Sitting of 15 March 1882

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL—Withdrawn—Longton, Adderley Green, and Bucknal Railway *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Patents for Inventions (No. 2) * [104]; School Boards * [103].
Second Reading—Municipal Franchise (Ireland) [6]; County Courts (Ireland) [18], debate adjourned; Judgments (Inferior Courts) [44]; Land Law (Ireland) Act (1881) Amendment (No. 3) [48], debate adjourned.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 6.]
  (Mr. M'Coan, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Dawson.)
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 6.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. M'COAN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was not necessary for him to trespass more than a few minutes on the attention of the House, inasmuch as the subject had already been twice before the present Parliament. He need not, therefore, repeat the arguments which had been used on those occasions. He might, however, remind the House that in Ireland the qualification to vote at municipal elections depended on the very high voting franchise of a £ 10 rating, which virtually represented a rental of from £ 12 to £ 15; so that, generally speaking, no one in a municipal borough in Ireland was entitled to a vote unless he was the occupant of a house of the rent value of, say, £ 15 a-year. In England, on the other hand, there was a complete absence of value qualification; and every rated householder was entitled to vote at municipal elections. The absurdity and the inequity of such a difference between the franchises of the two countries would become more apparent when he reminded the House that the Parliamentary borough franchise in Ireland was only £ 4, and that, while a man rated at that sum could vote for the election of a Member of the Imperial Parliament, he was debarred from voting for the election of an alderman or a Town Councillor unless rated at £ 10. The practical effect of the distinction between the municipal franchises of England and Ireland was an absurd difference between the number of the burgesses of the large towns in the two countries as compared with their population. These facts alone, he considered, were sufficient to support his application for a reform of the law on this point. When the late Mr. Butt introduced his Bill on this subject in 1874—which was rejected by the Conservative Government—he submitted statistics which abundantly illustrated both the fact and the results of the difference in the franchises of the two
    918
    countries. Bringing down Mr. Butt's figures to the present day, he (Mr. M'Coan) might inform the House that whilst Dublin, with a population of 267,712, had on its burgess roll only 5,584 voters, Leeds, with a population of 220,000, had 52,000 burgesses qualified to vote at its municipal elections. Similarly, Belfast, with a population of 207,000, had only 5,220 burgesses, whilst Bristol, with a population of 206,503, had 25,847 municipal voters. In the same way, Cork, with a population of 97,526, had only 2,005 burgesses, whilst Wolverhampton, with a population of 75,738, had 11,514 burgesses. These figures were fairly representative, and showed the inequitable distinction between the law in the two countries, which it was the object of the present Bill to remove. It did not even ask as much as the second Bill promoted by Mr. Butt, which sought to equalize the privileges of the two countries, as the present one left to England and Scotland a long list of privileges which were not enjoyed by Ireland. These, he hoped, would be conceded later on. For the present, he was content to have the money franchise in Ireland abolished, and to assimilate the voting qualifications in the two countries. He was gratified to know that, with respect to the subject of this Bill, a sense of justice actuated Her Majesty's present Government; and it was with great satisfaction that he recalled the fact that its Members had, when out of Office in 1874, supported Mr. Butt, when he desired to effect a similar reform, and, when in Office in 1880, had supported the measure of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) when he in turn introduced a Bill to effect that object. He trusted that the Irish Members might now again reckon on their support, notwithstanding all that had happened in the House of late. He ventured also to hope that the changes which had occurred since 1874 would bring their Conservative Friends to a more liberal state of mind, and that they would meet with no opposition from them to the second reading of the Bill. If that were so, it would be regarded in Ireland as a gratifying sign of the disposition of the House and the Government to do justice to that country, by satisfying its reasonable demands in this matter. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. R. POWER, in seconding the Motion, said, that all that the promoters of the measure desired was that justice should be done in the matter of the municipal franchise to Ireland. It had been declared by the Act of Union that Ireland was to enjoy equal laws with England, but that declaration had ever since remained a dead letter; and the first of England's acts after the Union was the passing of martial law for Ireland. He was astonished that, after all the professions of the present Ministry to do justice to Ireland, this subject was not referred to in the Queen's Speech. Last year he had the honour of introducing it to the notice of the House, and the Session before he was successful in carrying the second reading of the Bill. Unfortunately, however, owing to the obstructive tactics of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Corry), the Bill did not get into Committee. The history of the subject afforded a very sad commentary on the conduct of Irish Business in the House. For 50 years the Representatives of Ireland had been trying to get for Ireland the simple question of having her laws on this point assimilated with those of England, and still they had failed, through the opposition of both Tory and Liberal Governments. The Bill only asked for a mere equality. He regretted that the Conservative Party, who were now in Opposition, should still consider it necessary to oppose the second reading of the Bill, because a few nights ago his right hon. and learned Friend the senior Member for Dublin University said the Tories were quite prepared to make concessions to Ireland, and that, in point of fact, they had done a great deal for the people of that country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right as far as coercion was concerned; for he (Mr. R. Power) found that while the Liberals passed 22 Coercion Bills for Ireland the Conservatives only passed 11. He would remind those Members of the Opposition that the late Lord Derby commended to his followers the principles of the Bill. With reference to the fact that the English Franchise Law did not extend to Ireland, Lord Derby said that the principle of reform was the same whether applied to England or Ireland; and if it were just in the one country it must be just in the other. If the House wished to afford to Ireland real sub-
    920
    stantial cause of complaint, and encourage a national demand for the Repeal of the Union, they could not do better than continue to show that English interests were treated in one way and Irish interests in another. He could not conceive on what grounds hon. Members could refuse to grant to Ireland such an extension of the franchise as would place her on the same footing with England. The Liberal Government were pledged on this question; but he regretted to say that, like many other pledges given during the last Election, they had not acted up to their promises. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had advocated in his speeches the desirability of binding the three countries together by the tie of equal laws. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that this was amongst many Irish grievances requiring to be redressed, and the Secretary of State for War had made statements of a similar character. The present Bill would cover 11 Irish towns in which 1 man in 40 was now a voter. In English boroughs the proportion was 1 in 8. A population of 29,000 in Waterford had only 700 voters; Bradford, with 145,000 people, had 24,450 voters; while Belfast, with a population of 174,418, had only 5,525 voters. Those figures were quite sufficient to prove how unjust and unequal the law in this respect was. Of course, it was perfectly useless for an Irish Member to try to carry a Bill like this through the House without the strong support of Her Majesty's Government. He did not wonder that the people of Ireland had very little faith in an English House of Commons, when he remembered that a small measure of this description, which demanded no exceptional privilege, but simply asked for equal rights and the removal of the stamp of inferiority, had been asked for upwards of 50 years, and had been continually rejected by Parliament. One aspect of the question which presented itself strongly to him was, that when the Irishman left his own shores, and went, say, to Liverpool or Manchester, he became entitled to the franchise there. He demanded the same privilege for Irishmen at home. The Bill was based upon the principles of assimilation and equal rights, and he hoped that the House would allow a second reading of it, and that Her Majesty's Government

    921
    would also allow it to be taken into Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. M'Coan.)
    MR. COREYsaid, it was not his intention to oppose the Bill. At the same time, as one of those who sat upon the Select Committee appointed in 1876 to inquire into the municipal government of the towns and the levying of taxes in Ireland, he would say that the Bill was a very small portion of the recommendations of that Committee. The Bill would only affect 11 municipal boroughs in Ireland, and would leave untouched a large number of towns which came under the Towns Improvement Act. One remarkable thing which was brought out in evidence before the Committee was that in no instance was any attempt made to lower the franchise by those towns which came before the House with Bills; but, in many cases, they asked rather for an increase of the franchise. The recommendation of the Committee was that the municipal should be assimilated with the Parliamentary franchise. The question had not engaged public attention in Ireland. Speaking for the important borough he represented, he would say that no extension of the franchise was wanted in Belfast. When the Acts of 1840 and 1855 were passed, Dublin, which was then exempted, received exceptional privileges; but the extension of the franchise in Dublin, instead of reducing the franchise, virtually increased it. A great deal of evidence was given before the Committee of 1876, as to the management of municipal boards and local government as it existed in Corporations, and some of the disclosures made to that Committee were not creditable to the Corporations. It would not be advisable, he thought, to reduce the franchise in these boroughs until the other matters referred to in the Report of the Committee were attended to; because it would be a very serious matter to put the power into the hands of a large number of people who did not now possess it, for the purpose of levying taxes upon properties, and the management of Corporation funds. Other matters connected with the question were more in want of attention than the lowering of the franchise. One of the great diffi-
    922
    culties with Corporations was to get members to attend to the business; but he did not believe that that would be removed by lowering the franchise. The municipal question of Ireland was one that should be dealt with by the Government. He was perfectly certain if the Government took the matter up the Irish Members on the opposite side of the House would give them every assistance possible. The Irish people were not slow to make themselves heard on any question that was popular; but nothing was being said in Ireland upon this question, and he did not think that, at the present moment, people were much concerned about the franchise. As regarded the towns which came under the Towns Improvement Act of 1840, many of them, far from wishing for a reduction in the franchise, actually had refused to be brought under the Local Government Act. One of the other matters dealt with by the Committee was the extension of the boundaries of boroughs. That was a question which ought to be dealt with in any Bill that was brought forward concerning local government. As regarded the Municipal Corporation of Belfast, although there were always some grumblers against it, he could unhesitatingly say that on the whole its affairs were well carried on; but there were reforms and privileges which Belfast wanted. A fresh valuation was wanted in Belfast. Deputations from that town had urged upon the late Government to bring in a Bill for a new valuation. No re-valuation had taken place for so long that great inequalities and consequent injustice existed. Yet Irish boroughs had municipal advantages which England had not. In Ireland the aldermen were elected by the ratepayers, and not as in England, by the Town Council. He hoped that the Government, instead of dealing with this small matter, would see their way to take up the whole question and deal with it in a comprehensive way; and with that view he would suggest that during the Recess the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should give the subject some consideration.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, it was very agreeable to have received some support from the Opposition side of the House in regard to the Bill. The hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Corry) had spoken in a very broad spirit, and had

    923
    really said nothing it was necessary for him (Mr. Dawson) to reply to by way of argument. The hon. Member had admitted the importance of the matter, and would give the Government an opportunity of dealing with the question in all its branches hereafter. Although the suggestion might be well meant, it seemed to him (Mr. Dawson) rather to have been made as a means of shelving the small step towards reform now before the House. He did not think it was quite in accordance with the character of the people of Belfast, who were very practical, to put off a subject indefinitely merely because other cognate matters were not then under discussion. The only argument against the Bill, and the chief ground of the disinclination to reduce the municipal franchise in Ireland, seemed to him to be due to some sort of opinion that the people were so low, and their habitations so miserable in many of the towns, that they did not deserve a vote. But that seemed to him to be the very reason for giving them a vote. If they had any control over the municipal authorities, who had the power of improving their homes and improving the sanitary condition of their dwellings, they would have decent homes and good sanitary arrangements; but it was adding insult to injury to tell them that they were miserable because of the wretchedness of their dwellings; and, further, that they would be kept miserable, because they would not get the privilege of sending into the municipal councils representatives who would improve their condition. Many of the present members of the Municipal Corporations seemed to forget that they were guardians of the people rather than of the money of the people, and they consequently lent their assistance towards the improvement of the dwellings of the poor very sparingly. Lord Beaconsfield had said that a money qualification was the very last qualification that should be taken, because by it you kept out the masses of the people and left them entirely in the hands of the monied classes. The hon. Member for Belfast asserted that there was no popular agitation in favour of the present proposal; but did he intend to argue that the Irish people ought to get nothing from that House without agitation? If so they would soon have Town Leagues as well as a Land League. In
    924
    England there was not only household franchise; but a Court of Law decided last November, upon an appeal from a decision of the Revising Barrister, that every room held separately was a house within the meaning of the Act introduced by Lord Beaconsfield, and gave a vote to the occupier, whether the rates were paid by the tenant or the owner. This decision would add 10,000 voters to one metropolitan constituency alone. The Prime Minister himself had quoted and endorsed the saying of Lord Chief Justice Holt, that every man should have power to elect those who bind his person and his property. Had the representation of Birmingham suffered from the influx of the popular vote? On the contrary, Birmingham was a type of that municipal government which they in Ireland would like to imitate. It was true, as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Corry) observed, the standard of £ 10 which existed through Ireland generally did not extend to Dublin. In Dublin it was a household standard; but when giving Dublin the household franchise they also imposed upon it the condition of a three years' residence, and that imposition prevented artizans and others of the labouring classes from getting votes, for they could not generally live three or four years in one house. The very measure which was to have enlarged the franchise in Dublin was more exclusive than the general law, for while the valuation in Dublin would be sufficient for between 20,000 and 30,000 voters, the restrictions imposed reduced the number to 5,000. They talked about "Boycotting" and violence; but people in Ireland could not elect Town Councillors or Poor Law Guardians as they could in England. They had no specific panacea like the ballot paper, by which the constituents could assert their right. Thus it was that the people were driven into acts of violence. He thoroughly agreed with the hon. Member for Belfast, who said these alterations should be made in Committee, and that the towns should be presided over by Towns Commissioners; but he (Mr. Dawson) thought the municipal franchise in England gave every householder a vote, and he did not think that they should give anything less to Ireland. He believed that the same beneficial results might be expected to accrue from this reform that had followed

