. Clifford Lloyd) that bail was offered at the time and refused by Mr. Clifford Lloyd on the ground that the parties were Land Leaguers; whether, on further inquiry, he has ascertained that this woman was sent to Limerick Prison and detained there for a fortnight, and not for one night; and, whether Mr. Lloyd has afterwards accepted the same bails for this woman which he refused a fortnight before?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, as regards the first Question, it is not a fact that Mr. Clifford Lloyd ordered four young ladies to be summoned for simply standing in the public street at Kilmallock. Four persons were summoned on the 8th instant for obstructing the public thoroughfare, under the following circumstances:—A police constable made a complaint that a number of women completely blocked up the thoroughfare, and rendered it necessary for the passengers to go off the footway into the road. Mr. Lloyd at first refused to grant summonses; but on the constable further complaining that although all the other young women, on being told to go off the footway, did so, these four refused to do so, and that they used insulting language, Mr. Lloyd granted a summons against them. On hearing the case, however, it did not appear to Mr. Lloyd to be one in which any punishment was called for, and the justices present concurring, the case was dismissed. There is absolutely no foundation for the allegation that on several occasions within the last four weeks four or five respectable farmers and shopkeepers happened to be conversing together, when Mr. Lloyd sent a policeman to disperse them and take down their names. Up to quite lately roughs used to collect at the corners, and hoot and insult and stone the police whenever opportunity offered. The police had distinct orders to prevent such persons assembling, and equally distinct orders never to interfere with respectable people standing about the streets. As to the second Question, I find in the case of Mrs. Colman that it is not a fact that bail was refused because the parties
  1254
  offering it were Land Leaguers. The fact was, the bailsmen originally offered did not qualify as such. I find that this woman was detained in prison from the 28th of June till the 8th of July, when she was released on security being found which was approved by the police. I am reported to have stated, and probably I did state, that she was only in prison for a night. That is entirely a mistake of my own, for which Mr. Lloyd is in no way responsible. I regret it; but I find, on looking over the Papers, that I misread them, and it was entirely my mistake. It is not the fact that the same bailsmen were accepted as had been previously refused. Having answered these Questions about Mr. Lloyd, I must say one word about that gentleman. These Questions have frequently appeared in the public newspapers in a form which excludes them, unless modified, from appearing on the Journals of the House. They are disseminated widely in the district over which Mr. Lloyd has charge, and convey a wrong impression of his action. I must say that Mr. Lloyd has had a most anxious and responsible position, and it is due to him for me to state my firm belief that, by his energy and his fearless and discreet discharge of his duties, he had changed the condition of the district to which he was sent, and has restored peace and order where, a short time ago, violence and intimidation ruled.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether it is not the fact that, on the hearing of the case against the four ladies, it was proved distinctly by a policeman that Mr. Lloyd had ordered him to issue the summons; and further, whether he did not refuse to take the bail of a farmer named Thomas O'Donnell, who pays a rent of £60 a-year, and also that of an owner of property in Kilmallock, James Walter?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: As regards the second Question, the hon. Member must give me Notice. As to the first, I distinctly stated that Mr. Lloyd told the policeman on the information to issue a summons.
  MR. CALLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the late Member for Newry, Mr. William Whitworth, who is a magistrate for the borough of Drogheda, and his brother

  1255
  who is now the Representative of that ancient borough, have not publicly and privately intimated to the right hon. Gentleman that they consider that the appointment of Mr. Clifford Lloyd to any Southern district would be that of a firebrand, and calculated to lead to a breach of the peace?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have no information whatever from Mr. Whitworth, a gentleman not in this House.
  MR. CALLAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any intimation?—[Loud cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has put his Question and has received an answer.
  MR. CALLAN: Pardon me, Sir; not to the second part of the Question—namely, whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any information from the present Member for the borough of Drogheda.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I certainly have received no official information. ["Oh, oh!"] Pray, one moment. I cannot remember that I have received any information whatever; but neither the hon. Gentleman nor any other hon. Gentleman has a right to ask me about private information.
  MR. CALLAN: I was not asking about any private information. I was asking in reference to information which was perfectly public, and which was well known to the right hon. Gentleman not to be private.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN: On Thursday next, I will ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is not the fact that Mr. Clifford Lloyd refused four substantial bails in the case of Mrs. Colman?
  MR. HEALYasked, whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd was the same man who, on the testimony of a Roman Catholic priest, said, on the 1st of January, to that priest, when dispersing a meeting in Drogheda—"If you don't be off at once I will have you shot down?" He (Mr. Healy) was in Drogheda at the time, and heard Mr. Lloyd use that expression.
  [No reply.]

  CRIMINAL LAW—INADEQUATE SENTENCES.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been
  1256
  called to the case of a man named Lowe, who was tried at the Stafford Assizes for brutally assaulting and stabbing and then robbing a lady walking in a field in the neighbourhood of her residence, and to the sentence of twelve months' imprisonment passed on him for that crime; and, whether, having regard to the severe punishment inflicted in respect of offences affecting property and the light punishment which follows in cases of aggravated personal injury, he will consider the necessity of legislation in the next Session for the better protection of the lives and persons of Her Majesty's subjects?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, the question of his hon. Friend seemed to point to the opinion that the sentence passed by the Judge in this case was not adequate to the offence. His (Sir William Harcourt's) answer to that was, that this was a matter over which he had no control or jurisdiction. The Constitution of that country very wisely placed the administration of the Criminal Law in the hands of the judicial authorities. It was no part of his business or his duty to criticize the sentences of the Judges; and he had no power to alter them, if he thought them inadequate. In advising the Crown as to the Prerogative of mercy, the Secretary of State in consultation with the Judges, did sometimes, in rare cases, re-consider sentences; but as to the question of sentences being inadequate, the Secretary of State had no power to interfere with them, and, having no power, he ought not to pronounce any opinion upon a matter over which he had no authority. With regard to legislative measures to meet the evil at which his hon. Friend pointed, the Legislature had fixed a maximum; and, within that maximum, what punishments were to be inflicted must always depend on the discretion of the Judge. He was not aware that the Legislature had fixed upon maximum punishments which were too low, and it rested with the Judge how far, and to what extent, he would carry the punishment. The Legislature could not fix the absolute punishment to apply in all cases. Therefore, he thought his hon. Friend would see that was not a matter in which he (Sir William Harcourt) could properly interfere without trenching on functions on which he ought not to attempt to trench.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERasked, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not written to the Judge on the subject of the inadequacy of the punishment awarded?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, no; certainly not. It would be highly improper for him to do so, in a matter in which he had no jurisdiction. How could he write to a Judge to say—"I think you have passed too light a sentence in this case;" because the Judge would very properly reply—"That is no affair of yours." His hon. Friend would see that he could not write to Judges, remonstrating with them for passing sentences, either for being too heavy or too light; because, by doing so, he would be assuming an authority which the Constitution of the country had not given him.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERasked if it was not usual to give to the House the Judge's explanation in cases of the kind? He should like also to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to give him, as an unopposed Return, copies of the depositions of the witnesses in this case? [Cries of "Order!"] That was a very serious matter, and he believed it was the first occasion in which the sentence of a Judge had been called in question on which the Secretary of State for the Home Department had not stated to the House the Judge's explanation of his reasons. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] In order to enable himself to make the remarks he thought necessary, he should conclude with a Motion. In this case the young lady had been most brutally treated. She had been recently married, and in addition to being brutally outraged, she was stabbed and otherwise seriously injured. He considered that a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for so serious an offence was absurd; and if the House was to be the grand inquest of the nation, they had a right to make some inquiry as to what he called a grave miscarriage of justice. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have no power in this matter, he had some influence, and he (Mr. Fowler) appealed to him to use that influence. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. WIGGIN, in seconding the Motion, said, the young lady, who had been recently married, was the wife of a pro-
  1258
  fessional gentleman in Birmingham, and in broad daylight was assaulted by the man who had been so inadequately punished. She was seized by the throat, knocked down, and violently assaulted, and when she resisted, a knife was used, and after being seriously stabbed in two places, she was robbed of £4 or £5. The feeling in the neighbourhood was one of expectation that the man would be sent to penal servitude, accompanied by 20 or 25 lashes with the cat; but he only got 12 months' imprisonment. He was told that the prisoner pleaded guilty, and called no witnesses, and the Judge, in looking over the depositions, said that the old lady appeared to have acted with courage. The lady had certainly acted with courage, but, instead of being old, she was only 24 years of age.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he had a Notice on the Paper, calling attention to a number of serious brutal outrages which were a scandal to the administration of our justice; but he had not had an opportunity of bringing this matter before the House. He thought the case brought forward by the hon. Member (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was a very trifling one compared with some he could relate; but he wished to express his thanks to the hon. Member for having brought the matter to the notice of the House, for it was a scandal to the administration of justice.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would point out that the moving of the Adjournment of the House was not the proper course to take in a matter of that kind. There was only one form in which cognizance of the conduct of Judges could be taken by the House, when it thought proper to interfere in a case of the kind, and that was by moving an Address to the Crown. There was nothing more important than that the independence of the Judges of this country should be maintained; but his hon. Friend asked the House, at a moment's notice, on what was necessarily a very brief statement of the case, to condemn the conduct of the Judge. He (Sir William Harcourt) neither condemned nor acquitted him, because it was not his duty to do so. The House had the power, in the last resort, of

  1259
  censuring the conduct of a Judge; but it was a serious matter, which should only be done on full Notice and by an Address to the Crown, otherwise the House would be assuming the functions of a Court of Review over offences, and it was very unfitted for that. He ventured to suggest to his hon. Friend that it was impossible, on a Motion for Adjournment, to adequately consider the question; but he would consider the subject further as to whether there was anything proper or right to be done in the matter; and, if so, would be happy to communicate with his hon. Friend on the subject.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that while an English ruffian only got 12 months' imprisonment for brutally outraging a young lady, and stabbing her, an Irishman in Ireland got 18 months' imprisonment, at the beck of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, for merely opening his mouth and expressing his opinion on the Land Laws.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERthought the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory, and he would communicate with him privately on the matter. He asked that the Motion should be withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO- PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—VIO- LENT LANGUAGE.
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the report in "Freeman's Journal" 14th July, is accurate that a public meeting was held on Wednesday July 13th, at the Rotunda in Dublin, at which gentlemen named Messrs. Fredericks, Winks, and Finlayson, calling themselves severally Vice President and Secretary of the Democratic Confederation of England and Vice President of the Manchester Democratic League attended; whether, at that meeting, Mr. Sexton, M.P., presided, and in reference to language previously used by English gentlemen who purported to act as deputations from Associations in England, said—
  "That some at least of the members of these deputations had been moved to language which would have procured for an Irishman the signal horror of reasonable suspicion;"
  1260
  whether Mr. Fredericks is correctly reported to have used the following words:—
  "He was not afraid to say that the Government which held them in subjection, which by its laws was starving the people and driving thousands of them to other countries, could have no claim upon their submission, and no claim to their affection and allegiance;"
  and, if the words made use of were not as reported, can he state whether any words of this character were made use of; and, whether he will take any action in the matter?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said he had seen the newspaper reports, but had not been able to obtain any official report of what was said on the occasion. Admission was by ticket. Police and those who were not in perfect sympathy with its object were excluded.
  MR. BELLINGHAMwas understood to ask if the language used by the English Deputation was, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, sufficient to warrant the arrest of Irishmen, but that Englishmen using it should be free from arrest?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, could only say that he had carefully looked, and was still looking, at this matter. The hon. Member must really leave the Government some discretion whether they considered that certain persons ought to be arrested or not. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member evidently thought that these persons ought to be arrested. Well, that was a matter for the serious consideration of the Government, and the House could hardly expect him to give any statement upon it.
  MR. HEALYasked if they would allow an Irishman to use the same language?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the Government would deal with each case according to its merits.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—CONTEMPT OF COURT—MARY ANN TROWER.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay upon the Table of the House the warrant, and the entry of the same, under which a widow named Mary Ann Trower was arrested on the 11th February 1879, and detained in Holloway Gaol until the evening of July 1st 1880, for contempt of court; and on what grounds the said Mary Ann Trower

  1261
  obtained her release; and, if he can furnish a statement of what constituted the contempt of court?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, in this case there was an order of the Court of Chancery to do certain things. I presume the order was disobeyed, and then, according to ordinary practice, the person disobeying the Court was committed to prison as a first-class misdemeanant. When the order was satisfied, the person was discharged. That, I understand, was done in this case.

  THE AUSTRO-SERVIAN COMMERCIAL TREATY.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government, in signing the Protocol between Great Britain and Servia on the 4th July, have assented to the preferential duty on iron, manufactured and partly manufactured, accorded to Austria by the Treaty by Austria and Servia of the 6th of May 1881, in violation of Article 8 of the Treaty between this Country and Servia of the 7th February 1880, which provides that—
  "Every reduction in the tariff of import and export duties, as well as every favour or immunity which has been or may hereafter be granted by one of the contracting parties to the subjects or commerce of a third Power, shall be granted simultaneously and unconditionally to the other, except as regards such special facilities as have been, or may hereafter be, conceded no the part of Servia to the neighbouring States with respect to the local traffic between their conterminous frontier districts;"
  whether Lord Granville, on the 14th June, demanded that iron and steel should be admitted into Servia duty free; whether, on the 22nd June, after a conversation between the Under Secretary and M. Marinovitch, held on the 16th, Lord Granville abandoned all claims in favour of the British iron trade, and fully accepted the Servian proposals; and, whether the question of the duties on iron, which the Under Secretary stated a fortnight afterwards was still under discussion with the Servian Government, had not been finally settled by the Despatch of the 22nd June?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the state of the case with regard to the arrangements referred to is fully explained in Lord Granville's despatch to Mr. Locock, of the 8th instant, contained in the Parliamentary Paper No. 24
  1262
  (Commercial), of this Session. The noble Lord is possibly not aware that the Austrians have always paid 3 per cent on these classes of goods. We have never sent any to Servia, and have obtained as the consideration for waiving our Treaty rights upon this point a reduction of duty on woollen and cotton yarns, in which some trade is done, from 8 per cent to 5 per cent. On the 14th of June, Her Majesty's Government asked that certain iron and steel wares should be admitted into Servia duty free. On the 22nd of June, M. Marinovitch was informed that this particular demand was withdrawn. But the precise rate of duty for these wares was still in discussion, and it was not finally settled until the 2nd of this month. Several interviews took place between Mr. Gould, Her Britannic Majesty's late Minister in Servia, and M. Marinovitch, between the 22nd of June and the 2nd of July, and the last of these interviews was held late at night on the 1st of July.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLgave Notice that he would raise the whole question at the Evening Sitting on the Report of Supply.

  RAILWAYS—RAILWAY CARRIAGES.
  COLONEL BARNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, with a view of the prevention of crime in Railway carriages, he would approve of Railway Companies removing the upper portions of the partitions between compartments, as is now done in some of the Underground Railway carriages?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, the Question might be properly addressed to the Board of Trade; but no Government Department had any right to interfere with the construction of railway carriages, and, therefore, their approval would not be required for such arrangements. It was entirely a question for the Railway Companies and the travelling public, and he might add that the proposed arrangements would not meet with universal approval.

  FRANCE AND ENGLAND—THE NEW- FOUNDLAND FISHERIES TREATY.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can lay upon the Table of the

  1263
  House a List of the Questions concerning Newfoundland which have been submitted to the Commissioners, Admirals Pierre and Miller?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the present proceedings are in the nature of a confidential discussion between the French and English Governments, with the view to ascertaining whether it is practicable to arrive at a settlement on some of the principal points in respect of which our view of the French Treaty right differs from the French view. The two Governments have not thought it desirable to submit to the Commissioners any list of questions to be decided.
  COLONEL BARNEasked the hon. Baronet, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant the French Government any territorial rights whatever in Newfoundland, or any rights beyond those conferred by the different Treaties?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; it has not been, at any time, proposed, and is not intended, that any territorial rights in Newfoundland should be granted to the French Government, nor any rights beyond those already conferred by Treaty.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—REGIS- TRATION AND QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has issued a Circular to overseers embodying new instructions as to the registration and qualification of voters; if so, whether he can explain its effect to the House; and, whether he will lay a Copy of it, with such correspondence as may have led to it, upon the Table of the House?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, after the passing of the Act of 1878, which gave to all persons occupying parts of dwelling-houses a right to be upon the register, my Predecessor (Sir R. Assheton Cross) sent a Circular to the vestry clerks of the Metropolis, calling upon them for explanations with reference to the allegation that they were going to avoid giving effect to the provision of the Act of Parliament. Since that time there has been great complaints that the persons referred to were not put upon the register, and those complaints appear to be well
  1264
  founded, because in London the number of those persons enjoying the privilege of the franchise is much smaller in proportion to the population than it is in any other part of the Kingdom. Therefore, following the example set by my Predecessor, I have directed another Circular to be issued, calling attention to the clauses of the Act, and requesting that steps may be taken by the different vestry clerks and overseers to put on the list of voters all persons occupying separately any part of a house. I hope the effect will be that many thousands of persons will get the votes to which they are entitled under the Act.
  In reply to Mr. PULESTON and Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA,
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Circular, at present, had only been issued to the authorities of the Metropolis, because it was from the Metropolis complaints had been received, it being the worst example in the country in that respect; but there would be no objection to address it to the overseers of the country generally.

  CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended to proceed with the Charitable Trusts Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have communicated with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to this, and he agrees with me that there is no chance of passing the Bill.

  COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE (NEGOTIATIONS).
  MR. JACKSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is true that in the negotiations for a Commercial Treaty with France Her Majesty's Government henceforth admits without contestation the principle of specific duties; and, if he can relieve the anxiety which prevails throughout the Country by an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will conclude no Treaty with France which will impose higher duties on any goods of British manufacture imported into France than those under the existing Treaty?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I have been requested by the Prime Mi-

  1265
  nister to answer this Question. I find that, in the Question, the words quoted are those from a newspaper article, which cause the supposition to prevail that fresh communications have taken place between the two Governments. In answer to the hon. Member, I would refer him to the reply given 10 days previously on the subject of specific duties by the Prime Minister, and would further inform him that no communication has taken place between the English and the French Governments on the subject since the French Commission left London. Therefore, the position remains unchanged. It will be impossible to give a general assurance of the kind asked for. It may be the duty of the English Government to complete a Treaty in which some duties may be raised and others lowered upon goods of more importance to British trade.
  MR. JACKSONasked whether the Government had accepted the principle of specific duties?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I think I am justified in replying, in general terms, that we have not objected in principle to specific duties. As was said the other night on the Motion of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), the Government has never objected in principle to specific duties, which are levied by almost all the nations of Europe; but we have not consented to them as regards some articles which are the subjects of trade between this country and France, especially cheap and heavy cotton and woollen goods, because it is almost impossible to find a specific duty which will correctly represent the equivalent of ad valorem duty. It is not so much a matter of principle, but one of almost insuperable difficulty in finding an equivalent to an ad valorem duty.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he proposes, before the close of the Session, to state to the House what arrangements Her Majesty's Government have made for the protection of the Natives of the Transvaal and the neighbouring territories?
    MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he would answer this Question in connection with some other cognate matter connected with the Business of the House. The expectation of the Government was, as far as they could then form one, that propably before the close of the Session the exact provisions on the subject of the protection of the Natives of the Transvaal and neighbouring territories, which were embodied in the proposed Convention with the Transvaal Leaders, would be in their possession, and would be presented to the House. Of course, he could not state so positively to the House, because it was not in their power to give them absolute information. With respect to the question of the Transvaal generally, seeing the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire in his place, it might be convenient that he should state the view and intention of the Government. In the first place, it was their intention to make every effort to urge the Committee to close the proceedings on the Irish Land Bill, so far as it was concerned, during the present week. He hoped it was not an unreasonable expectation that it might close on Friday; but, should it be necessary, the Government would ask the House to sit on Saturday, rather than run the risk of passing into the succeeding week. In any event, however, they would propose that Monday next should be placed absolutely and unconditionally at the command of the House, and in the first instance, at the command of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), in order that he might, if he desired it, revive the Motion of which he had given Notice with respect to the affairs of the Transvaal. That offer would be an unconditional offer, whatever might happen with the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. If the right hon. Baronet, however, did not think himself called upon to avail himself of the Government proposal, in that case it was their duty to have regard to the Notices given by the other Members of the House, which were in effect substantive Motions, although they only stood on the Paper in the form of Amendments to the principal Motion of the right hon. Baronet. After all that had been said, not only in that House, but still more out of the House, and in what was called "another place," as well as various other places,

    1267
    the Government had considered it their duty, not only with reference to this country, but with reference to the state of South Africa, that, so far as they were concerned, they should give an opportunity for taking the judgment of the House on this subject. The two hon. Gentlemen who had given Notices on the question were the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone). He understood that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was willing to give way to the Motion of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire; but, whether it was one or other of those hon. Gentlemen, he (Mr. Gladstone) should have to say that, in case the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not think it his duty to proceed with his Motion, the Government would make the same offer to place Monday at the disposal of the other hon. Members. Passing from that subject, let him repeat that it was not their intention in the present Session to proceed with the Charitable Trusts Bill. He had nothing more to say, except that it would probably be the duty of the Government, viewing the state of the period of the year in which they had arrived, and in conformity with the spirit of previous arrangements, to ask the House, when they came to the third reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, for precedence on all the days of the week, subject, of course, to any very special application which might be made by the promoters of any particular measure, who had a good chance of passing it, to give them some accommodation for the purpose. If they should obtain that permission from the House, their intention was to apply the time which would thus be placed at their command in general conformity with what had been laid down the previous evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). They would propose to apply a certain number of hours of every evening for the purpose of going on with Supply, until they had going finished it. Of course, they would endeavour to push forward measures of a secondary character of an indispensable nature, and that did not create serious difference of opinion, by taking them in the evenings after Commitee of Supply. He would reserve the possibility of any
    1268
    extraordinary call which might make it the duty and general desire of the House to deviate from the general arrangement that he had proposed.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it appeared to him that, considering the statement which the Prime Minister had just made, that the terms of the Convention might be expected to be laid before the House before the end of the Session, they would be taking the Transvaal discussion at a very inconvenient time if it were taken on Monday. He would like to know when they might expect to have the terms of the Convention before them; and, more particularly, if there was any truth in the statement in the morning papers to the effect that the Commission had presented 36 Articles to the Triumvirate, of which the Triumvirate had refused 16, and that among these Articles there was no provision reserving any portion of territory to the East of the Transvaal?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, with respect to the statement in the morning papers, he was ignorant of anything of the nature that was there conveyed, and he thought his ignorance must imply that no such information had reached the Colonial Office, as he had seen his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies only a few minutes ago. He had no reason to suppose that such a statement as that of the presentation of 36 Articles, and the rejection of 16 of them, was at all likely to be true. With regard to what had been said as to the inconvenience of the time for taking the discussion, it was probable that they would receive the Convention, and that therefore the right hon. Baronet would be in a position to make any comment upon it he pleased. The right hon. Baronet, however, would have to recollect that the Convention, when received here, would not be, after all, a final document. It would have to be ratified by the General Assembly, which was called the Volksraad, and before that took place, a considerable interval of time must occur, and therefore there was not the least likelihood of an absolute and final and formal settlement during the present Session.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked whether the action or policy of the Home Government might be regarded as concluded with the conclusion

    1269
    of the Convention, apart from the ratification by the Volksraad?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in the main, no doubt, that would be so; but, apart from that particular point, the Government were anxious, as he had said, to have the judgment of the House on their South African policy entirely dissociated from any fear that might exist in the minds of any persons as to inconvenient consequences in South Africa.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: But we shall not have the Convention by Monday?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, no.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked whether the terms of the Convention would not be submitted to the Government before being submitted to the Volksraad; whether, in fact, the proposal that would be laid before the Volksraad would not be the Convention as approved by the Government?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he should think it would be the Convention as settled by the Commissioners. It was to be remembered that the Commissioners were almost daily engaged in making communications to Her Majesty's Government, and therefore the question whether they should refer home the final words of the Convention, the Government would be disposed to leave to their discretion.
    MR. J. COWENsubsequently asked whether the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire intended to proceed with his Transvaal Resolution on Monday?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I will make an announcement as soon as I can.

  WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS).
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish, Sir, to ask the President of the Local Government Board, If he is aware that in those districts of London supplied by the Grand Junction Company there has been an almost total suspension of the water supply? I wish to inquire also, Whether the Local Government Board are prepared to exercise the authority they possess to make the Grand Junction Company comply with their statutory obligations in respect to water supply?
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKalso asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman
  1270
  would, without delay, invite the attention of his Colleagues to the question of the water supply of London, with a view to legislation on the subject at the earliest moment possible next Session?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, his attention had been directed to this matter by the Question of his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith), and also by the Question of which the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. D. Grant) had given Notice; but he hoped it would not be thought a matter of disrespect either to his right hon. Friend or to the hon. Member for Marylebone, if he added that it had been still more forcibly directed to the matter by a deficiency in the water supply in his (Mr. Dodson's) own house. Information was received by the Local Government Board yesterday of the failure of the high service supply in a house at Brixton, and he immediately directed Colonel Bolton, the Water Examiner attached to the Department over which he presided, to make inquiry into the matter. He had not yet received a Report from that official; but when he did so, he would consider of communicating it to the House, and would also be in a position to state the nature of the proceedings the Government would propose to take. In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), he had only to say that, in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee of last Session, the necessary Notices of a Bill relating to the Water Companies of London had been given early in the Session by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Departpartment; but the Bill itself had not been introduced, because there were large pecuniary interests to be dealt with in the way of purchase and compensation, and it was not deemed advisable to introduce a Bill of the kind without the tolerable certainty of being able to pass it into law in the Session in which it was introduced.

  NAVY (FITTERS IN HER MAJESTY'S DOCKYARDS).
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the hon. Member for Stoke, Whether there was any chance that he would bring on his Motion with regard to Fitters in Dockyards?
  MR. BROADHURST, in reply, said, he was extremely sorry to say that he had no hope whatever of being able to bring the subject forward this Session. He was extremely sorry for that, as it was a subject on which there was a very wide interest throughout the country. If he was unable that evening to bring the subject before the House, it was probable that he should prefer to adjourn it to next Session rather than run the risks of having to take a debate on the subject at an unreasonable hour of the night, when it could not be fully gone into.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE— COMMENCEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  EARL PERCYasked, What Supply—the Civil Service or the Army Estimates—was to be taken after the conclusion of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill; and, whether it was intended to restore the rights of private Members on Tuesdays and Fridays, after the Land Law (Ireland) Bill had passed through Committee?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that as he did not consider that any lengthened interval would be necessary between the Committee and Report, his duty would be to ask for precedence for the final stage of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill on every day in the week. As far as Supply was concerned, the first duty of the Government would be to endeavour to make progress with the Civil Service Estimates.
  In answer to a Question by Mr. HEALY,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would bring forward on Report a proposal providing for some interval between the passing of the Land Bill and the creation of future tenancies.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, What were the intentions of the Government respecting the purposes to which the Irish Church Fund was to be applied; and, how much would be used in carrying out the Land Law (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, it was intended to make the Irish Church Fund available only for one limited purpose in regard to the Land Law (Ireland) Bill—namely, that of dealing with arrears.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE BUDGET PROPOSALS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, there were two proposals made in the Budget which required legislation. He wished to ask, Whether these were to be proceeded with, and whether it would be in one Bill? He referred to the arrangements for setting up new annuities, and to the alteration of our arrangements with India with regard to advances made to the Indian Government.
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that it was intended to proceed with these measures, but probably in separate Bills. With reference to the setting up of new annuities, hon. Members would naturally, and most properly, require to know what arrangements had been made in order to give not only substantial, but evident and visible security to the suitors that were interested in the Chancery Fund. That matter would be carefully considered between the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor, and they would probably lay on the Table, in the form of a short Minute of the Treasury, the information necessary.

  CHURCH PATRONAGE (No. 2) BILL.
  In reply to Mr. ILLINGWORTH,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not in a position to say whether special facilities would or would not be given for the progress of the Church Patronage (No. 2) Bill. He must refer the hon. Member to those who were responsible for the Bill, which was not a Government measure.

  TUNIS—THE CONFERENCE AT VIENNA.
  MR. OTWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will accompany the Papers that have been presented to the House, relating to Tunis, with the Protocol of the Conference at Vienna, regarding the views of France on Tunisian matters?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, he thought there would be no objection to giving those Papers; but he would inquire, and see if there was any reason why they should not be given.

ORDER 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. [THIRTIETH NIGHT.]
    [Progress 18th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    COMMITTEE. [THIRTIETH NIGHT.]
      PART VII.

        DEFINITIONS, APPLICATION OF ACT, AND SAVINGS.
        Clause 46 (Tenancies to which the Act does not apply).
        SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce). Those who were were well acquainted with Ireland must know that a large portion of the unreclaimed moorland belonged absolutely and entirely to the landowners of Ireland. ["No, no!"] Well, a large proportion of it. And he thought he was fortified in his assertion by the statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law), who had adduced more than one instance in which moorland had been let by a landlord to a tenant at a moderate rent for a certain time, and then, upon its having been sold, or having again come into the possession of the landlord, the rent had been raised considerably. They had had given to them some very startling figures on this point, clearly showing that the land did belong, and belong absolutely, to the landlord. He only mentioned this in order to prove that a large proportion of this land was absolutely the property of the landlord, and that it was used by him for various purposes—for sporting purposes, for instance; and, in the next place, that it had been used by the landlords for allowing their tenants to turn out a certain number of sheep or cattle. The permission to use the land for grazing purposes had been given as a favour to the tenant, and in many instances, particularly in County Donegal, the landlords had taken care to reserve to themselves all rights and privi-
        1274
        leges in regard to this land. Where they had allowed the tenants to use it, it had only been for a few months at a time, so that it came into their possession again every year, and they were enabled to do with it as they thought proper. If that was the case, it would be a monstrous hardship if a tenant who had the right of selling his interest in his holding should also have the right of selling an interest in the privilege of using this land which had been granted to him from time to time by the landlord. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) hoped he had put the case clearly, because the matter was one that really deserved serious consideration at the hands of the Committee. He was quite sure that the Prime Minister was most anxious that nothing which could in any way imply that this property, which belonged to the landlord, should be taken away and given to the tenant to whom it did not belong, should be put in the Bill. He ventured, therefore, to hope that the words he asked the Committee to introduce, the Government would allow to be inserted.
        Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 34, after the word "land," insert "unreclaimed moorland."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not think that unreclaimed moorland should be excluded. Either such land was in possession of the landlord, or it was part of the tenant's holding. If, as the hon. and gallant Baronet said was the case in Donegal, the land was reserved by the landlords, it would not be affected; but, on the other hand, if it formed part of a tenant's holding, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) failed to see why it should not be dealt with by the Bill. That was precisely the kind of land that ought to be protected.
        MR. O'SULLIVANcould not see any reason for the Amendment, unless it was to deter people from reclaiming moorland. If the tenants reclaimed this moorland, it was surely in the interests of the country as well as themselves; but if the Committee exempted this unreclaimed waste land from the Bill, the tenantry would have nothing to do with it.
        MR. HEALYwished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whether he had considered the question of cut-away bogland? In many cases the tenants held land from which the bog had been cut away, and which, therefore, was of no use to anyone. If the Amendment was accepted, there would be no inducement for anyone to reclaim such land. When the bog was on the land, the tenants had common right over it. He should like the Government to consider what ought to be the position of these large tracks of cut-away bog land, supposing the tenantry wished to reclaim it.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that the right referred to by the hon. Member—namely, the right of turbary—was well known in Ireland. Where the right was given, when all the turf was taken away the right was at an end—the thing was over. There were other cases, which were not uncommon, where the land itself was common property. In these cases, when the bog was removed, the land would still continue to be common property, and would not belong to the landlord.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that supposing the bog had been cut away, and the land had been put in cultivation by the tenants, it would be very unfair to allow the landlord to resume possession of it. No doubt, in the past, the landlord, if he had availed himself of his extreme rights, would have been enabled to do so; but, in the future, where the tenant had enjoyed possession of the substratum, it should be merged into his holding. He did not know whether the Bill would do anything in the matter.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that if a tenant went on paying a certain rent under which he enjoyed certain rights, and this right was not taken from him, by implication the land would become part of the holding.
        MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to point out that where the tenant had enjoyed the use of the turf on common land, it would be undesirable that the land, when cleared, should be left to go to waste. He would ask the Government to hold out some inducement to the tenants to reclaim land of that kind,
        1276
        and not to allow it to remain in the hands of landlords in a useless condition.
        MR. GLADSTONE: I would point out to the hon. Member for Wexford that we have no more power over land like that than we have over other rights that the landlord may possess. Unless the landlord has been taking rent for this land I do not see how we can deal with it.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that this case would sometimes arise, that the rent fixed for a holding would be higher in consequence of the rights of turbary than would otherwise have been the case. If a lower rent was asked when the turf had vanished the tenant would have no claims on the land.
        MR. MARUMsaid, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) did not see the distinction that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General drew. There might be a joint tenancy in any particular bogland, or there might be only a right of common.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, the Amendment was an important one, and unquestionably, if it was not to be dealt with now or on Report, it might lead to a great deal of hardship. This unreclaimed moorland was sometimes let on the easiest terms, sometimes at a trifling rent, sometimes even at no rent at all. It was let, not for the purpose of reclaiming, nor for any other substantial purpose, but for the mere sake of allowing the tenantry to send their cattle on it to graze. It was sometimes given as a separate holding, and sometimes as an addition to a holding. The subsequent sub-section, he was aware, excluded pasture lands of a certain value, and also under certain other conditions; but this unreclaimed mountain land, which was very common in Tyrone and Donegal, and which had been given on easy terms, would not come within the value, or very little of it would come within the value, fixed under sub-section 3; very little would come within the value fixed under sub-section 4. The matter was of some importance, and he quite agreed with what was said by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan), that it would be unreasonable to interfere with tenants in processes of reclamation. That was not the point at all; but there were cases where the land was let on very easy terms, so that a man might occa-

        1277
        sionally allow his cattle to roam over it and get what pasture they could. It was certainly not reasonable that such a case as that should be dealt with. He had no doubt that on Report the question would be raised again by the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce), who was thoroughly conversant with the subject. He would, therefore, recommend that the Amendment be withdrawn.
        Question put, and negatived.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 26, line 34, after "demesne land," to insert "or any land being or forming part of a home farm."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he should like to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he meant by a "home farm;" because if he (Mr. O'Sullivan) understood the common English of it, it meant where the occupier resided, and if that were the case, every tenant farm in Ireland was a "home farm." He was afraid that the phrase would cover every farm in Ireland; at any rate, he thought the Amendment was a very dangerous one, and should not be accepted.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that the phrase would be understood as meaning, substantially, a pleasure farm attached to an estate—a farm cultivated by the owner of an estate for his own amusement. It was, practically, the demesne, but did not come under the definition of a demesne.
        MR. MARUMsaid, that as he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he wished the "home farm" to be understood as being part of a farm belonging to the owner in fee that might be a distance from the park or from the mansion. Why they wanted to bring this measure into play was because they saw the necessity of there being a partnership between the tenant and the owner. That principle was carried out in the clauses, and where the question of town parks arose there should be a partnership recognized, or the tenant's interest would be confiscated. Neither the landlord nor the tenant should be allowed to confiscate the interest of the
        1278
        other. He thought the words "draw farm" should be inserted as well as "home farm."
        MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that if the Commissioners would be likely to take the same view of the matter as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland there would be no danger; but, as the question stood, the Amendment would be a very dangerous one. He did not know what a "home farm" could be in Ireland, if it were not a farm upon which a man lived. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman object to add the words "or ornamental residence?"
        MR. HEALYwished to know on whom the burden of proof would be thrown in these cases? This was an important question, and he had an Amendment later on to throw the burden of proof as to the present tenancy on the landlord, because he was the person who would keep books and accounts, whereas the tenants would be more likely to be without such records.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, as he understood the Act, it would apply to all tenants of every kind. The effect of this limited section would be to withdraw certain classes of holdings, and the burden of proof would lay with the landlord to show that these were exceptions.
        MR. HEALY: There can be no objection to put words to that effect in the Bill.
        MR. O'SULLIVAN: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any objection to adding the words "or ornamental residence?"
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Those words would be altogether unnecessary, as they are included in "demesne lands."
        MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the Amendment was of a very ambiguous character, and would possibly do a great deal of mischief. It might be held that every farm in the possession of a landlord, which had been cultivated by him for two or three years, was a "home farm." The question was one of practice and custom—whether speaking of a "home farm" which was one or two miles away from the demense might not give rise to very serious controversy when the Bill became law? He did not see any strong argument in favour of the Amendment, or in favour of the

        1279
        reference to demense lands. A present tenancy could not be created on the demense, and he did not see any substantial advantage to the landlord in adopting the Amendment. Strictly speaking, it would be better to leave the subsection out altogether.
        MR. DAWSONsaid, the term "home farm" was not understood in Ireland, but its meaning could not fail to be clear after the explanation they had received from the Treasury Bench. No doubt, the owner would be in possession of the land; but would it not be as well to insert words to that effect? He would propose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should adopt in his Amendment the words "in the occupation of the owner."
        MR. GIBSONsaid, that would neutralize the whole clause. It might, for family reasons, or for his own convenience, be a desirable thing, as far as the landlord was concerned, that he should be able to make a letting of his demense, and of his "home farm." He should be able to do that when an emergency arose; and, when the necessity had passed, he should have power to come back again. The Amendment would be useful in the case of minors, and a great many others.
        MR. HEALYasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) meant to say that if there was a piece of demense land let to a tenant, the tenant should have no tenant right in connection with that holding? He (Mr. Healy) apprehended that he would. He understood that it was only the landlord in the occupation of the land himself who was not to bear the burden of the Bill.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that if a person severed a portion of his farm from the rest, it would cease to be a "home farm;" but it would continue to be such as long as it remained entire.
        MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he should be glad if the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) would give them his opinion on the subject.
        MR. BIGGARsaid, the matter was a very serious one, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had failed to tell them why he had not put in words to make the thing quite clear. The Amendment seemed to him to be thoroughly am-
        1280
        biguous, and he should have to vote against it, unless it were made clearer.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought these words might with advantage be added to the Amendment—"or any land ordinarily in the possession of the landlord."
        MR. MARUMsaid, that as there was some difficulty in the matter, he would suggest that the Act should not apply to any "home farm now in the occupation of the landlord."
        MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might add the following—"in the occupation of the owner at the time of the passing of the Act."
        MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, he could speak without prejudice on that matter, as he had been in the enviable position of tenant of a "home farm" belonging to a resident in his neighbourhood. The proprietor and his family had been a long time away, and he (Mr. Mulholland) had entered into a written agreement to give up the farm at any time on a six months' notice. Unless the Amendment were agreed to, it would be impossible for anyone to make a contract of that kind, and it would be a monstrous thing to prevent such an agreement being entered into.
        MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that a "home farm" might be separated into several portions, and one part might be distant half-a-mile or more from another. They should not be deprived of the privilege of having a "home farm" in cases where that farm was divided into two or more parts.
        THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that land that would come under this Amendment would be land that had always been cultivated by the owner. To give the Committee an idea of land that should not come under the clause, he would imagine that on the passing of this Bill a landlord might have in his possession land thrown up a short time before by the tenants. Such land should not come under this Amendment, and any tenant taking it should have all the benefits of the Act.
        MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, it might prevent a division if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would add these words—"in the occupation of the owner at the time of the passing of this Act."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that it would

        1281
        be unfair to deprive a man of the power of acquiring a "home farm" years hence. He should be ready to adopt the words "or any land ordinarily being or forming part of the 'home farm.'"
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: Ordinarily in possession of the landlord?
        MR. GIBSONsaid, he agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's exception, believing it to be a very reasonable one; but he thought that the word "ordinarily" used in this connection would be much more objectionable than the words of the clause. It would be better to keep the Amendment as it was, and he was sure that every hon. Member in the Committee understood perfectly well what was meant by the words "home farm."
        Question put, and agreed to.
        MR. HEALYsaid, the next Amendment on the Paper was in his name, and the subject with which it dealt, though a small one, had attracted a great amount of attention in Ireland. Hon. Members from Ireland had received scores of letters from persons holding town parks, complaining of their exclusion from the benefits of the Bill. There was a great deal of misconception as to what a town park was, and that misapprehension should be removed by means of the clear wording of the provisions of the Bill. The point he wished to put to the Government was this—whether, in the case of a small village in Ireland, where there was an increase of letting value, it was desirable that this exclusion should be made. He had visited a small town of 300 inhabitants in Wicklow, and a number of people had come to him and told him they occupied lands which were termed "town parks," for which they paid substantial sums. These people had shops; but they said the shops would not keep them, and they were really more in the position of farmers who happened to have shops than in the position of shopkeepers who happened to have farms. Life was very sluggish in these little towns, and the advantage of living near them and their small markets was very slight; and he would, therefore, ask whether it was not advisable to put in a provision such as he proposed in his Amendment—namely, to insert after the word "town," the words of "above 6,000 inhabitants." He knew a case where town park land was
        1282
        on the river side; the occupier had to pay an extra rent for it, and it was excluded under this Act. But it was flooded every year, and the tenant actually suffered a loss from it. He would urge the Government to accept the Amendment; and he would ask them, at the same time, whether they could give any idea of the total acreage of land held in Ireland which was called "town parks?" It might be useful for the Committee to have that information on Report. No doubt, it could be got from the clerks of the Unions.
        Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 35, after "town," insert "of above 6,000 inhabitants."—(Mr. Healy.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. LEAMYreminded the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that there was a great difference of opinion existing on the subject of population. One barrister, for instance, would say that a population of 2,000 constituted a town, and another would restrict the population to 200 or 300. In that state of uncertainty, it was only natural that Irish Members should ask for an explanation of the term "town;" and he thought the Prime Minister should include some definition of this in the Bill.
        MR. FINDLATERfully understood the anxiety of hon. Members opposite with regard to this question, which, in many parts of Ireland, was one of deep interest. There had been many instances of what he considered to be the very objectionable practice of turning farms into town farms, in order to get the benefit of Acts of Parliament. A great deal of evidence upon this subject had been given before the Bessborough Commission. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
        MR. PLUNKETpointed out that the question was one of value, irrespective of population.
        MR. SHAWsaid, this was a question of considerable interest in a great many parts of Ireland; and, having fully considered the matter, he thought the Government would do wisely in accepting the Amendment, although he considered the figure of 6,000 as somewhat too large.
        MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the meaning of the word "town" was at present an open question, and every barrister could

        1283
        take his own view of it. For his own part, he thought the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had gone a little too far in fixing the number at 6,000 inhabitants. The only place in which he (Mr. O'Sullivan) could find a definition of the word "town" was in the Towns Improvement Act of 1874, which included in the definition of "town or borough," a place of 1,500 inhabitants. It was a matter of notoriety that serious inconvenience arose from this uncertainty, and for that reason he urged upon the Government the propriety of introducing into the Bill a definition of some kind or other of the meaning of the word "town." If they considered the number expressed in the definition of the hon. Member for Wexford too high, they could, no doubt, get the hon. Member to name a smaller number. If some definition were not given in the clause, undoubtedly great litigation and expense would arise after the passing of the Act with regard to this particular point; and, therefore, he appealed to the Prime Minister to assist in mitigating what was regarded by Irish Members as the great blot on the Bill—namely, the enormous expense that it would give rise to.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, it was very well recognized that there might be a large increase of value as accommodation land in the case of towns of 200 or 300 inhabitants; while, in the case of towns of 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants, there might be none. It was, therefore, quite obvious that to confine the test to population was to ignore the most important condition of all—namely, the increase of value. It would be a retrograde step to attempt in this Bill to define that which was impossible of definition. The clause, as it stood now, was introduced into the Act of 1870, and passed unamended through that House; moreover, it passed unamended through the House of Lords, and had worked without friction ever since. He thought it better to retain the clause in its present form, inasmuch as confusion would unquestionably arise if it was attempted to draw an arbitrary line in the matter of population, which, after all, was only one test.
        MR. REDMONDsaid, that the question of town parks was exciting, and had excited the greatest interest in Ireland, and the proof that the clause in the Land Act relating to them had not
        1284
        worked without friction was the dissatisfaction that now existed in some towns on the subject. It seemed to him that the Government would do well to pay attention to the opinions which had been given from almost every quarter of the Committee by hon. Members, whether Irish Members or not. Hon. Members from Ireland of every shade of politics had spoken in favour of the Amendment before the Committee, with the exception of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). In a matter of that kind the opinions of Irish Members ought to carry with them great weight with the Government. With regard to the limitation proposed, no one would think of obstinately adhering to any particular limit. If only the Government would agree to some limit in the clause, he thought his hon. Friends would not be disposed to make any difficulty with regard to the number of inhabitants. For his own part, he was in favour of the number 6,000, which he believed was used in the Public Health Act passed in the last Parliament by the late Government as the definition of a "town." He thought it would be well if the Government were to make a further statement, inasmuch as the whole of the opinions expressed by Irish Members, with the exception of those of the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Plunket) was in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford.
        MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, he thought the word "ordinarily" ought to satisfy hon. Members below the Gangway. But the whole subject had been thrashed out in 1870; and in the course of the debates which took place on the Land Bill at that time one speaker had said that the distinction between agricultural holdings and town parks had been known for centuries. It was obvious that the tenant in these cases did not reside on the holding, and made no improvements. The custom had been for the tenant to surrender to the landlord the town park, which was never subject to sale or purchase, to the landlord who handed it over to the new tenant. There was no analogy whatever between town parks and other agricultural holdings; and, therefore, he hoped the Government would not agree to any modification of

        1285
        the clause which had hitherto worked well.
        MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was clearly of opinion that the term "town parks" required some definition in the Bill. He had known great hardship arise from places being treated as town parks, which were never so-called before the Act of 1870. In one case, a man who had attained the age of 90 years had lived for many years on a small farm, the rent of which had been continually raised owing to its being near a town. At his death, his son, who refused to emigrate, remained on the land, and continued to pay the increased rents, and when he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) saw him he had in his pocket a roll of promissory notes extending over a period of 15 years, with which he paid the rent; he was only able to live by the bankers, who knew the circumstances, continually advancing him money to meet the notes as they became due. For his own part, he had never been able to see any reason for the exemption of town parks from the operation of the Bill. What reason could be shown why a holding near to a town should be exempted from the jurisdiction of the Court, as regarded the fairness of the terms on which it was held, because the rent was £2 an acre instead of £1? He was unable to see why these words relating to "town parks" had been introduced at all, and trusted that if the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to consider the point further he would do so, with the view either of including town parks within the operation of the Act, which he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) thought was the right course, or, at any rate, with the view of strictly defining them.
        MR. P. MARTINtrusted, if the words "town parks" were not altogether excluded from the Bill, that some definition would be given. He believed that anyone who had the slightest acquaintance with the working of the Land Act of 1870 would know that there was no greater difficulty than to get a definition of the word "town." There had been many opposing decisions upon this subject amongst the Judges. The words made use of in the Act of 1870 were extremely vague, and of a character to invite litigation. Notwithstanding the difficulty of making use of apt and proper words to define "town parks," yet if tenants of these holdings were to be
        1286
        excluded it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to clearly define the meaning they attached to the term. He respectfully submitted, as a proper solution, that the holdings should be included within the operation of the Bill. If an increase of rent ought justly to be paid to a landlord for these town parks, the Land Commissioners, who ascertained the judicial rent, would most certainly attach to them as much additional rent as might be properly paid for accommodation, so that no injury would on that account be done to the landlord. He wished to allude to the fact that there was a suggestion made by four of the members of the Bess-borough. Commission that town parks should no longer be excluded from the operation of the Land Acts. Such was their recommendation; and seeing that it could do no possible harm to the landlords, and while the reason for the exclusion of town parks which existed at the time of passing the Act of 1870 was no longer valid as applied to this Bill, he trusted the Government would not continue their exclusion.
        MR. GILLsaid, he was desirous that the Government should agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) to exclude town parks from this clause, so that the occupiers might have an opportunity of going into Court for the purpose of having a judicial rent fixed. But if the Government could not see their way to do that, then he trusted they would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) which was then before the Committee. He had considered the subject fully, and was unable to see that it could in any way do harm to the landlord to adopt either of those suggestions, inasmuch as the Land Commission would do no injustice to the landlord in fixing the rent. There were many cases in which it would be very difficult to draw a line of demarcation between lands that were called farms, and lands that were called town parks. For instance, he know of a holding of 50 acres within a mile of a town in Ireland which was called a town park, the occupier of which paid a rent of about £6 per acre, while the farm adjoining it—and which was only a quarter of a mile further from the town—of the same size and quality of land, was let at about half that rent. The former of these was

