Sitting of 14 March 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Ground Game Act (1880) Amendment* [121].
Second Reading—Land Law (Ireland) Act (1881) Amendment [14], negatived; Registration of Voters (Ireland) [24], debate adjourned; Free Libraries [85], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (No. 1)*.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Parnell, Mr. Healy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Lalor.)
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 14.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. PARNELL,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said: The Bill has been drafted for the purpose of remedying several imperfections and defects in the Land Act of 1881, some of which were foreseen and pointed out by me and my Friends at the time of the passing of that Act, others of which have become evident during the working of the Act, or have arisen in consequence of a Judgment of a rather celebrated character—that in "Adams v. Dunseath." The Bill also provides for the inclusion of certain classes within the benefits of the Act of 1881 who were then left out of it—such as leaseholders, occupiers of town parks, and so forth. It further proposes to extend the operation of the Purchase Clauses. The chief provisions of the measures are—Firstly, the dating of the judicial rent from the gale day next succeeding the date of the application to the Court to fix the fairrent. Secondly, power to the Court to suspend proceedings in ejectment, and for the recovery of rent pending the fixing of a fair rent, and upon payment by the tenant of rent equal to the Poor Law valuation of his holding. Thirdly, the definition of the term improvement as—
    "Any work or agricultural operation executed on a holding, which adds to the letting value of the holding, or any expenditure of labour or capital on the holding which adds to its letting value."

    451
    Fourthly, a direction to the Court that, in fixing a fair rent, the increase in the letting value of the holding arising from the improvements effected by the tenant or his predecessor in title shall belong to the tenant; and that the landlord shall not be permitted to ask for an increase of rent in respect to such increased letting value. Fifthly, a provision that the use and enjoyment by the tenant of his improvements, or the forbearance of the landlord to exact an increased rent in respect of the improvements effected by the tenant or his predecessor in title, shall not be held as compensation for such improvements. Sixthly, the presumption as regards the making of the improvements is to be in future in favour of the tenants. Seventhly, power is given to leaseholders to apply to the Court to fix a fair rent, and the section of the Act of 1881 exempting the occupiers of town parks from the benefits of the Act is repealed. Lastly, the Land Commission is permitted to advance the full amount of the purchase money to tenants purchasing; and in case the tenant's holding is under £30 valuation, the Court is allowed to extend the period of repayment for 53 years, instead of, as at present, 35 years. I think I shall be able to lay before the House cogent and unanswerable reasons for all the principal alterations which the Bill proposes to effect in the Act of 1881. In many cases I shall show that the will of Parliament, and the expectations and desires of the Government expressed during the passing of the Act, have been clearly run counter to by the manner in which the Act has been interpreted in the Courts in Ireland. In other cases, I shall be able to show that it is absolutely necessary, for the smooth and speedy working of the Act, and for the protection of the tenants' improvements, that the alterations which I desire to effect shall be accomplished as speedily as possible. Take, for example, the provision requiring the judicial rent to be dated from the gale day next succeeding the date of the application to the Court. As the Land Act of 1881 was originally drafted and read a first and second time in this House, it provided that the new rent should take effect from the date of the application by the tenant; but during the discussions—whether in Committee, or on Report, or after the Bill came back from the Lords, I cannot remember—an alteration of a
    452
    most important character in favour of the landlords was accepted, providing that the new rent should date, not from the date of the application, or the gale day subsequent thereto, but from the date of the decision of the Court. An alteration of a most important character in favour of the landlords, and against the interests of the tenants, was made in the Bill to the effect that the new rents should commence, not from the date of the application, but from the date of the decision, hence an obstacle of the most formidable character had been placed in the way of voluntary settlements out of Court. It was also stated by the Prime Minister, and those responsible for the Act of 1881, that one of their chief hopes was that the Act would lead to settlements out of Court. They apprehended that, as the result of the working of the Courts throughout the country, the landlords would come to mutual understandings and agreements with regard to the rent to be paid out of Court. Well, this has been so to a limited extent, but only to a limited extent. We find, according to the latest Returns given to us by the Land Commission Court, that something like 25,000 judicial decisions have been given in contested cases on the application of tenants to have fail-rents fixed; and, speaking roughly, there have been something like an equal number of mutual agreements entered into between landlords and tenants for the fixing of fair rents. Considering, then, that the Act has been in working order since last October twelve months—for a period of very nearly a year and a-half—it cannot be said that the expectations of the Prime Minister, which were expressed at the time of its passing, that the working of the Act would lead to enormous settlements out of Court, have been realized. The number—22,000 or 23,000—of such settlements without the intervention of the Act is not what we might have expected, and certainly it was not what the Government led the House to believe they expected; and in my judgment, and in the judgment of many of those most competent to give an opinion on the subject, the chief obstacle in the way of settlement out of Court is the fact that, owing to this alteration of the original draft of the Act of 1881, the landlord is in a position to go on exacting the same old rack rent until the tedious action of the Court has