    925
    upon the extension of the franchise in England. His hon. Friend (Mr. R. Power) said that for 50 years this question had been before the House, and for 50 years it had been undecided. So long ago as 1846 Sir Robert Peel said, when the unbiassed eye looked over the franchise of the two countries, it would be able to detect a disparity between the two communities. There were gaps and yawning gulfs which separated the people from their privileges, and kept them in a disloyal, unconstitutional state. It was needless for him (Mr. Dawson) to speak at any greater length, further than to congratulate the House and himself upon the fact that a true sense was coming over the consideration of Parliament upon the question, and he had great pleasure in supporting the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he did not wish to oppose the second reading. It was true that on some former occasions he and others sitting on that side of the House had opposed the Bill. He would, however, remind his hon. Friend (Mr. R. Power) that, on the last two occasions when it was brought forward, he (Mr. Plunket) offered no opposition to it; but he did oppose it in 1878, on the ground that, at that time, there was a Committee sitting which had been appointed for the very purpose of inquiring into the question. That Committee had taken a considerable amount of evidence, and had taken a vast amount of pains to inquire into this very question of the reform of the municipal franchise in Ireland. It was the Irish Members themselves who insisted upon the second reading of the Bill, and wanted to settle the whole matter out of hand, while the Committee was before the House. Now, the difficulty he had about it all along, and which he still felt about this Bill as it stood, and which would still lead him to oppose it if he thought it was going to be passed without amendment, was this. The great misfortune and drawback in the present state of Municipal Corporations in Ireland was that there was, he would not say a total, but a very considerable, absence of interest and action on the part of the property holders in the proceedings of the Corporations. That matter was gone into very carefully by the Committee which sat for three years on the subject, and
    926
    which reported in 1878. He would just call attention to one paragraph in their Report to show that there was a very considerable feeling of that kind. It said the interests of the property holders and the proper discharge of their duties was not found sufficient to stimulate owners as a class to take part in municipal government. Even if owners strove to secure representation in the Governing Body under the present system, their numbers were insufficient to protect their interests, and it was contended that the revision of taxation would be unjust in itself. The truth was this—owing to the unfortunate proportions in which the various classes were found in Irish towns and Irish society generally, there was great difficulty in applying a system of representation without reducing it to the same rule as had been applied to England. It was on this ground that the Committee, having heard the evidence on both sides of the question, proposed a revision of the representation. They proposed a plan which would reduce the divisions between the various classes in Ireland in a way that would be conducive to their best interests. The Committee then went on to recommend some of the provisions which were contained in this Bill, and he (Mr. Plunket) was not now opposing them; but he said in dealing with a part of this question, if this Bill were to be passed simply as it stood, and without any amendment, it would have the effect of intensifying the very evil of which they complained, because it would have the effect of swamping the interests of the class referred to, and whose interest in municipal government was recommended and desired by the Committee. In short, if members of that class were to attempt to take part in the proceedings of a council, their influence would be practically nullified by the preponderating numbers of other classes. He would not refer to the political aspects of the question, though he might perhaps desire that some Corporations in Ireland should attend more to their natural functions and less to political disputes. But certainly, while he did not oppose the second reading of the Bill, he thought it dealt only with a part of the subject; and even as to that part of the subject it required careful consideration in Committee before it could be passed into an Act.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that it would not be necessary for him to detain the House for more than a few minutes, because there appeared to be a practical unanimity as to the second reading of the Bill. He understood the practical object of the Bill to be to make the municipal franchise in Ireland the same as it was in England; but it seemed to aim at an occupation franchise instead of the present system. He had on previous occasions, when sitting on the other side of the House, expressed his opinion in favour of that proposal, he held it still; and he was glad now to find that there was not any real difficulty raised or objection made to it by the Irish Members on the Opposition side. The hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Corry), while not opposing the principle of the Bill, mentioned other matters which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) dared say were of great importance, but which did not exactly concern this question. Reform might be desirable in those matters; but, for his own part, he was inclined to believe it would be better to deal with the electoral question by itself, and it was desirable that some such Bill as this, or, at all events, the principle of the Bill, should be accepted by the House. This, of course, did not prevent the Government from considering Amendments in Committee; but he could look to no Amendments in Committee which would derogate from the principle of the measure. There appeared to be in the Bill some clauses which, regarded from an English point of view, were unnecessary and superfluous. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), amongst other observations, which he must see he had better loft unsaid, had said the Government had not kept its pledges in this matter. The hon. Member did not, it was true, say so very loudly; but, however that might be, it was a matter which the Government thought ought to be settled in this direction, and they would be glad to give it their support to-day, and afterwards, supposing it could be settled according to Parliamentary arrangements, when it went into Committee. He could not promise, however, to make it a Government measure and to give a day for it. Considering the state of Public Business, it would be impossible for him to give any such pledge as that. He only hoped that the promoters of the measure would
    928
    be able to get the measure fairly before the Committee, and then he trusted that if they did so, they would really set to work about it, and that the Irish Members on the opposite side would not make use of the Rules of the House to obstruct it. In that event he should not despair of the Bill being passed during the present Session.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he wished to impress upon hon. Members that the Government could not give any particular time for the discussion of this matter, and that the entire fate of the Bill depended, and the possibility of settling the question depended, upon hon. Gentlemen opposite not unnecessarily obstructing it. The Select Committee, of which he was a Member, was by no means unanimous as to the representation of property as suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket). A large minority of the Committee took quite a different view. His late Colleague (Mr. Butt) pointed out to the Committee that the principle of Municipal Reform Bills in England and Ireland was, that owners of property should only have representation on these Boards by residing in the boroughs. In that proposal there was a common ground on which the Irish Members on different sides of the House might approach the question, and to see if there could not be a solution of it. So far from leading to that unanimity and fusion of opposing classes, separate assessment of property in Ireland would only lead to a division of those classes. He was afraid the proposition that property ought to have special representation on these Boards could not be accepted. It was a mistake to think Irish Corporations took a particular interest in politics, as might be assumed from the remark of the right hon. and learned Member. English Corporations took quite as much interest when great questions were stirring in the country, and they were just as fond of expressing their political opinions as they were in Ireland. Within the last three or four years, English Corporations had firmly and publicly conducted their elections on the lines of Liberal and Conservative—he would not say to political purposes—but they were carried on quite as much on political lines as were those in Ireland. If there was occasionally an excess of politics in Irish Corporations,

    929
    it was only a temporary phase resulting from the excited state of things in Ireland, and would pass away after that excitement had subsided; but it was impossible during the three years the Committee sat, aided as it was by Commissioners sent over from this country, to lay a finger on any single charge of corruption or any suspicion of it. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin had said under the present state of things by this Bill the property classes would not find much more chance of representation in those bodies; but he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) thought they would have more chance with large constituencies than with small ones, as, in the latter case, the few voters held the ward in their own possession and dictated to the rest. It was much easier to go to a large constituency with a cry of economy or good administration, and assure that constituency it would be to their advantage to return men of a good class, who would enter into the corporation for the purpose of seeing to the due administration of the rates. Thus the property classes would have a far better chance than they now had of representation. It was fancied in some quarters that by keeping the municipal constituencies as they were at present they would exclude certain of the humbler classes from the representation, and leave the representation in the hands of the better classes. But a greater mistake could not be made. Everyone who knew the Irish people knew also that the middle classes exercised very little power indeed when any great crisis came, and when power should be used. The real power lay in the body of the people, and it was much better to give them the legal opportunity of expressing their opinion by electing men who would express their opinions and carry out their views. That in the long run would be found to be the surest and best principle, and he believed the true Conservatives—he did not use the word in a Party sense, but those who had respect for the law—would largely benefit by the extension of the franchise proposed by the Bill. He believed when they got into Committee, there would be no disposition to stand on hard-and-fast lines with regard to this reform. They had to give and take, so long as they did not establish separate representation, so long as they did not ask for violent changes, or
    930
    to adopt anything in Ireland which was not adopted in England. They were quite willing to discuss matters with the other side of the House. Under these circumstances, he respectfully appealed to hon. Members on the other side not to kill the Bill by the half-past 12 Rule as it was on the last occasion when before the House. Let not that be its fate now; but let them approach the question as citizens of a common country, and with the desire of arriving at the best possible solution of the difficulty which had so long existed.
    MR. LEWISsaid, that a large number of Liberals in the constituency he represented (Londonderry) were opposed most decidedly to the measure, and therefore he should not be doing justice to that city if he did not at once and most distinctly state that he should oppose it as far as he was able. They had nothing whatever to do with proposals which might give it a different shape; but, as he understood it, the Bill before the House aimed at placing the municipal franchise in Ireland on exactly the same basis as it was in England, with some slight variations; but that proposal was one which he should have objected to, even had it been a res integra, for he did not believe it had been to the advantage of England to have municipal matters absolutely in democratic hands. He believed it had acted with gross injustice to property, and he did not wish to inflict a similar disadvantage upon Ireland. He maintained that in municipal matters they had a totally distinct class of interests, a totally distinct set of reasons, which ought to be attached to the franchise. The chief duty of a municipal corporation was to assess and collect rates, and to spend the money so collected, and therefore, according to the first principles of justice, he maintained they should have regard to the interests of the people who paid those rates, and not the people who did not pay. So, in regard to the rights of owners, he would be prepared at all events to take his stand upon the Report of the Select Committee which had already been presented to this House in the last Parliament, and which indicated the mode of settling this question in a far more righteous and proper manner than did the proposal of to-day. His hon. Friends below the Gangway would pardon him if he was very candid on this

    931
    question; but he, for one, thought there was not much reason to look with complacency upon the municipal government principle as evinced in the various bodies in Ireland, and he thought hon. and right hon. Members opposite had as good a reason for looking upon them with disfavour as he had. When they found that municipal corporations in Ireland were continually mixed up year after year, month after month, and week after week in political affairs, they might fairly consider what was likely to follow upon the lowering of the franchise which was proposed in this Bill. Only recently, according to The Daily News, at a special meeting of the Cork Corporation, a resolution was passed condemning the Government for having imprisoned Mr. Parnell, Mr. Dillon, and Father Sheehy, by 22 members out of 26; and the meeting, which was semi-public, pledged itself, in case Mr. Dillon were not released, and if he should die in prison, to erect a monument to his memory, and inscribe upon it the names of the three principal Members of the Government as his murderers. That was the spirit in which municipal government was conducted in one of the first cities in Ireland. Were their memories so short that they had forgotten the very recent action of the Dublin Corporation? Was there anything in the general condition and character of the municipal corporations of Ireland to induce the House to go out of its way for the purpose of nullifying and destroying the interest and power of persons of property simply in the interests of those who paid an infinitesimally small amount in comparison? So far from approving the proposal to assimilate the municipal law of Ireland to that of England, he should oppose it to the best of his ability, because he regarded the municipal law of England itself as a bad one, inasmuch as it conferred upon those who possessed no property the right of dealing with the property of others. He knew that in the city he represented the proposition contained in this measure would be looked upon with disfavour equally by Liberals and by Conservatives, and he challenged hon. Gentlemen from the North of Ireland to speak in the name of the Liberal Party in favour of the measure. He would be fulfilling the desire and the mandate of a large majority of his constituents in opposing the Bill, which, notwithstanding the
    932
    modest suggestion that it could be made innocuous in Committee, he did not believe could be turned inside out, or be made anything else than a measure for the degradation of the municipal franchise of Ireland. Therefore, although on the present occasion he would not claim a division, he must announce his intention of opposing the future progress of the measure in every possible way.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that the speech to which they had just listened was precisely what the House might have expected from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), since he had always taken an extraordinary view with respect to the extension of the municipal or Parliamentary franchise. They could therefore expect nothing short of a determined and straightforward opposition from that hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Gray) did not think it necessary to follow the points which the hon. Member had mentioned, further than to say that, if the hon. Member's objection to the Bill was a political one—and, so far as he could see, there was nothing, as the municipal corporations were at present constituted, to prevent their taking the strongest political action open to them—perhaps they might, by going down a little deeper in the social scale of the franchise, succeed in striking the Conservative working man in Ireland. He presumed that the political views of the great corporations could not be more obnoxious to the hon. Member if they were based upon an extended franchise than they were at the present time. They could not do any worse in Ireland in the eyes of the hon. Member than they had already done; but while he was not surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry, he was very much astonished at that of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy). Were it not for the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he (Mr. Gray) would not have spoken in this debate. He could not concur in these statements, and would rather see the Bill rejected than pass on the basis shadowed forth in the speech of the hon. and learned Member. The Irish Members were not willing to consent to any alteration of any kind which would prevent an assimilation of the franchise between the two countries. If, as the hon. Member for Londonderry contended, the present English franchise