        1287
        called a town farm, and the latter an ordinary farm. He could not see that the so-called town park derived any advantage from being a quarter of a mile nearer the town than the other, which was at all equivalent to the additional rent of nearly £3 10 s. per acre. Again, in many towns, the occupiers did not hold the farms in the neighbourhood for the purpose of obtaining any extra profit from the fact that they were near the town. They held them in order to make some profit in addition to that which they might make from their small businesses in the town, for, owing to the very low state of business in Ireland, the profits they made by their shops were by no means sufficient to supply them with the means of living. They took these farms for the purpose of increasing their small incomes, and it was only by sending their goods to considerable distances that they could make any profit out of them whatever. Under these circumstances, he thought the Government should take the suggestions which had been made into consideration, and either withdraw the words "town parks" from the clause, or mention some number of inhabitants of the towns as a limit beyond which the clause should not operate.
        LORD GEORGE HAMILTONthought that, inasmuch as the Government appeared to be influenced rather by the number of persons who spoke for and against an Amendment than by the arguments which they used, it was right to express his hope that they would retain the sub-section as it stood, instead of agreeing to its being altered in the direction indicated by the Amendment. It had been pointed out that town parks paid an increased rent over the other land in the district, and that they were generally in the occupation of some person living in the neighbouring town or city. Now, supposing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was accepted, and an arbitrary numerical limit as to population placed in the clause, it would, undoubtedly, result that a considerable number of persons occupying town parks would get a tenant right which they were not entitled to. He pointed out to the Committee that there was a great deal more behind this proposal than at first sight appeared. It might, for instance, very materially affect the growth
        1288
        of towns in various parts of Ireland, because if they gave to people occupying the lands in question rights which they never had before, and which they could sell for a considerable sum of money, they naturally increased the value of the land that adjoined the town, and made it more difficult for the landlords to afford additional accommodation.
        MR. DALYsaid, the Prime Minister appeared to have forgotten that if the question of town parks came before the Court the Commissioners would have to take into consideration all the circumstances of the holding. Therefore, in taking the words "town parks" out of the sub-section there could be no possible injustice done to the landlord. On the other hand, if the words were retained a great injustice would be done in many cases, unless a close definition was given. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, he was inclined to the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) that a numerical limit was not the only test to be applied, while he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) that for the purposes of this Bill the words "town parks" should be excluded from the clause altogether.
        MR. GLADSTONE: It appears that I have arrived at a conclusion, in conjunction with my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson), in reference to this point which will not be satisfactory to hon. Members generally. But we are now dealing with a subject of great importance, entirely distinct from the general provisions and purport of the Bill—that is to say, the local limits within which it will apply, or, as it may be termed, the geography of the question. This is a matter which has not been before under our consideration, and which is altogether new. There has been a kind of general assumption that this Bill was to adhere to the lines of the Land Act of 1870. I do not recollect that the Commission which preceded the introduction of this Bill was so minute in its inquiries as to touch upon this subject in their Report. Everyone has known for the last six months that proposals were about to be made affecting the relations of landlords and tenants in Ireland; but that was

        1289
        taken to mean the relations of landlord and tenant as understood in the Land Act of 1870. If I were dealing with the question for the first time I should feel strongly the appeal made to me by hon. Members. I cannot conceive for a moment that, if these matters were brought within the purview of the Court, the Court would be so insensible of its duty as to reduce the rent; and, therefore, I do not think we should be doing an injury to the landlord simply by extending to him the jurisdiction of the Court. But I feel, on the whole, obliged to take this line. I think it is our duty to say that we must regard the question of town parks as a separate matter, and that we cannot with equity to all parties introduce into the scope of the Bill at the eleventh hour—I might say at this advanced portion of the twelfth hour—of the discussion on the Bill, a subject which is new in the sense of its not having been fairly before the minds of the parties interested. Therefore, Sir, we feel it to be our duty to adhere to the clause as it stands, not as saying that the present state of the law as regards this subject is satisfactory, but because we feel we cannot undertake to legislate upon it before notice has been given to, and before we have obtained from, the persons interested, all the light which they can throw upon it.
        MR. HEALYsaid, the argument of the Prime Minister had proceeded upon the assumption that all parties interested in the present transactions with reference to the Land Question in Ireland had received due notice of changes proposed. Of course, it was not to be expected that the right hon. Gentleman could make himself acquainted with the movement of Irish opinion on small matters of this kind; but he was in a position to inform him that if there was one point on which Irish feeling had been expressed strongly it was upon this subject of town parks. With regard to the Notice which hon. Members had received upon this Amendment, he begged to say that he had handed it to the Clerk at the Table immediately the Bill had been read a second time, so that there had been ample opportunities for studying the Amendment on the part of hon. Members. He reminded the Premier that he appeared to be under the impres-
        1290
        sion that there was compensation for disturbance in the case of occupiers of these lands. It was a shocking thing to think that after they had made improvements on their farms and were turned out they were not entitled to compensation. By leaving the question of town parks in its present position the Government were simply putting a premium on agitation. They admitted the injustice of the present system, but said that, owing to the want of notice to the parties interested, it was undesirable to entertain an Amendment of this kind. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, if he could not agree to the Amendment at that moment, to say that the matter should be considered before Report.
        MR. A. MOOREsaid, as he understood the existing law, tenants who held town parks were entitled to the protection of the Act of 1870 in respect of their improvements; they were also entitled to be recouped for the money given to the previous occupier with the consent of the landlord; but they were not entitled to compensation for disturbance. If the Government would say that the Commissioners might value town parks, as well as other agricultural holdings, he believed it would add to the number of those persons in Ireland who regarded this Bill with satisfaction. But he could not support the Amendment, because, if they once landed themselves in the valuation of town parks, he could not understand how they could confine themselves to towns of 6,000 inhabitants.
        MR. LEAMYsaid, as the Prime Minister had stated that the present law on this subject was not satisfactory, but that the question of altering it could not be entertained, because the landlords had not had sufficient notice, Irish Members would have to tell the people of Ireland that if they wished the defects in the law to be removed it would be necessary to get up another agitation.
        MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the arguments of hon. Members had travelled wide of the Amendment before the Committee; and it would appear from some of them that the supporters of the Amendment wished to get rid of the exemption of town lands from the operation of the Bill altogether. But that was not the case. They were asking for a definition of "town parks," and did so with the desire of avoiding, in future,

        1291
        the expense and litigation which had already arisen from the state of uncertainty in which this question was involved. They wanted the Government to define the meaning of "town," for the purpose of this Bill, and not leave open the door to future uncertainty, and the inevitable expense attached to it.
        MR. SHAWhoped that the clause would be allowed to pass after the assurances of the Prime Minister. Looking at the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), it appeared to require some verbal alterations, which would make it more effectual; and he thought the best course to pursue was that this matter should be removed altogether from the difficulties of legal decisions, and that it should be placed in the hands of the new Court which was to be established under this Bill. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) had stated that these town parks were not subject to purchase and sale in the same way as other agricultural holdings; but he (Mr. Shaw) could point out to him many cases in the South of Ireland where the reverse was the case, very large sums being paid for them. He was in favour of the matter being dealt with in the Bill, in a manner that would do no injury at all to the rights of the landlords; while, at the same time, the interests of the occupiers were guarded. He thought the question might safely be left in the hands of the Government.
        MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the proposal was that the small towns and villages should not be treated like the large towns; but it was generally the small villages that had "town parks" near them. These spaces near the large towns were, as a rule, occupied by market gardeners. It was a rare thing for large towns to have farms near them kept for grazing purposes; whereas, in the case of small places, it was very common.
        MR. GLADSTONE: I recognize the spirit of my hon. Friend's (Mr. Shaw's) suggestions; but I am bound to say that, in view of the short time that will elapse before the Report, we do not feel that we should be able to put forward any satisfactory provision dealing with the lands in question. This is a question which, undoubtedly, requires the greatest amount of consideration; and, although I might be able to satisfy myself
        1292
        upon it very easily, if it were to be decided according to my own view, there is another element in our judgment necessary, and that is, that we should have the benefit of all the assistance and information which can be afforded by the parties interested. It is by having had recourse to such information and assistance that we have alone been able to cope with this great Land Question to the extent which we have done. But there are other reasons which must have their due weight in deciding the course which the Government have to pursue. I do not think we have any judgment on the subject in the Report of the Bess-borough Commission; and with regard to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin), I can conceive that very serious objections might be raised to the removal of the words "town parks" altogether from the clause; and, again, I feel considerable doubt as to the distinction proposed to be drawn between small and large towns. I believe that the lands in question are much more known in connection with small than large towns. Then let hon. Members consider the difficulties involved in the proposal to bring town parks within the operation of the Bill. At present, the holders of town parks can claim for improvements, and even if they could claim compensation for disturbance they have no title to sell their tenant right; they have no protection against the arbitrary augmentation of rent, and, finally, they have no right to go into the Court. These are all serious questions; and although we are prepared to do our best, I cannot honestly give a promise that we can reconsider the matter usefully before Report. I frankly own, however, that the present state of the law on this subject is unsatisfactory.
        MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that after the distinct statement of the Prime Minister, he could see no advantage in arguing the question further, against his decision. He, however, suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he might reasonably accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), which he should be happy to move on behalf of that hon. and learned Gentleman, if he were not in his place when it was reached by the Committee.
        MR. HEALYsaid, he could perceive that the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was open so far as this question was concerned; and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman required further evidence and time for consideration. He (Mr. Healy) was in a position to supply the right hon. Gentleman with plenty of evidence bearing on the subject, and would ask him if he was willing to grant a Select Committee to inquire into the question of "town parks" next Session, with a view to striking out the words relating to them from the Act, if the Report of the Committee was in favour of that course?
        MR. GLADSTONE: As I have already indicated, I am not prepared to affirm that the present law bearing upon this subject is satisfactory. We regard the question as to the best means of dealing with this matter as open to consideration; but we may find it to be our duty to investigate it during the Recess.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendment made in page 27, line 8, after "let," by leaving out the words "and expressed in the document," in order to insert the words "by written contract of tenancy therein expressed."
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 27, line 11, to leave out "any cottage allotment not exceeding a quarter of an acre."—(Mr. Leamy.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)was understood to say he did not, of course, know the exact view which the hon. Member (Mr. Leamy) took of the advantage which the agricultural labourer might derive from being able to go into Court; but the matter was open to question. He thought it would be safer to leave it to be dealt with in the manner proposed by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The labourer in Ireland was not constantly employed on one farm, and, indeed, the less he was tied to one neighbourhood the better it would be for him. It was not thought desirable to give him a position as against the farmer; and, consequently, it was decided not to allow the operation of this Bill to apply to very small holdings,
        1294
        at any rate, to less than half an acre of land.
        MR. HEALYthought the labourer should be left alone to go to the Court or not as he pleased.
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought the Government would do well to leave the clause as it stood. He asked his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.
        MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Leamy) would discourage persons who might otherwise be willing to let a quarter of an acre, because they would be creating an estate that it would be very difficult to manage.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        MR. BRODRICKsaid, he had understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had expressed his intention of accepting the Amendment in his (Mr. Brodrick's) name, to substitute the word "half" for the word "quarter," as expressed in this sub-section. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would adhere to that view, because the Amendment was intended solely for the benefit of the agricultural labourer. As the Bill stood, it was impossible for the landlord to apply for the purpose of labourers' allotments more than a quarter of an acre of land, because he would, by giving a larger allotment, bring the letting within the operation of this Act. He (Mr. Brodrick) could point to two cases in which the operation of the landlords in respect to cottage allotments had been suspended since the Bill was introduced; and it would be most prejudicial to the labourers if landlords were thus prevented from placing them in a better position.
        Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 11, to leave out "quarter," and insert "half."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
        Question proposed, "That the word 'quarter' stand part of the Clause."
        SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped his hon. Friend would not press this Amendment. He did not believe that if the Bill remained in its present form, so far as this sub-section was concerned, that the holdings would be limited to a quarter of an acre. On the contrary, he believed they would be much greater, because he thought that the landlord would find it was to his interest to give

        1295
        the labouring class a position as well as the tenant class. It would undoubtedly be the case in the part of the country where he resided.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)thought that the Amendment should be agreed to, because the labourer could easily cultivate half an acre of land in his spare time; and it was undoubtedly to his benefit that the landlord should feel himself free to apportion more than a quarter of an acre.
        Question put, and negatived.
        Question, "That the word 'half' be there inserted," put and agreed to.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper relating to minors, which, however, he should not move at that moment, in the hope that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would consider the matter before the Report. The Bess-borough Commission had reported that it was reasonable that in the case of land being let during the minority of the landlord there should be some power of contracting tenants out of the operation of the Act.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not see, at the moment, any reason for making the distinction suggested in the case of land belonging to minors, who were always pretty well looked after by competent persons. But he would consider the matter before Report.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        Clause 47 (Saving of existing tenancies).
        THE CHAIRMANsaid, there were several Amendments raising the question whether a lease, which could be proved to have been obtained by force, might be varied by the Court or declared to be void, thus placing the lessees in the position of present tenants; and it would probably be convenient if the question were discussed as a proposed addition at the end of the clause, after the other Amendments to the clause had been disposed of.
        MR. M'COANsaid, he was willing to fall in with the suggestion of the Chairman that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland should take pre-
        1296
        cedence, although he (Mr. M'Coan) was bound to say that he preferred his own Amendment on the Paper to that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
        MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that, as the object he had in view was covered by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he did not intend to move the Amendment standing upon the Paper in his name.
        On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amendments made:—In page 27, line 12, leave out "tenancy," in order to insert "contract of the tenant;" line 15, leave out "act," in order to insert "section;" line 15, before the word "provision," insert "lawful."
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 27, line 19, after "act" insert "At the expiration of existing leases the lessees shall be deemed to be tenants of present ordinary tenancies, from year to year, at the rents and subject to the conditions of their leases respectively, so far as such conditions are applicable to tenancies from year to year."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. GIBSONsaid, he had an Amendment of his own on the Paper; but he should not press it at that juncture. It was to introduce into the Amendment before the Committee, after the words "at the expiration of existing leases," the words "made since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870." The Amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was one which, although moved in the most concise form, and as if it were one of little or on importance, was, in reality, one of the most important Amendments proposing to introduce one of the most startling changes ever made in an important Government Bill. If there was one thing which more than another appeared to be tolerably plain to anyone reading the Bill for the first time—any clause that appeared to convey its own meaning with precision and clearness, it was the 47th clause. That clause was one which preserved intact and inviolate, governed by existing provisions, contracts that had been entered into between landlords and tenants, or between the representatives of landlords and tenants who had entered into them on

        1297
        their behalf. The earlier part of the clause, before the Amendment proposed to be introduced by his right hon. and learned Friend, laid down as clearly and precisely as possible what should be the rights and positions of those parties; and, in point of fact, he (Mr. Gibson) was disposed to think that if the Chairman would examine with attention the earlier part of the clause, he would be disposed to rule that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was out of Order, for it was certainly entirely outside the meaning of the words of the clause antecedent to the Amendment. The words of the clause, as they now stood before the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend, set forth that—
        "Existing leases shall remain in force to the same extent as if this Act had not passed, and holdings subject to existing leases shall be regulated by the provisions contained in the said leases and not by the provisions relating to the tenancies in that behalf contained in this Act."
        If there were one thing that was absolutely clear about existing leases, it was that they all contained covenants to surrender in good order and condition at the termination of those leases, and he maintained that the Amendment was absolutely inconsistent with those covenants, because it said that notwithstanding their existence the tenant should hold on as if he were a present tenant. Therefore, he put it to the Chairman, as a matter of Order, whether the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was not absolutely inconsistent with the words at the commencement of the clause as already passed? But it did not at all rest on what they all knew was contained in every lease drawn up in Ireland; but, under the statute of 1860—an Act called Deasy's Act—what should be covenants on the part of every landlord and tenant were provided for, and one of the covenants in every tenancy was a covenant on the part of the tenant to surrender and yield up at the termination of the lease the quiet and peaceable possession of the holding; and notwithstanding this and the clear provision of this section of the Bill in which the deliberate opinion of the Government was stated in the earlier portion, as framed by his right hon. and learned Friend, that the provisions of the lease were to have absolute and com-
        1298
        plete vitality and vigour, the right hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed to provide that at the termination of the lease, instead of going away and allowing the landlord to resume his rights, the tenant was to be able to stay on, not in any doubtful position, not in the position of a future tenant, but in the position of a present tenant—that was to say, with an absolute right to walk into the Court for the purpose of having the rent revised, a process that would give him a tenancy of 15 years, and a constant right of renewal as often as he might please. So that this short and apparently innocent Amendment was to add to the duration of the longest lease at its termination, a provision nullifying one of its most important expressed covenants, and extending the term of tenancy as long as the tenant pleased, with the power of re-adjusting the rent as often as he might think proper at the end of every successive term of 15 years. Never was there a more distinct and flagrant violation of contract than was proposed by this Amendment, which would set aside the most solemn covenants and the most deliberate engagements as between man and man. He desired to point out to the Committee the necessity of making no mistake as to the second Amendment on the Paper in the name of his right hon. and learned Friend which proposed to deal with leases that might be regarded as unreasonable and inequitable. The present Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend, was absolutely distinct from any suggestion of the kind contained in the second Amendment. It proposed to graft on all leases, no matter when made, nor how made, no matter how many important conditions were executed by the landlord, no matter how low the rent, it proposed to say to the landlord—"At the termination of your lease you must regard your tenant not as a man bound by covenant to surrender his lease, but as a man bound by this new confiscating provision to hold on if he pleases for terms of 15 years as often as he likes, with power to have the rent revised." He (Mr. Gibson) ventured to say that never was a clause more opposed to justice and common sense, nor more absolutely opposed to every other proposal of the Government that the Committee were entitled to regard as expressing the de-

        1299
        liberate opinion of the Government, attempted to be inserted among the provisions of any Bill. He thought he was entitled to say that on this measure his right hon. and hon. Friends and himself had offered nothing but moderate, temperate, and concise criticisms of the Government proposals. The alteration it proposed to effect in the Bill was one of a most serious and vital kind; and he held that it would have been a great deal more frank and manly, and would have presented the action of the Government in a more bold and independent way, if they had at once said, "We will strike this part of the clause out of the Bill;" because they were here producing an Amendment which killed the previous words of the clause, while at the end of the clause they proposed to introduce another Amendment that would intercept all the other leases that might have escaped the operation of the Bill. The Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend was challenged in several ways. He was at present challenging the absence of discrimination in the Amendment with regard to leases. The Amendment dealt with all leases, no matter what their date, no matter what the conditions were as they were originally executed, whether they were executed before the passing of the Land Act of 1870, and before a knowledge of the provisions of that Act, or after 1870, with a knowledge of its provisions and what it sought to effect. That was a point that was not devoid of a broad significance; it was not a point that could be disregarded by anyone who was in the slightest degree acquainted with the history of the subject, nor by any man of common sense whether he was acquainted with the subject or not. The whole foundation of what was regarded as the tenant right of the Irish tenants outside of Ulster was rested on the claim to compensation for disturbance under the 3rd clause of the Land Act of 1870; and they had heard over and over again—in some cases from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and in some others from the Chief Secretary for Ireland—that that clause, introduced for one purpose, was now made the foundation of proposals for another purpose—that having been introduced in 1870 not to found a tenant right nor a claim for joint ownership—a claim entirely repudiated in 1870 by
        1300
        the Prime Minister—it was now to be acted on by the Prime Minister, as constituting, whether originally intended or not, a claim to tenant right. The foundation of what he (Mr. Gibson) called by courtesy the equity of this Bill rested on claims that were founded on the existence of a right to compensation under the 3rd clause of the Land Act of 1870. How, he asked, did that clause, which, as he had said, was made the foundation of the clause of this Bill, affect leases? It must be obvious to any man, he cared not whether educated technically or whether he regarded it by the strong light of common sense, that they must take into consideration what was the lease? A lease made antecedent to the year 1870 had absolute validity given to all its covenants under the old Common Law—that was to say, at the moment at which he spoke in respect of a lease made prior to 1870, the landlord was entitled to resume possession if he pleased, and no tenant holding under such a lease could, at its termination, have any right to ask for compensation for disturbance. This was a position that could not be gainsaid, denied, or questioned. It was not in accordance with common sense to treat a landlord having these rights as being in the same position as a landlord in the case of a lease made after 1870; and, therefore, Section 3 of the Act of 1870 made a broad and clear distinction. He did not know whether his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had considered this point. He believed that the moment the right hon. and learned Gentleman did bring his mind to bear on it he would alter the proposal to what would be just and fair; but he was curious to know how his right hon. and learned Friend would justify this common treatment of all landlords who started on entirely dissimilar conditions. He (Mr. Gibson) confessed that, at the present moment, he was entirely unable to see it. He believed that some hon. Members had intimated that the tenants, at the end of their leases, would find themselves placed in the position of future tenants. That was the modest way in which it was at first put—and anything might be called modest in comparison with what came afterwards; but after the speech that had been made by the Prime Minister one day, and recalled.

        1301
        the day after, the suggestion as to a future tenancy vanished, and the idea of a present tenancy was developed; and they now found it stated in the Amendment that, at the termination of his lease, a tenant was to be regarded as a present tenant. He should like to hear from his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland how he proposed to justify a broad proposal like this, which made no discrimination or distinction whatever. His right hon. and learned Friend, who had moved the Amendment in about two minutes, had justified it by what had been already done under a judicial lease, and according to the usage prevailing in Ireland. Surely, each of the inferences of his right hon. and learned Friend was destructive of the argument he had sought to rely upon. A judicial lease could only be entered into after the passing of this Act by the landlord with a full knowledge of what he was doing, and on the actual determination of the judicial lease; he was warned by the section that a certain class of tenants who would be called into existence by it would be present tenants. Where, he asked, was the analogy? The landlord, in the case of a judicial lease, acted with his eyes open at the outset; but after they had said to the landlords, who might have made leases of 40 years, or whose ancestors might have made long leases before them, that at the end of the lease the lessee would be a present tenant, he wanted to know where the analogy could be? He was told that another argument was to be based on what was largely the usage in many of the counties of Ireland. They all knew that the charges that had been made against the landlords had faded away and melted into thin air, and now the good-natured way in which they had treated their tenants was to be used as a weapon against them; and that, whether they liked it or not, they would be compelled to see their property transferred from them to their tenants. In conclusion, he wished to know how the Government could justify the application of the same drastic measures to all cases, regardless of the date and conditions, or bases of the rent, of the improvements effected by the landlord, and of every kindness and consideration they might hitherto have shown their tenants?
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he would like to offer a suggestion, and ask the impartial ruling of the Chairman on a point of Order. The clause said—
        "Any leases or tenancies existing at the date of the passing of this Act, except yearly tenancies and tenancies less than yearly tenancies, which existing leases and tenancies (except as aforesaid) are in this Act referred to as existing leases, shall remain in force to the same extent as if this Act had not passed."
        Then came the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, which said—
        "At the expiration of existing leases the lessees shall be deemed to be tenants of present ordinary tenancies from year to year, at the rents, and subject to the conditions, of their leases respectively, so far as such conditions are applicable to tenancies from year to year."
        If the first part of the Bill were to remain, and to be regarded as sense, the tenancy must be "as if this Act had not passed;" and he would ask whether the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was absolutely in Order?
        THE CHAIRMANpointed out that what had apparently caused some confusion in the understanding of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was that it ought to have been placed two words later, after the words "Provided that." He understood that all the conditions, &c. of leases were to remain as if this Act had not been passed, and that this should be a Proviso—an exception.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he would amend his Amendment by moving that it be inserted after the words "Provided that."
        Question, "That the said Amendment be inserted after the words 'Provided that,' "put, and agreed to.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 27, line 19, after the word "Act," to insert the words "Provided, That, at the expiration of existing leases, the lessees shall be deemed to be tenants of present ordinary tenancies, from year to year, at the rents and subject to the conditions of their leases respectively, so far as such conditions are applicable to tenancies from year to year."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. GIBSONmoved, after the words "at the expiration of existing leases" in the proposed Amendment, to insert

        1303
        the words "made since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870."
        Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment,
        In line 1, after the word "leases," insert the words, "made since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. Gibson.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was bound to say that the argument of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) against placing the lessee of an expiring lease in the position of a present tenant was absolutely unanswerable; but he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was also bound to say that he could not follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the distinction he had drawn between leases made since the Act of 1870 and those that were made before the passing of that Act. Under the Act of 1870 they had invited the landlords to give leases to the tenants, and certainly of the two the leases made since the Act of 1870 were deserving of most consideration.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, he had been dealing with a technical distinction between the two.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he certainly thought the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland very unfortunate, as it was copied verbatim from one standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford. (Mr. Healy), and it was evident that it was never intended by Her Majesty's Government when they brought in the Bill. Of course, if the hon. Member for Wexford was to be the draftsman of this Bill, hon. Members who thought with him (Lord Randolph Churchill) must resign themselves to it; but, with all deference to the ruling of the Chairman, he still thought the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was out of Order. The Amendment he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had to move was to amend the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment by adding, after the word "leases" the following words:—
        "At the expiration of existing leases, with the exception of all leases which at the date of the passing of this Act have fifteen years to run."
        1304
        Irish leases were nearly all for 30 years and upwards, and by making that Proviso they would only be doing an act of justice. Let them take the case of leases drawn up only the other day for a term of 30 years; there would be less than justice in the proposal of the right hon. and learned, Attorney General for Ireland. He did not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would press his Amendment; but if he did not, or it was not carried, he should ask the Government to kindly consider his Amendment, making some provision for leases which, at the date of the Act, had 15 years to run.
        COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he had to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), who had stated that the proposal as to leases had come on the Committee by surprise, that the moment the Bill appeared the exclusion of leases was the subject of universal complaint in Ireland. Nearly every Irish Member had mentioned the exclusion; and the Prime Minister, though he gave no pledge, admitted that the question deserved consideration, and promised to reserve it for consideration, without saying how he would deal with it. He therefore thought the Irish. Members had no right to complain of a surprise. As to leases, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had allowed the justice of making present tenants of those who had got leases since 1870. [Mr. GIBSON: That is quite a mistake.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to do so. Was it the fact that leaseholders who received their leases since 1870 had no just cause of complaint? In 1868–9 a great number of leases were forced on the tenants, with the knowledge that the Act of 1870 was coming on. In the county of Cork, on an estate where leases had never been given, the tenants went to the Bess-borough Commission and declared that in 1869 they were obliged to take leases with an increased rent, and those who refused to take them were fined by increased rents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had stated that it would be very unjust, if a good landlord who had made improvements should, at the expiration of a tenant's lease, be subject to the hardship that the tenant should be placed in the position of a present tenant. How