    453
    compelled that reduction which he ought, in justice and in equity, to give without the action of the Court. The landlord is, practically speaking, in this position. He knows that the Court cannot hope, within any reasonable time, to reach the vast amount of cases which are before them for adjudication and decision. He sees that it has taken the Court 18 months to decide on 22,000 cases out of 500,000 holdings which came within the scope of the Act; and those of them who desire to extract the last penny of rent, and to stand upon their strict legal rights, can say to themselves with every confidence—"As far as this Act is concerned we are in a position to continue to demand our rack rent for many years to come." If, on the other hand, the alteration that this Bill suggests were carried into law, it would undoubtedly lead to many settlements out of Court; because, if the landlord were told and knew that the rent would take effect at the date of the application, he would have no inducement to maintain resistance and hostility to the manifest designs of the Legislature. Take the provision which I admit to be of a minor character to the one I have just explained—the power of the Court to suspend proceedings for ejectment, or for recovery of rent, where the tenant has applied to the Court to fix a fair rent, and where the tenant pays the Poor Law valuation of his holding. I may as well say at the outset that the suggestion which is made in the Bill to meet the particular difficulty in question is one of many which have been made. I do not wish to assert that it is absolutely the best one; but there can be no doubt that something should be done in order to prevent the landlords from ejecting and selling out the interests of their tenants for inability to pay the rack rents which were in many cases demanded. This evil was foreseen under the Arrears Act, and a provision was inserted in it giving the Court power, any way making it obligatory on the Court, to suspend proceedings for ejectment and for recovery of rent whenever the tenant had applied under that Act for its benefits; and the result was that many tenants were saved from the loss of their interests and from ejectment, and are now in possession of their holdings, the Court having decided that they were unable to pay the rent demanded by the landlords, and having
    454
    granted the year's rent to the landlord required by the provisions of the Act. And what we ask is, that since that provision has been found to work so well in the case of the Arrears Act, that some provision of a similar character should be extended to the tenants throughout Ireland generally, who are anxious to obtain the benefits of the Land Act, but who are precluded in many cases from hoping to experience those benefits owing to the very tardy action of the Court, a tardiness of action which I do not deny arises from the inherent necessities of the case. It is not reasonable that the Legislature, on the one hand, should say to the Irish tenant, "We desire to protect you from rack rent, and to fix a fair rent for you;" and, on the other hand, should permit the landlord, before a fair rent was fixed, to sell out the interest of the tenant in his holding, and effectually to deprive him of the benefits of the Act. I do not say the provision contained in the clause of the Bill I am now explaining is the best one. You might provide, for instance, that the Courts should fix the general average of rent in the different counties for different descriptions of holdings—a general average of rent to be paid by the tenants pending the decisions of the Court. I think such a course as that would be perfectly easy to adopt. Anyone who has had experience of the letting value of land in different counties of Ireland would be able, by comparison between the rentals and Poor Law valuation, to approximate nearly the rent that ought to be paid. I do not say that they could fix, with the accuracy that the Land Act requires, what the fair rent should be; but they could do it approximately to meet the justice and necessities of the case. They would be able to say what the extreme rent should be that a tenant ought to pay to save himself from eviction. I now come to what is really the kernel of the Bill—the provision upon which, without exaggeration, it may be said the hopes of the Irish tenants are centred for the future. I allude to those parts of the Act which define the nature of the improvements for which the tenant can claim exemption from rent, the conditions under which he can claim the exemption, and the general tendency of the Act in protecting the tenant from rent upon his improvements. If there was one thing more settled in the opinion of this House

    455
    than another, it was that, after the passing of the Act of 1881, the improvements of the tenant were to be his own, and they were to be protected from the infliction of rent, and were to be held to be his and his children's afterwards. But, unfortunately, the Irish tenant, in respect of this most valuable provision of the Act of 1881, has learnt to his cost that the landlords of Ireland have found a way to drive a coach and six through it. There can be no doubt that the result of the judgment in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath" has been completely and effectually to destroy the interest of the tenant outside Ulster in his improvements, and I am told by those who understand the law that the judgment in "Adams v. Dunseath" does not affect the Ulster tenant right custom. I do not know how far that may be true; but I cannot but think that the fact that that judgment has been given has had an effect upon the Sub-Commission Courts in the administration of the Act in Ulster, just as it has had a marked effect on the administration of the Act in the other Provinces of Ireland. I do not intend to go into any analyzation of the judgment in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath." I will leave it to my hon. and learned Friends from Ireland, who are better qualified to deal with questions of law than I am; but I think I am right in saying that the effect of that judgment was to put it in the power of the landlord, in a great variety of cases—in the case of almost every tenant applying under the Act—to call upon the Court to give him rent upon the improvements of the tenant, or of his predecessor in title; and also to introduce a definition of the term "improvements" which has been most injurious to the tenant, and wholly calculated to affect the outlay of the tenant on his land for the future. My Bill proposes, taking up the question of tenants' improvements, first, an alteration in the definition of the term "improvements." It proposes to define improvements as any work or agricultural operation executed on the holding which adds to the letting value, or in any respect added to its letting value. Then it goes on to declare that on the fixing by the Court of a fair rent, the letting value resulting from such belong to the tenants. We contend that our definition of the term
    456
    "improvements" is the true one—namely, that the landlord should not be entitled to claim rent with respect to the increased value of a holding from the improvements of the tenant. But the Court, in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," gave very different interpretations of the term "improvements." The Lord Chancellor said it meant suitable or ameliorating works on the holding, and rent made payable in respect to such works themselves; but the increased letting value of the land subsequently accruing to the land in consequence may be taken into account, so as to entitle the landlord to increased value in rent. Sir Edward Sullivan, Master of the Rolls, said the term "improvements" in the Act of 1881 does not refer to the increased letting value of the holding caused by making improvements, but simply the works that have caused the increase in the interest of the tenants who made them, as declared by the Acts of 1870 and 1881. Chief Baron Pallas said the improvements within the contemplation of the Act of 1881 mean works suitable to the holding, and adding to its letting value, and that the enjoyment and improvements before 1870 cannot be excluded in determining a fair rent. The fact is that, practically speaking, a tenant who borrows from the Board of Works, under the clause of the Act of 1881, to improve his holding, has no benefit whatever from his labours—in fact, he is rather a loser by 1½ per cent. He borrows money from the Board of Works at 6½ per cent, repaying principal and interest in 25 years; and he is entitled to claim benefit from his improvements only to the extent of 5 per cent on account of such money borrowed. Suppose he borrows to the extent of £100, in order to improve his holding, he will have to pay to the Board of Works £6 10 s. per annum for the loan. He meant to increase the letting value of his holding by £20 a-year by the expenditure of this sum of £100. The landlord or he applies to the Court to fix a fair rent for the holding. The Court, under the judgment in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," will be obliged to give to the landlord £15 a-year as extra rent upon the improvements effected by the tenant by means of this expenditure. The tenant will only have £5 a-year of benefit for those improvements, and at the same time he will