    933
    was mischievous, then amend it and give Ireland the benefit of the amendment, for the Irish Members were willing to consent to any amendment which insisted upon Ireland enjoying the same privileges as England. While they were under the same Parliament they claimed, at least, to enjoy such benefits as the Union extended to them. They should have those benefits really as well as nominally; and, at the present time, they found in connection with almost every portion of the administration of Public Business that, while they were nominally under the same law as England, they were practically under an entirely different law. The effect of that was nothing but that of adding insult to injury. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had contended that the owners of property were not sufficiently represented upon the corporations in Ireland, stating that the great desideratum was that men of property should take a more active interest in municipal affairs. He (Mr. Gray) had no objection to men of property and position having an active interest in municipal affairs, if they desired to do so; but, after an intimate acquaintance of the working of the Dublin Corporation, he could say that it was not the men of position or of high social standing in that body—although they had a good many of them—who did the hard, practical, everyday work; it was the men of lower social position and with fewer pretensions who did the work, and who were of the most value to the City. Some proof should have been given of the assertion that if there were more representatives of property in the corporations of Ireland the work would be better done, for that was an old argument that was always urged by the Conservatives in Ireland. There were two systems working side by side. There was the Poor Law system and the municipal system, and in many cases they performed identically the same functions. For instance, all the sanitary work in one district was intrusted to the corporation; while, in another, at a very short distance from it, it was placed in the hands of the Boards of Guardians. Half of the latter bodies held their positions ex-officio, and consisted usually of landlords and magistrates. As a rule, throughout the whole of Ireland these men seldom attended
    934
    to any of the practical work of their Boards. Of course, they attended whenever there was an election, and then always on political grounds; but they left the business to be performed by the vulgar herd, and did not trouble themselves about it. Under the election system of Poor Law Boards, there was a property vote and a property qualification in their entirety, by which system the rich man could have six votes, while the poor man had only one. By means of a certain combination of qualifications the rich man could have as many as 18 votes to one of the poor man. He denied that, however, a better class of men were elected by means of this system, and that they did their work any better than others. Wherever there was a restriction placed upon a constituency there could not be a healthy interest in public affairs, which alone could secure their equitable administration. In Dublin, the greatest city in Ireland, with a population of 250,000, the Corporation was elected by 5,000 men. Owing to a restricted franchise, wire-pulling had a great deal more to do with an election than—if he might use a sporting expression—the public "form" of the candidates. All that was now asked was that that which had been found to work with advantage in England might also be applied to Ireland, and that while they had, perhaps, more than their share of the disadvantages enjoyed by England, they might also receive some of its advantages. He had no hesitation in saying that, if such a proposition as that foreshadowed by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick were inserted in the Bill, he (Mr. Gray) would block it, if no one else did so; for he would sooner wait 10 years for a good measure than allow the House to proceed upon any false assumption that the Irish people would be satisfied with a merely nominal concession, which would be so disastrous in its working, as that made by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he was surprised to hear the arguments deduced from the supposed failure of municipal institutions in England. He thought that if an appeal were made to the country, the answer would show that the extension of municipal institutions to the great towns of England had done much to benefit the country. Not only had they benefited the general prosperity of

    935
    those towns, but they had enormously increased their wealth and health. Therefore, if the Bill depended upon the answer of England, he felt sure there would be little doubt that it would receive a very cordial assent. Objection had been made to the Bill on the assumption that by lowering the franchise they would bring in a lower class of people into public affairs. Had not the lowering of the franchise in England been the most beneficial measure passed during the last 40 or 50 years? Through its operation, the masses took a keener interest in national and Imperial affairs; and he believed no Assembly could take a keener interest in the affairs of the world than this House of Commons, which was elected by the lowest franchise that had yet been tried. It had been said that people of the lower ranks of society took no interest in municipal institutions. For that very reason, then, should the franchise be extended to them; for the chief thing to be desired in all representative institutions was not merely the result it would have on legislation, but the effect it would have upon the people themselves. They never extended the franchise towards a lower class of people without at once awakening in them a very deep interest in questions which they never thought of before, and the practical result was to insure an excellent representation both in municipal institutions and in that House. More than that, he regarded it as of importance that they should especially encourage the feeling that Ireland was to be treated in the same manner as England. There was a feeling gradually rising up—it was found, not only in the public assemblies, but in the homes of England—that Ireland had not been treated quite fairly; and the people of this country trusted that, by legislation like this, would be obviated the necessity for that exceptional legislation which had been the unfortunate practice of the House for the last two years. There were, however, two points in which he thought the Bill should be amended—these being, first, that some provision ought to be made to prevent any voter losing his vote by leaving one town for another, for he saw no reason why a man should be compelled to reside in a town a year, or in some cases for two years, before he had the privilege of a municipal vote. On settling
    936
    in a town he ought to be able to put himself on the municipal register by a formal application to the local authority, which should hold good until the next revision. He further considered it was a very great hardship that very poor people who received relief from the public should be excluded from the franchise. Considering the many advantages that all classes enjoyed at the public expense, it was harsh to deprive men of the rights of citizenship because they were compelled by misfortune to throw themselves for a while on rates to which they might long have been contributors. He trusted that in these two matters at least Ireland would show herself in advance of England.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, in his opinion, all the objections that had been raised to the measure were only such as could be easily and satisfactorily answered. In the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, referring to the carping observations of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), he (Mr. Findlater) was sure his hon. Friend would see that those remarks had been better unsaid. He could not really think, if they were to look for favours from the Government, that speaking in an angry spirit of every act of theirs would tend to get what they required. He said that in the most friendly spirit to the hon. Member for Waterford, and he was sure it would be accepted in that spirit by him. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) challenged Liberal Members from the North of Ireland sitting on that side of the House to say whether the great body of the Liberals of Ireland wished for this change in the franchise. He would accept the challenge, and say that for his part he had not the slightest doubt, from his experience on the other side of the water, that the great body of the Liberals were quite as desirous for the change as was the hon. Member who moved the second reading of the Bill (Mr. M'Coan). He had very great pleasure in supporting the Motion before the House.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it was scarcely necessary for him to add anything to what had been said by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he rose to say the principle upon which he should support the Bill was that representation should ac-

    937
    company taxation. He was also firmly of opinion that a man who was qualified to exercise the trust of voting for a Member of Parliament was certainly not in any way disqualified from exercising a similar trust in voting for the members of a municipal corporation. Those who had, he would not say absolutely most, but who certainly had a very large interest in the homes and the comfort of the poor, were those who themselves came from the lower classes. In saying that, he meant to cast no reflection whatever upon the upper classes, especially upon those in the City of Dublin, who had, perhaps, individually shown more solicitude and interest in the poor than those of any other city in the United Kingdom, particularly some whose names were well known, and whose service was coveted as affording comfort and security. It should not be lost sight of that the Corporation of Dublin occupied an anomalous position as compared with the other corporations of Ireland, and that was a grievance which, at all events, ought to be redressed. Why a person in one city should have a vote, and a person in the same position should not merely because he lived in another city, he could not understand. One great principle might be found in Ireland, that so far as they could enlarge constituencies by introducing persons who had a stake in the country, so much more would they add to the stability of the country and to the loyalty of the population; and the more they excluded this class of people the more would they, to use a popular but forcible expression, sit upon the heads of the people, and the less likely were they to make the people loyal. He was very glad to be able to support the second reading of the Bill, although he wished to protect himself from implying that he adhered to it as it stood, as there were a couple of matters which were, perhaps, more matters of technicality and drafting than anything else, in which he considered it required amendment, but which did not in any way affect its principle, to which he entirely adhered. In Committee he would feel himself at liberty to support or oppose any Amendments, provided they did not interfere with the principle of the Bill.
    MR. METGE, in supporting the Bill, said, he felt that the Representatives of Irish constituencies had a right to ask from the only Irish Parliament they had
    938
    some fulfilment of the pledges from the Government, which had been broken as fast as made ever since the time of the Union. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) respecting the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), he would remind that hon. Gentleman that the Irish people looked for measures of this kind as measures of simple justice, and no more; therefore, they could not be said to ask for anything in a carping spirit. When they were granted, they considered them not in the light of favours from the Government or the English Parliament, but as being passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. He cordially supported the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Findlater, Mr. Givan, Mr. Patrick Smyth, Mr. Thomas Dickson.)
  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 18.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. FINDLATER, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was framed for the purpose of remedying a great injustice which at present existed with regard to the appeal in ordinary cases, and also under the Equity Clauses of the Irish County Court Act of 1877. It provided for the hearing of appeals in equity cases by Assize Judges. At present all the cases went before the Lord Chancellor. In small cases this led to expenses which were simply ridiculous. Under the law as it at present stood, in ordinary cases before a suitor could appeal from the decision of the County Court Judge, it was necessary he should obtain two sureties to enter into a recognizance in double the amount of the decree, and the state of the law in many cases caused very great difficulty where the amount was considerable, say, £50. When the security to be given was large in amount, practically there could be no appeal; and in some cases he had heard that the County Court Judges had fixed the security at such an outrageous figure as to preclude all chance of appeal, knowing the very great difficulties there were in the way of poor suitors to procure the necessary securities, although, of course, he

    939
    (Mr. Findlater) could not speak from personal knowledge of any case. Another difficulty was that appeals should be made during the session of the Court, the consequence being that very often, where the decree was made near the close of the session, it was almost impossible to get the opinion of counsel in time to institute the appeal. The Bill he had introduced would obviate that grievance. Although these difficulties existed with regard to appeals in ordinary cases, appellants in those cases certainly had the advantage of appealing to the going Judge of Assize, who was quite accessible; and, in fact, there was a perfect re-hearing of the case, and there was some certainty of justice being administered. However, with regard to appeals under the equity jurisdiction of the Court, the case stood upon an entirely different basis. In all cases, however small, these must come before the Lord Chancellor, leading to expense which was simply ridiculous. Most cases instituted under the equity jurisdiction of the County Courts were cases for the recovery of small legacies, and the amount involved was generally so small that if a ridiculous mistake happened to be made by the Chairman, there was practically no appeal at all. Another difficulty was the great delay that occurred in the hearing of the appeal cases. It usually took six months from the time a decree was pronounced before the appeal was heard, and sometimes even longer than that. He believed there was one case not long ago which took nine months. In a case, Murdock v. Murdock, the reversal of the decree cost £20, and a delay of five months. The case goes back to the Chairman, and will be heard next April, and the parties are in the meantime in a starving condition. Then, again, in these equity cases, the appeal had to be decided mainly on the notes of the evidence taken find the points raised by the County Court Judges. He need not point out how unsatisfactory it was that the Judge of Appeal should only have the notes of an inferior Judge to decide the facts of a case upon. In Ireland, just as in this country, strong complaints had been made by Judges as to the incomplete and imperfect notes made by County Court Judges in cases that came before them on appeal. He noticed in the London Times of the previous day a strong expression of opinion on this point, and the
    940
    case was sent back to the County Court Judge. Things were twice as bad in this respect in Ireland. If such scandals took place in the Superior Courts the outcry would, no doubt, be very great indeed; but they attracted little attention when they occurred before the inferior tribunals. There was also an extreme difficulty in getting these notes from the County Court Chairman, imperfect and one-sided as they generally were. There was a case before the ex-Chancellor (Dr. Mall) in which it took nearly six months to get the notes from the Chairman, and the appeal had to be ultimately lodged without the notes at all. This irregularity and delay in lodging the notes was a very serious matter. In some cases the disputed amount involved might be nearly £500; but it was equally hard in principle when the amount was small. A barrister friend of his (Mr. Findlater's) not long ago came across a case in Court when an equity civil bill for specific performance was decided by a County Court Judge. The defeated party sought advice from the barrister as to the propriety of appealing, and handed him the Judge's notes of evidence, when it was found that the notes absolutely left out all reference to the case of the party in question. The name of the case was Simpson v. McLelland. In this case the barrister, of course, advised that no appeal should be lodged. To put an end to the evils to which he (Mr. Findlater) had referred, the Bill proposed to refer the equity appeals to the going Judge of Assize, and not to the Lord Chancellor, who would re-hear the case both as regarded the facts and the law. Surely it would be a considerable advantage that cases of this kind should be tried at Assizes. They would be heard by Judges of eminence, who, as the Bar in Ireland from which they were taken did not confine their practice to one branch of the Profession, would have the necessary equity experience. They would not have, as the Low Chancellor had at present, to decide the cases upon imperfect notes of evidence and other matters. That would be a very great advantage in the hearing of small cases. He understood the present eminent Judge who occupied the position of Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland was strongly in favour of the hearing of these appeals by the Assize Judges. [Mr. GIBSON: Have you any evidence of that?] He did not say he had evidence of it; but he had

    941
    been told it by a gentleman practising at the Bar, whose statement he believed. He thought there was some reform wanted in these matters, and the Bill which he now begged to move should be read a second time met all the difficulties he had mentioned in the observations he had made to the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Findlater.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, it was obvious that any attempt to modify such an important Act, passed so recently as the year 1877, required strong evidence for its being carried into effect. He was of opinion that no such case was made out by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater). The Bill was one that would only be justified by establishing the fact of the great inconvenience of the present system as well as the convenience that would result under the system proposed to be adopted. With respect to the objections made by the hon. Member to the present system of appeal in equity cases resting with the Lord Chancellor, he (Mr. Gibson) had the honour to be Chairman of the Committee which sat upon the subject in 1877, and if there was any one point on which there was the greatest possible unanimity it was upon this—the importance of giving the widest equity jurisdiction to County Court Judges. There was an equal unanimity on the point that it was desirable that the comparatively humble suitors before County Courts should be able to appeal to the highest judicial authority the country could supply. Both the late and present Lord Chancellor, he knew, felt that no part of their duties required more zealous attention than these appeals on equity matters from County Courts. The hon. Member had complained that there was delay in the hearing of the appeals. That delay, however, was not an evidence of the failure of the system, for in the very nature of things there must necessarily be some delay in working a new jurisdiction. Moreover, the delay had been greatly obviated by the fact that the Lord Chancellor had called in the aid of two of the higher Judges of Equity to assist him in his administration. He believed that with the assistance of the Vice Chancellors and of Judge Flanagan, who had been asked to assist the Lord Chancellor, there
    942
    would be very little delay in future in hearing these equity cases. The Bill as at present drafted would lead to the greatest confusion. As to the power of appeal, supposing the money amount in the case involved a long and complicated account, as was often the case, he believed it would not often happen that such cases could be taken within the short limits of the Assizes. That meant a new Judge to sit in the next Assizes, and to decide on the accounts ordered by the last Judge of Assize. He ventured to think that if his hon. Friend considered all those matters, he would find they involved very considerable difficulties. He (Mr. Gibson) thought it premature at present to make such changes in so short a jurisdiction; and, under all the circumstances, he would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should postpone the consideration of the Bill until public opinion had been elicited upon it—until it had been ascertained what was thought by the Judges as well as by the suitors regarding it, and until they could see what was the effect—the tendency—of the proposal. Therefore he would move, not in any spirit of hostility or disrespect to the legislation proposed by his hon. Friend, but to obtain an expression of public opinion upon it, the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that, in his opinion, the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) was one which it was highly advisable that his hon. Friend (Mr. Findlater) should adopt. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not acquiesce in all the objections raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman against the Bill; but he thought the course proposed by him was the best to be adopted. He did not think Assize Judges incapable of taking long and complicated accounts into consideration within the limits of the Assize sessions. He had seen long cases of the kind, for instance, between butter merchants and farmers, with a history which extended over a period about 12 months, decided by a Judge of Assize. But he agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University—and that was the