        1305
        was it unjust? Suppose a tenant with a 21 years' lease had made improvements, would not the landlord have his remedy at the expiration of the lease? Would not the Court take into consideration the improvements in fixing the rent? If the tenant sold his interest, would not the Court take into consideration the improvements made by the landlord? What injustice would be done? Take the other case. Suppose the Government had not made this concession. If leaseholders were to be left without protection after the expiration of the leases, there would be in every district in Ireland a certain number of discontented people considering themselves excluded from the benefits of the Act, and a chronic state of discontent would have been created. He felt bound to express his gratitude to the Government for making this concession, and he felt certain that no concession made in the Bill was of more value, or more likely to make this Bill a great and beneficial measure.
        MR. MARUMsaid, it was known in Ireland that there were a species of leases for lives with covenants for perpetual renewal. They practically contained a specific provision for renewals; but those provisions had been broken through. The Courts had, however, enforced specific performance of them in the case of solemn contracts under seal. What they held was to be looked at was the security of rent to the landlord. The Courts of Equity had acted in that way in Ireland—the practice was not known in England—and the Tenantry Act of 19 & 20 Geo. III. declared that if leases contained solemn contracts and specific covenants, on the fall of lives certain renewals should be claimed; and not only had the Courts enforced that, but the Ulster Tenant Right Act had rehabilitated these proceedings, and declared that renewals should be had. He referred to this because it would appear from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had said that there were very startling proposals made to change these leases. The new Court would be a Court of Equity, and the object of that Court would be to secure landlords in their rents, and a continuance of the leases on their expiration. It was practically the custom in Ireland that on the expiration of leases the tenants not only held on, but were allowed to hold on; and he held
        1306
        that it would be only a natural sequence to carry that on and deal with tenancies from year to year in the same way as if there were no leases.
        MR. GIBSONthought the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) was under a misconception. He (Mr. Gibson) had stated throughout that he was anxious to elicit as early as he could some explanation from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland as to the indiscriminate way in which these leases were treated. He should ask permission to withdraw his Amendment; but he wished for an explanation as to the difference between himself and the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)observed that if the lettings were from year to year they would be present tenancies within the meaning of the Bill, with all their incidental advantages. The fact that leases ran for a certain definite number of years did not, in his opinion, make any difference so far as the present point was concerned; and his observation applied alike to leases made before and after 1870. It would be manifestly useless for a landlord to get hold of farms of a few acres, each scattered over the face of the country. What could he do with them? They would only run to waste and go back to their original condition. Accordingly, they found in Ireland that usually, if a landlord thought of resuming possession of a farm from a tenant, he put someone else into it as tenant. But almost universally at the termination of a lease, the lessee remained in undisturbed possession, though there was commonly a re-arrangement of the rent. The landlord, in fact, knew he would get a better rent from the occupying tenant than from anyone else, and almost always so dealt with him. He thought the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he had only moved his Amendment to obtain an explanation hardly squared with his somewhat fierce onslaught on the proposals of the Government.
        MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that when the Bill was introduced he had asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether it provided that on the expiration of a lease the tenant right of Ulster should be continued, and the tenant be considered a tenant from year to year.

        1307
        The reply was that it did, and now the provision appeared to have been introduced in the Bill. He could not forget that in the last Parliament a Bill was introduced establishing this principle in Ulster by the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland), and a similar Bill introduced by the noble Lord who then represented the County Down (Lord Arthur Hill-Trevor) was defeated in the House of Lords. Also, in company with the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis), he (Mr. Macartney) himself had introduced a Bill in which there was a clause to the same effect as this, so far as Ulster was concerned. He thought there should be no difference between one part of the country and another.
        Amendment to said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not rise to propose any Amendment, but to say one or two words on what I consider to be the position of this question; and if my advice be taken; I would suggest that we had better take issue on the words proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. These questions are a good deal complicated, and the real point we have to consider is whether this new proposal of the Government is one which can be accepted or not? My right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) spoke with regard to a distinction between particular classes of tenantry—those created before, and those created after, the Act of 1870; but the bulk of his argument pointed to no distinction being made, and I agree with my noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) that it is desirable we should take issue on the broad ground of whether this change of front ought to be allowed, and whether any sufficient grounds have been shown for it. What I would point out with regard to this Bill is that it was introduced upon a certain frame-work, for the purpose of making certain changes, but, at the same time, of saving certain conditions of tenantry which already exist; and, as we understood, the case of leases was exactly the case which was to be left out, because it had been already regulated. If we now accept this clause, with the Amendment proposed, and the other Amendment to be proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the
        1308
        Attorney General for Ireland, you will exactly turn the clause inside out. It will not be merely that you will make the clause of no effect—as you have made the Emigration Clause of next to no effect—but you will turn the clause upside down. It is a sort of Trojan horse, introduced under cover of being a supporter of the lease system, and is turned to the entire overthrowing of existing leases, and leases which are in a condition in which holdings under leases are to exist when the leases have run out. It seems to me that we have had no ground whatever given for this change of front, except that when the clause was introduced in the form in which it stands, there was a great outcry in Ireland against it, and a desire to enlarge it and bring everything into it; but the Government, as they have proceeded with the Bill, have been led to entirely change their position with regard to these leases, and, in effect, to knock them on the head. Considering that we have for so many years been desirous, by legislation, by precept, by exhortation in every way, to induce landlords and tenants to make reasonable and binding arrangements, and that arrangements have been made to give the security which is needful in Ireland, to turn round and destroy the leases in this way is the most insensate thing that can be conceived. For my part, I would recommend that instead of attempting to omit this clause, or to introduce different words, we should endeavour, so far as we can, to put in our protest against this change, and, as far as we can, to hold the Government to the clause as it originally stood.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) was certainly right in saying that they ought to protest against this clause, and divide upon it. He considered that the clause as it stood might work harshly in the case of tenants whose leases fell in very shortly after the passing of the Act. He suggested that it should be amended; but would not admit that the form of Amendment proposed was the one best suited to remedy the complaint, which had foundation in fact, for it could not be suggested that tenants holding under leases were in the same position with others who held from year to year. He wanted to ask the Government whether they meant to say that all tenants hold-

        1309
        ing under leases at present were in exactly the same position as the yearly tenants at the present moment, or whether they drew a distinction between tenants whose leases terminated within a short time of the passing of this Bill and those whose leases would not terminate for a good many years. To ascertain that he would move the Amendment to which he had previously referred.
        Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment,
        After the first line to insert "With the exception of leases which, at the date of the passing of this Act, have fifteen years to run."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government did not say that the position of a lease which had 15 years to run was exactly the same as one having 100 years to run; but there was no difference between one and the other, and in point of policy it would not be expedient to create such a difference.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. GLADSTONE: I will now do what I would not do before and notice the speech which we heard just before the last Amendment was moved. It is a matter of long and constant observation in this House that whenever an hon. Member or a right hon. Member is dealing with opponents who are proposing some proposition which is new, and he finds it difficult to adduce sufficient arguments against it, he always endeavours to damage and discredit it by calling it a change of front. I observe that my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) three times, in the course of a short speech, described this Amendment as being a change of front, and from that three-fold repetition I gathered that he found it not so easy to bring forward substantive objections to the proposals of the Government. As to a change of front, I need not say that is a phrase which has come sometimes from one quarter and sometimes from another. It is a perfectly fair weapon of Parliamentary warfare; but it is not to be expected that such old stagers as we are, are to be influenced by whatever force of argument may seem to be latent in the phrase. The observations of my right hon. Friend were very strong. I do not remember all the phrases he used; but he described the proposal as
        1310
        an entire overthrow, as reducing to nullity and absolute destruction and defeat all the covenants the leases contain, and he described it as an insensate thing. Of that I make no complaint; but is it an insensate thing, and does it overthrow existing leases, and what is the fundamental notion of leases in Ireland? The grounds upon which we justify this proposal are—first of all, the grounds of custom of the country, and, secondly, general equity. With regard to surprise, I think that argument can hardly be maintained, because, on the second reading of the Bill—and that was the first time upon which the Bill was discussed—I myself spoke of the state of the case with regard to leases in these words—
        "In the same way, another bye-question which we have considered, and the result of which consideration appears in the Bill—but it may be worthy, notwithstanding, of further consideration—is the question of current leases."—[3 Hansard, cclxi. 590.]
        Therefore, that distinctly left the matter open for further consideration, and I do not scruple to say there were various points of considerable importance—for example, arrears—with regard to which we felt that we could better approach such knotty questions after these main issues had been settled, than if we treated them as merely affairs to be disposed of by the Cabinet, and therefore we deferred them. First of all, let it be understood that this charge that this is an absolute overthrow of the covenants of existing leases and a nullification of the clause itself depends wholly upon a certain assumption as to what leases are understood to be in Ireland. According to the right hon. Gentleman a lease is understood to be a covenant that at the end of a certain number of years the man shall go out. But there we raise an issue of fact, and we contend that that is not so. A lease is understood to be a covenant for fixing a certain rent for a certain number of years. I mentioned in a former discussion a description of a lease given 40 years ago, and the ideas prevailing in Ireland, of a case where a man holding a lease for his own life bequeathed his interest in it. That being our opinion, and if that be the view of leases in Ireland, then the allegation from the opposite side is deprived entirely of all foundation. But then, beside the custom of the country, and the established traditional and al-

        1311
        most universal view in Ireland as to leases, we stand upon general equity, and collaterally, I may observe, that unless I am mistaken, a Bill was introduced into the last Parliament by an hon. Member who is now opposed to us, which distinctly recognized that at the termination of a lease in Ulster the whole interest of the man in the lease was to be kept intact. Though I have not seen the letter, I have been credibly informed—and if. I am wrong I can be easily undeceived—that shortly before the General Election the Leader of the Opposition wrote a letter, in which he approved of the principle of that Bill as sound. If the principle of that Bill was sound, it will defy the ingenuity of an hon. Gentleman who admitted the soundness of that Bill to show that the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend is unsound. We stand upon general equity as well as upon the custom of the country, and with regard to general equity, how does the matter stand? This is a question not subject to dispute, and it is one where, in my opinion, the conclusion to be drawn is that of general equity, and the fair spirit in which we should all endeavour to approach this question; and on these grounds I think the Government can well maintain the proposal they make. As to the case of the leases made before the Act of 1870, if our proposal with regard to them is defensible, it is à fortiori defensible with regard to those made since 1870. I will take one of these leases, and what has happened? I will take a lease made 30 or 40 years ago. At that time the Irish tenant from year to year had no defence at all; he was completely open to the action of the law, which was constructed, not upon a fair balance of interest betweeen the tenant and the landlord, but entirely in a sense favourable to the landlord. Under those circumstances, the tenant, thankfully perhaps, accepted in exchange for a state in which he had no defensive provision, a state under which he had a defensive provision, which was that the rent would not be raised for a certain number of years. That was the state of things he exchanged for his lease; that was the footing upon which he made his bargain. But in 1870, and now again in 1881, we have entirely changed the position of the Irish tenant, and have endeavoured to invest him, first with a right to full compensation
        1312
        for improvements, then to compensation for disturbance, and now the right to sell his interest in his holding, with provision against an arbitrary increase of rent, and, as a climax to the whole, with the power of going to the Court. So that while this man had been, as it were, in a stagnant state of existence, we have completely changed and advanced from a position of defencelessness to a position strongly fortified by legal rights—namely, the position of a tenant from year to year. Is it inequitable, under these circumstances, to say there is no reason to show why the man, or the representative of the man, who so took a lease 40 years ago in exchange for what was then the position of a yearly tenant, should be deprived of all the benefits, or any portion of the benefits, to be conferred upon present tenants by this Bill. Where would he have been? What is the answer? That he has had the benefit of the lease. The force of that answer depends on whether the lease is an injury to the landlord; but we have never supposed that, but that it was an advantage to both parties, and in no sense an injury to the landlord. In that case I must say that upon a mature and careful consideration of the interest of this class of persons, setting aside the main stream of motives which dictated this Bill, we are clear in the conviction that it would be most hard that in the case of a yearly tenant who had changed his position when he was in a totally different state of things 40 years ago, we should say to that tenant—"Without any fault of your own, and without having anything to allege against you, we shall exclude you from any of the benefits which, if you had continued a yearly tenant, you would now receive."
        Question put.
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 139: Majority 105.—(Div. List, No. 314.)
        It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again this day.
        House suspended its Sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.
        House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

        LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
        Progress resumed.
        Clause 47 (Saving of existing tenancies).
        MR. VILLIERS STUARTsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to the effect that, in such leases, no clause imposing a penalty upon the building of labourers' cottages in any farm exceeding 25 acres should be deemed valid. His object in moving that was to render null and void all such clauses, as being contrary to public policy, and throwing an unfair amount of poor rate upon the small towns, and as leading to great waste of the labourers' strength by compelling them to walk long distances to their work. That point was strongly insisted upon by the deputation that waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland at the Irish Office the other day; and he (Mr. Villiers Stuart) had had many communications from people in different parts of Ireland in regard to it. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would favourably receive the Amendment, or some modification of it. The persons who inserted such clauses in their leases were entitled to little consideration, because the motive for inserting them was generally to evade their just obligations—to avoid the duty of supporting in sickness and old age those labourers who had devoted their lives to working upon their properties.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 27, line 19, after the word "Act" insert the words "Provided also, that in such leases no clause imposing any penalty upon the building of labourers' cottages on any farm exceeding 25 acres shall be deemed valid."—(Mr. Villiers Stuart.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not see how these words could come in at that point; and he was afraid, if they were to be adopted at all, they must assume the form of a new clause. He did not know that he should be able to accept the Amendment at any time; but certainly it could not be accepted here.
        MR. VILLIERS STUARTsaid, he understood that the Amendment had been postponed as a matter of convenience until the Amendment proposed
        1314
        by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had been disposed of.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Amendment which he had proposed, and which had been carried, was a mere declaration as to what would happen when the lease had expired. The present Amendment should have been moved earlier in connection with these words.
        MR. VILLIERS STUART: I had given Notice of the Amendment, and it was not my fault that I did not move it before.
        THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?
        MR. VILLIERS STUART: There seems to be no other alternative. I withdraw it with great regret; but I hope to have an opportunity of bringing it in again on Report.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he had a verbal Amendment to propose—namely, after the word "year" in the last Amendment, to insert the word "and."
        Amendment proposed, after the word "year" in the last Amendment, insert the word "and."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
        Question, "That the word 'and' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
        Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 19, after the word "Provided," insert the word "also."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
        Question, "That the word 'also' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
        MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he did not propose to move the Amendment which stood in his name, as the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) had superseded it.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the next Amendment, which stood in his name, was to enable the Commission to deal with leases which appeared to have been forced upon tenants after the passing of the Act of 1870, as the Prime Minister had expressed it, "in fraud" of the Act, and contrary to its real spirit. It was stated that there were a number of cases

        1315
        where such things had happened—and where tenants would be deprived of the benefit of this legislation by having had forced upon them leases which could not be regarded as other than improper and unfair; and this, if it had occurred, would be admitted to have been a most inequitable proceeding on the part of the landlords. The Amendment which he was about to propose was guarded in its language; it dealt with cases where a tenant had been forced to take a lease, the landlord seeking thereby to deprive him of the benefit of the Act of 1870. The clause ran as follows:—
        "In any case in which the Court shall be satisfied that since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' the acceptance by a tenant from year to year of a lease of his holding containing terms which, in the opinion of the Court, were at the time of such acceptance unreasonable or unfair to the tenant, having regard to the provisions of the said Act, was procured by the landlord by threat of eviction or undue influence, the Court may upon the application of the tenant made within six months after the passing of this Act, declare such lease to be void as and from the date of the application or order, and upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as to the Court shall seem just: and thereupon the tenant shall as and from such date be and be deemed to be the tenant of a present ordinary tenancy from year to year at the rent mentioned in such lease."
        They assumed in this particular case that the lease was destroyed and gone, and that the tenancy was a simple tenancy. He did not think any hon. Member on the opposite side could object to the Amendment, because it was merely an enabling one, one which would enable cases to be dealt with when they presented themselves, and the tenants could bring forward proof. A number of cases were stated before the Royal Commission, and although hon. Members knew very well that these statements made by tenants, who were not examined on oath, were not always to be taken as literally accurate, and though there might not be very many cases of extreme hardship, there might still be plenty of reason why a safeguard of this description should be adopted. Where such a case as that contemplated by the Amendment was proved, no Member of the Committee would say that the lease ought not to be set aside. The landlord was fully protected, and it was only in the case of gross hardship or fraud that the relief would be given.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 27, at end of Clause 47, to add the words "In any case in which the Court shall be satisfied that since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' the acceptance by a tenant from year to year of a lease of his holding containing terms which, in the opinion of the Court, were at the time of such acceptance unreasonable or unfair to the tenant, having regard to the provisions of the said Act, was procured by the landlord by threat of eviction or undue influence, the Court may upon the application of the tenant made within six months after the passing of this Act, declare such lease to be void as and from the date of the application or order, and upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as to the Court shall seem just: and thereupon the tenant shall as and from such date be and be deemed to be the tenant of a present ordinary tenancy from year to year at the rent mentioned in such lease."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
        MR. M'COANsaid, he heartily supported the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, though it did not go so far as another Amendment in the same sense which he (Mr. M'Coan) had put on the Paper before it. The Amendment he had proposed was as follows:—
        "Before 'any' to insert 'all leases of agricultural holdings executed since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' which can be proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been forced upon the tenants now holding under them, shall, upon application by the tenant, be subject to review by the Court; and if their covenants in regard to rent or otherwise should appear to the Court to be inequitable or oppressive, they may be varied as to the Court shall seem just, or the leases may be declared wholly void, and in all cases of such avoidance the tenants shall thereupon become present tenants under this Act."
        The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment, however, would substantially do justice between the Irish landlord and tenant; and he (Mr. M'Coan) would, therefore, waive what he should be inclined to ask for as a measure of equal justice in the case. It might be imagined by some English and Scotch Members, who were not thoroughly conversant with the state of things in Ireland, that there was, at the best, only a sentimental ground for the Amendment. When the discussion, which was somewhat prematurely forced upon the Committee some three weeks ago by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet), was going on, the hon. Gentleman adduced

        1317
        in support of his Amendment a lease granted on the property of Earl Fitzwilliam, and it was recognized that that lease made out rather an insufficient case for an appeal to the Committee for a concession. Earl Fitzwilliam was admittedly one of the best landlords in Ireland; in fact, so good a landlord was he, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) admitted that his tenants had not joined the Land League, and that was, perhaps, the best proof they could possibly have that these people had no substantial hardship to complain of. But he (Mr. M'Coan) had to complain of a lease granted in the same county by a Home Rule landlord, which, he thought, illustrated the case put before the Committee by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland; and he did not think he could better support the appeal now made to the Committee than by shortly quoting a portion of a letter which he had received from the tenant holding the lease in question—a letter which was eloquent in its simplicity. The writer said—
        "I will tell you the history of my lease as briefly as I can. I came into possession of this land about 20 years ago by marrying the widow of a former owner, the family having been in occupation of it for centuries."
        It seemed to be a lease of lives, and the last life had died out in July, 1875. The writer went on to say that the interest in the farm passed to the son of the previous tenant, whose widow he had married, and from that son he bought the remainder of the lease. The writer went on to say—
        "The land had previously been let under the old lease at £1 10 s. per acre; but the landlord, immediately on the expiration of the lease, sought to raise it to £1 17 s. 6d. per acre. The landlord called on me, and said unless I would give this amount he would have me turned out immediately. I explained that the land could not possibly bear so heavy a rent, and that I must ask him to reconsider the high charge to be made on it. He said he would do so, and see me again about it. However, he did not himself see me again; but I was told that I must see the agent. When I saw the agent, he said no change would be made, but I must pay on the new lease for 31 years the increased rent of £1 17 s. 6d. I thought I must pay, else I should be evicted; and I remembered my delicate wife and my helpless children, and, unfortunately, I accepted the lease on these terms. I told him several times afterwards that I did not want the lease, as I should never be able to pay the amount he asked. He said I should take the lease, or a certain person"—
        1318
        mentioning a well-known lawyer in Dublin, whose name he (Mr. M'Coan) would not state—
        "would compel me to do so. I have paid the rent so far, and am otherwise sunk in debt in doing it; and the farm will not at all bear the rent I am forced to pay."
        That was a sample of a dozen letters he had received from tenants in the county of Wicklow; and he had reason to believe that cases of that kind could be quoted, not by the score, but by the hundred, since the passing of the Act of 1870. In nearly every case the screw was put upon the tenants, with the alternative of eviction. That being so, he thought it was not an unreasonable thing for the Irish Members to make an appeal to the equity and sense of justice of the Committee, and to ask them to give the Land Commission the alternative power, either of reviewing the provisions of these leases and varying their covenants, whether with regard to rents or otherwise, or to declare the leases in question wholly void, and place the tenants in the position of present tenants. As he had said, the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) did not go quite so far as he should have proposed. In the interest of the Irish tenantry, he should have been glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been prepared to go a little further; but, under the circumstances, as a Representative of the County of Wicklow, he very gratefully accepted the Amendment. It would do a large measure of justice to a considerable class situated as he had described.
        THE CHAIRMAN: There are a large number of Amendments to this proposal, and these will all have to be called before we get into a general discussion.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, that in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) he would move the next Amendment. It would not be candid of him if he did not say, whether the words were accepted or not, he should feel bound to give his reasons more in detail against the whole Amendment by-and-bye.
        Amendment proposed, to Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND'S Amendment to Clause 47, in page 27, at end, line 1, after "satisfied," insert "by sufficient evidence."—(Mr. Gibson.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he could not accept the Amendment.
        Amendment negatived.
        MR. HEALYmoved to leave out the words "since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.'" He was very glad indeed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had moved his Amendment, and he thought it would go a long way towards giving satisfaction in Ireland. But why they should have stopped at the Land Act of 1870—[Mr. GIBSON: Hear, hear!]—he was glad to have the approval of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin—was what puzzled him. There was nothing sacred in parchment and sealing wax. A contract between any two individuals was just as holding and as binding if made in words as it would be when put upon paper; and it was not because a man wrote on parchment and then stamped it with sealing wax that the agreement acquired anything of a more sacred or sacramental character. Therefore, why leases should be supposed to be documents incapable of being broken more than any other form of contract was a thing he was unable to see; and it was charming to think that in submitting the Amendment he had the support and approval of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. This was a matter upon which it was desirable that there should be a good deal of evidence. Though it was true that since the Act of 1870 there had been more inducements to insist on taking a 31 years' lease in order that there might not be compensation for disturbance, still there had been great inducements to force on leases before the Act of 1870. No doubt, since the Act of 1870 there had been more unjust leases than at any other time forced upon tenants; and he could appreciate the position of the Government, which he took to be this—that as it was by their Act of 1870, and this stupid proposal as to a 31 years' lease that this unfortunate state of things had been brought about, they would redress the wrong they had done in 1870, and propose the Amendment. That was a fair position; but if they were once for all to settle the Irish Land Question,
        1320
        why should they not do it thoroughly? It was admitted that unfair documents had been imposed on tenants previous to the Act of 1870. Anyone who went through Ireland would discover many pieces of parchment in the possession of the peasantry containing the most extraordinary covenants—for instance, there was Campion's compound lease. The Duke of Argyll the other night had taken to task the evidence of one of the County Court Judges as to the case of Mrs. White. His Grace had also found fault with the evidence of Professor Baldwin with regard to Mrs. White's property, and he stated that he had gone into the case, and had failed to find any hardship at all. Well, he (Mr. Healy) had spoken to these poor people himself, and he had been shown a letter which had been sent by the agent to the tenants, and it was to this effect—"John So and So, if you do not accept the lease I give you now,"—this being a £10 increase—"within so many hours I shall insist upon your taking a lease at £40," thereby doubling his rent. It had been proved, in spite of the Duke of Argyll, that the improvements made by these unfortunate people were such that, in the opinion of a civil engineer who had gone over the property, they could only have been effected at the cost of most extraordinary exertions on the part of the tenants. The improvements were made on a desolate seashore covered with rocks, and, in spite of the barrenness of the land, smiling cornfields and crops of potatoes were now to be found on it. But the moment the extra rent was put upon the tenants they stopped making the improvements; and in a letter which had appeared in reply to the statement of the Duke of Argyll, the writer said he had been over the property in question, and he had seen, on the one hand, a field of corn growing fast to ripeness, and within two or three feet of it, on the other hand, a miserable barrenness. The tenant of the land, when questioned upon the subject, had said that he had been stopped in the middle of his improvements by having a lease of this kind forced upon him. It seemed to be a very hard thing that they should leave out of sight the unprotected condition of the tenants of Ireland before 1870, and only redress the grievance which had been caused since that year. It seemed to him that if a man had suffered from a grievance in 1869 he