    457
    have to pay £6 10 s. a-year for 25 years to the Board of Works. This is a matter of the most urgent practical importance. I suppose in no country in the world are works of agricultural improvement so much required as they are in many parts of Ireland; but the tenants will not expend their labour, intellect, and intelligence in making those improvements if they are to receive no benefit whatever from them. As I have shown, the tenants proposed to be brought into the Bill are a largo and important class. Well, I now come to the question of the limitations which have been placed on the tenant's right to his improvements by the judgment of the Court in "Adams v. Dunseath." The Court, in respect of improvements which were excluded before the passing of the Act of 1870, declared that they would be inclined to take into consideration the length of time during which such tenant had enjoyed his improvements, and would hold that the tenant had been compensated for those improvements by the length of his enjoyment of them. Now, if there was one thing clearer than another during the discussions on the Act of 1881, it was that the length of time during which the tenant had enjoyed his improvements was not to be held as compensation to the tenant for those improvements in the fixing of fair rent. On the 9th of August, 1881, after the first return of the Land Act from the Lords to the Commons, during the consideration of the Lords' Amendment agreed to by the Government, providing that the landlord's objection to the successor of a tenant, after the sale of his interest, should be conclusive in the case of a holding where the improvements had been made and maintained by the landlord, I moved a Proviso that the Lords' Amendment should only take effect where
    "the landlord, in the opinion of the Court, had not been compensated for such improvements made by him by increased rent or otherwise."
    This Amendment was objected to—and, I admit, reasonably so—by the Prime Minister, in the following words:—
    "I am obliged to decline the proposed addition of the words of the hon. Member for the City of Cork on this ground. In the Act of 1870 we did, in respect of the tenant, recognize the principle that he might be compensated by reasonable lapse of time in respect of improvements he had made, and that the use and
    458
    profit of those improvements for a certain time might be considered as compensation; but we do not recognize that principle in the present Act. None of the enactments of the present Bill are founded on that principle; and, not acknowledging it as respects the tenant, I do not think it would be quite equitable in our view that we should acknowledge it as respects the landlord."
    And, further on, the right hon. Gentleman added—
    "But the main ground on which I should stand is, that we do not introduce that principle of compensation by engagement for a certain length of time, either as regards landlord or tenant. It is much better, I think, that those who make improvements should have the whole benefit of the improvements."—(3 Hansard, [264] 1393–4.)
    Well, now, that is precisely what we claim for the tenants of Ireland; and I wish to point out that the statement of the Prime Minister was made before the unfortunate alteration in the Healy Clause, which allowed the Conservative majority of the Appeal Court in Dublin to drive a coach and six through the Act. It was on the 9th of August the Prima Minister made this speech from which I have quoted an extract; it was on the 10th that this most unfortunate Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) and agreed to by the Government. The clause as it left this House was as follows:—
    "No rent shall be made payable in any proceedings under this Act in respect of any improvements made or executed by the tenant or his predecessors in title."
    And the fatal Amendment of the hon. Member for Orkney was to the following effect:—"For which the tenant or his predecessors in title shall not have been paid or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title." This addition was the result of a compromise between this House and the Upper House, and by it the Bill was to be saved. All I can say is that it was a most unfortunate Amendment, and that it would have been much better if the Bill had been lost altogether for that Session rather than that a compromise should have been adopted of such a fatal and damaging character—a compromise giving rise to the absolute necessity for renewed and continual agitation on the part of the Irish tenants who have not been admitted to participate in the Act—an agitation which is bound to go on and increase until this most fatal addition has been expunged from the Statute Book

    459
    As a further proof of the wish of the Prime Minister, that the length of time during which the tenant had enjoyed his improvements should not be held as compensation within the meaning of the Act, I wish to point out that on the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), that—
    "The Court shall take into consideration the time during which such tenant may have enjoyed the advantage of such improvements."
    The Prime Minister said—
    "The doctrine accepted at the time of the Land Act of 1870, and which he certainly declined to accept the night before, was the doctrine that the enjoyment by the tenant for a certain time of his own improvements might have reimbursed him for the cost of those improvements, and by a natural process they passed over to the landlord. But that was not the basis upon which they proceeded now, and there was no occasion for it. The tenant's improvements were the tenant's own property, and he would not admit the principle that the time during which he had enjoyed those improvements was any reason for their passing away from him."—(Ibid. 1489.)
    The House divided, and there, was a majority of 130 against the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, and in favour of the principle that the time during which the tenant had enjoyed the improvements should not be taken into consideration or held as compensation. Another provision of the Bill relates to the presumption in favour of the tenants as regards the making of improvements. It is notorious that in Ireland most, if not absolutely all, of the improvements on the agricultural holdings have been effected by the tenants. ["No!"] There is a celebrated speech by the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), in which he described, in most eloquent terms, the state the land of Ireland would present if it was stripped of all the improvements made by the tenants; but, as the expression "prairie value" occurs in that speech, and lest I may hurt the susceptibilities of certain hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House above the Gangway (the Conservative) by repeating it, I will avoid all reference to it. It is an absolute fact known to everyone acquainted with the circumstances of tenant-holding in Ireland—it is a matter of notoriety that the vast proportion of improvements, from time to time, in holdings still in occupation of tenants have been effected
    460
    by tenants themselves. Consequently, the Act of 1870 had provided that for the limited period of 10 years previous to the passing of the Act it should be presumed that the improvements had been effected by the tenants. It is proposed by the present Bill that this presumption shall be extended still further back than for 10 years. I and those who think with me propose, of course, that there shall be no limitation whatever, and that all improvements whatsoever shall be presumed to have been effected by the tenant. It may, however, possibly be that when the Bill gets into Committee some hon. Members will think that there ought to be some limitation of time; but that is a matter which had better be discussed when the Bill reaches the Committee stage. I can only say, speaking for myself, and wishing, as I do, for an immediate settlement of this Land Question, I would be ready to give away as much as possible of what I consider to be the tenants' rights in order to attain a permanent and speedy settlement. That some amendment is required of the Act of 1870 as regards the period during which the presumption of the authorship of improvements is to be held in favour of the tenant is unquestionable, and is a matter of which you cannot for a single moment lose sight. The inclusion of the leaseholders in the class of tenants who are to come within the provisions of the Act is, perhaps, one of the most important features of the Bill. The leaseholders who are at present excluded from the operation of the Act are 100,000 in number, and they occupy between 9,000,000 and 4,000,000 of acres of the best agricultural land of Ireland. The landlord party certainly did a very good stroke of business for themselves, when they persuaded the Prime Minister that it would not be desirable that a clause should be introduced into the Land Act giving the benefit of the Act to the flower of the Irish tenants, as they were called.
    MR. GIBSONobserved that the Irish leasehold tenants were included in the original Bill.
    MR. PARNELL: It might have been in the original Bill; I do not for a moment dispute it; but I have no doubt, that were it not for the eloquence of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) and his