    943
    key-note of his objection to the passing of the Bill now—that it was inadvisable so soon to alter the arrangement come to in 1877. He objected altogether to the system of the passing, and then immediately pulling up Bills when they had been in operation for a short time in order to see how they worked; and he thought on that ground it would be desirable that the debate should be adjourned until the subject was brought before the country and the opinion of those whom it affected could be expressed upon it. On this subject he might remark on the state of the Benches below the Gangway on the opposite side, usually occupied by what was known as the Irish popular Party. This was a question which affected the very poorest class of suitors in Ireland. There was no person so poor as not to be touched by it, and yet those Benches were altogether vacant, the only Members of the Party present being the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) and the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Macfarlane). That showed how, in one respect, Irish questions were attended to by the hon. Gentlemen. He believed the County Court decisions, as well as the appeals before the Lord Chancellor, gave satisfaction in Ireland. The judicial capacities of the ablest and most learned Judges were brought to bear upon these matters, which inspired the Irish people with the greatest confidence. He did not think himself that there was any authority for saying that there was any general dissatisfaction with the present system of appeal, either by the suitors or on the part of professional men. In fact, he had the highest authority for saying just the reverse. The delay complained of by his hon. Friend would be obviated by the recent regulation by which the Lord Chancellor was enabled to transfer his jurisdiction in certain cases to two or throe Equity Judges. Under all the circumstances of the case, therefore, he thought it would be bettor if his hon. Friend agreed to the adjournment of the debate, in order that the matter should be ventilated in the country affected by it; and if, after the sense of the country should have been obtained, it should be shown that any alteration was required, he was quite sure that such alteration would not be objected to by the House.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he readily accepted the proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson). His (Mr. Findlater's) only object was to get the subject well ventilated. It would now be heard of in Ireland, and he had not the slightest doubt himself as to what the result would be.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Wednesday 5th April.

  JUDGMENTS (INFERIOR COURTS) BILL.
  (Mr. Monk, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Corry, Mr. Reid, Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
  JUDGMENTS (INFERIOR COURTS) BILL.

    [BILL 44.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    MR. MONK, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was a very simple one. The object of the Bill was to make judgments obtained in an Inferior Court in any part of the United Kingdom valid in other parts of the United Kingdom. It had been brought in last Session, but was blocked, and had to be withdrawn. It was an onward step towards assimilating the laws of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and he hoped no hon. Member from the Sister Country would be found to oppose the second reading. The Bill proposed to extend the principle of an Act passed in 1868—the 31 & 32 Vict. c. 54—which provided that the judgments or decreets of the Superior Courts in England, Scotland, and Ireland should be respectively effectual in any other part of the United Kingdom. The Bill therefore applied to the judgments which might be obtained in the County Courts of the United Kingdom. A judgment obtained in a County Court in England would, on registration and on a certificate of that judgment being produced in a County Court of Scotland or Ireland, be valid there, and vice versâ. He had had, he said, many letters, especially from Scotland, of persons who were in favour of the principle of the Bill. The Act of 1868 had been productive of very good results, and he trusted the present Bill, which extended the principle of that Act, would meet with no opposition. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Monk.)
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, that he had no intention of opposing the second reading of the Bill, as he considered that, practically, its principle might be advantageously accepted. He wished, however, to warn the House that it would require serious consideration when it got into Committee, in order that clauses might be inserted to guard against the hardships that would arise from defendants being compelled to appear and plead at long distances from their homes. It must not be permitted that persons residing in London should have the right to drag people over from the middle of Ireland to attend their cases in this country. It would not be fair that a man residing in London should be able to issue process here against an Irishman for the recovery of a very small debt, perhaps, and in effect compel him to come over here to defend himself. This danger, which had arisen under the Rules framed by the Judges in pursuance of the Judicature Act of 1875, had excited the protest of Scotch Members, and security should be given against its recurrence.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, on the part of Scotland, I entirely endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Findlater). If the views as to jurisdiction were identical in all parts of Great Britain and Ireland, there could be no possible objection to the principle of such a Bill as this; but it, unhappily, is true that the views upon jurisdiction are not the same in the different parts of the island, because while the general principle, I believe, is that the pursuer in a suit must follow the defendant with that suit to the place of his domicile, or to a place where there is either real or personal property attachable, that principle is not recognized in England, and the result is that a process is very often issued out of the Superior Courts of England, under the Rules of 1875 and 1876, convening Scotchmen into the Courts in England who are not personally resident in England, and have no property in England either real or personal. In short, it has been found in experience that not merely in cases where one of many defendants is a Scotchman, but where a Scotchman is the sole defendant, he is liable to be
    946
    convened when all he has done has been to write a letter ordering goods in England, or perhaps to send an accepted bill to England, and the result has been very great hardship to the mercantile and trading community of Scotland. So strongly has the grievance been felt that many of the Chambers of Commerce and the Convention of the Scottish Burghs—which I think I may say is one of the most highly representative bodies of the commercial and trading classes of Scotland—have within the last few months addressed the strongest protests against that exercise of jurisdiction which is now prevalent under the Rules of 1875 and 1876. Unless this Bill is so safeguarded that it shall be made perfectly clear that nothing of that kind will result from the practice of the Inferior Courts, I should certainly feel it my duty to oppose the second reading. Unless my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill indicates a general assent to the principle that it shall not be competent to convene the natives of Scotland, or rather to register and execute judgments against natives of Scotland, unless those natives have been at the time when the judgments have been pronounced subject to the jurisdiction of the Inferior Courts of England or Ireland on the principles recognized by general jurisprudence, and by Common Law of Scotland, I shall oppose the Bill. But if that is quite understood, I shall be ready to propose in Committee clauses which would be directed, and, in my judgment, be effectual, to prevent any such evil taking place; and if he will indicate his assent to such clauses being introduced in Committee, I shall not consider it my duty to go further into this matter just now. Otherwise, I should feel bound to bring before the House the grievance under which the Scottish mercantile community are suffering under the Rules of 1875 and 1876. It may not be known to many hon. Members that that is really a new grievance, because, while I believe it has long been the practice of the Courts of Chancery in England to issue processes against persons resident outside of the jurisdiction, I understand that this was not customary in the case of the Common Law Courts until 1875. There was, if I am not mistaken, under the Common Law Procedure Act of 1852, a distinct exception, both of residents in Scotland and in Ireland, from the issue

    947
    of such process; and it did not occur to any Scotch Member, or probably to any Irish Member either, that when the Rules applicable to a purely English Judicature Act were laid on the Table of this House, there would be anything affecting the citizens of their respective countries—for the provisions of the new Rules were not discovered until they were in actual operation. I believe that is the case, because those who were formerly Members of the House from Scotland have told me that whenever this matter was mooted in their time, they invariably brought before the House objections similar to those which I have now urged. I do not desire to detain the House by raising the whole question of private International Law which is involved. I merely desire, in accordance with what I believe is the universal wish of the mercantile and trading community of my country, to intimate that, unless this Bill is safeguarded by such clauses as I venture to suggest, I shall feel bound to oppose it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he desired to follow his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, because he did not exactly acquiesce in the observations which had fallen from him. As he understood the Bill, it did not deal with the preliminary stages of the suit; but it took up the suit at the stage in which judgment had been obtained, and it applied the principle of the existing Act in reference to the Superior Courts to the case of the Inferior Courts. The practical effect of the Bill as to Ireland would be that if a debtor in Ireland was sued by an English creditor in the Inferior Court in Ireland and judgment was recovered there against him, and if, although he was there in person, he had no property to be levied upon in the jurisdiction of that Court, but had ample property in the jurisdiction of a County Court in England, then, except for the natural objection which he supposed men had to pay at all—["No, no!"]—Well, he would withdraw that expression, and say that there was no reason why if the debtor's property was within the jurisdiction of any English County Court, the sum recovered should not be levied there, and vice versâ. He, therefore, did not object to the principle of the Bill, and would not oppose its second reading, although, in order to adapt it
    948
    to the peculiar jurisdiction of the Irish County Courts, it would be essential in Committee to alter some of the details of the measure.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he could not congratulate the Treasury Bench on its unanimity on this subject, and, as an Irish Member, he was inclined to adopt the view indicated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord. Advocate, rather than that expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. Indeed, he intended to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, so that they should have on record the divided action of the Government in that matter. That Bill extended the departure from an old principle that was made, for the first time, not by the Act of 1875, but by the Rules of Court, which, unfortunately, when laid on the Table, were allowed to have the force of law. If the Bill of 1875 had embraced that departure from the old principle, it would have been objected to; but it had been given effect to through its having probably escaped the attention of Scotch and Irish Members when the Rules of Court were laid on the Table. The principle of the Bill was not limited to County Courts, but extended to any Court in England, even to the Lord Mayor's Court, to police magistrates, and petty sessions in rural districts, without due safeguards against injustice. If, moreover, such a measure was to be brought in at all, it ought only to be introduced on the responsibility of the Government. For these reasons, he should move the rejection of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Callan.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Mr. GREGORYsaid, he entertained very grave doubts as to the expediency of the Bill, and shared the feeling expressed in regard to it by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. He had always been of the opinion that Parliament had gone a great deal too far in passing skeleton Acts, thereby giving most extensive jurisdiction to tribunals to make rules which did not appear on the face of the Act, and which were little considered by

    949
    the House and might lead to serious and unexpected consequences, and it behaved them to be very careful how they went further in that direction. Knowing what the County Courts were, he objected to the proposed extension of their jurisdiction as to the enforcement of their process. Those tribunals dealt with very small amounts; and practitioners in them knew that many of those amounts were recovered by agencies and combinations which went about snatching judgments, so that a man might feel himself saddled with some small claim to which he was not liable really before he knew where he was. He did not think that any extension of the power of enforcing those claims could be safely granted. Men living at a long distance from a County Court would sometimes think it better to submit to imposition rather than incur all the trouble and expense of resisting unjust claims, and run the risk of paying the costs to which they might ultimately be made liable. Process was also served somewhat loosely and irregularly, and they could not always depend on persons having notice of the claim before judgment was issued. He, therefore, felt a strong objection to the Bill.
    MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he should like to know from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) whether the Bill was intended to affect the earlier stages of jurisdiction, so that a defendant and his witnesses might be dragged from his place of residence to another place far distant? As he (Mr. Hinde Palmer) understood it, the object of the Bill was simply to enforce a judgment which had been regularly obtained against a defendant in one jurisdiction in another where he might have property available to answer that judgment. If that would be its only effect, he would support the second reading.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was glad to have an opportunity of renewing the protest which he made last Session against power being given to Judges to make Rules to carry out the supposed intentions of Parliament. The difficulty in this case had arisen from the hurried passing at the end of the Session of a body of Rules which gave to Judges' Regulations the force of legislative Acts. The Judges were too fond of making Rules, and sought every occasion of magnifying their office. A Committee
    950
    of Judges was sitting now for the purpose of repealing all sorts of Acts of Parliament. That was the result of the House allowing them to draw up Rules. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), who brought in so many of those ill-considered Bills, had brought, in this measure also, and the House did not know whether it affected the initial stages of a process, or the judgment. Of course, they were told that it was only the judgment that was affected; but he had no doubt that the Bill would affect not only the judgment, but the initial process. There was now much hot haste for legislation, as shown by the proceedings of the Government; but other hon. Gentlemen also were distinguished for their voracity, and none more than the hon. Member for Gloucester, who was quite proud of his success. He (Mr. Warton) was not a Scotchman or an Irishman; but he was ready to assist Irishmen or Scotchmen in obtaining the redress of their grievances. He protested against this terrible voracity of legislation, and hoped there would be a combination of Scotchmen, Irishmen, and Englishmen to reject the Bill.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that if the Bill were to pass, all an English creditor of an Irishman or Scotchman would have to do was to got his debtor's name on a bill of exchange, and then, if not paid in due time, enter judgment in his own County Court and hand it over to be executed—say, at Ballymena, or Balmoral. That would be giving capitalists and creditors greater rights than they had against debtors at present, and the House ought to pause before giving its sanction to such a measure unless it was introduced upon the responsibility of the Government.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that there appeared to be some misconception as to the scope of the Bill. It was a plain and practical measure, framed to remedy an undoubted grievance. In 1868 a Bill was passed enabling creditors to put into operation a judgment obtained in one of the Superior Courts in England, Ireland, or Scotland against debtors in a different part of the United Kingdom, and since the passing of the Bill he had never heard any complaint in either of the three countries against it, and he should