        1321
        had as much right to have it redressed as if the grievance were inflicted in 1870. He could not understand how they could draw a line in this way, because it was altogether without principle. If the Government could not accept the Amendment, they would do well to make some offer, such as that they made to-day on another question, which was a very fair offer. He had read a good deal of the evidence given before the Bess-borough Commission; but that inquiry was directed, it seemed to him, more or less as to the defects in the Land Act of 1870. He had considered very narrowly what had taken place before 1870, and he had failed to find much in the evidence bearing upon that condition of things. He thought it would be fair to demand this—that if they could establish to the satisfaction of the Government that a sufficient number of cases of harsh leases in Ireland prior to the Act of 1870 existed, the Government should make some inquiry into the matter; that they should promise, as they did in the case of town parks, to make inquiry, and, if necessary, redress the grievance. That was a fair tiling to ask. It might be that in former times landlords dealt fairly with the tenants, and had given them leases on equitable terms; and he did not see why they should claim an ad vantage for the tenants and exclude the landlords from participating in it. He would deal fairly and squarely with both, and would urge the Amendment as much in the interest of the landlord as of the tenant. What they wanted was justice; and he would, therefore, ask the Government not to limit the Amendment to 1870. If they were disposed to limit it at all, he would ask them to adopt 1869 as the limit, for the reason that in that year the landlords knew that the Land Act was about to be passed; and many of them had, no doubt, been tempted to anticipate the measure by forcing from the tenants the best terms they could get. No doubt the landlords, when the Act made its appearance, were very much relieved. They had not expected, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) got into power, that the Act of 1870 would have been of such a mild character. In 1869, many of the landlords insisted upon their tenants taking leases that they dictated, and it was only a moderate demand to ask that the Amendment should go back to 1869.
        Amendment proposed to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment,
        In line 1, leave out "since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' "and insert "every tenancy to which this Act applies shall be deemed a present tenancy until the contrary is proved."—(Mr. Healy.)
        Question proposed, "That the words 'since the passing of "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," ' stand part of the said Amendment."
        MR. O'SHEAsaid, he had taken great interest in this matter, and he believed that there was no question which was looked on with more interest by the Irish people generally than that of leases. He was very glad to have heard such an eloquent description of the state of affairs with regard to leases as they had heard from the Prime Minister; but he thought all the right hon. Gentleman's arguments tended to prove that they ought not to leave out of the remedial provisions of this Bill the case of tenants suffering under very serious disabilities at the present moment, merely because the leases of those tenants were dated previously to 1870. These men would feel their position very much more bitterly when they saw not only tenants from year to year, but tenants who held under leases since the year 1870, helped in the manner that this Bill proposed to assist them. The measure was, no doubt, a very great one, and the Prime Minister had said that they must look to this matter of leases from the point of view, generally, of equity and public policy. Well, as the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had said just now, he could not see the difference between the condition of the tenants on whom leases were forced in 1869 and that of tenants on whom they had been forced since the Act of 1870. No doubt, a great many landlords had insisted upon the tenants accepting their terms in 1869, in anticipation of the Land Act. It was within his personal knowledge that there were many cases of leaseholders in Ireland who had had their leases forced upon them long before 1870, and these were people who were in a much worse condition than those who had accepted unfair leases since 1870, because no one could deny, however the Land Act of 1870 had failed, that it had put the tenants in a better position, with regard to making contracts, than they had been

        1323
        in before. They must bear in mind that not only did the Act of 1870 contain the Compensation Clauses, but that the force of public opinion, consequent upon the passing of the Act of 1870, was considerable, so that the tenants had had a better chance of fighting their battle with the landlords than those who made their contracts before 1870. And there was another case, one which was not very frequent, but of which there were many instances in existence in Ireland; and that was the case of those tenants on whom, or on whose fathers, leases had been forced on account of their action at elections. Such leases had been forced on tenants by Conservative landlords owing to their having identified themselves with the Liberal interest; and he thought it was very hard, seeing that the tenants had stood by the Liberal Party in those days, that the Liberal Party should not stand by them now. He had in his mind the condition of four properties in County Clare, two of them belonging to Lord Leconfield and Sir Augustin Fitzgerald. On both these leases were unknown, yet there was perfect security to the tenants; but, in the immediate neighbourhood, there were two other estates where the tenants held under leases which ought long ago to have been brought before some Court of Equity. The evidence of pressure was so great that no Court of Equity, in such cases as these, would have refused relief. The leases had been accepted simply because the tenants had been subjected to constant nibbling and increases of rent; and everyone knew that the Irish tenant would rather have his rent increased 20 per cent at once than 15 per cent by small increments. These tenants were rack-rented, because they would accept any lease they could get rather than be subjected to these uncertain and unequal increments, and they had also been subjected to a great deal of persecution at election time. He did not wish to delay the passage of the Bill; therefore, he would merely say that, as a matter of public policy and general equity, they ought not to throw over these leaseholders who acquired possession before 1870. It might be said that they were a very small number of people; but, although they might be small in number, they were influential, and he was certain that great agitation
        1324
        would take place and great jealousy would spring up if Parliament left them out in the cold. It would, in fine, be equally inequitable and impolitic to leave these people without relief.
        MR. GLADSTONE: The ground upon which Her Majesty's Government have proceeded in this matter is so simple and clear that I am anxious to explain it at once to the Committee. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) stated that there was no principle in the course we were taking; but I must say that there is clearly a principle laid down in the Bill, and that we are proposing the exception to that principle. In matters of this kind, the general principle is to endeavour to improve the laws that determine the relations between different classes of society, and to deal only with the present and the future. That is the general principle, and it is a princple which, whatever arguments it admits of on abstract grounds, is fully confirmed by the dictates of prudence and long experience. But, in this particular instance, it so happens that in the Act of 1870 we framed a measure in which we gave special opportunities and special inducements of a certain kind. The inducements were intended to be towards the establishment of perfectly free and fair contracts between landlords and tenants, which free contracts should have effect without any sacrifice on the part of the landlords. We gave a qualified fixity of tenure for a number of years. We have evidence, I believe, that in a limited number of cases these limited opportunities have been abused; and on that ground we thought it desirable to give the Court power, on proof of the facts, to put an end to such abuses by quashing the leases. But, first of all, we require a special ground to warrant our going back at all on prior arrangements, and the moment we get beyond that special ground we have nothing to warrant our going further. Beyond that special exception the Government cannot go; and we must, therefore, decline to consider the further extension of the Amendment.
        THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister did not appear to give any reason why they were not able to produce special grounds for breaking leases made prior to those of 1870. It appeared to him (The O'Donoghue) that the Amendment pro-

        1325
        posed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) was based on reason, and on the precedents established by the Bill. The measure was based, in great part, if not altogether, on the recognition of the fact that the Irish tenants had not been free to contract. In a previous discussion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) had stated that the majority of Irish tenants were not free to contract; in fact, he (The O'Donoghue) thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the overwhelming majority of the Irish tenants were not free in this respect. There was no ground for assuming that while the yearly tenants had not been free to contract leaseholders had been free to do so. Taking the great body of the Irish tenants, he had no hesitation in saying that yearly tenants were as independent as leaseholders, and very often much more so. It was not infrequent in Ireland to see two adjoining farms held by tenants similarly circumstanced and similarly rented, with no other difference between them except that one held by parole agreement and the other by lease. Take the case of two farms rented at £50 a-year, and suppose both of the farms to be rack-rented, he would ask the Committee was it possible to give any satisfactory reason for the passing of a law which would enable one of these tenants to come forward and obtain relief from this rack-rent, and deny the right to the other, who was precisely similarly circumstanced, except that he was a leaseholder? In principle, there was no difference between a parole agreement to pay rent and a written agreement to the same effect. It was impossible to give a satisfactory reason why a man who had contracted, under certain circumstances, to pay rack-rent for a year should be released from the payment of that rent, whilst the man who had been compelled to contract to pay the rack-rent for 30 years was not relieved. It appeared to him that far stronger persons could be adduced for releasing the man who was compelled to pay the rack-rent for the longer period of 30 years. So far as his experience went, he could say that a leaseholder, as a general rule, paid a higher rent than an annual tenant. Formerly, the obtaining of a lease was the only means by which a tenant could, even temporarily, escape from the
        1326
        control of his landlord; and, in order to do that, he took a lease and had to pay heavily for the security he obtained. What was said to him was this—"You are going to be put into a position where for some years your rent cannot be raised, and you must pay for that protection," and an exorbitant rent was charged. In every county of Ireland there were innumerable cases where tenants had been compelled to take leases before 1870, and had been obliged to pay rack-rents, and he failed to see any reason in the world why they should not be allowed to come into the Court and have their rents revised.
        MR. P. MARTINsaid, the extent and nature of the Amendment had been somewhat exaggerated and mis-stated. It appeared to him to lay down no such novel or extraordinary and unprecedented principles as had been stated. It was proposed to confer upon the Land Commission in Ireland, in many respects, similar powers to those at present enjoyed by every Court of Equity in the Kingdom. The proposal was to give to the Land Commission power to do in a simple, expeditious, and cheap fashion that which, he believed, could be done by any Court of Equity in Ireland. What must be proved by the tenant before he could ask the Land Commission to quash a lease? He must prove that the terms, in the opinion of the Court at the time of the acceptance of the lease, were unreasonable and unfair to the occupier, having regard to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Nay, he must go further and say that the lease was procured by the landlord under a threat of eviction or duress, which in Equity would amount to undue influence. He would ask any hon. Gentleman acquainted with legal matters whether, where a threat of eviction was used, not for a bonâ fide purpose, but as a means of exacting the tenant's signature to an unfair lease, and where the landlord thus unfairly and unduly used such powers as the law vested in him, would not a Court of Equity, on its being proved that the landlord had thus taken advantage of the tenant's necessities to force a contract, at once grant relief? And let him remind the Committee of this—that, in point of fact, in the celebrated case of Lord Aylesford, it was shown that where unfair pressure was used by a money-lender the agreement

        1327
        could be quashed. Under such circumstances, why was the Committee to limit the application of this clause to tenants holding under leases granted since the passing of the Act of 1870? It could not be contended that tenants were free to contract before the passing of the Act of 1870. No Member who had a seat in the House before the passing of the Act of 1870 could stultify himself by saying any such thing. What was the raison d'être of the Act of 1870? It was that the landlords and tenants were not free to contract. Let the Committee look at the past history of Ireland, and at the Evidence produced before the Royal Commissions—the Commissions of Lord Bessborough and the Duke of Richmond. It would be found that it was proved in evidence that what were called "doctored rentals" were prepared for the purpose of sales in the Landed Estates Court. Men were set down as paying a higher rent than that which, in point of fact, the landlord was in the habit of receiving. The hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) had, over and over again, brought forward an instance of that character. Considering, then, the true nature and effect of this clause, Her Majesty's Government ought not to insist upon any limitation of that character. They had already listened to the remarkable speech of the Prime Minister, in which he so eloquently and clearly stated his reasons for conferring on those tenants who now hold by lease the privilege, at its termination, of becoming present tenants with the rights incident to that class of tenancy. Under those circumstances, why limit this clause as proposed? All tenants ought to be entitled to invoke the aid of the equitable powers conferred by this clause on the Land Commission. Why should they, by any words, limit these to cases since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870? Evidence had been given before both the Bessborough and the Richmond Commissions, giving instances of the greatest hardships perpetrated upon the tenant before the passing of the Land Act of 1870. Let them see whether the case of the tenants of the Land Act of 1870 was not rather stronger than the case of the tenants since the Land Act of 1870. Some hon. Members had spoken as if all leases in Ireland had been solemn contracts entered into under
        1328
        seal after due preparation and consideration on the part of the tenant. But let him remind the Committee that a great distinction existed in this matter between England and Ireland. Under the Act of 1860, any agreement in writing constituted a lease, so that if a bailiff went and used pressure on a tenant, and the tenant was induced to put his hand unawares to any document prepared by the bailiff, that constituted a lease just as good as if it were prepared by an eminent solicitor and explained to, and understood by, the tenant, and signed and sealed by him. The Act of 1860 declared expressly that any agreement in writing was to be held to have the force and effect of a lease. Those were the express provisions of the Act. Viewing how easily leases might be procured in Ireland, he rather thought that that matter was cleared away by the wonderful speech with which the Prime Minister had favoured them that day. The mere attaching the name to any informal document constituted a contract in the nature of a lease under the Act of 1860, and became binding. That, in itself, opened the door to fraud and abuses. The ignorance and helpless condition of the tenants left them very liable to the exercise of undue influence on the part of landlords. It might be said the recommendation in the Bessborough Commission was only in respect of laws made since 1870. But if they looked at the meaning, at the intent, which was not very accurately expressed through portions of the Bessborough Commission in respect of the matter, they would see that the Commissioners, if they intended to give the full meaning to the words, which he had no doubt they did, conveyed the impression that all leaseholders should be released from leases that had been obtained by unfair means. He must say that the very dissentient Member of the Bessborough Commission—The O'Conor Don—admitted the principle that, in point of fact, where they conceded the rights of the tenant from year to year, they ought to concede the same rights to the leaseholder. The O'Conor Don showed that the contract from year to year was to surrender the holding on getting notice to quit; and he pointed out that the same right ought to be conceded to the leaseholder as to the tenant from year to year. He trusted that the Committee would adopt this Amendment.
        MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. P. Martin) had once or twice said that every legal Member of the Committee would agree with his exposition of the law, when he laid down that any Court of Equity would do all that was proposed by this section, in respect of the power which it was proposed to confer upon the Commission. He ventured to challenge that position at once. There was no power, so far as he was aware, in any Court of Law or Equity in England or Ireland to set aside a lease that had been executed as between landlord and tenant, on the ground that it had been signed by the tenant under a threat of the landlord in the exercise of his legal rights. That was the test of the matter. If a threat of eviction were to prevent the exercise of the legal right of the landlord, then the lease was against those legal rights. If a lease was a thing which any Court of Law in England or Ireland could set aside, and if it were true that a Court of Equity could do that, then there was no occasion to burden the Commissioners, who were charged with many duties, with this, when it could be done by any Law Court in the Kingdom. He was glad to see that this mischievous proposal was to be limited upon the lines that the Government laid down. There was no ground for saying that any hardship would exist, as had been stated by the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down.
        MR. LEAMYsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Edward Clarke) had just stated that a Court of Equity would not interfere with the contract of a tenant under a lease simply because the tenant was forced into the contract under a threat of eviction—or, in other words, in exercising his legal rights. That was quite true; but were they to be told that any yearly contract tenancy could be set aside because the tenant was forced into that contract by a threat of eviction? Was not it because the tenants had been compelled to enter into a yearly contract under a threat of eviction, and because they had raised their rents enormously, that the Government came forward with this Bill? They were told that the justification for it was that it set aside freedom of contract. But there was no freedom of contract between landlord and tenant in Ireland; and for that reason the contract should
        1330
        be set aside. The Prime Minister had told them that it would not be prudent to legislate upon past transactions. That was very well. The contract that was made 50 years ago was said to be a continuous contract, although it was made before the now state of things had arisen under the Land Act of 1870, or under the Bill now before the Committee. Therefore, the defence was simply that this contract under a deed was more solemn than an ordinary tenancy. But if a tenant contracted verbally to pay £40 for a holding, and to go out on receipt of six months' notice, surely he was as much bound by it as if he had entered into a contract under seal. They did not say that the leaseholder should go into a Court to fix his rent; but what they asked was this—that since they were now going to enable a yearly tenant, notwithstanding his contract, to pay a certain rent, to go into the Court to pay a very much lower rent than he contracted to pay, they should allow the leaseholder, if he could show to the satisfaction of the Court that he was forced into the contract in the same way as the yearly tenant was, he thought it would be inequitable and unjust not to allow him to have the judgment of the Court. They did not propose that every leaseholder should go in and claim; but if a leaseholder could show that the lease was forced upon him, and that during the time he had the lease inequitable and unjust terms were imposed upon him, he (Mr. Leamy) submitted that such a one was entitled to receive the judgment of the Commission.
        MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I was a good deal surprised that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had moved this Amendment, especially after the very favourable opinion he had expressed on the Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, and I was still more surprised that hon. Members from Ireland should think it necessary to continue the discussion in favour of the Amendment on the Amendment after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It was known to hon. Members opposite, and to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. P. Martin), who had made rather a long speech on this matter, that there had been many suggestions from hon. Members from Ireland during this discussion with respect to this very question; and they

        1331
        themselves had proposed that what was done should be limited by the year 1870. Now, when we look into those Amendments, we find that there is an Amendment by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) in which he speaks of leaseholders holding lands since 1870, and they may apply to the Court. Then we come down the same column, and the hon. Member for Kilkenny County (Mr. Marum), who is a great friend of this Bill, also there speaks of existing leases which shall have been executed after the passing of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870. Then, over a leaf, my worthy and hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) also proposes an Amendment—
        "Provided the Court, on being applied to by the tenant, shall not have reason to judge that the tenant of such a tenancy, if created after the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act of 1870."
        Now, besides these Amendments, if I am not mistaken, there have been references made by several hon. Members on that side of the Committee; and, therefore, it is quite clear that what was dwelling in the minds of hon. Members before this Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was put on the Paper was that the Government should do that which my right hon. and learned Friend now proposes to do. Having made that proposition, surely it is a very unwise thing to continue a discussion upon a proposition which they must know was based upon their former proposition; and after the speech of the Prime Minister they must know also that it cannot possibly be accepted. Further, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) is here ready to deliver, no doubt, a strong speech against this clause altogether. He is not going to trifle with it; but he is going to deliver a very powerful charge against this clause altogether. Would it not be better, then, if the Irish Members, who are friends of this Amendment, did not obstruct—if they did not discuss what they know to be impossible, and prevent the coming on of the attack, to which the clause itself must be subjected, and then they will have great liberty to answer the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, I am only making this proposition as a matter of tactics. If
        1332
        I were an Irish Member, and in favour of this clause, I should blame my fellow-Members if they took up the time of the Committee in discussing what they knew would be defeated, and what they themselves did not originally propose, and wasted their strength and the time of the House upon it, instead of allowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to come on with his speech, and then take the opportunity of absolutely crushing him, which, no doubt, they will, with the assistance of the Government and the hon. Gentlemen on the other side. And then, in the course of the evening, we should divide upon this Amendment. That is the way really for the Business to get on. I will only make one observation more, and that is, that it appears to me that I do not know whether the progress of the Bill, in the course of this discussion, has been hindered more by its friends than by its enemies. When its friends see a good thing in their grasp, if they would take it and not talk so much about it, we should get on better.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Bright) is rather hard upon his Friends, when he says that they refuse it when they see a good thing within their grasp. That is exactly what it means. They, however, did not see their way in this direction, and they put down moderate Amendments in order to get what could be got in the way of opening leases made since 1870. But then, when the Government have come forward, and taken up the whole ground, the natural consequence has followed that the Irish Members, or some of them, have opened their mouths a little wider, and they have said that "when good things are going we will see what we can get of them." And the Government have put their foot down and said—"No; we will not go any further," because in matters of this sort they legislated only for the present and future, with the sole exception of the Act of 1870. All I can make out is, that the Act of 1870 was a child of their own; and, therefore, they thought they could take great liberties with it, and on that ground they proposed an Amendment which, when we come to discuss it as a whole, we shall point out to them that if they are at liberty with regard to what has taken place since 1870, why it would be im-

        1333
        moral in previous times, when, perhaps, such a plausible case could not be made as at present. I hope that this discussion will not go any further after the plain language used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was surprised because his (Mr. Parnell's) hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) approved as he did of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and wished to have it extended to leases entered into before the passing of the Act of 1870. Well, he (Mr. Parnell) thought that it was very natural that his hon. Friend approving of the Amendment in regard to leases which had been entered into since 1870 should wish still further to improve it, and apply it to previous leases. He did not think that there was any matter of surprise, from that point of view, that the hon. Member should desire to have this extension. And then the right hon. Gentleman rather chided the Irish Members because the Amendments which had been put on the Paper some two months ago with regard to the leases were, with only one exception, confined to leases which had been executed since 1870, and he intimated that it was very unreasonable of the Irish Members to change their minds. But he (Mr. Parnell) thought in politics, if a politician set out with the principle that he was never going to change his mind, he would not find himself a very successful one. The reason they had changed their minds was not because the Government had given them what they originally asked for; but rather because, in the interval that had been allowed to elapse, they had got such overwhelming evidence of the injustice of the leases previous to 1870, that they thought it right to lay the case before the Government, and to ask them to extend their beneficial provisions to such cases. What were the facts of the case? He did not think that the leases executed before 1870 were, on the whole, as bad as those executed since 1870; but there could be no doubt at all that they were very bad. He had taken the trouble to collect 41 leases which had been executed previous to 1870, and he had had them tabulated,
        1334
        and he found that the average rental amounted to £1,591, or £1,600 in round numbers, and the average Poor Law valuation amounted to £1,000, showing an average rental in these 41 cases of 62 per cent over the Poor Law valuation. Everybody who was conversant with agricultural matters in Ireland would admit that, as a rule—and those cases were selected at haphazard from all parts of Ireland, and were not in any way picked out—50 per cent over the Poor Law valuation was undoubtedly a rack rent, and an extreme rent; and they should hope that the Bill of the Government, and the 7th clause of the Government, would reduce the rents of the tenants occupying holdings to considerably below that figure. In that case, if this hardship existed, what reason was there why these people should continue to pay this excessive rack rent? The Prime Minister, with that wonderful ingenuity which so distinguished him, said that this was owing to the Land Act of 1870 being passed. But it seemed to him (Mr. Parnell) that the Land Act of 1870, having been passed meanwhile, was rather an argument in their favour; because those tenants who were forced into these leases before the Land Act of 1870 had not even the protection of that Land Act to enable them to withstand the exorbitant demands made by the landlord. Now, let him give very shortly—because he recognized the desirability of shortening the discussion—instances of the way in which those leases were forced upon the tenants. In 1875 he found that there were 11 cases in which the leases were forced upon the tenants, and accepted by them under a threat of eviction in four days. Then, again, in 1876, there were two leases which were forced upon tenants under a threat of eviction; and again, in 1877, he had cases of leases which were forced upon the tenant to deprive him of the expected benefits of the Land Act of 1870. People at that time were talking about some legislation in hopes and expectation of the agitation in Ireland being successful, and the landlord took advantage of it and forced those cases on. Then, again, he had three cases of leases which were accepted under the penalty of having the rent doubled, the rent in these cases being raised 50 per cent higher because they took leases. He did not say for a

        1335
        moment that the cases of hardship were very numerous previous to the Act of 1870. [Mr. CARTWRIGHT: For what terms were these cases?] They were for 31 years, and there was a considerable penalty attached to them. He did not mean to contend that there had been so many cases before 1870 as there had been since. In saying that, he admitted that he was making an admission which went, to some extent, againt the case he was desirous of making clear to the Committee. He had received returns relating to something like as many as 350 other leases which were forced upon tenants since the Act of 1870, and he had found that there were 41 cases in which leases had been forced upon tenants before the passing of the Act of 1870, and 350 since that Act came into force. He would therefore ask the Prime Minister whether, as the matter involved was not of very large importance, the number of leases being comparatively few, there was any reason for opposing the Amendment before the Committee? He saw no reason why tenants who held leases which were dated before the year 1870 should be debarred from the beneficial provisions accorded, or proposed to be accorded, by the present Bill, which would, in a large degree, remedy the grievance of which they now complained as having suffered since the passing of the Land Bill of 1870. He thought it would be a politic act on the part of the Government to have mercy on those tenants who, owing to no fault of their own, when they were unprotected by the law, and when no measure of justice or mercy had been extended to them by that House, were compelled to take leases on the terms of which he was then complaining. He could not help thinking—and he was sorry to be compelled to the thought—that there were in the Committee a considerable section of hon. Members who would oppose the Amendment that had been proposed, notwithstanding the fact that it would, if passed, remove from the minds of many among the Irish tenants a burning and rankling sense of injustice.
        MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he had hailed with pleasure the fact that the Notice Paper bore the Notice of Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, which went as far as ever he anti-
        1336
        cipated the Government would see their way to go. Let him say, however, that he wished his hon. Friend's (Mr. Healy's) words in reference to this particular branch of the question were not to be misunderstood, in that they were wishing to push back a little further the date of leases which should be affected by the Act. The course of action which had been taken reminded him somewhat of the observation of Charles II., who, speaking of one of his courtiers, said that if he had presented to him the whole of Ireland as an estate, he would want the Isle of Man as a cabbage garden. There was, he must confess, an appearance of something of the kind in some of the proposals which had been made by his hon. Friends; but behind that action on the part of his hon. Friends there was the daily receipt by hon. Members at the Post Office in the Lobby of the House of bundles of leases sent by tenants who wished to show the harshness of the treatment to which they were subjected prior to the passing of the Act of 1870, and he must confess that he had been simply astounded by the revelations contained in those documents. It was impossible for hon. Members who took an interest in the subject to hear of these cases without a desire to induce the Government to throw a shield over the men who had suffered the injustice to which he referred. At the same time, he could understand the Government asking themselves whether there were sufficient reasons for looking for a signal post behind the year 1870. There was nothing, as far as he could see, to give a reason for marking the period of a starting point anterior to the passing of the Act of 1870, unless it was contended that if they were to go back behind the year 1870 they should stop at any particular period, and not subject all the leases in Ireland to review. He had reasoned the matter out for himself, and had come to the conclusion that to submit all leases in Ireland—good and bad alike—would only have the effect of causing a great outcry among the leaseholders themselves. Therefore, while he was sorry to differ on this or any other subject from the Friends with whom he generally acted, he could only say that, in his view, the Government had met them very fairly. The only definite opinion to which he came on the occasion of the