    461
    Friends, the Prime Minister would have seen which way the equity of the case lay. Now, by this good stroke of business the landlord party have practically saved for themselves at least half of the land in area which is subject to agricultural tenure in Ireland—I do not refer to grazing land—they certainly saved from the operation of the Act the best portion of the land so held, and they saved for themselves the most rack-rented farms in the country. ["No, no!"] It is a matter of notoriety that the tenants who have paid the highest rents are tenants on whom leases have been forced. The clause inserted in the Act of 1881 to meet the grievances of this class has proved entirely nugatory. Out of the 1,500 applications made to break leases there have been only 105 broken; and we have the authority of Judge O'Hagan and the other Judges that some amendment of this section is necessary in order to carry out even the limited intentions of Parliament in regard to this class of leaseholders, and that as the clause stands it is impossible to administer the Act in such a way as would carry out the intentions of the Legislature. Well, now, Sir, I hope that in the interval of two years that have elapsed since this Act was passed the public opinion of this country has advanced, as the public opinion of Ireland has advanced, in favour of affording leaseholders the protection of the Land Act, and that the House will be willing to take a considerable step in advance of the Act of 1881, and that the House will now not only amend the section so as to carry out the then intentions of Parliament, but will provide that every leaseholder should be entitled to apply for the protection of the Court for the purpose of fixing a fair rent, leaving intact the other covenants and provisions of the lease under which he held. That is a matter of simple justice. It is a question on which I have no doubt very strong feelings will be excited in the breasts of the Conservative Party, as their interests are involved in it; but I venture to think that this House will not long continue to tolerate a system of force and beggary which many of the landlords are inflicting on their tenants who have the misfortune to be leaseholders. They are the most respectable class of tenants, and until the bad times came on a few years ago they
    462
    were the most solvent. I do not for a moment mean to assert that all the Irish landlords are pursuing this course; because the Marquess of Waterford and many other of the large landowners have freely conceded to their leaseholding tenants the advantages which their other tenants have obtained as a matter of right under the provisions of the Act. It is only the smaller and poorer classes of landowners who have absolutely refused to allow their leaseholding tenants to avail themselves of these advantages. Whether you go directly to the question as we propose, or bridge round it by some other way, it is absolutely necessary, for the good order, peace, and tranquillity of Ireland, that some attention should be paid to this most important class of sufferers by the Irish land system. The last provision in the Bill refers to the extension of the Purchase Clauses. We propose that the Purchase Clauses should be amended, so as to enable the Land Commission to advance the whole of the tenant's purchase money; and, secondly, that in the case of tenants under £30 yearly valuation, the Land Commission shall have power to spread the payments over 53 years instead of 35 years. I do not advance this method of dealing with the Purchase Clauses as absolutely perfect. I should be glad if the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) were to propound the system which he has in process of incubation. I have no doubt it would be a much better one than ours. But it would be most desirable, for the interests of a certain class of landlords—landlords who are now being compelled by their mortgagees to sell, and whose estates will be sacrificed to land jobbers, unless proper facilities, extending at lease to the advance of the whole purchase money, are provided—it is most desirable in their interest that some early step in the direction of amending these Purchase Clauses should be taken by this House. It is most desirable that what happened after the Famine of 1847–8 should not now be repeated. If you had had suitable Purchase Clauses in those days, it never would have been necessary for you to have brought in the Act of 1881, and a very large proportion of the land of Ireland would have been transferred to the occupying tenantry on fair terms—on terms much fairer to the landlords than

    463
    those which they obtained from the land jobbers who purchased their holdings—and we would now have a class of peasant proprietors who would be a credit to the country, and be no source of dissension or trouble to the peace of Ireland. However, the advantage which was then presented was not taken, and the land of the country passed into the hands of a set of land speculators and land jobbers. Something of a similar kind, though on a much smaller scale, is now going on. Many estates are in the Landed Estates Court and must be sold. The tenants are unable to purchase, because they cannot pay the one-fourth required; and the result will be, instead of the present encumbered landlords, you will have a new class of landlords set up, who will combine all the worst features of the old landlords, without any of the redeeming features of the attachment to their tenantry which were doubly possessed by them. I trust the House will not consider we are too pressing in asking them to look over the the Act of 1881. After such a short interval I cannot think we are. It is useless for the Government to live in a fool's paradise, and to shout out that the Irish Land Question is settled for ever. The Irish Land Question is not settled, and I feel convinced that it can never be settled until the chief provisions of the Bill which I now propose have been made the law of the land. Until the tenants' improvements are protected beyond yea or nay—until he is certain that the labour and capital which he invested in the soil will be his, and that no legal quibble and no exertions on the part of long-robed gentlemen, whether they sit on the Bench or occupy the humbler position of advocates for the landlords, will be able to deprive them of the result of that labour and toil—you will not have the Irish Land Question settled. The Government cannot suppose that a question of such enormous intricacy can be hoped to be settled by a single enactment. Many of the provisions of the Act of 1881 were, undoubtedly, of an experimental character. Very much, as I have shown, has depended upon the unforeseen interpretation of the Courts in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath." The time of the House, in my judgment, could not be better devoted than in attempting to settle this great Irish Ques-
    464
    tion. I should exceedingly regret if the present time of comparative tranquillity—a tranquillity, doubtless, brought about by the stern operation of your Coercion Act, and not from any willingness or ability on the part of the tenants to pay the rack rents which the Courts are fixing—should be lost. While Ireland is tranquil let this House show that it desires to attend to her just wants and requirements. We have an unanswerable case for the revision of the Improvements Clauses of this Act. Let it not be said hereafter that because Ireland is quiet therefore you will do nothing more. You cannot continue always to govern that country by moans of a Coercion Act; and I venture to think it is quite as much in the interest of the Irish landlords to take advantage of the present time of tranquillity to help in permanently settling this question, as it is in the interest of the Government and of every class in that country. I beg, Sir, to move the second reading of this Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. CHAPLIN,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that it was not until the last moment, when he found that no other Amendment was brought forward, that he placed his Notice on the Paper. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, in the opening of his speech, promised to bring forward unanswerable arguments in favour of the measure which he proposed. These arguments consisted mainly in the alleged failure of the Land Act, especially with regard to the number of voluntary agreements that had been made, and to the length of time that had elapsed, and must continue to elapse, before fair rents were fixed in a great majority of cases, and also by the decision in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," by which the tenant, in a great majority of cases, was not thoroughly secured in his improvements. He did not intend to defend the Land Act of 1881, for in the discussions which took place in the House upon that Act he pointed out that it must inevitably fail in certain points, which were some of those now adduced by the hon. Member. But, whatever the failure of the Act had been or might be, he could not join the hon. Member in his declaration that, in