    951
    be as much opposed as anyone to interference with its principle. In the Bill of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) there was a similar provision with regard to judgments obtained in the Inferior Courts. The Bill left all the preliminaries exactly as they were, nor could the remedies it proposed be put into operation until judgment was obtained. That judgment could not be obtained in Ireland on a civil bill process, except after personal service of the process within the jurisdiction of the Court or at the abode of the debtor. This Bill did not propose, he understood, to interfere with that rule. He supposed, in Ireland, the case of a creditor having obtained a decree against his debtor in an Irish Court, in a suit properly instituted, in which the debtor was first served personally. As the law now stood, suppose the debtor in a decree so served should go to England, he could remain there safe from the operation of the decree, unless he acquired property in Ireland. This Bill simply proposed in such a case to transfer the decree so obtained, by bringing it to the English Court, where it would be registered as if it were a decree of that Court, and could then be put in force against the debtor. This was only a proceeding consonant with common sense and in relief of the debtor, who, but for this enactment, would have to be sued again in the country where he resided, a proceeding which would be attended with additional expense to him. Hon. Members had drawn attention to the power the Bill gave to the Judges to make Rules. He thought much might be said on the subject. A delegation to Judges of what ought to be done by Parliament was most objectionable; but the Bill did not give any such power—it merely gave the Judges power to frame Rules for the conduct of the business, a function which was purely Ministerial. As he had said, it was a plain and practical measure, following out previous; legislation, in reference to which he had not heard any objection, except what appeared to be founded on misconceptions. As such, he thought it ought to receive the sanction of the House.
    MR. MONK, in reply, said, he had to thank his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland for his clear and able exposition of the Bill. As to what had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advo-
    952
    cate, he (Mr. Monk) would point out that a man might obtain judgment for £1,000 in a County Court in Scotland, and that judgment would be valid only in Scotland, and not in England or Ireland. But if he were to obtain judgment for merely £50 in a Superior Court in Scotland, that judgment would be valid in England and Ireland. Surely that discrepancy was an injustice which ought to be remedied. If the fears of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, were at all well-grounded, he (Mr. Monk) would have no objection, after the second reading, to introduce any safeguards that might be deemed necessary.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
  (Mr. Findlater, Mr. Givan, Mr. P. J. Smyth, Mr. Thomas Dickson.)
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.

    [BILL 48.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. FINDLATER, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a very short and simple Bill, and its object was, if possible, to remove the present congestion of business which undoubtedly existed in the Land Court by enabling fair rents to be settled and ascertained without the necessity of continuing adverse proceedings between landlord and tenant. He thought everyone would admit if that could be done in a simple manner it would be extremely satisfactory to the people of Ireland, and he thought the manner suggested by the Bill was extremely simple and satisfactory. It appeared by the last Return, dated the 24th of February, that there were 72,408 applications to the Court to fix fair rents, and that up to that period only 3,209 cases had been disposed of, exclusive of 2,180 cases settled by agreement. At the rate of progress which was now going on, there was not much chance for a considerable space of time of the rest of the cases being decided; therefore it was obvious that some facilitating progress was required, and it would be supplied in this way. The Bill proposed that when an originating

    953
    notice had been lodged, instead of proceeding with the hearing of the case as a contentious matter likely to excite bad feeling between landlord and tenant, the Court should proprio motu, send down two valuers to value the property and ascertain what would be a fair rent; notices should be given to both the landlord and the tenant of the attendance of the valuers, and also of the amount of valuation when it had been returned into Court. Then, if neither party objected within one month, the valuers' award should be accepted by the Commissioners, and fixed as a judicial rent. That would be equivalent to a settlement out of Court, without the necessity of any negotiations between the parties. He believed this method would be largely availed of, and that both landlords and tenants would have confidence in it. The Bill also proposed to make the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act of 1881 more operative than they were at present by removing an obstacle in the sale of an estate held by a tenant for life. At present the proceeds must be invested in Three per Cent Stock, which reduced the amount of income. The Bill would enable a valuation to be made of the interest of the tenant for life, and then the tenant for life should either receive the amount, or it might be invested in Government or India Stock, or in Bank of Ireland Stock, which would produce a larger income. These provisions were very easily understood, and he hoped the Bill would be assented to by the Government, so that it might be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Findlater.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, as it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Bill, it would be impossible to let it proceed to a second reading. The object of the Bill appeared to him to be this—that whereas cases might now be heard judicially in one way, or, by the consent of the parties, disposed of in another way out of Court, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) proposed to establish a third method, under which valuers were to go down and make a report which would dispose of the case. It appeared to him that if this were adopted, all agreements out of Court would be at once put an
    954
    end to, whilst judicial action would be postponed, and an unnecessary step would be added to the action of the Court. The present mode of settlement by consent was very simple, and consisted in the appointment of one valuer by the landlord and another by the tenant. He would call attention to a case that occurred the other day of a large property in the South of Cork, in which the two valuers having taken three days to make their valuation, the whole matter as between landlord and tenant was settled in three hours, except with regard to 10 tenants, who were remitted to an umpire appointed by the valuers. It was undesirable to discourage that process of settlement by a new one, and the object was to keep up a good feeling as far as possible. As to the proposed dealing with the Purchase Clauses, it was wholly insufficient; and on these grounds he asked the House to reject the Bill.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he would not take part in the controversy between the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) and the Government. But any arrangement which would have the effect of mitigating the delay and expenses of the present system of procedure in the Land Court, and of facilitating the operation of the Purchase Clauses would certainly have his support. Whatever else might be said for or against the working of the Act, there could be no doubt hat the expenses it entailed were out of all proportion to any good it could possibly do. On the one hand the tenants were involved in a very considerable expense, and on the other hand the landlords were actually getting their backs broken by the expense of litigating these questions in the Land Court. He heard from landlords every day who said that almost the worst effect of the Act was the frightful cost it entailed. As to the working of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act, they were positively paralyzed, and had no effect at all. It was quite certain that they were, so far, wholly inoperative, and yet they were to his mind the most important by far, for they were the only part of the Act which was at all likely to put an end to the unfortunate controversy between landlord and tenant. Therefore, if he could only see that this Bill would facilitate the working of these clauses, and would cut down the expenses of the present procedure, he should be very glad to support it. How-

    955
    ever, after the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, it seemed almost useless to proceed with the consideration of the measure. He would impress upon the Government the necessity of putting an end to the consequences which indirectly followed from the operation of the Land Act, in putting large sums of money into the pockets of the lawyers, accumulating costs against both landlord and tenant, further embittering the relations between them, and making them less hopeful than ever that they would ever get out of this apparently endless litigation.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, he could corroborate, in some measure, what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket). He (Major O'Beirne) was one of those who voted for the Land Act; but he never would have done so if he had thought it would be worked as it was at present. In fact, he considered the manner in which the Act was worked was simply a deception and a fraud, and numerous speeches of the Prime Minister could be quoted in support of that opinion. No one supposed for a moment, when it was passed, that the enormous expense was to be thrown upon the landlords of valuing their own property. That was an expense which ought to be borne by the Government itself, and in that way the working of the Land Act had been most unjust. It had been most unjust to the tenants also, for in one case which had been quoted by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) in the papers that morning a tenant, in order to get a reduction of £4 in his rent, had to pay £105 to the lawyers. That case alone showed the utter absurdity of the Land Act as it was at present. He would be very glad, indeed, to give his support to the Bill if he could see any chance of the controversy being carried on to that length.
    MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, that although he could not sympathize with much that had fallen from either of the last two speakers, inasmuch as he believed the Land Act contained germs of great benefit to the people of Ireland as regarded both landlords and tenants, yet he was quite prepared to support the measure of amendment which was now before the House. He did not know if his hon. Friend (Mr. Findlater)
    956
    intended to divide the House; but, if he did, he (Mr. Richardson) should certainly follow him into the Lobby. Not that he believed exactly that the means which his hon. Friend advocated were the best for facilitating the operation of the Act; but he wished to record the strong feeling he entertained that something must be done beyond what was being done to quicken the hearing of the cases before the Commission. In the county which he had the honour to represent—Armagh—there were 5,000 cases awaiting hearing, and in Tyrone there were more than that number; making about 11,000 cases for the two counties. There was only one Sub-Commission for hearing those cases, and when they were to be heard Heaven only knew. In the meantime, the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland were, to a certain extent, strained. The other night he put a Question on the Paper, asking the Government if any increased facilities would be given for hearing the number of eases which clogged the Courts in Armagh and Tyrone, and the answer he received was not very satisfactory.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the subject of expediting the hearing of the cases was, he believed, engaging the attention of the Land Commission.
    MR. J. N. RICHARDSON, resuming, said, that the House was very well aware of the enormous amount of business which had fallen upon the Land Commission, and he should not feel it right to be severely critical either upon those gentlemen or on the Government; but he did impress on the Government, in the most respectful way, the feeling that he entertained, and which was brought before him every day in letters from his constituents, that something must be done to reduce the block.
    MR. SYNANsaid, it appeared to him to be evident that this Bill was only an Ulster balloon sent up in order to see whether the Government would accept any amendment of the Act or not. [Mr. FINDLATES: No, it is not.] Well, the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Richardson) said that if his hon. Friend (Mr. Findlater) wished to go into the Lobby, he would go with him; but he (Mr. Synan) doubted very much whether the hon. Member for Monaghan intended to go into the Lobby at all. What was the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attor-

    957
    ney General for Ireland to the Bill? Only that it would interfere with the arrangements between landlord and tenant. How would it interfere? If the landlord and tenant voluntarily arranged to arbitrate, their arrangement was taken by the Court as final. If they had not so arranged, the Court was simply to adopt a cheap mode of fixing the value of the farm; and then, if the landlord or tenant did not object, that value would be made a rule of the Court. It would be a part of the judicial proceedings of the Court; but if the landlord or tenant did object, then they would go into the Court and prove their objection. Surely that would not interfere with any voluntary arrangement, and he thought it was not a bad method of dealing with the congestion of business. What he wanted to know was whether the Government intended to keep up the present congestion in the Court or not? Did they mean to tell the House that, whereas the Act required that the rents of Ireland should be re-valued in 14 years, as a matter of fact, it could not be done in 30 years? If not, they must adopt some method of coping with it; and if this method was not sufficient, let them point out one which would be sufficient, or let them amend the proposal in Committee. He thought it was much better to have two valuers than two Sub-Commissioners, who simply made a flying visit to the farm, and valued it as they would a cheese, by simply putting a stick into it, and then went away within half-an-hour. Surely it was much better to have competent valuers; and he had been astonished the first moment that the Act came into operation to find that the farms were not being valued by competent valuers. Independent valuers were much better fitted for the work than men having judicial authority, who were exposed to the influence either of the Government or of the landlords. For his own part, the result of the discussion was almost a matter of indifference, for if a division was forced upon the Ulster Members after the opposition of the Government, he should not be surprised to see them go into the Lobby against their own Bill.
    MR. WILLISsaid, that as an English Member he cordially supported the Bill, because he believed it would not only not interfere with, but would aid, the
    958
    working of the Land Act, and would diminish litigation and its cost. He was sorry that the subject was discussed with reference to the manner in which the Land Act was passed, and that the epithets of deception and fraud were used, because there was no foundation for them, for it was not supposed at the time of the passing of that measure that the cost of litigation would be anything like so great as it had proved to be. It appeared to him that two valuers, appointed under the Land Act, would enable both landlord and tenant to abstain from the employment of lawyers until after their report had been made, and he thought those valuers should be paid by the country, and not by the suitors. He supported this measure because he believed it would be to the interest of England as well as Ireland that the Land Act should become generally operative, and he should be glad now to support any measure by which the value of the farms could be determined without the employment of lawyers. He trusted that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) would press his Bill to a division. If so, he (Mr. Willis) should vote with him, because it would be one step towards relieving the Courts and providing a cheap method of determining fair rents.
    MR. O'SHEAsaid, the working of the Act so far had been a great disappointment to the tenant farmers in the county Clare, who understood that official valuers would be appointed. He had spoken with many of them, and they objected to a partly perambulating tribunal, some members of which went about valuing land on their own account. He thought the Commission ought to sit permanently in the towns, and take the advice of qualified professional men as to the value of the property with which they were dealing. The appointment of valuers ought to be for a certain number of years, because, in order to keep men impartial, they must have a considerable tenure of their places. He was extremely sorry to find that the Bill was brought in more as a matter of form than with the view of passing it.
    MR. FINDLATER: That is not my intention. I purpose dividing upon the Bill.
    MR. O'SHEAwas very glad to hear that. However, it would be very advantageous to know whether the Govern-