        1337
        first reading of the Bill was that the Government would defeat the equities of the Land Act of 1870; and the substance of the present proposal was that the present Bill should not go behind the leases granted since the passing of that Act, but should include them. This was an intelligible proposal, and one which, with an ardent desire to promote in every way the interests of the Irish tenants, he could not but hope would find acceptance in the eyes of his hon. Friends. Of course, while saying this, he wished for more than the Bill proposed to give; and he would, therefore, suggest that if the Government would not give all that his hon. Friends demanded, they should be content with a revision of the leases which were forced upon the tenants by their landlords just before, and in view of, the passing of the Land Act of 1870, so as to defeat and checkmate its beneficent proposals.
        MR. MITCHELL HENRYwished the Committee to reflect upon what would be the effect of this proposal on the action that might be taken in "another place" in the event of its being carried. He feared that if the Amendment were accepted the clause would be struck out altogether when the Bill reached the House of Lords.
        MR. CALLANsaid, as no such proposal had been made as that all-existing leases in Ireland should be broken or revised, he saw no force or foundation in fact in the suggestion of the quondam tenant farmers' Friend who had just addressed the Committee. The Committee had already departed from the only stand-point on which could be based any valid objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). In an eloquent speech, the Prime Minister had, practically, conferred upon existing leaseholders the right, as far as future tenancies were concerned, to avail themselves of the benefits of this Act; and all that the hon. Member for Wexford asked was that if injustice perpetrated after the year 1870 was to be redressed, the injustice inflicted before that year should also be similarly treated. He (Mr. Callan) had seen a letter from a tenant, and also a copy of the lease under which that tenant held before the passing of the Act of 1870. In his letter, the tenant said that before the Act came into operation he had a new lease forced upon him,
        1338
        and the threat held out to him to induce or compel him to accept such lease was, that if he did not so accept his tenancy would be terminated at the end of the one then running. The majority of tenants in the best parts of Ireland were leaseholders before the year 1870; and why, he asked, were they to be shut out from the benefits of this Act? It was all very well to say that the Act should only be used for the purpose—as far as this branch of the subject was concerned—of repairing injustice committed since 1870; but, surely, if the injustice had been inflicted earlier than that year, the injured person had primâ facie a stronger ground for reparation in some form or another.
        MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, in supporting the Amendment, said, he had himself received copies of a number of leases forced upon tenants by their landlords, in each of which there was a covenant to the effect that at the termination of the tenancy no claim was to be set up for any improvements made on the holding, and that such improvements, if any, were to become the property of the landlord.
        Question put, and negatived.
        MR. E. STANHOPEproposed in the same Amendment, before the word "procured," the insertion of the word "unfairly," and said, he only proposed the Amendment in order to make more clear what he took to be the obvious intention of the Government.
        Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, in line 6, before the word "procured," to insert the word "unfairly."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
        Question proposed, "That the word 'unfairly' be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he could not agree to the Amendment, in that it was unnecessary, because a lease obtained unfairly could not be included in the provisions of the Bill.
        Question put, and negatived.
        MR. GIBSONmoved, in the same Amendment, in line 6, to leave out the words "or undue influence," in order to insert the words "and under circumstances which a Court of Equity would hold to be sufficient to set aside a deed."

        1339
        The right hon. and learned Gentleman said his proposal ran on all fours with a statement made by the Prime Minister, on the 30th of June, to the effect that in cases where tenants had presented to them the alternatives of lease or eviction—
        "The question may arise whether relief ought not to be afforded to those leaseholders justly and upon the strictest principles of equity by enabling them to go into Court and have a fair rent fixed—by enabling them to have the lease quashed, as it would be quashed in a Court of Law."
        [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] He (Mr. Gibson) could only say that it was The Times report which he held in his hand. If the Government declined to accept his Amendment, they were in the position of seeking to set aside leases in circumstances which a Court of Equity would not hold sufficient for the setting aside of a deed. He thought it right to guard himself by saying that his Amendment would only improve the drafting, and would not relieve the clause from its original vice.
        Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment,
        In line 6, leave out "or undue influence," and insert "and under circumstances which a court of equity would hold to be sufficient to set aside a deed."—(Mr. Gibson.)
        Question proposed, "That the words 'or undue influence' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Government could not accept this Amendment, and for these reasons. The jurisdiction proposed to be set up differed from that of a Court of Equity, and was, at the same time, more extensive. If this had not been so the clause would have been useless.
        Question put, and negatived.
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Committee had just heard a very remarkable declaration on behalf of the Government to the effect that the Court created under the Bill would have power to interfere between landlords and tenants in cases where the ordinary Courts of Equity would have no power. This was a rather startling doctrine, and he thought the Committee had a right to ask by what rules, if any, the Court was to be governed. As it seemed to him, this Court was to be armed with new
        1340
        powers, undirected by any principles of law, or, for that matter, equity either, but commissioned to do a sort of rough justice between the parties coming before it. In order that the question might be considered, he would move to insert words providing that the Land Commission "may make such order as a court of equity would make in the like circumstances." He was not in the least tied to any particular form of words, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would be able to suggest other words fitter for the purpose.
        Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment,
        In line 6, leave out all from after the word "may," to end, in order to insert the words "make such order as a court of equity would make in the like circumstances."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he could not see any difference between the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman and the one which the Committee had just negatived.
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked what prospect there was that when the new equity was got it would be administered upon known principles?
        THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that if a new equity was created, it must be administered according to the old principles.
        MR. PLUNKETexplained that the object of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was to provide that the order should be made in accordance with the known rules of equity. The Amendment was intended to deal with the circumstances under which the order was to be made; and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General argued that it must be administered according to the old rules of equity, while his right hon. Friend proposed that judgment should be given according to existing rules.
        MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the construction put upon the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was that it admitted the fact that there was a new equity created and a new

        1341
        power conferred on the Court; but that the Court must exercise it according to the known rules. The words were that the Court should "make such order as a court of equity," and not that they should exercise their powers according to the old principles.
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: What I stated in my opening remarks on the proposal was, that I was not in the least anxious about the words, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland might, perhaps, suggest other words. The hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) says you have created new equity. We grant that, and if it was to be administered by a known Court of Equity there would be nothing more to be said upon it; but this is a new procedure, and a new Court altogether. They have certain powers of equitable jurisdiction; but they are a new Court, and will have to administer law and equity upon some new and undefined principles. That is precisely the point I wish to guard against; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General says the Court will administer this equity according to known equity principles. If that be so I am content; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland stated that that was not necessary. I have done my best to insist that the Government shall provide that this now jurisdiction shall be administered by the Court according to the known rules of equity, and not according to expediency. It is a matter of broad principle, and we cannot insist upon broad principles too much. This Court is not composed of lawyers, and what I want to insure is that the Court shall administer this new equity according to the known rules. The hon. and learned Solicitor General says I am right; but I want to be certain of that.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Government believed the Court would manage its affairs like all other Courts, according to definite principles, and by the adoption of such rules of procedure as were best suited for the exercise of their powers.
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should not press his Amendment, but should like to have it negatived rather than withdrawn. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] Then he would withdraw it.
        Mr. WARTONasked for a definition of this new equity from the Solicitor General.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he considered the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) too narrow, because it did not provide that the Court should proceed on all matters according to the known rules of equity, and the fair construction was that the Court would not so proceed. He feared there would be a great deal of misunderstanding amongst Irish tenants holding leases, unless some words such as he proposed to move were inserted. On the very day when the Prime Minister consented to make this concession with regard to leases, the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) presented a Petition from 50 leaseholders, praying the House to cause their leases to be set aside. If 50 leaseholders from Castle Island, which was a small part of Ireland, took that course, how many leases did the Prime Minister think were likely to be brought into Court? Unless some such Amendment as his (Lord Randolph Churchill's) was adopted, almost every lease would be submitted to the Court on the chance that it might be set aside. His object was to provide that the Court should make rules under which the tenants should know perfectly well whether they had any chance of carrying their leases into Court or not. One rule might be that a tenant applying to the Court should produce his last receipt for rent, and by another the Court might require the tenant to show that he had fulfilled the conditions of the lease which he wished to have set aside; to produce some evidence that he had fulfilled all the covenants, and had kept the buildings and fences in repair.
        Amendment proposed,
        In line 8 of said proposed Amendment, after the word "act," to insert "and on compliance by the tenant with the prescribed conditions."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the said proposed Amendment."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)objected to the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had heard with some surprise certain pro-

        1343
        positions which had been adopted by the Committee with regard to the position of the tenant on the conclusion of his lease. It seemed to him that all the propositions were based on very incorrect ideas; and the Government appeared to be considering, not what the leases were, but what they might be. It was proposed to give the Court power to break through leases at a time when the tenants had the complete advantage of the lease, and to take away from the landlord any advantage that he might claim. Under the present proposal, if unreasonable conditions were put before a tenant, he might either refuse them, or accept them under a protest of undue pressure. The Government proposed to empower the Court to set aside leases, and on conditions which went far beyond anything that the tenant was entitled to ask. The utmost a tenant was entitled to ask was to be put back in the same position as if the lease had not been forced upon him, and the Government made that proposal upon the understanding that it would meet cases which did not quite amount to fraud; but if there was fraud, the existing Courts of Law would cancel the lease; but now, in a case which was less than fraud, the Court were to be empowered to cancel the lease, and to put the tenant in a position very much more advantageous than he would have been placed in if fraud had been proved. The tenant would, therefore, go into Court with everything in his favour. If he failed in his obligations, he could fall back on the lease which previously existed, with the additional advantage that on the conclusion of the lease he would be placed in the position of the present tenant. If he could show that in one single instance something unreasonable had been demanded by the landlord, he could repudiate the instrument he had made, and be placed in a much better position than if he had originally repudiated the lease, or if the lease had been set aside as having been obtained by fraud.
        Amendment proposed,
        In line 11 of said proposed Amendment, to leave out all after the word "deemed," in order to insert the words, "to have voluntarily surrendered his tenancy, and the Court shall, if necessary, put the landlord in possession thereof by injunction."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not think the hon. Member (Mr. E. Stanhope) really comprehended the true meaning of his Amendment. What was proposed was that an application to set aside a lease should be made by a person who had been a tenant from year to year, but upon whom a lease had been forced. It must be proved—first, that he was a tenant from year to year; and, secondly, that the lease, at the time of its acceptance, was unreasonable and unfair; and, finally, that he had been forced or defrauded into taking it. But the hon. Member seemed to suppose that the first part was very favourable to the tenant, and the last part more favourable to the landlord. The extraordinary part of the Amendment, however, was that in which the hon. Member would set aside a lease, and the tenant would be placed in the same position as if the lease had been obtained by fraud. He agreed with the hon. Member in his object; but how was it to be carried out? The Bill would undo a wrong, and leave the man as he would be if the wrong had not been done; but the hon. Member proposed that the man should surrender his tenancy to the landlord with all his improvements on it, and seemed to think that that was restoring the parties to their original position.
        MR. E. STANHOPEreplied, that the tenant would not be put in the same position. If the Bill would make him a future tenant, he could understand that; but what it would do was to put him in the position of the present tenant, with all the advantages which this Act conferred.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        MR. EDWARD CLARKEmoved to introduce at the end of the section a Proviso that any persons aggrieved by any order made under the section might take the same, by way of appeal, to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, in the same manner as if it was an order made by Her Majesty's High Court of Chancery. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that in another part of the Bill the Committee had agreed that, on all questions of law, art appeal should be allowed from the order of the Commissioners to the Court of Appeal; and if there was one part of the Bill at which it was essential that there should be an appeal to the High Court, it was in this

        1345
        section. Assuming the addition proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to be appended to the clause, that would provide that the Court should have power to set aside agreements between landlord and tenant on grounds which, at all events, were different in their definition from those at present known to the law; and it was most essential that in a case of that kind, which gave to the new Court considerable powers, its decisions, in the first instance, should be regulated by a right of appeal to the High Court.
        Amendment proposed,
        At end of section, to add "Any person aggrieved by any order made under this section may take the same, by way of appeal, to Her Majesty's High Court of Appeal in Ireland, in the same manner as if it was an order made by the Chancery Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland."—(Mr. Edward Clarke.)
        Question proposed, "That these words be there added."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he could not agree with the Amendment, for he considered it needless, as the rights which the hon. and learned Member wished to see conferred upon aggrieved suitors was already conferred upon them by another part of the Bill.
        MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he could understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman assumed that the proposal came within the general power given by another part of the Bill; but he (Mr. Edward Clarke) thought there would be some doubt as to that. He was, however, satisfied with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance of his intention with regard to the clause, and would not press his Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLmoved to add at the and of the said proposed Amendment the following Proviso:—
        "That the lease of any holding held at a rent of over fifty pounds should not be subjected to revision by the Court."
        He would remind the Committee that when the Prime Minister introduced the Land Act of 1870, he provided that persons holding tenancies of over £50
        1346
        should not be subject to that Act. He did not understand that the Prime Minister admitted having made any mistake about the Act of 1870, or that the Act was not suited to the circumstances of the time. It must be admitted that leases of large holdings stood on a totally different footing from that of leases of holdings of less value than £50 a-year; and the Land Act of 1870 had made a considerable distinction between them. He did not suppose for a moment that the Prime Minister would deny the necessity of having some limit to the clause. Was it intended, for instance, that leases of £500 a-year should be taken into Court? Surely, it would never be contended that leases of £10 a-year for 30 years, and leases of £500 a-year for 30 years, were in the same position and required the same protection? All that he (Lord Randolph Churchill) asked was that the 19th section of the Land Act of 1870 should be adhered to, and that this enormous concession should, at any rate, be limited to those tenants who, at the time of the passing of the Act of 1870, were admitted by Parliament to require protection. He thought the Amendment was a fair one, and he hoped the Government would accept it.
        Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to insert at end the words—
        "Provided always, That the lease of any holding let at a rent of over fifty pounds shall not be subject to revision by the Court."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the said proposed Amendment."
        MR. GLADSTONE: It is an error on the part of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) to suppose that this Amendment coincides with the line laid down in the Act of 1870. The line then laid down was £50 of annual valuation, not £50 of rent. But I rise to oppose the Amendment on another ground. He says we have always stood upon the sufficiency of the Act of 1870, so far as it went. But that is not so. The Act of 1870 was in several respects insufficient, and we have shown our sense of its insufficiency by largely altering the line above which what is called freedom of contract is restored. Consequently, if any line is to be drawn it must be a

        1347
        line conformable to the spirit of this Bill, and not to the Act of 1870. There is no question whatever that the majority of the leases which will come under the operation of these Amendments will be leases of comparatively small holdings; but my opinion is that many of them are above the line of £50 rent, and even above the line of £50 valuation. I do not think it is worth while to introduce the present Amendment; but if any Amendment is to be accepted by us, without inconsistency on our part, it must be an Amendment which shall be based on the spirit of this Bill, and not on that of the Act of 1870.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLhoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the position of hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House. They had not met this clause with anything like an obstinate opposition, and they had assented to the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. After what the Prime Minister had said, it would be a concession of an appreciable nature if he would consent to an Amendment limiting the Act to leases of less than £150 a-year. That would show that, in the opinion of Parliament, there were some tenants who, under no consideration whatever, should come under this clause. He would propose to amend his own Amendment by substituting "£150" for "£50."
        On Motion of Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, Amendment to said proposed Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "fifty pounds," and inserting "one hundred and fifty pounds;" and leaving out the words "at a rent," in order to substitute the words "annual value" after the word "pounds."
        Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
        To insert at end the words "Provided always, That the lease of any holding of over one hundred and fifty pounds annual value shall not be subject to revision by the Court."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the said proposed Amendment."
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it seemed to him that there was no proper way of distinguishing between large and small tenants, and no reason whatever why the large tenant should be left out of the Bill.
        MR. GLADSTONEagain pointed out that there was really no necessity for the Amendment at all.
        LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLexpressed his willingness to withdraw it.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. GIBSONsaid, that before the original Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was finally decided upon, he wished to make one or two remarks, for this legislation was so strong, and such strong Amendments were proposed to it, that they almost lost sight sometimes of the extreme importance of what they were doing. He therefore did not think it unreasonable to ask the Committee to remember exactly what was the clause that they were upon, what it was as originally introduced, and what it was now, even before this final Amendment was added to it. As the clause was originally introduced by the Prime Minister, and as it stood in the Bill, it was a clause without qualification, absolutely protecting all existing leases, with all their clauses and conditions. That afternoon the Committee were induced, in a House composed of half its real strength, but still composed of a very substantial number, considering the time of year and the weather, to introduce into the clause a most important qualification, largely doing away with the effect of one of the most important clauses and covenants to be found in all existing leases; and the clause now provided that all existing leases should be deemed to have added to them this qualification—that at their termination the tenant, instead of being bound to give up possession and to comply with his covenant to give up his holding in good order and condition to his landlord, might, if he pleased, remain on in the very beneficial status of a present tenant, with the right of having his rent assessed at what he might conceive to be a fair rent, and with the absolute right of holding on for 15 years, and with the power of again applying, if lie thought proper, at the end of that term of 15 years, for an additional term. They were now considering the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to a clause which practically said that there might be no termination to a lease at all—that at the technical termination of a lease there might be such an addition that

        1349
        there might be practically no end to it. What, then, was the Amendment which was now proposed to be added? One might have thought that the most extreme ambition to have a strong clause would have been satisfied with what was done that afternoon, without now seeking to make a more striking departure from sound principles, as a good many people would think it. For the present Amendment sought, not to add on a large and substantial qualification at the end of a lease, but to interfere with an existing lease, and to give power to the Court to break it under certain circumstances—circumstances duly set forth in the Amendment, and circumstances which invited the tenant to go into Court "on velvet," to use a phrase which was well known in Ireland, though he did not know whether it was in similar use in this country, or, in other words, to go into Court with a full knowledge that he might win, but could not possibly lose. If the tenant went into Court to have his lease broken, he might succeed, and then he could at once be sure of having the rent revised, if he pleased, by the Court, with the certainty of a term of 15 years, and the possibility of renewal. If he failed he was no worse off; for he had his existing lease, and there was nothing whatever to discourage the tenant from going into Court. He (Mr. Gibson) had a right to ask where was the justification for presenting this Amendment for the adoption of the Committee—an Amendment of so startling and exceptional a character? If there were any justification for it, he supposed it would be found—if found it could be at all—in the Land Act of 1870; and if it could be found there, it must be found in three of the clauses of that Act—the 3rd, the 4th, and the 12th clauses. He was not going to weary the Committee by going through all the details of those clauses; but he must say a few words upon each. The 3rd clause of that Act—and he was not now dealing with an Amendment to that clause inserted either in that House or in "another place," he was dealing with the framing of the clause as originally intended by the Government in 1870—the 3rd clause gave a right to the tenant, on the termination of his tenancy, to demand that the Court should assess for him, if he thought proper, a compensation for disturbance,
        1350
        but that the granting or acceptance of a lease for 31 years should bar that claim to compensation for disturbance. That was not put in at the instance of the landlord; it was the deliberate proposal of the Government, and was a distinct statement to landlords and tenants that it was fair and reasonable, and according to the policy and intention of Parliament, that where a lease of 31 years was given it should bar that claim to compensation for disturbance. The mere acceptance of the lease was to be sufficient to bar the claim. He asked again, where was the justification for the new power now proposed, higher than any power now possessed by any Court of Equity, higher than the power possessed by the Court of Chancery either in England or in Ireland? It certainly could not be found in the 3rd clause of the Land Act of 1870. The Committee should bear in mind that the 3rd clause expressly stated, when it gave this power, and held out this invitation to landlords to grant leases for 31 years, that any leases for shorter periods should not affect, take away, or qualify the tenant's claim to compensation for disturbance. They should remember also that they had already, practically, destroyed the right to release, even if it logically existed at all, by the Amendment accepted this afternoon, because the claim to compensation for disturbance could only be made when the tenant had completed the term of his holding, and they had taken care that the tenant should never be asked to quit, unless he desired to go, or desired to break the statutory conditions; so that he (Mr. Gibson) was entirely within the argument to be drawn from the Land Act of 1870, and entirely within the argument to be drawn from the present clause as now defended, when he said that no reliance could be placed upon the 3rd clause of the Land Act as a justification for the present Amendment. As to the 4th clause of that Act, that was one of such minor and petty application, so far as this leasehold point was concerned, that it could only be relied upon technically, because the acceptance of a lease for 31 years could not stop a claim to compensation for improvements of a permanent character. The 4th clause, then, was out of the case, even if not removed by the Amendment adopted this afternoon, which practi-

        1351
        cally placed it at the option of the tenant whether he would quit his holding or not; and he could not take compensation for improvements until he did quit his holding. He came now to the only other section of the Act of 1870 which could be relied on in support of an Amendment which he would only characterize as extraordinary, and that was the 12th section. It was very startling—that was a moderate and fair word, and, therefore, he should use it in preference to any other—it was very startling to find that the 12th section of the Act of 1870 was to be relied on in defence of the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend. They were all familiar with the 12th section of the Land Act of 1870. It provided clearly and distinctly that the landlord and tenant of any holding, the value of which exceeded £50 a-year, were to be at liberty to contract with one another. They were to be absolutely free to contract with each other as they thought fit; for it was assumed—and this was the foundation of the limitation of the clause—that the tenant of a holding valued at a higher rent than £50 of Poor Law valuation was quite able to look after himself, without the intervention of any Land Act or Court of Law or Equity. That was the whole policy and justification of the clause, and if it had not had that policy and justification, there never would have been such a clause. But the Amendment now moved practically proceeded upon this—that the 12th section of the Act of 1870, which provided for good contracts, and which had prevailed for the last 11 years, should not only be repealed for the future, but that a Court—not a Court of Equity, but a Court specially and peculiarly framed to administer some peculiar kind of bastard equity—should be at liberty to upset that freedom of contract which the Government themselves had declared legitimate by the 12th section of their Act of 1870. Where, then, was their justification for so slandering their own work of 1870? If they did not care to repeal that 12th section, why were they going to make it worthless? But they were doing still worse. They were going back, and giving powers to this Court—not a Law Court, but a partly lay Court, for he declined to recognize the accident of any member of it being a lawyer—["Oh, oh!"]—this
        1352
        was not a Law Court—nothing of the kind—they were giving powers to this Court which were not, at present, possessed by any Court of Equity—the power of administering an equity unknown, at present, to any Court in the Kingdom. Where was the justification for that? His right hon. and learned Friend, whose opinion he respected as much as that of any member of the Profession, had rested some justification for it upon their old friend—one of the Bessborough Commissioners' Reports. His right hon. and learned Friend rested his case on the Bessborough. Report, and also, he believed, on the unfortunate Index to that Report. He was sure the hon. Member for County Cork (Mr. Shaw) was not the author of that Index. His right hon. and learned Friend rested his case, then, on the Bessborough Report, and on its Index. But that Report was before the Government long before they framed this 47th clause, and they knew the opinion of the Prime Minister in reference to it and its modifications; and the Cabinet, in all their meetings, necessarily numerous, and in all their considerations, necessarily elaborate, in reference to this Bill, never drafted the present Amendment upon that Bessborough Report, or upon the paragraph in that Report—cautious and qualified as that paragraph was—which bore upon this point. With the Commission and its Evidence before them, the Cabinet deliberately elected to pass this matter by, and they brought in a clause which was substantially inconsistent with the Amendment now proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend. It was only recently that this change was introduced, for, so lately as the 29th of June, the Prime Minister said that the Government were not prepared, either with regard to present leases, or with regard to future leases, to lay down the principle that those who assented to the terms of a lease should be at liberty to question them before the Court during the period of the lease. And the right hon. Gentleman added that where a lease was entered into, it should be a real one and not illusory, and, above all, it should not be binding upon one side only. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, by his Amendment, drove a most disrespectful coach-and-four through that very clear statement of the Prime Minister, because