    465
    the main, the tenant was not sufficiently secured in his improvements. On the contrary, he should say, if the Act had to be amended, that some consideration should be extended by the House to the landlords for the gross and cruel injustice inflicted upon them at the present time. With regard to the Bill submitted by the hon. Member, it seemed to him that it might be as properly opposed on the ground of the inexpediency of the re-opening of the Irish Land Question at the present time, in the direction proposed, as on the merits of the Bill itself. With regard to the provisions of the Bill itself, he was bound to say that they appeared to him to be of so extreme a character that, with the exception of Clauses 11 and 12, which related to the purchase of their holdings by the tenants, he doubted very much whether any of them were even entitled to any consideration at all. He had read the Bill of the hon. Member as carefully as he could; but he was still at a loss to describe any principle that it contained, unless it was this—to transfer at one swoop to the occupiers everything of any value which had been left to the owners of the land by the previous measures of the present Administration in Ireland. Whether that were its principle or not, that process was, at all events, accomplished by a series of clauses which he would endeavour very briefly to describe. In the first place, judicial rents—or, as the hon. Member called them, rack rents—were, in future, to obtain not from the date when they were fixed, but from the date when they had been applied for—a very considerable distinction, and extending, it might be, over a good many years. Secondly, all legal proceedings whatever for the recovery of the rent actually due were suspended altogether until that very indefinite period might happen to arrive that fair rents should be fixed. Thirdly, he found that where town parks and pastoral holdings were exempted from the Act of 1881, they were brought under the operation of the Bill which was now before the House. Fourthly, the Bill provided that at the close of a statutory term the rent was not to be raised beyond its previous amount, excepting on conditions which practically came to this—that the unearned increment of the land in future would belong to the tenant. He objected altogether to this novel proposition. It
    466
    appeared to him to be a monstrous proposition, and a monstrous invasion of the rights of property, which had hitherto been held sacred in that House; and he was glad to be able to fortify himself by the views of a learned Member on this question which, he was sure, would commend themselves to the opinion of the House. He said that too much philosophy had been talked about land, and that the theories with regard to the unearned increment of land were so unjust and so absolutely philosophical, that they did not require refutation. He was content to believe that a man's right to land depended upon the same right that secured to him his coat upon his back—namely, that he had paid for it. He entirely subscribed to that opinion, which was expressed by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State, who now presided over the affairs of the Home Office. Fifthly, it appeared that leaseholders, who were expressly excluded from the Act, were to be brought under its operation, so far as the fixing of fair rent was concerned, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork based his proposition on the ground of simple justice to the tenantry of Ireland. On that point he would say nothing, for he was able to quote the views of the present Prime Minister, who, so short a time ago as the 26th of April, 1882, said, with regard to the leaseholders—
    "At any rate, the question of altering rents under leases was very distinctly considered, and the Government very distinctly gave their judgment that they would not he warranted in asking the House to interfere with the covenanting leases in regard to land."—(3 Hansard, [268] 1492.)
    That was the language of the Prime Minister, and after his unqualified expression of opinion he would say no more on the subject. So far he had dealt with what he called the minor provisions of the Bill, and no one could deny that they were sufficiently important in themselves. They involved great changes. They reopened questions of magnitude which they were led to believe had been finally settled and disposed of at the time of the passing of the Act, and same so late as last Session, and they marked an entirely new line of departure from the professions of the hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to some of the chief principles of that measure. But, important as they were, they were literally

    467
    nothing as compared with some other provisions of the Bill—namely, those which related to, and dealt with, the questions of improvements when effected by the tenant or his predecessors in title. He would point out very briefly what they were. In the first place, improvements were defined as meaning any work or agricultural operation which had been executed, or any labour or capital expended which added to the letting value of a holding. Having so defined them, the Bill made it obligatory on the tenant—first, to ascertain if any improvements had been made by himself or his predecessor in title; and, secondly, to estimate the increased letting value to the holding arising from such improvements. It then proceeded further to enact that the whole of this value was the absolute property of the tenant, and that no rent at all, under any circumstances whatever, was to be paid, or payable, on account of this value, unless the tenant had been paid for his improvements, or otherwise compensated for them. And now he must ask the attention of the House to two points in particular which seemed to him to be, perhaps, the most artful, and at the same time most vital, provisions in the whole Bill. And the first of them related to this question—What was and what was not to be considered as compensation for improvements under the clauses of the Bill? In Section 2, Clause 5 provided—
    "The use and enjoyment by the tenant or his predecessors in title of any improvements executed wholly or partly by him or them, or the forbearance of the landlord to charge an increased rent in respect thereof, or to evict the tenant or his predecessors in title from the holding, shall not of itself, in the absence of an express contract on the subject, be deemed a compensation for such improvements within the meaning of the said Act or of this Act."
    A contract, it should be remembered, which would require, where a predecessor in title meant a predecessor in occupancy, to extend over a period, for anything they knew, going back to the time of the Flood. Well, that was the first of those very remarkable provisions, and the other was not very different from it, for it enacted that—
    "On any application to fix the fair rent of a holding, and for the purpose of all proceedings under the said Act and this Act, all improvements on such holding shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been made by the tenant or his predecessor in title."
    468
    Which, again, in the case of a predecessor in occupancy, would require the production of records not less ancient than the contracts required by the section to which he had just referred. With regard to those two provisions, he had only this to say—that they appeared to him to have been devised for the single object of preventing the landlord, by any possibility, from showing that the only two conditions upon which the increased letting value from improvements could over be considered to belong to him had over been fulfilled. He was afraid that the simple upshot of the measure, stripped of all its disguises and specious pleas, came to this:—It was an attempt to take away the entire property which belonged to one class in Ireland at the present moment, and to transfer it to another class, without making the smallest compensation to the class from whom it was taken. The real effect, then, of the clauses dealing with improvements came to this—that unless the landlord was able to show, since the time when the land was first reclaimed and brought into cultivation from its native wildness, either that the improvements had been made by himself, or that, if made by the tenant, he had been compensated for them under an express contract for that purpose, all that would remain to the landlords—that was, to the present owners of estates in Ireland—would be just exactly what the soil was worth—and not 1s. more, as far as he could see—when the dry land first appeared after the subsidence of the Deluge and of the waters of the Flood in Ireland. He had now endeavoured, very briefly, to describe the general effect and purport of that measure, and the House, he was certain, would not be surprised at his opposition to it. But there were other considerations quite apart from the merits of the Bill which ought to weigh—and which, as he believed, would weigh—with the judgment of the House of Commons. Was there anyone sitting on either side of the House, except a Member of the Irish Party, who would be bold enough to say that, in the interests of peace and tranquillity in Ireland, this was a right or desirable moment to re-open legislation with regard to Irish land? He should shrink from such a course himself, even in the interests of his brother landlords at the present time, much and deeply as he