    959
    ment intended to bring in a Bill this year for the amendment of the Act, because there was a most important point upon which the Act ought to be amended, and that was with regard to arrears. The whole advantage of the Act would be lost to a great part of the Irish tenants, unless the Government took clearly into view the fact that the Arrears Clause had hitherto been of no use whatever. When Parliament passed that clause, it was distinctly laid down that tenants in arrear should have as much right as any others to consideration under the Bill. That principle ought now to be carried out, and some means ought to be devised which would give an inducement to landlords to settle. There was no doubt some temptation must be offered if they were to have any finality in this Act as a remedial measure. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the House—namely, that the provisions for making loans to tenants were greatly hindered by the limitation of farms to £100 value. There were a great number of improving, steady tenants, who would be very glad to take advantage of these provisions, but the valuation of their farms was not sufficient to make them eligible. Only the other day he put before the Treasury the case of a man who had more than one farm, neither of which was in itself sufficiently large to entitle him to a loan, whereas, put together, they exceeded the valuation, and yet he was refused a loan. Instead of laying down a hard-and-fast rule, shutting out thousands of industrious and solvent tenants by reason of a small deficiency in the amount of their rents, all cases of the sort he had instanced ought to be considered on their merits, not only carefully, but rapidly, because, if they were going to have the advantages which they were led to expect from the Bill, time was an essential element. Any Bill of the kind now before the House, which went in. the direction of amending the Act, as experience proved it ought to be amended, was worthy of support.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would not follow the last speaker (Mr. O'Shea) into the question of arrears or advances to tenants, because they were outside the scope of the Bill. With regard to the actual measure before the House, he understood hon. Members who supported it to say they thought it very desir-
    960
    able to remove the congestion in the Land Court, and that any change which would have that tendency would be a decided improvement. He did not, in fact it was impossible to, deny that there was a very large number of cases before the Land Courts, and that no very large proportion had yet been settled; but there were one or two facts to be considered. In the first place, the number of cases which had been disposed of recently had been greater in proportion than it was before; and, unless his information misled him, the number of cases settled out of Court was very much increasing. He did not think that, at the present, they were in a condition to know how far the congestion of business would continue, or to what extent it would exist in two or three months hence. He submitted to the House, therefore, that it would be a serious matter to take such a step as that of accepting the second reading of the Bill, which would induce parties interested in Ireland to expect a change in the procedure which was very carefully sanctioned last year, and they ought not to take any such step unless they were quite clear that the change would be for the better. The question of valuers was discussed last year, and the House came to a decision against appointing valuers in connection with every Sub-Commission. [Mr. SYNAN: The Court has power under the Act to appoint valuers.] His hon. Friend would find, if he referred to the Act, that it was a question whether the Sub-Commissioners or valuers were to inspect the farms, and that question had been decided against the valuers. In order to get over the difficulty, the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) had proposed that there should be two valuers; but if the method now proposed were carried out, the number would be more likely 200. [Mr. WILLIS: I mean 200, if they are necessary.] In that case, if the Bill were to pass, he thought he should have to ask for the assistance of his hon. and learned Friend to help the Land Commission to find valuers, for that would not be a very easy thing to do. But there was this great doubt about the proposal. He was by no means clear that the proposal would not be simply to add another stage to the litigation under the Act, and that would make things not better, but worse. If the House, while agree-

    961
    ing that there should be valuers, should also insure the acceptance of the decisions of the valuers, then there would be no great ground for the objection; but he thought there was very title ground for believing that the decisions of the valuers would be accepted. Again, it was not at all clear that the two valuers would agree together, and their disagreement would necessitate the appointment of a third as umpire. He did not deny that the working of the Act required the closest attention on the part of the Government and of Parliament; but he did not think they were in a position to make any change. If the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Find-later) pressed his Bill that day, the Government would certainly be obliged to vote against it, because the reading the Bill a second time would be to excite expectations in Ireland of a change which would be very undesirable. He would suggest that it would be as well to adjourn the debate; but, in saying that, he did not wish to create any false impression. He did not say that two or three months hence the Government would accept the Bill. What he meant was that if the congestion in the Courts increased, or did not considerably diminish, undoubtedly it would be the duty of the Government to look about for a proposal to deal with the difficulty; and, without saying they would accept it, he would be sorry that the proposal of his hon. Friend should be shut out.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) had just made had taken the House somewhat by surprise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson), a few moments ago, had given two, and to his (Mr. J. Lowther's) mind very convincing, reasons why the House should not consent to the second reading of the Bill, and a good deal had apparently happened, in the meantime. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) threw out the suggestion that the promoters of the Bill were not in earnest, and that in the event of its not receiving the support of the Government it would not be persevered with. It appeared that, whether or not the promoters were in earnest, Her Majesty's Government had not yet made up their minds. The right hon. Gentleman the
    962
    Chief Secretary for Ireland had, however, made one very considerable advance since the discussion from which he was conspicuously absent the other day, for he said the working of the Land Act required, in his opinion, "the closest attention on the part of the Government," and, he was good enough to add, "of Parliament;" but the close attention of Parliament had been expressly repudiated by Her Majesty's Government. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The Prime Minister shook his head; but he (Mr. J. Lowther) would remind the House that this discussion occupied a fortnight of the attention of Parliament, and much time was engaged in discussing the proposal brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, upon the expressly-stated ground that any inquiry at the hands of Parliament was unnecessary and inexpedient. He (Mr. J. Lowther) was glad to find that the result of that important discussion had not been without effect on the minds of Her Majesty's Government; but there were other lessons which the House might draw from the discussion which had taken place that afternoon. He was sorry the Prime Minister was not in the House when he might have heard the candid opinion expressed as to the merits of this great so-called "remedial Act" by the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne). The views of any hon. Member sitting in that part of the House, or the views of any Irish Member who acted independently, would, he was well aware, carry no great weight with the right hon. Gentleman; but his (Mr. J. Lowther's) impression was that the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim was classed amongst those who were the habitual Supporters of Her Majesty's Government. And what were his opinions as to the Act of Parliament which had been in operation now for some months, and from the working of which such great expectations were entertained? He said, first of all, that the Act was passed by deception and fraud. He (Mr. J. Lowther) would venture to say nothing of the sort, for if he did, he did not know but that some right hon. Gentleman on the opposite Bench might call the Speaker's attention to the matter, and would ask whether the law of the land ought to be spoken of in any such terms, or whether the action of the

    963
    Government and their motives should be thus criticized? The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to speak of some of the provisions of the Act as "most unjust;" and that was a remark which, if it had emanated from any other part of the House, would have called forth some scathing observations from the Ministerial Bench. Then he went on to speak of the "absurdity of the Act." That was a climax which would have succeeded in arousing the Prime Minister to indignation. He (Mr. J. Lowther) did not make himself responsible for the endorsement of those epithets; but, at the same time, he was not prepared to occupy the time of the House by refuting them. The hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Bill (Mr. Findlater) had pointed out that there was a complete block in the Land Court, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself admitted that the progress of business in that Court was not eminently satisfactory, and said that close attention thereto on the part of Parliament was desirable. Now, the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, in the reasons which he urged against the Bill, omitted to mention one very strong one—namely, that these valuers were to be appointed by the Land Commission; and he (Mr. J. Lowther) emphatically said the impartiality of that Land Commission had not been clearly demonstrated. The Land Commission was a tribunal constituted in a singularly one-sided Party manner; and he thought it did not commend itself to those whose interests were affected, that the two valuators to decide between the contending parties should not be nominated one by each of the contending parties, as was the case elsewhere, and that they should appoint an umpire to decide between them, instead of the indefensible plan that both should be appointed by a tribunal which had certainly not proved itself to be, as the Prime Minister would say in relation to certain other bodies, "wholly devoid of prejudice or bias." When the proposal was made that a fair and impartial Parliamentary inquiry should be made into the whole working of the Land Act, they were told by Her Majesty's Government that it was inexpedient, and that they could not entertain it, although, as he mentioned just now, it was a matter of satisfaction that
    964
    the education of the Government with regard to that subject was proceeding at a very rapid rate. But what reason had the Chief Secretary for Ireland given for throwing over his Law Officers and adjourning this discussion? He asked that the House should adjourn this discussion; but what reason did he give? They thought that something might occur in the meantime which would throw light upon the situation. He (Mr. J. Lowther) thought the Government were bound to state clearly whether, in their opinion, any amendment of the law was required. If an amendment of the law was needed, that amendment should be introduced by Her Majesty's Government, they having formally undertaken to deal with the question of the Land Laws in Ireland, and they should not delegate to a private Member, however intimately he might be connected with their Party, the duty of remedying the transparent and glaring defects in the Act which should be undertaken by themselves. That the Act had completely collapsed, and that the proceedings of the Land Court were generally repudiated, not merely by one class of the Irish people, but by all classes and interests in the community, was evidenced by these discussions, and must, he thought, make manifest to the Government, as many Representatives of every political Party in Ireland had pointed out, that there were very serious hindrances and evils in the present system. They had had Representatives of the landlords denouncing the block of Business, and in many cases the gross injustice of the tribunals appointed fey the Government. Members representing the Irish interests below the Gangway on this side of the House had not been at all remiss in the force of their argument. They had pointed out the defects from their point of view, which, of course, differed wholly from his (Mr. J. Lowther's.) [Mr. GLADSTONE made an observation which was inaudible.] He (Mr. J. Lowther), unfortunately, was unable to catch the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, which he concluded must have been to the effect that a general consensus. of opinion throughout all classes, sections, and interests in Ireland had distinctly pronounced itself against the measure of last year. However, the House was clearly entitled to a definite expression of the opinions of Her Majesty's Go-

    965
    vernment, as to whether they were prepared either to support or oppose the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY, in rising to move the adjournment of the debate, said, he did not desire to force the Government to any premature decision upon the question under consideration, neither would he enter into the debatable matter which had been spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther). He thought that circumstances were far too serious for them to make this a matter of Party politics; but he was sure they could only regret from what they heard that the right hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House when the Land Law (Ireland) Bill passed into the Statute Book, as he might have contributed his valuable assistance in aid of that operation. There was a desire to settle this debatable question in a way that would be conducive to the tranquillity of the government of the country; and, in his opinion, it would be a very serious matter if his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland were to fall behind the real meaning of the words that fell from him just now. He spoke of an improvement taking place in Ireland in the direction of the working of the Land Act within the last two or three months, and said that if an improvement did not take place, he should feel it his duty to consider the whole position of affairs. Now, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had always held that his right hon. Friend had been a great deal too sanguine in his views about Irish affairs. Ireland was very much like a patient whom the doctor assured was always improving, but in the end the patient died of good symptoms. That, he thought, was very much the state of Ireland now. He had rather see the right hon. Gentleman boldly grapple with the situation as it existed, and say either he believed that nothing more was necessary, or that he would set his mind to remedy the great evils that existed. No one could doubt that the Act was not working in the way that Ireland expected, that the Courts were blocked, and nobody could hope that anything in the shape of a real clearance of that block could be made for a great length of time. He ventured to say the Bill before them was, as a rule, simply reverting to the original intention of Parliament in passing the Act at all. The right
    966
    hon. Gentleman, in his opinion, fell into one tremendous mistake when he came to carry out this Act. He fell into that legal abyss which existed in Dublin with open mouth and ravening jaw ready to convert everything into the benefit of the Legal Profession. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had repeatedly pointed out during the passing of the Act through Parliament that the endeavour should be, not to make the Bill a matter of legal administration, but rather to make the Courts Courts of Conciliation; and over and over again he urged that, in the appointments, persons should be chosen who would go about in different parts of the country to different estates with note-book in hand and without legal records or paraphernalia of any kind, and endeavour to reconcile the differences between landlords and tenants as to their rents. Instead of that, what was done was this—Immediately, a number of Courts, with barristers and attorneys at the head of them, were constituted and sent through Ireland, every one of them——
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to point out to the hon. Member that the question before the House does not touch the Land Act of last Session, and I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the question before the House.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the object of the House was to appoint arbitrators to stand between the landlords and the tenants, and he was endeavouring to show that the Bill was only reverting to the original intention of the Act. In the most ridiculous reductions, say, a reduction of £2, the cost to the tenant was an enormous sum; and that arose entirely from the mode in which the Act was carried out. It was never intended that Sub-Commissions should be appointed of three persons to go round the country, and that these were to sit like Judges of Assizes to determine trumpery questions as to the value of land. The only persons who had benefited by the Act were the Legal Profession and the amateur valuators. Ireland was inundated with amateur valuators, who went about the country, telling the tenants that they would be sure, if they would only allow them to value their lands, to get a reduction of their rents. They were levying upon those poor ignorant creatures a fine of 1s. in the pound, and people who knew nothing

    967
    whatever about land, some of whom were publicans, and others broken-down persons not very scrupulous in their ways, were extracting from the people hundreds and hundreds of pounds. If the Government were to appoint reputable men as valuers, they might expect some improvement to be made. His right hon. Friend evidently thought much good would be done by the Act, and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) went with him some way in that direction; but he believed more good would be done if hon. Gentlemen would agree to take the opinions of those Irish Members who were anxious for the tranquillity of the country, and not of those who supposed the only wisdom to be found was amongst the permanent officials of the Government, who had the management of the country from first to last, and who had advised the right hon. Gentleman to make this Act a matter of legal Courts and expensive processes.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was not a matter in which there was any necessity for consulting them.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsupposed, then, the right hon. Gentleman excogitated his own method of procedure and consulted nobody. He could not for the life of him see how this Act would work at all. The right hon. Gentleman had not been remarkable for paying any attention to the wishes of those who were anxious for the tranquillity of Ireland. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) found himself in the greatest difficulty in making any suggestions. ["Oh, oh!"] He knew it was very disagreeable to hon. Members who thought everything the Government did was right; but the question was of the country in which he lived, and he knew the condition in which it was now, and what it was likely to be. Unless something was done immediately, and unless a totally different view was taken of the circumstances, Ireland would get from bad to worse. He therefore took this opportunity of declaring that as his opinion—and he did so on his responsibility as a Member of Parliament, quite regardless whether that opinion was agreeable or disagreeable—because he believed it to be true. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this Bill; and he believed, even now, if the Government appointed a number of really well-disposed men—men of ex-
    968
    perience—to go round about amongst the tenants as arbitrators, where tenants were willing to accept their services, a great impetus might be given to the working of the Land Act. But as long as they relied upon attorneys and barristers, on pleading and expenses, that could not be expected. He had just received a letter, which had also appeared in the papers, in which he was informed that nearly £300 had been expended with the result of reducing a rental by £3 or £4. He could hardly stop to speak of some of the things that had been done in Connemara—how many persons had gone from there, and how many were starving on the hillsides who had been ejected from their homes, and how there was no more chance of their benefiting by the Courts than there was 10 years ago. This matter of arbitration was urgent. Then the evictions must be dealt with; and, thirdly, some means must be adopted for disposing of the question of arrears, which the tenants could not pay, and which the landlords could not do without. Unless these things were attended to, the troubles of Ireland would continue unabated, and undoubtedly they would get no benefit whatever from the working of the Land Act. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
    MR. MACARTNEYasked, whether it was originally intended that the Commission appointed to carry out the Land Act should appoint deputies to administer it throughout Ireland? That was one of the things he had strongly objected to in the first instance, and yet it was now proposed that these deputies should have deputies, who should do the work in their places. It was quite evident that if valuers were appointed in every county in Ireland to value the property, and if it was to be optional, in the first place, for the landlords and the tenants to adopt their valuations as a basis of agreement for 15 years, the other parties would go to the Land Court for the purpose of having the cases decided, and their valuators would be the arbitrators of the land. He did not know what would be the effect if that conclusion were carried out. If the Government were going in any way to agree to have