        1353
        he said that leases made since 1870 should be binding on one side only. The Amendment, in fact, gave the tenant power to go into Court to void the lease; and if he succeeded, instead of having to give up possession, he remained in possession with all the new benefits and equities established under the Bill. The opinion expressed by the Prime Minister on the 29th of June was expressed not so very long ago. After the good-humoured expression on the phrase "change of front," which had occurred that afternoon, he would not use the phrase again now; but he thought he was entitled to say that the Prime Minister had somewhat reconsidered his position since the 29th of June, and he was not sure, indeed, that the right hon. Gentleman did not do so on the following day, because on the 1st of July he made another speech of a not entirely satisfactory character, though he would not call it a "change of front." He only wished the Government had seen their way, in their wisdom and with their majority, to stand to the clause in the form in which they introduced it. This was a very important question—there could be no doubt about that—and it was a question which was quite entitled to a prolonged debate. But he did not think that even the most bitter enemies of the Conservative Party could accuse them of raising too long or exaggerated a discussion upon these points. He had touched as shortly as he could upon some of the points which had struck his mind as most strong; and, though he did not intend to grapple with them further, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee against the Amendment moved by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.
        MR. O'SULLIVANsupported the Amendment, and declared that he had in his possession a number of cases which had occurred in Limerick, and on the estate of the Earl of Kenmare, and in other places where leaseholders had been very unfairly treated and had had to leave their holdings without any compensation. However, as the Committee were anxious for a division, he would not detain them by giving the details of these cases.
        MR. GLADSTONE: It would not be consistent with the respect which we all
        1354
        on this side of the House feel for the ability and integrity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who has spoken so strongly on this subject, if I were to allow the Question to be put without saying one word upon it. Now, Sir, in the first place, I may say that a very large part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement appears to turn upon a matter which has been already settled; and, undoubtedly, the general tenour of his speech was not such as to bring in view that which we conceive to be the essence of this matter. Let it be understood that there is no question depending between us now as to the condition of a leaseholding tenant at the termination of his lease. That is completely settled, and would not be in the least degree affected by the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend, which is now before us. The whole question before us now is this—Whether certain leases in Ireland are of such a character that the tenant ought not to be kept under the operation of those leases, but ought to be replaced in the position he would have held if he had never executed a lease at all? No doubt, it is the case that, whenever the lease terminates, he will be so replaced in that position; but the question is whether, in the case of such questionable leases, he ought to continue subject to the conditions of the lease until its specific term has run out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has made a reference, of which I cannot complain, to a speech made by me on the 30th of June, and to what he supposes to be a difference of opinion held by me between then and the 1st of July. I do not question the substantial accuracy of the words quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but the fact is that the point under discussion on the 30th of June was a point of rent in regard to existing leases, and it was in reference to that point of rent in regard to existing leases, and that point alone, that I said we were not prepared to interfere with existing covenants. On the 1st of July other points were raised—I speak from memory—and it was brought under the notice of the House that there were, in many of these leases, covenants which were totally contrary to the plain meaning and intent of the Act of 1870. The question, then, Sir, is this. Has there

        1355
        been an abuse of power by landlords in certain cases in consequence and by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1870? Have the tenants suffered, down to the present time, by that abuse of power, and, if they have, is there any reason why they should continue to suffer until the termination of the lease? Now, it is admitted, I understand, that if these were cases of fraudulent leases, such leases might be set aside; and it has been said by some that this is a case much weaker than a case of fraud. Well, Sir, that it does not correspond to a case of fraud I readily admit; but I do not think it is in the least necessary to enter upon a moral comparison between an act of the kind aimed at by this Amendment and a case of legal fraud. The only act aimed at by this Amendment is where the landlord has done two things to a certain person. That certain person having been a tenant from year to year at the time when the lease was made, and a tenant who would, presumably, have continued to be a tenant from year to year, the landlord has, in the first place, got him to accept a lease containing unfair and unreasonable provisions, and not only that—for we do not seek to release the tenant from the consequences of his own imprudence—but the landlord has, in the second place, enforced that unfair lease by the threat of eviction. That is the case in which we interfere, and I do say that, as we are now a Legislative Assembly, it is our duty to look at rules and principles of equity which are larger than those committed to the ordinary administration of the Courts of Law. I say, these are equities which are sound and right, upon special occasions, to be contemplated by a Legislative Assembly, even though, as a general rule, it may not be desirable or politic to remit them to Courts of Law. This is the case of a lease containing unfair and unreasonable provisions enforced by a threat of eviction. Was it the intention of the Act of 1870 that that should be done? Is any man ready to suppose that that was the meaning and intention? The intention was perfectly plain upon the face of it. It was, that if parties of their own will chose to commute the claim to compensation for disturbance given under that Act, they are at liberty to do so; but the presumption of the Act was plainly this—that
        1356
        the lease was not to contain unfair and unreasonable provisions, and that it was not to be enforced by a threat of eviction. If a lease did contain such provisions, I say it was an abuse of the Act—I think I may even say, politically speaking, that it was a fraudulent abuse of the provisions of the Act—and it is within the high discretion of Parliament to give a remedy for such art abuse. We have no question here at all about the condition of the tenant at the termination of the lease; that is all settled. And the question now is, whether, when by legislation you have put the tenant into the position of having unjust provisions forced upon him by a threat of eviction, you cannot relieve him, and whether it is not your duty to relieve him from the operation of those covenants for the remainder of his lease by interposing the authority of Parliament.
        SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The right hon. Gentleman looks upon the clause as carried in the Act of 1870 in a very different character now from that in which he looked upon it before. When Parliament was asked to pass the Act of 1870 the matter was put in this way. At that time there were to be provisions made for granting to the tenant compensation for disturbance; but the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing his Bill, stated that there would be other methods by which it would be possible to give the tenant the same advantage—that is to say, that instead of leaving him to rely upon a provision granting compensation for disturbance, there should be the alternative power of giving him a lease. And the way in which it was put was this. The right hon. Gentleman said—
        "Many landlords may say that they do not object to granting security or stability of tenure, but that they prefer to do it by the method of lease rather than in the shape of compensation for eviction from yearly or other short tenancies. Where a lease is of competent length, we consider the parties to it must be understood to be perfectly cognizant of the relations into which they enter; and we consider it to be found by experience that the more definite those relations the greater will be the exertion of the farmer, the more fully will he develop the agricultural resources of the country, and the more complete will be, as a general rule, the satisfaction of all concerned."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 377.]
        That is a short extract from a speech from which I might make many others

        1357
        to the same effect; and only a little while ago the Prime Minister reverted almost to the position that he took up at that time to justify the proposal to confine this provision which is now before us to leases made since the passing of the Act of 1870. He has quoted that Act as being one by which Parliament has given special facilities and special inducements to landlords to give leases. But now we are told—"Oh, we see there may have been cases, and there have been cases, in which this power has been used in a way which was not in accordance with the intentions of the framers of the Act." Well, I really do not know where we are to stop. If the lease was obtained by anything in the nature of fraud, it is admitted that there are means, by going to the ordinary tribunals of the country, to set aside its provisions. But this is not a case of fraud—it is a case in which some undue influence is supposed to have been used, or a threat of eviction. But what is meant by "a threat of eviction?" I thought that compensation for disturbance was exactly the weapon by which a threat of eviction was to be parried, and that whenever the landlord, after the passing of the Act of 1870—for it is only of that that we are now speaking—threatened to evict the tenant, the tenant would be able to say—"If you turn me out you will have to give me a very large amount of compensation." Therefore, this threat of eviction is a very different thing from what it may have been in former times, before this compensation for disturbance was granted. Then I should like to know what is to be considered "undue influence?" We heard in one instance that a tenant was induced to take a lease because he was moved by the wish of his wife, who did not like to leave the holding. You may say that that was an undue influence. In fact, you may say that anything and everything except the mere consideration of how much money can be made by the business of a farmer is an undue influence; and if a man is induced, by any personal consideration whatever, to give a certain rent for a farm for a certain period, he may be said to have been actuated by some influence other than the mere commercial one, and it might be called "undue." We have no test or guide as to how the words would be
        1358
        construed; all we know is that they are not likely to be construed as a Court of Equity would construe them. But where are we to stop? The Prime Minister told us this afternoon that there is no use in using arguments which turn on the question of consistency or change of front, and I quite agree with him that those are arguments on which we should not lay excessive strength. But the real question is whether, in cases of this sort, what is proposed to be done is in itself equitable and is in itself expedient. Now, it appears to me that it is very questionable in equity to allow a contract deliberately entered into between persons of full competency to enter into contracts, and entered into with the deliberate consent of the Legislature, as in the case of these 31 years' leases, to be broken and set aside, because the tenant, on reflection, does not happen to like it. When one states a case in that way, it naturally limits the objection very materially. But the real question is—"What does this mean?" because you have a very undefined ground upon which you have to go. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) told us some time ago there was nothing sacred in parchment or sealing wax. Think what mischief you are doing by establishing precedents and rendering leases and contracts so insecure as you are about to make them. If you are going to lay down doctrines by which contracts in years to come may be set aside in the easy manner in which it is now proposed that these contracts should be set aside, or by which facilities should be given to destroy or greatly weaken the confidence between man and man which the system of contract is intended to build up, it seems you are doing a most unwise thing. I want to know whether, after the passing of this Act, we are to expect that there will be any more leases at all? Although a lease may be made much more in favour of the tenant than the landlord, the landlord is undoubtedly bound by it, and however the holding may increase in value he cannot raise the rent; whereas we know very well that if the profits fell off the tenant can give up the farm and the landlord cannot enforce the rents. Is there to be no equality in the treatment of the two parties? The hon. Member for Wexford, in a few sentences which had a

        1359
        very fair ring about them, said he wished to do equal justice to the landlord and tenant; but I do not see anything here which is to give the landlord any relief if he had the misfortune to enter into a bad bargain. Suppose a tenant has been induced by undue influences to enter into a bargain, and that for several years his profits have been much greater than he anticipated, when a bad time came he could break the lease. It would matter nothing if he had made a great deal on the farm previously; and although years might have elapsed since he entered into the agreement, he could break the lease if he could prove undue influence. But how are you going to prove undue influence? In a great many cases the evidence may not be forthcoming, the original parties may be dead, you may have to deal with representatives, and you will have great difficulty in giving effect to these matters, and, at the same time, you will run the risk of committing great injustice. The task which is assigned to your Commission to fix a fair rent even for existing tenancies is an extremely right task; but when, in addition, you throw upon them the duty of finding what would have been a fair rent 10 years ago—and they could only gather that from the imperfect evidence of some of the parties to the transaction—you put upon them a duty which it will be almost impossible for them to perform properly. I am quite aware the Committee must submit to whatever the Government may desire and press in this matter; but we must enter our protest against the adoption of a principle which appears to be fundamentally unsound and inexpedient, and which, if allowed to go unchallenged, must result in the development of principles still more dangerous.
        MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) has made an extract from my speech on this subject in 1870. I wish to assist in giving to the Committee and to hon. Gentlemen opposite a little more light as to what my view in 1870 was concerning the nature of leases; and I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend, owing to some inadvertence possibly, completely failed to read a material part of the passage in which I explained my view. I say in that speech, on page 48 of the corrected report—
        1360
        "A landlord, then, may, according to the 16th clause, exempt his lands from being subject to any custom, except the Ulster Custom or from being subject to the scale of damages, provided he agrees to give the tenant a lease such as I will now describe. First, it must be for thirty-one years; and, secondly, it must leave to the tenant at the end of those thirty-one years a right to claim compensation under three heads—first, the head of tillages and manures,.… secondly, for permanent buildings; and, thirdly, for the reclamation of land. But besides this, the lease must be, in regard to rent and to covenants, approved by the Court."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 377–8.]
        That, Sir, is the view upon which my right hon. Friend seeks to convict me and show me up for inconsistency, because we now say that the landlords who have inserted in leases covenants whereby the tenant renounces the claim to improvements at the end of the lease have acted contrary to the spirit and meaning of the Act. If hon. Gentlemen will turn to the first print of the Act of 1870 and to the 16th clause, they will see that it is there provided that a landlord may tender to a tenant a lease of a holding for a term certainly not less than 31 years, upon such terms as the Court may think fair. Such was the policy upon which the charge of inconsistency is now based.
        MR. CHAPLINsaid, he knew not how the right hon. Gentleman might stand with regard to consistency with what he said in 1870; but there appeared to be some slight inconsistency with what he had stated earlier in the evening. He had said that a lease, in the opinion of the tenants since 1870, meant the fixing of a settled rent and nothing else; and to-night he had pointed with triumph to his own description of a lease at that time which, so far from being a fixed rent, included tillage and manures, and covenants to be approved by the Court. What became of his arguments of a few hours ago? He (Mr. Chaplin) protested against the doctrines which had been advanced under the form of this Amendment. The Prime Minister would say to the leaseholder—"It is true that you have entered into solemn contracts and engagements, and my advice is, adhere to these engagements as long as they are profitable; but the day and the hour that you find them to your disadvantage, cast them to the winds." Why, he had asked, should the tenants in Ireland, if they had suffered up to now, continue to suffer any longer? He

        1361
        would give the right hon. Gentleman one answer. The right hon. Gentleman had himself said, when passing the Act of 1870—
        "This Bill will proceed on the principle.… that from the moment the measure is passed every Irishman, small and great, must be absolutely responsible for every contract into which he enters."—[Ibid. 380.]
        Was it conceivable that that language proceeded from the same Minister who occupied the same position 11 years ago, and who now advised Irish tenants to break their leases?
        Question put.
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 109: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 315.)
        THE CHAIRMAN: The acceptance of this Amendment rules out Amendments standing in the names of Mr. M'Coan, Mr. W. J. Corbet, Mr. Macfarlane, Mr. Shaw, Mr. J. N. Richardson, Mr. Marum, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Charles Russell, and Mr. Givan.
        MR. MACFARLANEmoved an Amendment to provide that where a tenant had been induced to sign away his rights under the Ulster, or any other custom, the landlord should be able to prove that such resignation of those rights had been given for valuable consideration.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 27, line 29, at end of Clause, to add Provided such Ulster or other custom has been obtained for a valuable consideration."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not think the Amendment necessary, and could not accept it.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        Clause 48 (Saving in case of inability to make immediate application to Court); Clause 49 (Application of Act); and Clause 50 (Short title of Act), severally agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

      MOTIONS.
        POTATO CROP COMMITTEE, 1880.

          RESOLUTION.
          MAJOR NOLAN, in rising to move a Resolution upon the question of the Potato Crop in Ireland, said, he was anxious to take a division on this subject, if the Government would not accept his Resolution. There had been great danger of a potato famine in Ireland; but it was prevented by the happy chance of a good new crop. Since then a Committee had been appointed on the question, and they had made recommendations which they believed would prevent the immediate recurrence of the plague. In the first place, they recommended that some small experiments should be made; and, in the next place, that new varieties of potatoes should be introduced into Ireland, as it had been found that some kinds of potatoes were out sooner than others. It would be easy to establish new varieties; but no one would undertake the task, as it was not a paying speculation. The potato crop was estimated at about £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 a-year. The third recommendation of the Committee was that small farmers should have brought within their power the means of purchasing good sound seed. It was said that that should be left to private enterprize; but private enter-prize had never done anything in Ireland. He believed if the Government would place within the reach of the small farmers good sound seed, in that way they would confer an inestimable boon on Ireland. For this purpose he believed the best machinery would be the Poor Law Unions. His Resolution would not bind the Government, for he had made it as general as possible; and, with the leave of the House, he would now move it.
          Motion made, and Question proposed,
          "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to carry into effect such of the recommendations of the Potato Crop Committee of 1880 as relate to Ireland, by promoting the creation and establishment of new varieties of the Potato; by facilitating the progress of further experiments as the best means of lessening the spread of the Potato Disease; and by bringing within the reach of small farmers supplies of sound seed to be obtained for cash payments."—(Major Nolan.)
          MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, no one could complain of the manner in which the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) had brought the subject forward. His proposals in the Seeds Act certainly did an immense amount of good in Ireland. He was also justified in the tone he took as to the Committee of last year. The Report of that Committee was most useful, and the evidence collected supplied much valuable information. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) was sorry he could not, on behalf of the Government, accept the Motion, for it would commit to the Government a duty they could hardly perform. They could not undertake to promote the creation and establishment of new varieties of the potato; but as to giving facilities for experiments to check the spread of disease, so far as these could be afforded through the means of the model farms, he was ready to give them. He would give that assurance; but he saw no advantage in making that an actual Resolution of the House in favour of a series of vague experiments. To the latter part of the Resolution, that the Government should bring within the reach of small farmers supplies of sound seed, to be obtained for cash payments, he objected as a duty which the Government could not undertake; but the model farms had proved themselves useful institutions, and he would have the subject brought before them, so that they should do all they could to encourage the object that the hon. and gallant Member had in view.
          MR. O'SHEAsaid, the reply of the right hon. Gentleman illustrated the necessity of the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture, for it was absurd that there should be no means of providing due protection for the staple produce of the country. As to the dignity of the Government being brought into question in the matter, there need be no anxiety upon that point. It was not intended that they should be agents for the supply of new seed, but only that they should help, to some extent, in providing the means for obtaining it. The right hon. Gentleman said he would give advice to the model farms, and, no doubt, that would be useful; but what was proposed was, not that the Government should take on itself the distribution of seed, but that this should be done through the Poor Law Guardians, who had already done it, more or less satisfactorily—they would be the distributing agents,
          1364
          not the Government itself. This matter, was of the greatest importance to Ireland, and his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) had done good service in bringing it forward. He sincerely hoped the Government would give a little more practical assistance than platonical advice to the model farms to look after it. Of so much importance was the matter, that he hoped a division would be taken to test the feeling of the House.
          MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to suggest that the Government should do something in the way of experiments, by placing a small sum for the purpose upon the Estimates—say, £100. That was not much to ask, considering the amount of taxation Ireland paid, and the value she received in return. According to Thorn's Statistics, the value of the potato crop, in good years, amounted to £12,000,000, and by the failures caused by bad seed this had fallen to £3,000,000—a total loss from this cause of £9,000,000 in the produce of the country. For the sake of a little expenditure on behalf of the Government, was all this waste to go on? It was when dealing with such subjects that Irishmen felt the want of a Parliament of their own. On such a matter, involving so much national interest, no National Assembly would begrudge a little expenditure. A sum of £100 would enable Professor Baldwin and his staff to do much in the way of experiment.
          MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was glad to hear that the Government would direct the attention of the model farms to the subject, and he hoped that these experiments might be supplemented by other experiments on the Land League model farms, which the League had on their hands.
          MAJOR NOLANsaid, that for the purpose of carrying out experiments, one or two farms should be taken temporarily for a few years. He did not think model farms could do everything; what was wanted was the raising of new varieties of seed. Model farms were always anxious to produce good balances, and the raising of new kinds of potatoes was not a paying operation; so, with the desire to show a good balance, proper attention would not be bestowed on the experiments. Some more assistance was wanted, some increase in the Estimates. As to the dignity of the House and the Government not being

          1365
          compatible with dealing in a staple of food, really he could not regard that as an argument; the Poor Law Guardians would do it.
          SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) had so mixed up two entirely different questions that he would prevent many hon. Members from supporting his Resolution. There was a great deal to be said in favour of experiments that would throw light upon the nature of potato disease, and it could hardly be expected that these would be undertaken by individuals at their own expense. But the third part of the Resolution was of a very different character. He did not see how the Government could undertake to bring sound seed within the reach of farmers. If potato seed, then it might apply to all seeds; and that would be entering into a business Government was quite unfitted to carry on. If the Resolution were modified by the omission of the latter part of it, then he would support it.
          MAJOR NOLANsaid, as the hon. Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) was a very high authority, he would be happy to withdraw the latter part of his Motion.
          MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member can, with the leave of the House, withdraw the whole of his Motion, and bring it up again in an amended form.
          MAJOR NOLANasked, could he bring it up again now?
          MR. SPEAKER: No; the hon. and gallant Member cannot take that course.
          MR. DENIS O'CONORasked, would it not be open to an hon. Member to move to amend the Resolution?
          MR. SPEAKER: It is open to an hon. Member to do so.
          MR. DENIS O'CONORthen moved that the words
          "and by bringing within the reach of small farmers supplies of sound seed to be obtained for cash payments"
          should be omitted.
          Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "Disease," to the end of the Question.—(Mr. Denis O'Conor.)
          Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
          MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that would take away the chief objection to
          1366
          the Resolution; but he should prefer that the Resolution should run—
          "By facilitating the progress of further experiments as to the best means of lessening the spread of the potato disease and promoting the creation and establishment of new varieties of the potato."
          But he supposed he was too late in proposing this alteration.
          MR. SPEAKER: If the Amendment and the Motion are withdrawn, the Resolution could be brought up in the form proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
          MAJOR NOLANsaid, he should like to know if the Government would bring it up, so that it might be passed this Session?
          MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would put it on for the next night. He wished to avoid any misunderstanding; he could not undertake that a Vote should be placed on the Estimates this year; but he would make it his duty to consult Professor Baldwin and others, to obtain information as how to best carry out the progress of experiments, and the best means of arriving at the result desired.
          MAJOR NOLANsaid, but would the Resolution be passed this year?
          MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, yes; he would put it on the Paper at once.
          Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

        POOR RELIEF AND AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

          ADDITION TO SELECT COMMITTEE.
          Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE and Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR be added to the Select Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Advocate.)
          EARL PERCYsaid, some reason should be forthcoming for these additions, for there were already 19 Members nominated. The practice of increasing the number of Members on Committees was growing very prevalent. He was not aware why two more names should be added to the 19.
          THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)said, he might inform the noble Earl that the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), whose name it was proposed to add, took a very active part in the Committee of 1871 which sat on the

          1367
          Scotch Poor Law Administration. The hon. Baronet would have been originally nominated for the Committee, but for the circumstance that he was not in town when the list was made out, and it could not be ascertained whether he was willing to serve; but, on his return, he expressed his wish to have his name added. That was accordingly done, and the name of another Member from the other side of the House was also added, under the usual arrangement of Committees.
          MR. SPEAKER: I was not aware that the Committee had been ordered to consist of 19 Members. This Motion must be preceded by the usual Motion to increase the number.
          Question, "That the Select Committee on the Poor Relief and Audit of Accounts (Scotland) Bill do consist of Twenty-one Members,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—put, and agreed to.
          Original Question, "That Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE and Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR be added to the Select Committee on the said Bill,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—put, and agreed to.

          BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.
          On Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bill to consolidate and codify the Law relating to Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Mr. ARTHUR COHEN, Mr. LEWIS FRY, Sir JOHN HOLKER, and Mr. MONK.
          Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 218.]
          House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Metallic Mines (Gunpowder)* (169); Turnpike Acts Continuance* (170).
Second Reading—Solway Fisheries (Scotland)* (144), Order discharged.
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature (147–171)
Report—Lunacy Districts (Scotland)* (152), Order discharged; Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, Amendment* (166); Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act (1855) Amendment* (131).
Third Reading—Petroleum (Hawking)* (139); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (126), and passed.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.—(No. 147.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.—(No. 147.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, there were three provisions as to which he, the other evening, when the measure was last before their Lordships, had raised objections. With regard to the first of those provisions, that which related to the selection of Puisne Judges to be Judges of the Appellate Court, his noble and learned Friend had told them he would not persevere with it this Session; and he (Earl Cairns) was therefore glad to find that his noble and learned Friend intended to move as an Amendment the omission of Clause 5, which provided that the Judges should annually select three of their number to sit in the Court of Appeal. The second provision to which he had taken exception was that which made future Masters of the Rolls not only Judges of the Appellate Court, but to take precedence of the other Judges of that Court. He believed that that provision was quite unnecessary, and that it would have a most injurious

  1235
  effect on the constitution of the Appellate Court. No doubt, the Chiefs of the Common Pleas and the Exchequer were appointed direct from the Bar; but there were objections to that system. Under the Acts now in force the Appellate Judges were of equal rank, having taken office on that understanding, and sat according to seniority. He had heard that there were objections on the part of Appellate Judges to future Masters of the Rolls taking precedence. Indeed, one of them had stated that if a future Master of the Rolls were to be appointed under this Bill he would at once resign his office. He hoped, therefore, that his noble and learned Friend would not persevere with this part of the Bill. His third objection was to the 20th clause, which related to the patronage of the Courts. It was now proposed to vest it in three Judges—namely, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the Senior Puisne Judge of the Queen's Bench Division. This proposition was worse than the clause as framed originally. He thought the patronage should be vested in an officer of State, and he hoped the proposed Amendment in this respect would not be persisted in. He never heard before of a proposal that a Senior Puisne Judge should have patronage which properly belonged to the head of a particular Court, or to the head of the general Court of Judicature. It was intended to place the patronage in a most inconvenient quarter without any reason whatever, and if the clause were passed, he might, perhaps, at a future stage of the Bill, feel it his duty to propose that it should be altered.
  LORD DENMANsaid, the only objection he had ever heard to the performance of their duties by the Lord Chief Justices of the Common Pleas and the Lord Chief Barons of the Exchequer was that some of their Lordships had been so long at the Bar that they became too much like advocates for one side or the other when on the Bench. All their duties were well done, and their patronage was fairly distributed. The Members of this House might recollect that about 80 Peers were descended from Dignitaries of the Law. The noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) had said that common sense was equal to law; but when that noble and learned Earl was a Lord Justice of Appeal, he agreed to the surrender of the Ulster Glebes with-
  1236
  out the privity of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), the then Leader of the Opposition, and—in 1867—without the approval either of the then Premier, and against the speech of Mr. Disraeli, brought in his minority representation—which actions were not proofs of his common sense. He hoped that the Lord Chief Justice of England would have his full share of Common Law patronage, and would sooner see the Senior Puisne Judge able to choose for himself and his brother Judges clerks and officers than intrust the patronage to any single Equity or Common Law Judge.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he proposed to omit from the Bill the clause which provided for what might be called the circulation of Judges from the Courts of First Instance into the Court of Appeal. He expressed no change of opinion on the subject, for he by no means agreed that the proposition in the Bill, and which would now be struck out, was not the best way of settling the question; but he could not deny the force of his noble and learned Friend's (Earl Cairns') remarks that the subject was one of great importance upon which considerable diversity of views might exist, and that it might, therefore, be proper to allow more time for its consideration than would be possible in the present Session. The present constitution of the Court of Appeal was not, as their Lordships were aware, the one which he preferred, or which he had suggested in 1873. He acquiesced, with very great reluctance, in the alterations afterwards introduced. He thought considerable inconvenience had resulted from those changes, because they had made the amount of judicial power available for the Appeal Court less than was desirable. This, however, could not be regarded as a final settlement of the question. The matter would now stand over for further legislation, as there had not been time to collect opinions respecting it; but it appeared to him that the present arrangement could not be maintained without the Appellate Court being strengthened. With respect to the position of the Master of the Rolls, he should be glad if he could obtain the concurrence of his noble and learned Friend, from whom, on all questions relating to the administration of justice he was always reluctant to differ, though on that question he did decidedly differ from him. The precedence given by the Bill to the Master of the Rolls over the

  1237
  other members of the Court of Appeal made no change, for that precedence already existed. At present the Master of the Rolls took precedence of the other Judges of Appeal, except the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England; and if the proposed arrangements should be dropped, the future Masters of the Rolls would do the like. The only change introduced was that the Master of the Rolls would be relieved of his present duties as a Judge of First Instance. His noble and learned Friend had said—what he (the Lord Chancellor) could not imagine to be the case—that there would be a feeling which he could not otherwise describe than as one of jealousy on the part of the other members of the Court of Appeal towards future Masters of the Rolls. He had certainly been informed of the opinion to which reference had been made by his noble and learned Friend—and to which he himself should not otherwise have thought it right to allude—as having been expressed by one very eminent member of that Court. But, fortunately for the present purpose, that was entirely immaterial to the operation of the Bill, for the learned Judge to whom he referred, who had been for many years a great ornament to the Bench, and for whom he entertained the highest respect, had intimated his fixed intention to retire from the Bench at the close of the present sittings. He had not himself heard of any similar feeling on the part of any of the other Judges. For his part, he could not understand a feeling of that sort, and he should be extremely sorry if it existed. Appointments had from time to time been made directly from the Bar to the Court of Appeal. His noble and learned Friend had been made Lord Justice with everybody's approbation from being Attorney General; and he had also, when Lord Chancellor, appointed to the Court of Appeal a distinguished member of the Bar who had recently been too early lost to his country. Under the old system, it was customary to appoint Solicitors and Attorneys General to the Mastership of the Rolls, the Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas, and the Chief Barony of the Exchequer, and not unfrequently to the Lord Chancellorship and the Chief Justiceship of England, and no objection was taken to it; and in future the Master of the Rolls might often be taken from the Judges of the
  1238
  Court of Appeal. In one respect, the new arrangement would be more advantageous to the Profession than the old one. Hitherto the Master of the Rolls had been usually selected from the Equity side of Westminster Hall; but if the arrangement now proposed was agreed to, that appointment would be opened more than it had been in the past to both classes of lawyers, so long as the Judges in the Court of Appeal were equally balanced. The objection of his noble and learned Friend pointed practically to the abolition of the office of the Master of the Rolls at the next vacancy; because, if the office was not to be maintained with its present advantages, there could be no reason for retaining it at all. He (the Lord Chancellor) would be the last man to advocate the retention of mere professional prizes, when their retention would not conduce to the public interest; and, actuated by that feeling, he had thought it desirable that the offices of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Chief Baron of the Exchequer should cease to exist. But with regard to the ancient office of Master of the Rolls, he held that it ought to be preserved in its integrity and with all its advantages, unless it could be shown that the public would gain something by its abolition. In his opinion, the public would gain nothing by such a step. The Master of the Rolls was not only a Judge, but also the principal head of the Record Office. It was desirable that he should continue to fulfil the duties of the latter post, because, in his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion, it had been of great advantage to the country; and the records were, to a great extent, connected with legal and judicial matters. If the duties of the Master of the Rolls in connection with the records were transferred to some other person there would almost certainly be an increase of cost, for he would probably have to be paid more than £1,000 a-year; and the absence of official relations between the Record Office and the Judicature would be likely to be attended with inconvenience. Another objection of his noble and learned Friend was levelled at the arrangements for the regulation of judicial patronage. Under an Act passed in 1879, when his noble and learned Friend was in Office, this patronage was confided to the Master of the Rolls for the time being, to the Lord Chief Justice for the time being, and to

  1239
  the two abolished Chiefs. He, therefore, thought the proposed arrangement would be fair, considering that the greater portion of it would be connected with the business of the Queen's Bench Division. The patronage to which he referred affected the offices of 22 Masters, who would be reduced to 18, as vacancies should occur, and of a number of clerks of whom hereafter there would be about 80, only one or two vacancies having happened among them since the Act of 1879 was passed; from which it would be seen that the matter was not very large. It appeared to him to be right that the Master of the Rolls should retain his share of that patronage, as he had previously the exclusive appointment of certain clerks in the Record and Writ Clerks' and some other Chancery offices, which he had now given up. He had at first proposed that the Lord Chancellor should take the place of the two abolished Chief-ships in this matter of patronage; but, seeing that a considerable preponderance of this patronage was connected with the Common Law side of the High Court, he now thought it would be better to substitute in lieu of the Lord Chancellor the Senior Judge for the time being of the Queen's Bench Division. For those reasons, he hoped the arrangements proposed would be agreed to.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Master of the Rolls to be Judge of Appeal only).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 4, leave out ("if he were a judge"), and insert—
  ("He would have been under the last-mentioned Act, or any Acts or Act amending the same, if he had continued to be a judge of the Chancery Division.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 severally agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Three puisne judges to sit in Court of Appeal).
  LORD DENMANmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out the clause, and insert the following clause:—
  "The titles only and divisions of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and of Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer and not their 'offices' having been abolished by the Order of Council laid before Parliament on sixth January
  1240
  one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, those offices being reduced to an equality with the judges not ex officio members of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to appoint a 'president' of each sub-division of the new Court of Queen's Bench, in banc, as has already, by seniority only, been found needful, to supply the place of the chiefs and their divisions (nominally but not really abolished), such divisions of offices and courts not to exceed two for sittings in banc."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Amendment proposed to restore the Chiefships of Divisions which had been abolished.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of The Loam CHANCELLOR, Clause omitted.
  Clauses 6 to 12, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved, after Clause 12, to insert as a new clause:—
  (In cases of urgency, &c., one judge may officiate for another.)
  "In any case of urgency arising during the absence from illness or any other cause or during any vacancy in the office of any judge of the High Court of Justice to whom any cause or matter may have been according to the course of the said court or of any division thereof specially assigned, it shall be lawful for any other judge of the said court, who may consent so to do, to hear and dispose of any application for an injunction or other interlocutory order for or on behalf of the judge so absent, or in the place of the judge whose office may have so become vacant."
  He said the object of the clause was to prevent inconvenience.
  Motion agreed to; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 13 (Selection of judges for trial of election petitions).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 5, line 31, to insert as a new paragraph:—
  "If at the end of the year for which any such judge shall have been appointed, whether before or after the passing of this Act, any trial or other matter shall be pending before him, either alone or together with any other judge, and not concluded, or if, after the conclusion of any such trial or of the hearing of any such matter, judgment shall not have been given thereon, it shall be lawful for every such judge to proceed with and to conclude such pending trial or other matter, and to give judgment thereon, after the end of such year, in the same manner in all respects as if the year for which he was appointed had not expired."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Extension of Winter Assizes Act of 1876 to all assizes).
  THE EARL OF POWISasked whether it was proposed to hold extra Assizes by an Order in Council, and objected to the abolition of the Assizes in some counties in Wales, the inhabitants of which considered that a great slight would be done to them if their ancient privilege of holding separate Assizes were done away with. If there were any reason for economizing judicial strength a single Judge might be sent to some towns. He regarded the clause as aimed at Wales in the interests of the Judges and barristers, which were in direct conflict with those of the public. The noble Earl concluded by moving the omission of the clause.
  Moved, "To omit the Clause."—(The Earl of Powis.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could assure the noble Earl that it was no part of the object of the clause to save trouble to the Judges or the Bar, although he would not himself desire to impose unnecessary trouble upon them. The object of the clause was to promote the conduct of public business. All that was asked was that the arrangements of Assizes might, if necessary, be modified by an Order in Council according to the requirements of public business, so as to give an optional power to the Government to hold Assizes only in places where they were required. Of late years, the number of Assizes had been increased, and the power would not be exercised unless the convenience of the public business were such as to require it. Experience had shown that such a power might be advantageously exercised in other parts of the country than Wales. It was frequently found that the Judges had to go to places at which there was practically no business to be done; while, at other places, there was more than could be got through in the time allowed. The consequence was that, besides incurring considerable expense, there was a great waste of public time, which the clause would do much to obviate.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the power which was being asked for was too wide. He would prefer to see the arrangement that might be thought desirable laid before Parliament, rather than that they should be asked to give the Government a large
  1242
  and unrestricted power without knowing how it would operate. The difficulty in dealing with the matter was owing to the difference of views taken by the Central Government and the localities. The Central Government desired nothing so much as facility; while the localities were anxious to preserve their local rights and traditions. He hoped that if the changes proposed were carried out ample notice would be given to the localities.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsupported the Amendment moved by the noble Earl (the Earl of Powis).
  THE EARL OF POWISadmitted that if full notice were given to the localities a great portion of his objections would be met.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that an Order in Council would be made when a change was proposed, and such Order would be laid before both Houses of Parliament within a month from the date of such Order; or, if Parliament were not then sitting, within a month after the meeting of Parliament.
  On question, resolved in the negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following new clause, to follow Clause 15, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill:—
  (Quorum in Court of Criminal Appeal).
  "The jurisdiction and authority in relation to questions of law arising in criminal trials, which, under section forty-seven of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, is now vested in the judges of the High Court of Justice, may be exercised by any five or more of such judges, notwithstanding the abolition of the offices of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Justice of the Exchequer; provided that the Lord Chief Justice of England shall always be one of such judges, unless, by writing under his hand or by the certificate in writing of his medical attendant, it shall appear that he is prevented, by illness or otherwise, from being present at any court duly appointed to be held for the purpose aforesaid, in which case the presence of the said Lord Chief Justice at such court shall not be necessary."
  Clauses 16 to 19, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Patronage under Officers Act, 1879).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments

  1243
  made:—In page 7, line 14, leave out ("the Lord Chancellor"); line 15, leave out ("and"), and after ("Rolls") insert—
  ("And the senior puisne judge for the time being of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice");
  Line 17, leave out from ("determine") to end of clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Extension of section 14 of Courts of Justice (Salaries and Funds) Act, 1869).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 7, line 30, after ("judicature") insert ("and all officers in Lunacy.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Appointment of District Registrars).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:—In page 8, line 15, leave out ("as to the manner of appointing,") and insert ("for the appointment of"); line 16, after ("justice") insert—
  "(Other than persons holding or having held the offices in section sixty of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, and section 13 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875, respectively mentioned");
  After ("that") in line 16 leave out all the words down to and including ("by") in line 17, and insert—
  ("If on any vacancy in the office of district registrar under the said Acts, or upon the appointment by any Order in Council to be hereafter made of any new district within which there shall be a district registrar (unless by such Order in Council it shall be otherwise directed), it shall appear to the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Treasury, that from the nature and amount of the business to be transacted by such district registrar it is expedient that such office should be conferred upon a person not so qualified as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for");
  Line 18, after ("Treasury") insert—
  ("To appoint to such office any barrister-at-law of not less than five years standing or any solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature of not less than five years standing.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 24 to 26, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Commissioners for acknowledgments of Married Women).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—In page 9, line 37, after ("office") insert ("or shall be hereafter made by the Lord Chief Justice of England for the time being.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 171.)

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT—IN DUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTON, in asking Her Majesty's Government, Whether anything is being done for the amendment of the law, promised in the early part of the Session, by which the 35th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act may not stand in the way of a parent of a child sent to an industrial school being made to pay for it maintenance? said, he would remind them that in answer to a Question asked in "another place" some months ago, it had been stated that the matter would be considered, and that a short Act would, if possible, be passed in the course of the present Session. Under the 35th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, the contribution of a parent towards the maintenance of a child in an industrial school became a civil debt, and was not, therefore, one on respect of which a warrant of apprehension could be issued, unless the parent had means to pay and refused to pay. By the indirect effect of this law parents avoided, without risk of punishment, the responsibility of maintaining, even in part, children whom their neglect had got sent to industrial schools, and threw the charge unjustly, and most mischievously, on the ratepayer.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in reply, said, that the subject had been under the consideration of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but, unfortunately, the chances of introducing a measure this Session were growing less and less, and he was unable to hold out any hope that the question would be dealt with before next year.

RAILWAYS (JOINT STATIONS).

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to move the Resolutions of which he had given Notice, said, that, in the enlargement of railway stations which were used by more than one Company, it was often difficult to apportion the expenses between the several parties. He had communicated with the manager of one of the largest Companies, and had asked him to consult his friends and colleagues on the subject, with the result that a proposal very nearly the same as that contained in his 1st Resolution had been endorsed by the solicitors of the Great Western Railway Company, the London and North-Western, and the Midland Railway Companies. The solicitors to the Railway Association had also signified their approval. He understood that his Resolution would be opposed by the Board of Trade; but he hoped that their objections would not be based on the ground that it would discourage the joint use of stations, as it would always be cheaper for a new Company to share the use of an existing station than to make a separate one for itself. He had originally proposed to make a Standing Order of the Resolution; but, as he understood that the Chairman of Committees objected, he would not press that part of the Motion.
  Moved to resolve, "That whenever powers are sought to be taken in any Private Bill to enable the promoters of any new railway to run into and use compulsorily the station of any existing railway company, a clause shall be inserted in the Bill to provide that if in consequence of such user it is necessary to enlarge such station, or in case at any time thereafter the traffic of such railway station shall, in the opinion of the owning company, have outgrown the accommodation necessary for the safety and convenient use of such station by the public, and the said owning company shall have in consequence enlarged the said station, they shall be entitled to be paid by the other company so using their station an amount equal to such proportion of the expense of the enlargement, or at the option of the owning company such an annual sum as shall be considered right by an arbitrator to be named in the Bill, or, failing such arbitrator, by one to be from time to time appointed by the Board of Trade, and such payment shall be taken into consideration in the settlement of the terms of user of the said station, and if the using company shall at any time make default in payment of any sum due from them in respect of their use of the station, or any enlargement thereof, their right to use such station shall,
  1246
  during the period of such default, cease and determine."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  LORD SUDELEYhoped that the Motion would not be pressed, as he could not say that it would be for the interest of the public to pass such a Resolution as this. The object of a Standing Order was to carry out some arrangement in the interest of the public generally; but this Resolution merely desired to carry out and lay down rules between the Railway Companies inter se. The real objection to the Resolution, therefore, was that it was not in the nature of a Standing Order. It had never been thought fit to adopt a Standing Order of the kind, and the Board of Trade strongly objected to it. Besides, if it were to be of any avail, a Standing Order of the sort must be adopted by both Houses of Parliament; whereas the fact was that the officials of the House of Commons, who had charge of private legislation, had the greatest objection to the Resolution, and maintained that it ought not to be made a Standing Order.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he quite agreed with what had just fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Sudeley). It would be most inconvenient and objectionable to agree to the Resolution as a Standing Order. At the same time, there could be no doubt that in some cases a grievance existed on the point, which might have been provided against if the Company, whose station had been invaded, had taken care to have reasonable protection given to them in regard to future expenditure in the Act sanctioning the junction, and Companies should attend to this hereafter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORalso thought that the Resolution was objectionable, because it went beyond anything that could be justified on the ground of reason or justice.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE —FORGED STAMPS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK, in rising to ask, Whether, it having been discovered that forged stamps to the number of many thousands have been circulated in Ireland, Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to protect the

  1247
  innocent persons who may otherwise suffer from the illegality of the documents stamped with such stamps? said: Your Lordships will probably have seen the statement in the newspapers of the extensive forgeries of stamps attached to legal documents which have been discovered in Ireland. I do not propose to go into the details of that discovery, or make it a question as to whether there was proper supervision or not, as the matter will be considered in a Court of Law. I only want to draw the attention of the Government to the extreme hardship, if innocent persons are allowed to suffer by these forgeries. I believe it has been stated on oath that in the Common Law Division, in one year alone, stamps to the value of £6,400 have been discovered to be forgeries, and these forgeries have been running on for a term of years. Not being a lawyer, I presume I am right in supposing that the documents to which these forged stamps are attached are worth precisely the same value as documents that are unstamped altogether. The people who possess these documents are, however, under the impression that the present state of the law makes them liable to a penalty of £10, and they do not know whether there is a power of remitting that penalty or not. The subject seems of some importance, and I know that in Ireland especially there is much interest attaching to it, and therefore I thought it right to put this Question.
  LORD CARLINGFORD, in reply, said, that he had caused inquiries to be made into the matter, and it seemed pretty certain that this was a false alarm. Although the inquiry into the forgery of the stamps was not yet completed, it was believed that the forged stamps were merely those used in payment of Court fees, in lieu of cash, and were not of a character to affect the legality of any document.

WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT (for Lord DORCHESTER)rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is true that since Saturday a considerable portion of this Metropolis has been deprived of the high service water supplied by private companies reaping large and yearly in-
  1248
  creasing profits from the inhabitants; also, whether any, and, if so, what means of redress are afforded to payers of water rates suffering under this privation? The noble Viscount said that, during the last few days, the Western and Northern districts of London had suffered much from deficient water supply. He had made inquiries at the offices of the Water Companies, but could not get any satisfactory explanations from them. He then went to the various Vestry halls, and found that those Vestries had communicated with the Water Companies, and had also failed to receive satisfactory replies. In support of his statement, he had received a letter from the Vestry clerk of St. George's Union on the subject, which he would read to their Lordships.
  "St. George's, Hanover Square, Board Room,
  "Mount Street, W., July 19, 1881.
  "My Lord,—I beg to forward herewith, by direction of the Nuisances Removal Committee of this parish, copy of a letter sent by the committee to the Grand Junction Waterworks Company to-day, with regard to the failure of the water in the in-wards of this parish. I also forward a copy of a letter on the subject from the Medical Officer of Health, read to the committee to-day. I may add that numerous complaints have been made at this office of want of water, and that I first communicated the fact to the Water Company on Saturday last.
  "The in-wards of the parish are the portion lying between and including Piccadilly and Oxford Street.
  "I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient servant,
  "J. H. SMITH, Vestry Clerk, per A. C. H.
  "The Lord Powerscourt."
  The Vestry clerk's letter to the Water Company was as follows:—
  "St. George's, Hanover Square, Board Room,
  "Mount Street, July 19, 1881.
  "Dear Sir,—I am directed by the Nuisances Removal Committee of this Parish to inform you that the committee have to-day heard with much alarm that there is a failure in the water supply in the district supplied by your Company.
  "In such hot weather a failure in the water supply is likely to lead to a serious outbreak of disease. Many of the water-closets are without water, and complaints of nuisance in consequence are continually being made to the Inspector of Nuisances.
  "The Committee, in calling attention to this matter, earnestly hope your Company will remedy the evils complained of without delay.
  "I may add that the street watering was neglected all day yesterday, as the water could only be drawn at one stand-post throughout the whole of the in-wards of the parish.
  "I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
  "J. H. SMITH, Vestry Clerk.
  "E. O. Coe, Esq., Secretary of the Grand Junction Water Company."

  1249
  He would also read the letter of the Medical Officer of Health.
  "St. George's, Hanover Square, Sanitary Department, 10, Bolton Row, Mayfair,
  July 19, 1881,
  "Dear Mr. Smith,—I have written twice to the Grand Junction Company about the deficiency of water, and been to the office once; they say they are pumping all they can, and that so much is used in the streets, that they cannot get pressure enough up to carry it to the top of the houses.
  "I think that a strong representation to them should be made by the Committee, as water is most needed now, and it seems to me that the Company are failing in their undertaking to the public, who are not responsible for the weather, and who have a right to insist on being supplied as long as they pay their rates.
  "I am, dear Mr. Smith, yours very sincerely,
  "W. H. CORFIELD, M.A., M.D. (Oxon.)"
  An eminent legal authority had been consulted on the subject; but it would appear there was, practically, no redress. By an Act of 1847 penalties might be inflicted by the Board of Trade, and it might be desirable to make complaint in that quarter. No doubt, the subject was a matter which opened up the wide question of the general water supply for the City of London, and he thought that was a question which Parliament would have to take up very shortly. He did not see why London should be in a worse position with respect to its water supply than Dublin, Manchester, and other large towns, all of which had a constant and not an intermittent supply. Liverpool was making a great effort, and he did not think London should be behind. The noble Viscount concluded by asking the Question of which Notice had been given.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, since Saturday complaints have been received by the Local Government Board that portions of the district supplied by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company have been partially deprived of high service water, and yesterday the Board directed their Water Examiner, Colonel Bolton, to inquire into the matter. The shorter supply seems to have arisen from the heavy demand on the Company's low service, owing to the increased demand for road watering and private use, more especially for garden purposes. Moreover, this has been aggravated by the accidental bursting of a 30-inch main at Shepherd's Bush at 9 a.m. yesterday morning. It was, however, repaired, and the main put in
  1250
  working order by 12 o'clock last night, and the Water Examiner reports, on the information of the Company's engineer, that it would take all to-day to fill the exhausted low service and to reach the high ones. It is believed that in most cases where a Metropolitan Company fails to afford a proper supply of water, unless prevented by unavoidable cause or accident, a ratepayer might proceed, under the Waterworks Clauses Act, to enforce a penalty against the Company. The Local Government Board, however, can only take cognizance of any complaints of a short supply for domestic use upon a memorial signed by not less than 20 inhabitant householders paying rents for and supplied with water by the Company. If, after inquiry, it appears that the complaint is well founded, the Board are required to give notice to the Company, who, on failure to remove the cause of the complaint, render themselves liable to a penalty of £200, and a further penalty of £100 for every month while they remain in default.

METALLIFEROUS MINES—INSPEC- TORS' REPORTS, 1880.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBEasked, Whether the attention of the Home Office has been directed to that portion of the Report of the Inspector of Metalliferous Mines for Devon and Cornwall in which he says—
"On looking down the list of fines, one cannot help being struck by the fact that most of them are absurdly small. It almost seems that some magistrates think more of the life of a pheasant than they do that of a man, for I believe that if a similar number of convictions for poaching cases were taken at random, the average fine would be greater; the fact is, a very large number of the magistrates are interested directly or indirectly in mining. Many of them are owners of mining property, and have been troubled by repeated notices to fence dangerous abandoned shafts, and have thereby been put to considerable expense, some indeed have been prosecuted for neglecting to attend to these notices, others are shareholders in mines in the district, and, as such, are not disposed to look favourably upon Government restrictions which they think may interfere with their profits. As a natural consequence fines have on the whole been light, and the inspector's labours have been increased considerably; if the offences had been punished with greater severity, mine agents would have attended to the provisions of the Act with much more diligence. I am convinced that this mistaken leniency on the part of the magistrates leads to a delay in carrying out all the provisions of the Act, and thereby tends to keep up the death-rate from accidents;"

1251
and whether the Department will call upon the Inspector for a categorical statement of the circumstances which have led him to make this most serious charge against the magistrates of Cornwall?
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in reply, said, that the attention of the Government had already been called to the matter from more than one quarter, and the Inspector of Mines had been requested to make a further Report on the matter.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.