    469
    sympathized with the gross, cruel, and unparalleled injustice under which they now laboured. Was there to be no finality in their dealings with that question? Was it for ever to be on the political tapis whenever a Liberal Government was in power? Was the value of that kind of property for ever to be depreciated? Was capital for ever to be banished from the country? And were landlords from now till the crack of doom, if Liberal majorities prevailed, to be annually harassed and hampered by these pilfering and plundering proposals in regard to that particular description of property in Ireland? Above all, he would ask—Were the tenantry and people of that country to be for ever tempted and debauched by the poison of the bait they were dangling now before them—that if they only recommenced their agitations, and committed murders and outrages enough, the day was rapidly approaching when they would reach the utmost summit of their aims, and would gain the land which they at present occupied for absolutely nothing from those to whom the land in truth and in justice and in reality belonged? All kinds of rumours had for days been in the air; but he put them one and all entirely aside. He had no right to assume—and God forbid that he should wrong him—that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was about to make concessions to the employers and supporters of outrage-mongers in that country. And yet, when he remembered the surprises and startling incidents they had witnessed in past Sessions, the right hon. Gentleman must forgive him for reminding him and for re-assuring his political associates and himself by quoting the recent opinions of some of his Colleagues in the Cabinet on that subject. He had read, he must say, with unbounded satisfaction the opinions of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, when he stated, about two months ago, that the Irish problem was not one which could be settled by a stroke of brilliant legislation, but that, on the contrary, it was, in the main, a question only of administration—the firm and patient administration—both of the ordinary and the extraordinary law now existing, and that Ireland required some interval from exciting legis-
    470
    lation, and, if possible, of needful rest. There were few people who knew Ireland who would not agree with those sentiments of the noble Marquess, who enjoyed, moreover, the advantage of having himself been Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; and still more heartily would they endorse the language of another Member of the Cabinet—the Earl of Derby—its latest addition, who said, not two months ago—
    "One thing I trust the Cabinet will do; I hope they will abstain from encouraging proposals for large and fresh measures of legislation in regard to Irish land. I do not, of course, speak of petty amendments of detail, which may be necessary when unexpected difficulties crop up; but we cannot have the relations of owners and occupiers altered every year. Finality is as much the interest of one as of the other."
    He submitted that they were not mere matters of detail that were dealt with by this Bill. They were questions of enormous magnitude and immense importance, involving neither more nor less than a social revolution in regard to the ownership and occupation of land in Ireland. The Act of 1881, passed by the present Prime Minister, was an enormous advance upon the legislation of 1870; but he made bold to say that this Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was a vastly greater advance upon the measure of two years ago. That being so, he respectfully commended to the consideration of the Prime Minister the warnings of his Colleagues which he had just quoted. One word more, and only one, and he had done. He came into Parliament just at the time when the Irish policy of the present Prime Minister was begun; and it was his fortune and privilege then to hear the last speech ever made by one of the foremost and greatest among English statesmen, in which he foreshadowed and foresaw the results of a policy which he dreaded at the time. He was a man who had spent a lifetime in the service of his country and his Queen; and, while he reminded his audience of the age to which he had attained, his words, as far as one could recollect them, were as follows:—
    "My official life," he said, "is entirely closed; my political life is nearly so; and, in the course of nature, my natural life cannot now be long. That natural life commenced with suppression?—the bloody suppression—of a formidable rebellion in Ireland, which immediately preceded

    471
    the union of the two countries. And God grant we may not witness a renewal of the one and a dissolution of the other."
    That was the language of the late Earl of Derby, and he believed it was the last speech he had over made. It was because he (Mr. Chaplin) thought that they had for years been steadily approaching nearer and nearer to that catastrophe which the late Earl of Derby dreaded and foresaw, under the ill-omened guidance of the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government, that he hoped that the Prime Minister would that afternoon speak in language clear and unmistakable in Ireland, and that he had taken upon himself to move, as he now did, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    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. Chaplin.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin), in moving the rejection of the Bill, stated that a disagreeable task had fallen to his lot. He (Mr. Dickson) could not help feeling that the hon. Member found it very congenial to his taste. The Irish Members did not come before the House now to ask the House to venture on any fresh schemes of legislation. They came before the House to ask that the admitted defects of the Land Act of 1881 might be remedied. They were defects which never would have found their way into the Act at all had the opinions pf, and the Amendments moved by, the Irish Members received the attention that they ought to have done from the Government. No Member of the House appreciated more than he did the labours of the Prime Minister in passing the Land Act of 1881; and, whilst he had never hesitated to admit its defects and to criticize its administration when necessary, he had always maintained—and he always should maintain—that the Land Act was one of the greatest blessings that was ever conferred upon Ireland. From the first part of the speech delivered by the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell), he was inclined to think that the hon. Member agreed with him in describing the Act as a very beneficial measure. He should vote for the second reading of the
    472
    Bill if it went to a division, because, although he did not agree with the measure in all its details, it contained the resolutions and amendments adopted by the Conference of the Tenant-Eight Association of Ulster at the meeting in Belfast last January, and which resolutions and amendments had been embodied in a Bill introduced to the House by the senior Member for the County of Monaghan (Mr. Givan), who, he regretted, could not be in his place that day. That Bill was down for second reading, and it contained the four great points advocated by the Ulster Tenant-Eight Association, which he could read to the House. The first was that the payment of the judicial rent should commence at the date of the originating notice; the second, that no rent should be charged on tenants' improvements; the third, that leaseholds should be brought within the scope of the Land Act; and the fourth, that there should be a fair extension of the Purchase Clauses. The justness and fairness of the first resolution could not possibly be denied. Irish Members had spent many weary nights in the House over this question of the Land Bill, and the Prime Minister too. He would ask whether it was ever intended that the benefits of the Land Act, passed to give immediate relief to the tenants, should be delayed for years in reaching them? And, knowing the defects of the Land Act immediately after it was passed, and seeing that the benefits of the measure were not going to reach the tenants for some years, he asked leave last year to introduce to the House a Bill proposing that Griffith's valuation should be accepted as a fair rent pending the settlement of a fair rent. But he was sorry to say that he was never allowed even to introduce that Bill into the House; but had he been allowed to do so, and had the Bill become law, he thought it would have been not only to the advantage of the tenant, but very much more to the advantage of the landlord. The House should remember that the Land Act came into operation in October, 1881, and in a very few weeks thousands of applications to fix a fair rent poured into the Courts. From the county of Tyrone alone no less than 6,000 cases were entered; but after one year's operation only 1,000 had been decided, leaving 5,000 remaining cases, in which the tenants would not know