    969
    laud valued by Government officials, in Heaven's name let them have a valuation over 15 years, as Griffith's valuation was. But if they were going to have a helter-skelter method of two men here and there, whether those men had any education or not, they would have the same kind of criticism as they had now about the Sub-Commissioners, asking who they were, where they came from, and what title they had to be rulers of the destinies of the Land Question in Ireland? He thought that after the Bill was passed so short a time ago as last year, and if there was an objection against having a question asked, either by that House or by the House of Lords, as to the working of the Bill, it was really a little too soon to have the whole thing upset by making a new arrangement.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the discussion appears to me to have wandered from that which is before us. The question before the House appears to me to be one confined in narrow and reasonable limits by the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Bill (Mr. Findlater), and by the general sense of the House. It is not a question of inquiring into the operations of the Land Act; it is not a question of how we are to deal with the Law of Eviction or the Law of Arrears, or whether we are to attempt to reform the processes of law altogether, or to lay down a legal system to increase the ease and facility with which voluntary arrangements may be made. These are all very large questions, but they are not the questions before the House. The question before the House is whether the time has come when it is necessary to attempt to introduce an improvement into the machinery, or to adopt an extension of the machinery provided to give effect to the Land Act, in consequence of the vast mass of business which has arisen for the Courts to transact, in comparison with that which they have transacted? That is not, I think, an unfair statement of the case. Of course, it is not to be expected that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), who has come back fresh after a short recess of liberty, should not avail himself of his opportunity to prosecute his great design of casting opprobrium on the Land Act, especially when he had such a godsend presented to him as
    970
    that of a speech for the first time on this side of the House indicating an opinion that the interests of landlords were being unjustly dealt with. I feel too much respect for the right hon. Gentleman to expect from him such self-denial as that he should forbear making such a declaration as he has. The right hon. Gentleman again avowed his hostility to the Land Act, and avowed that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on that side of the House were likewise not remiss in the duty of discrediting and endeavouring to destroy it; but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they acted from a different point of view. I made an observation to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster), and in order that the right hon. Gentleman's curiosity may not remain unsatisfied, I will now venture to say what that observation was. It was that the fact of a great difference in point of view between hon. Gentlemen who sit above the Gangway and hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway did not appear to me to constitute any great obstacle to tolerably hearty and frequent co-operation. However, the right hon. Gentleman made a substantive proposition in his speech, with which I agree. He stated that this is a matter for the responsibility of Government. In that I quite agree, not meaning thereby exclusively the Executive responsibility of the Government, but meaning that it is the duty of the Government to provide, as they may believe to be best with the powers at their command, proper machinery for giving effect to the Act, and in case the powers were insufficient it is their duty to come to Parliament and ask for further powers. The Motion just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gal-way (Mr. Mitchell Henry) is in conformity with an invitation, if not a suggestion, in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. We are of opinion that it would be highly advantageous not to pronounce an opinion which would perhaps seem to have the effect of rejecting a Bill of this kind, and to pronounce on the 15th March in this year 1882, that it is quite clear that the machinery of the Act will require no legislative addition. We do not wish to pronounce an opinion upon that at this date. We would much rather that the question stand over. We fully admit that it is

    971
    the duty of the Government to pronounce a responsible judgment, in the first instance, upon that question at the proper time; but the question is, What is the proper time? There will also be the further question. What is the proper addition to make to the machinery, if an addition should be made? Now, with regard to time, the House will not fail to observe that there has been, although the congestion of business may still be said to continue, yet there has been a very considerable acceleration in the practical proceedings of the Courts—that the Return for the month of February is, in fact, quite a different Return as to the quantity of ground covered from the Returns that had preceded it, and we wish to see yet for a certain time longer what the real powers of the Courts are before considering the question whether any new mode of action should be provided for the machinery in order to cope more effectually with the great duty devolving upon them. Therefore, my suggestion would be that we should support the Motion of my hon. Friend. And if I am asked what I mean by this adjournment, and if the Government is to be the Mover of the Bill after an adjournment of, say, a couple of months, or whether the Government will leave the Mover of the Bill to take his chance, in the still more congested Business of this House, for raising the question?—my answer is, I do not mean, in acceding to the proposition for adjournment, that the Government should take up the Bill, but that at or about that time it would be our duty to give a statement of the view of the course it were best to take with regard to this machinery. Criticisms have been made as if the Commissioners have done something extraneous from the Act, or something apart from the views with which the Act was passed by Parliament. It has been suggested by some that the three gentlemen whose names were inserted in the Act ought to have conducted personally the whole business arising under the Act, and that there has been some virtual contravention of the intention of Parliament in appointing a large number of Sub-Commissioners, who have gone over the country and attended to the cases to the best of their ability. But, on the one hand, it is quite clear that no man could
    972
    prophecy at the time when the Act passed what would be the actual and exact amount of business before the Court, and it is equally clear, I think, that every reasonable man must have foreseen that at least it might happen that a large amount of business might come before the Court; and that, if so, it was quite inevitable that a very large number of Sub-Commissioners must be appointed, and that the principal Commission could discharge only a very small proportion of that business. Therefore, I must hold that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Lord Lieutenant have simply performed the duty which it was obvious for them to perform in the appointment of these Sub-Commissioners, and that they have endeavoured to constitute these Courts in the very way Parliament meant them to be constituted. That is to say, that whilst they should be in substance and in operation Courts of Justice, acting solely under judicial motives and considerations, whilst we clearly approve of the intention of Parliament, yet, on the other hand, they should have among them a number of members who should be competent to deal practically with agricultural questions, and on that account they would be able to transact the business more rapidly, more easily, more cheaply, and more effectually than if the Court had been composed almost altogether of professional persons. That was the reason why Parliament seemed so little disposed to give any practical share of its confidence to the Bill Courts of Ireland; and I think I remember exerting myself considerably to be able to keep for the Civil Bill Courts as an alternative the place which they now have in the Act. My right hon. Friend, then, in asking for an adjournment, has most justly and necessarily reserved the freedom of judgment of the Government; while Parliament, of course, will reserve its own freedom with respect to the nature of the amendment which may have or may not have to be made in the machinery of the Act. It may be our duty to consider in the interval, if the debate be adjourned, whether we ought not still further to enlarge the machinery that is now at work by some further appointments. With respect to the method suggested by my hon. Friend the Mover of this Bill to appoint valuators, I at once recognize the perfect uprightness,

    973
    in the Parliamentary sense, of the intention of my hon. Friend, which is directed to forwarding, and not to altering, the Act; but, at the same time, the hon. Gentleman has originated a very great difficulty in the method of proceeding that is suggested. One has to consider in what way this Bill, if it were carried, would work; and my hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Macartney) has pointed to considerations in that direction that are, in my opinion, of very great weight. The question at once arises, Are we to appoint and select with great care a very limited number of valuators, upon whose authority implicit reliance could be placed, and if we select that necessarily very limited number, how are we to suppose that some of them will always be forthcoming in every suit to conduct the initiatory process? We may get into the same difficulty with regard to an adequate number of competent valuators that we seem now to be in with regard to the number of Courts as compared with the work they have to do. And there is another consideration. You must observe that these valuators, in order to give them confidence, would require to be appointed for a term of years. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) seemed to allude to the appointment of two valuators, and it was suggested that it was more likely to be 200, and my hon. and learned Friend said he was quite ready for 200 valuators. Well, before a Bill of this kind is passed, it would be well to understand whether we should appoint 200 valuators in Ireland, and each of them for a term of years, to obtain and to give confidence to the parties. I only say this in reserving to ourselves freedom, and not as implying that there is any foregone conclusion absolutely adverse to the ideas which are embodied in the measure. Our meaning is that, recognizing the necessity of considering carefully the question whether it may be necessary or not—upon that I do not at all give an opinion—to have any extension of machinery under the Land Act during the present year, that at any rate the time has not yet arrived, and therefore we hope that the House will be disposed to accede to the Motion which has been made to adjourn the debate.
    COLONEL NOLAN, in supporting the Bill, said, that if there were to be Land
    974
    Courts at all, they ought to work speedily; and the question concerning the valuators was, whether they would proceed at a quicker rate than the present Courts? In his opinion it was quite likely. As the present Court was composed of legal and non-legal members, carrying out the judicial work with the work of valuation, the one had to wait upon the other, and considerable delays were inevitable. The consequence was that a dead-lock ensued, for the legal members of the Court were doing nothing, while the others were going round and valuing the farms. He would suggest that the valuators to be appointed by the Bill should value whole lots of land together; and he believed if that were carried out, it would facilitate the valuation of large districts, and the result of that would be that ten times the number of cases would be settled out of Court. It would supply the defect in the machinery of the Land Act, and winnow the uncontested from the litigated cases, thus expediting the settlement of the country and doing injury to none but the lawyers. It was perfectly impossible that Ireland could prosper or get rich in the present condition of affairs, and he earnestly trusted some remedy would be speedily effected.
    MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, he could not quite understand from the Prime Minister's speech the exact object he had in view in adjourning the debate; because, if the Government after a time decided to bring forward a measure for further improving the machinery of the Land Act, he (Mr. Mulholland) did not see why they could not do it equally well if they gave a direct negative to the Motion now before the House. He need hardly say that he was in favour of such a change of procedure as would have the effect of diminishing the excessive costs to which the landlords and tenants were being put in the Land Courts, and also putting an end to the present suspense and anxiety; but in the present Bill it was impossible to find any solution of these matters. In regard to valuation, he thought that if the present Parliament was to fall back upon the principle of valuation suggested, it would be more mischievous than beneficial. If there was to be anything in the shape of valuation in Ireland, it was needless to say that the greatest care should be taken that the valuation should be a just and impartial valuation made by

    975
    professional men without bias, who would have laws laid down for these valuations. It was said by the Prime Minister when the Land Bill was passing through the House that the Sub-Commissioners should not be mere valuators; but he (Mr. Mulholland) now asked them what it was they really were? It had been confessed by the Commissioners themselves that the evidence which came before them was not very valuable, and that many of the valuations made were mere opinions. He saw where a Sub-Commissioner the other day said the evidence of the tenant was ridiculous, and another Sub-Commissioner said he attached no importance to the evidence of paid valuators. That was clearly not the intention of the Act; and he asked if it was too late to fall back on such a system of valuation as would be both skilled and consistent? The landlord could get no evidence except that of paid valuators, so that if the evidence of the landlord and tenant were disregarded they could only fall back upon their own valuation. He had foreseen from the first that the Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act would be simply valuers, but the suggestion was always repudiated. With respect to the Bill before the House, he quite agreed that the final settlement of the disturbing element in the air of Ireland was more to be looked for in the satisfactory working of the Bright Clauses than any other; but as yet they had been quite imperative. He trusted, however, that as they had been particularly alluded to in the debate, they would receive the consideration of the Prime Minister. He was glad to hear there was a prospect of that part of the Act being revised; but probably the Government were awaiting the result of the inquiry in "another place."
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he thought it was a matter beyond dispute that something must be done in regard to the administration of the Land Act, and the Prime Minister, if he understood him rightly, promised him that something should be done when the proper time arrived. Taking into consideration the administration of the Act in a few counties in Ulster, he thought the proper time had arrived when something should be done to facilitate the working of the Act, or else it would be, and would remain in many counties, a dead letter.
    976
    In one small district in Ireland—that where he resided—there were 1,500 cases entered for the fixing of fair rents. These cases were entered in November last, and up to the present only 23 of them had been decided. The Commission had only sat once in the district to which he referred. In the counties of Tyrone and Armagh, with which he was intimately acquainted, there had been 10,000 cases entered, and only a few hundreds had yet been decided. No matter how speedily the Commissioners did their work, fresh cases would take the place of those settled out of Court; and, at the present rate of progress, it would take seven years for the present staff sitting in Tyrone and Armagh to get over the cases already entered for hearing. He estimated that during that time about 10,000 or 11,000 more cases would be entered for hearing, so that the Commissioners would always be about that number of cases in arrears. Under the present system of working, the benefits of the Land Act could not be extended for six or seven years to tenants in whose interest the measure had been passed. They were all anxious for the restoration of peace and settlement in that country; but that was utterly impossible so long as the benefits of the Land Act were withheld from the people. He advocated the amalgamation of the valuators and the Sub-Commissioners, in order that the tenants might have the advantage of trained and skilled witnesses to give evidence to the Court. The Government might, perhaps, succeed in adjourning the question now, on the ground that it would interfere with the working of the Land Act; but they would yet have the difficulty, and he would suggest that they should, by taking counsel with the Land Commission, see in what way the working of the Land Act could be facilitated and the benefits of the Act conferred upon the people within a reasonable time.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he very much concurred with the observations of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). He thought the hon. Member who brought forward the Bill (Mr. Findlater) would have acted better if he had brought forward a Bill which would amend the Land Act in other particulars as well as in those special parts to which reference was made. He (Mr. Biggar) held that the Bill before them would be