    473
    the decision for one, two, three, or even four years. During the whole of the intervening time they were bound to pay, as the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) had put it, the old rack rents under which, in the past, they had been hopelessly crushed. Would the House believe that of the 1,000 cases that had been decided during the first year of the operation of this Act they were all entered in one week? The Official Returns before the House showed that the cases decided were only those entered between October 24th and November 1st, 1881, and yet what did they hear? He had heard a noble Lord (Lord Carlingford), who was a Member of the Government, trying to appease angry noble Lords in "another place," respecting the reductions of rents now going on in Ireland, by saying that the worst of the eases were now over, and that the reductions were becoming less and less. He thought such statements were most mischievous. They were calculated to do a very serious injury to the cause of the tenants whose cases were now before the Court. Was it possible for anyone to say that the worst cases were over, when already in one county alone the cases entered in the first year of the operation of the Land Act were not yet heard? The cases decided—those of the tenants who entered during the first year—were the cases of tenants who had money in their pockets, and who were able to pay the preliminary costs. They were tenants in an independent position. But the cases of the poorer tenants who came under the Arrears Act, and who were only now escaping eviction, were not yet entered. It was, therefore, misleading and unfair to say that the worst cases were over. He hoped the Prime Minister would admit the fairness of this Amendment—that the judicial rent should commence from the date of the application when the decisions were arrived at. He gave the hon. Member for the City of Cork a second Amendment—that no rent should be charged on tenants' improvements. There was no doubt that it was accepted when the Act was passed that tenants' improvements would be free from rent; but, unhappily, this Act had not been so construed in the interests of the tenants, and hence the discontent and dissatisfaction now prevalent in every part of Ireland. He regretted very much the abolition of what was
    474
    known as the "Healy Clause;" and, for his own part, he very much regretted that the hon. Member for Wexford was not able to be in Ms place to take part in the present discussion. He assured the House that the demands of the farmers of Ulster, in connection with this clause, did not go one iota beyond the statements of the Prime Minister. He had read the speech to dozens of meetings of Ulster farmers, and the universal response had always been that they wanted no more, and that they asked for no more, than that their own improvements should be absolutely free from rent. It appeared neither unfair nor unreasonable to ask the House and the Government to accept this vital Amendment, so as to put the question entirely beyond legal arguments and legal quibbles; for out of the ambiguity of these clauses, as they all knew, and out of the Land Act, the lawyers of Ireland had reaped a handsome harvest. No doubt, the grossest exaggerations were prevalent in this country as to the reductions of rent in Ireland. One of the leading journals—he believed The Daily Telegraph—had asked, What more was the Cabinet to do to please the Irish people? They had already wiped off millions of arrears and reduced millions of rents. The property of the tenants had increased in value, while that of the landlords had become depreciated. Could there be anything more exaggerated or more misleading? What was the fact? Except in one or two districts of Ulster, the value of the tenancy, instead of being increased, had declined 50 per cent; and in many counties of Ireland, notwithstanding the operation of the Land Act, the tenant right to-day was entirely unsaleable. As to the reductions of rents, he asked hon. Gentlemen to look at the Blue Books. They would there see that three-fourths of the rents were derived from tenants' improvements during the last 20 years. In County Antrim there was one case in which rent was, in 1870, £130. In 1875 it was increased to £148, and then the Commissioners came and reduced it to £145, leaving the landlord still £15 a-year more than he had in 1870. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) talked about "pilfering and plundering." He wondered on which side "pilfering and plundering" was. He had no hesitation in saying that the