    977
    of no particular value, and that it would not meet the requirements of the case as regarded the fixing of a fair rent. The four hon. Gentlemen whose names were on the back of the Bill were sterling Supporters of the Government, and, by becoming parties to the Bill, they admitted that the Land Act, at any rate with regard to the fixing of a fair rent, had hopelessly broken down. ["No, no!"] So far as he could see, it was something like treason to the Government to find any fault whatever with the Act of last Session. [Mr. T. A. DICKSON: I never said so.] He did not mean to say that the hon. Member said so; but that was the contention of the Liberal caucuses of England and of the supporters of the Government in different parts of Ireland. The cases before the Court represented only one-eighth part of the number of tenancies in Ireland, and at the present rate, according to the calculation of the hon. Member for Tyrone, it would take 48 years for all the holdings in Ireland to get a judicial rent fixed. If that was not a very considerable amount of failure he was very much mistaken. The only advantage he saw from the present discussion was the intimation by both right hon. Gentlemen—the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland—that it was possible that at no distant date—in fact, within a couple of months—the Government would review the state of affairs with regard to the Land Act of last Session. He thought that was a very valuable concession. With regard to the present Bill before the House, he did not think it was of much value, except as an expression of opinion of the failure of the Bill of last year. He did not think there would be any practical advantage derived from it, because the valuators would be gentlemen of less social standing than the Sub-Commissioners, and their decisions would have even less value than the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners. Their appointment would be only loss of time. With regard to the Purchase Clauses of this Bill, he did not think that they would have any appreciable advantage with regard to the matter to which they referred. The purchase system was the only one that could settle the Land Question. A deal more of reform was necessary than that proposed in the Bill now before the House, which would have no appreciable
    978
    effect upon that part of the Act of last Session. He thought that, but for the expression of opinion it contained, the provisions of the present Bill did not meet the case. As the Bill was before them on the second reading, he would vote for it, because, although he did not think it would do any good, it would, were he not to do so, be proclaimed on every Whig platform that himself and other Irish Members sitting on his side of the House did not want any reform, but wanted to keep up the agitation, and would oppose everything except what was proposed by themselves. He did not believe it would do the smallest amount of good; but he would vote in the way he had said for the purpose of saving himself the trouble of defending his own personal conduct hereafter.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he had no doubt that this was only the commencement of a long series of discussions that they would have on the subject. All he had to say was, that all the remedies he had heard suggested from the other side of the House with reference to the strengthening of the Sub-Commissioners seemed to him to be entirely beside the mark. The real question of increasing the number of Commissioners he thought should be with reference to the full Court of the Commission. It was all very well to send 12 or 20 Sub-Commissioners all over Ireland in the first instance; but the real business, after all, in the shape of final and conclusive re-hearings, was before the full Court in Dublin. He wanted to know whether the suggestions he had heard with reference to the appointment of additional Sub-Commissioners were not really playing with the difficulty? The real point was the strengthening of the Commission trying the cases finally. There could be no advantage in increasing the number of Sub-Commissioners, if that only tended to block up the Court of Appeal. He had expressed the opinion on a former occasion, and it had been found, according to their experience, that the disposal of 500 or 600 cases by the full Commission in the course of the year would be about as great a rate of progress as they could expect. He wanted to know what possibility there was of the Chief Commissioners disposing of the number of cases which were certain to arise upon the books of the Land Commission? He

    979
    agreed with the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), when he stated that in his district it would take seven years for the Sub-Commissioners to dispose of the cases, and he ventured to say that the full Court would not get through these cases for 14 years. They should remember that all the small streams of the Commission flowed into the main channel of the full Court. The discussion to-day was only the beginning of a number of similar discussions. ["Oh, oh!"] He was perfectly certain that such discussions would be endless. They must necessarily progress from day to day, because the Act had been taken up and worked from the wrong end; and that was why they found the country in the dilemma in which it now stood. As he had said over and over again, he believed every one of these so-called remedies was of very little value, because the only way to settle the matter was by turning the occupier into the owner by parchment. Any other way of attempting to solve the question would be only rolling stones up a hill to have them roll down again—only a change of place. The only chance of a permanent settlement of the Irish Question would be to give the go-by to the clauses that were obnoxious to the landlords and the tenants of Ireland, and to take up and endeavour to work to their best advantage, with the greatest and most impartial assistance that the Government could by any possibility devise, those clauses which were found to work well.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he thought that if the Bill was passed it might do some good; but the really important point in the discussion was, that the Government had at last come to realize, by the mention of some legislation, the fact that the present machinery of the Land Act was not working. Once the Government recognized that, they would see that the principle of the Act was deficient. He (Mr. Gray) desired to see the Act work; but it was evident to everyone that it was not working, and something better than the clauses in the Bill would be necessary to make it work. In fact, if the Act were not entirely re-modelled, it would be useless to expect any good from it. The hon. Member in charge of this Bill (Mr. Findlater) had made a proposal to meet the difficulty, and it was a very sweeping one. His (Mr. Gray's)
    980
    suggestion, however, would be simply to fix a Governmental valuation, which should be payable pending the fixing of the judicial rent, and if the judicial rent, when fixed, was different, let the difference be paid. That would settle the whole question at once. The Prime Minister, in a remarkable speech made some time ago, stated that there were only two living powers in Ireland—the Land League and the Land Act. He (Mr. Gray) would read a letter to show him how one of these powers—the Land Act—was working, and in order to show the House that until something was done to facilitate the progress of business the Act could not work. He would read a portion of the letter. It was from Kildare, and dated the 13th instant, and was from a reverend gentleman, who at one time was a very warm admirer of the Prime Minister. There were 50 cases listed for hearing at Athy, and the Sub-Commissioners just heard five of the cases, and then adjourned sine die. A parishioner of the reverend gentleman's, Mr. Edward Lee, had entered the Land Court, on his advice, to have his rent fixed. He had his solicitor in attendance on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and he had his barrister, Mr. Adams, and his valuator also in attendance; and on Wednesday at luncheon-time, the Sub-Commissioners adjourned the Court sine die, leaving him to continue paying his rack rent, and to pay the £20 costs he had been put to. There were 44 poor tenants left in precisely the same position. The proceedings of this Court were a complete farce, lawyers raising points of law, and Mr. Romney receiving them, and the Court being unable to decide anything. The tenants and those who represented them were indignant at the farce enacted, and at one time there was a proposition to retire from the Court in a body and not attempt to seek redress through that channel. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Who is the letter from?] It was from the Rev. James Cavanagh, parish priest of Kildare, who was well known to the right hon. Gentleman, who had met him. He was at one time President of Carlton College, and was at present parish priest of Kildare. [Mr. GLADSTONE intimated that he knew the reverend gentleman.] The matter should be dealt with in a sweeping manner, as it would be utterly hopeless to meet it otherwise.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it was strange to find on the back of the Bill the names of four of the staunchest Supporters of the Government. He was equally surprised to find the name of a Gentleman who had stated "that the Land Act of 1881 was a final settlement of the question."
    MR. T. A. DICKSON, interposing, said, he wished to correct the hon. Member, who had several times made that statement. What he (Mr. Dickson) had really said in his election address was that he thought the Land Act was the first instalment of justice.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the next time he made the statement, which he hoped soon to do, he would show chapter and verse for it from the letter written by the hon. Gentleman to his constituents on the occasion of his election. According to the Bill the Land Commission should have the appointment of the valuators, and they would appoint men like John E. Barrett. What possible advantage would it be to the tenants to have their lands valued for them by gentlemen appointed by the Land Commission? He agreed with the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) as to the injustice consequent upon the present working of the Act, which this Bill would not mitigate in the slightest degree. At the same time, as a protest against the existing measure, he would not be prepared to vote against the Bill. He should say that the entire way in which matters were working in Ireland went to prove the great wisdom shown by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in the action he took in connection with the Irish Land Question. He considered it most fortunate in regard to this matter that he was arrested by the Government, for if he had not——[Mr. WARTON: Question!] It was the question. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) had, if he might so term it, been let loose, and the Act had then become discredited, it would have been said that he had discredited it, and the Party who worked with him. If the hon. Member had not been muzzled, and locked up in gaol, and confined with his staunchest supporters——[Cries of "Oh!" and "Question!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call upon the hon. Member to speak to the Bill before the House.
    MR. HEALYexplained that he was only pointing out the defects of the Act of last year, which were proposed to be remedied by this Bill. Temporary measures of this kind were altogether inadequate. The newspapers which had been engaged in pointing out the defects of the Act had been suppressed, and there was no adequate expression from Ireland as to what the real defects of the Land Act were. The gentlemen who would have pointed out these defects had been muzzled. In consequence of that state of things hon. Gentlemen brought in Bills such as the present, thinking that they would remedy the case before there had been any expression of opinion from Ireland as to the working of the Land Act. He did not think the present Bill would be of the smallest service, or mend matters in the least degree, and upon that ground he was not altogether sorry that the Government had taken the step of proposing its postponement. That was perfectly in accordance with their policy in Ireland, which was to let matters drift. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland argued for the postponement of the Bill for two months. In two months' time, he (Mr. Healy) might tell them, the situation in Ireland would be precisely what it was to-day.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he could not help feeling that the Land Act was a mass of imperfections. That was disclosed every day by its inability to cope with the situation. The effect of the passing of the Bill would be to create a misleading impression in the minds of the Irish people that the Land Act did not require immediate amendment on very important points, and it was because he was unwilling to lend himself to holding out such a false impression that he should vote against the measure.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he would accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). With reference to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Lowther), he (Mr. Findlater) wished to say that in bringing in the Bill he was not actuated by any hostility to the Land Act. Indeed, he should distinctly say that he entirely repudiated any intention of the kind, and he must express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman had found

    983
    it necessary to make such an insinuation.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA(who rose amid great interruption) said, he was of opinion that the House ought to decide upon the Bill at once, one way or another, and, so to speak, put it out of pain. It appeared to him that, after the Resolution they came to the other day, questioning the propriety of making even an inquiry into the Land Act, it would be altogether absurd to send a Bill to the Upper House proposing to amend that Act. He should therefore be most happy to vote against the Motion for adjournment; and afterwards, when the Main Question was put, he should also be happy to vote against the Bill. Not that he was disposed to characterize the Bill as "peddling," or, to use a more familiar Parliamentary expression, "tinkering," though he thought there had been scarcely any Bill presented to that House which was more amenable to such an imputation. The Land Act was not working so badly after all, nor was it working so slowly. He himself had some experience of it; he had a tenant who, since the passing of the Act, appealed to the Land Commission to have a judicial rent fixed. Forty-three years ago the rent of his farm was £113 10 s. 10 d.; but it was afterwards reduced to £93 10 s. 10 d., and while under that reduction he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) became the purchaser of the estate 25 years ago. Although the times had improved very much since then, he never raised the rent, but continued the reduction. The tenant, taking advantage of the Act, however, as he had a right to do, came before the Commissioners, who reduced the rent to £75, or £38 10 s. 10 d. less than the rent he came in under 43 years ago. Inasmuch as he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) contributed to the passing of that Act, perhaps as much as any individual Member of a quiet class sitting on that side of the House, he had sufficient good taste not to object to it, when fairly administered, though he felt the effect of it himself; but he wished to ask the Government how they could expect any class in Ireland to be satisfied with that Act out and out, through and through? When the Bill was before the House, he ventured to say that it did not go sufficiently far for the tenant; that, though it took something from the landlord, it did not take enough;
    984
    and that it did not compensate the landlord for what it proposed to take away. He was then met by hon. Gentlemen opposite saying the Act would take away nothing; but he had some idea of what it would do, though he assured the House that he was not thinking about himself. The Irish people felt that no legislation was safe or was calculated to attract and retain the confidence of the community, unless it was fair on both sides. In his opinion, the only way of arriving at a settlement of the Irish Land Question was by a complete and thorough modification, in a liberal and Imperial spirit, of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act. He did not say that as a follower of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), because he had held those opinions long before that hon. Gentleman had expressed them. Fortunately, or unfortunately, however, he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had expressed them Constitutionally, and in a mild sort of way, that produced no ill effects, nor any appreciable good. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, however, had expressed his views in a way that produced a very dolorous effect on himself. [Mr. HEALY: No, no!] The hon. Member for Wexford said "No, no!" He was glad to hear the hon. Member did not think so.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the Chair, and also to the Bill before the House.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he could assure the House that he did not rise for the purpose of talking the Bill out, but rather with the object of leaving sufficient time for two divisions upon it. He would, therefore, now leave the matter in the hands of other hon. Members.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 171; Noes 86: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 48.)
    Debate adjourned till Wednesday 10th May.

MOTIONS

  PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bill to amend the Law relating to Patents, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, and Mr. COMPTON LAWRANCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 104.]

  SCHOOL BOARDS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. REGINALD YORKE, Bill to alter the incidence of the expenses of School Boards and the period for the election of School Boards, ordered to be brought in by Mr. REGINALD YORKE and Colonel KINGSCOTE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 103.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.