    475
    increase in rents in Ireland, especially since 1860, consisted of a confiscation and a robbery of the tenauts' improvements, and that the "pilfering and plundering" had not been all on one side, but very much more on the other. In one case in County Armagh the rents in 18C5 were £242; they were increased by 1881 to £304; the judicial rent was £224. In another, in County Donegal, the rent 20 years ago was £108; in 1881 it was £199; the judicial rent had been fixed at £154. In the third case, in County Tyrone, the rents 20 years ago were £294; they were increased to £455; the judicial rent was £350. He quoted these figures to prove that the reductions made in three-fourths of the cases were of increases during the last 20 years, and he considered that these figures amply justified the Land Act of 1881. Hon. Members opposite, and noble Lords in "another place," had expressed their horror at the idea of reducing the rents to Griffith's valuation, especially in Ulster. But what was Griffith's valuation? There was nothing on which more misconception prevailed. Sir Richard Griffith, in his evidence before a Select Committee of the House in 1869, said that the improvement of the Land in Ulster had been so great that the valuators had taken a very high view of it; and he added—
    "This was mainly owing to the improvements in agriculture and to the industry of the people."
    Another gentleman, now a Land Commissioner, Mr. Vernon, in his evidence before the same Committee, said that in Ulster, Griffith's valuation approached closer to the intrinsic value of the land than in other parts of Ireland. Griffith's valuation, in many cases, included the tenants' improvements. The property of the tenants was not adequately protected by the Act as it now stood, and there was a good case for the amendment of the Act. It was impossible any longer to leave out the leaseholders from the scope of the Act, and they were a class of men who deserved every sympathy and the protection of the Act. He agreed with every word that had been said by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, that the leaseholders were the most thrifty and the most loyal and the most industrious of all the classes in Ireland; and, besides that, they were men who had a stake in the county, and an inte-
    476
    rest in its peace and prosperity. The proposal made by himself was that all the covenants of leases should stand, except that the Land Court should be at liberty to revise the rent in any case in which it was shown to be oppressive. He only wished the landowners of Ireland, in their own interest as well as that of their land, would follow the example set by some of the just owners, and allow the tenants to surrender their leases, as the father of the hon. Member for the County Armagh had done. That gentleman found the leaseholders were suffering so much that they were unable to cultivate the land properly, and in his own interest he allowed them to go into Court. As to the Purchase Clauses of the Act, that was a subject which would be more properly debated upon the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton). He recognized that there were many difficulties in the way of Irish Members coming to ask for an amendment of the Land Act. They would be told that Irish questions occupied almost all the time of the House. No one regretted that more than he did; but he asked the House to look back upon this fact—what legislation was granted between 1874 and 1881? Not one sensible Act, except the Land Act, was passed in all those nine years; and when they were told that, during the last two or three Sessions, Irish Business had occupied an immense amount of time, Irish Members ought to take that fact into consideration. He knew well the contempt that some Irish Members opposite had for remedial legislation and remedial measures; but as an Irish Member, having at heart the very best interests of Ireland, he asked the Government not to turn a deaf ear to their modest demands. Remedial legislation ought to go step by step with a firm administration of the law; and he hoped the Prime Minister would hold out a hope that some of the Amendments which had been suggested would be accepted and dealt with by Parliament.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I was very desirous, considering the nature of this Bill, and considering, I must also say, certain declarations contained in the speech of the Mover of the Bill, to follow his speech at once; but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire had given Notice of a Motion to reject the Bill, with which Notice I could

    477
    not interfere, and, of course, it gave him precedence. When he had spoken, I felt that there was too great advantage in our hearing the speech of my hon. Friend who has just spoken for me to intervene; because, in truth, the Members of this House who took an interest in the Land Act may be divided into three classes—two of whom I may consider as opponents of the Act in the main, and the other as friends and supporters of the Act. The opponents of the Act, consisting both of Irish Members and Members sitting for other constituencies, were represented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire—I mean those opponents of the Act who opposed it in principle, and who, I believe, still continue to look upon it as a measure of confiscation, although we regard it alike as a measure of justice and necessity. But there was another class of opponents of the Act, with regard to whom I am not quite sure to what extent I should be justified in considering the hon. Member for the City of Cork to be among them. But, undoubtedly, some hon. Members among those sitting on the Benches where he sits, and who act in usual concurrence with him on political questions, are in that class Both these classes were, in a special and conflicting sense, opponents of the Act; but my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Dickson) represents a large body—a portion of them Irish Members, a portion of them coming from Ulster, and a large portion from other parts of Ireland, including the South-West, who are not opponents, but supporters, of the Act, and with regard to whom—whatever proposals may be made—I feel perfectly certain that they are made in entire conformity with the principles on which they acted and the professions they advanced during the time we were engaged in the discussion of the Act. It is, therefore, with pain that I find myself in any case differing from them; because it is to them undoubtedly, more than to any other persons, that we were indebted for having been enabled by their aid, by the intelligent and active support we received from them at the most vital moment, to place upon the Statute Book a most difficult and a most important measure. I see in the House at this moment my hon. Friend the Member for the County Cork (Mr. Shaw), and many others whom I have in my eye in this
    478
    declaration. To them especially, though not to them exclusively, but, on the contrary, to all those who are interested in the welfare of Ireland and in the questions raised by the Land Act, whether they regard that Act with friendly or hostile eyes—to all of them it is due that Her Majesty's Government should promptly and at once, and in intelligent terms, declare the course they intend to take, not only with regard to this measure, but to any other measure which has been or may be proposed during the pro-sent Session of Parliament with respect to the Irish Land Act. There is one important point of the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, not directly connected with the Bill, which I wish to notice. He spoke of the very limited operation, as he conceived it to be, of the Land Act at the present time. I think, Sir, that the House ought not to form any estimate of the extent of that operation upon the basis described by the hon. Member. In my opinion, the operation of that Act is very far larger than appears to be supposed by the hon. Member. A part of it is visible and palpable; a part of it is contentious. The part of it which is not contentious is formal; but there is much of the operation of the Act which is wholly withdrawn from public view; and without taking that into account we cannot qualify ourselves to give an answer to the question—"How far has the Land Act, as is stands, met the purposes for which it was enacted; and how far is it a matter of urgent importance that further consideration should be given to the question?" The state of the case is most inadequately viewed through the figures that at once meet the eye. About 90,000 contentious cases, I think, have been entered before the Courts, of which 30,000 had been settled at the close of the month of January, and 60,000 remained to be disposed of. The settlement of the contentious cases was going forward at about the rate of 2,350 a-month; and another description of settlement by voluntary agreement—an equally formal mode of settlement, clothed, as it is, with public authority—was also going forward at the rate of 3,250 a-month. That rate of 5,600 agreements per month represents a progress which is large—very large—when you consider it as the result of a great number of judicial inquiries and judicial settlements; but which I submit to be

    479
    small as compared with the total number of Irish tenantry coming within the scope of the Act. Let me comment, then, briefly upon these figures, and show how inadequate they are. You must not only look at the rate at which decisions are being arrived at; you must look at the increase in that rate. Obviously the task of the Sub-Commissioners became e greatly easier as they proceeded, and that can be exhibited in a striking view by the very few figures which I will state to the House. From October 28, 1881—that is, from the commencement of the Act—to December 24, 1881, the average number of decisions per day was no more than 14—that is to say, of decisions upon fair rents fixed. From January 2, 1882, to April 1, 1882, the average number of decisions per day rose to 40. From April 17, 1882, to December 23, 1882, the number of decisions rose to an average per day of between 76 and 77. We have now got in operation the last improvements and additions to the system since the question of valuators was further considered; and from the middle of January to the end of February, 1883, the rate of decisions, which at the commencement of the Act was only 14 per day, has risen to 100 per day. That rate of 100 per day was more than 30,000 in the year. This represents a very great increase indeed; and what has taken place down to4be present time justifies us in confidently expecting that by no undue haste, but with a perfect observance of all judicial and equitable principles, there, will be a further increase of the rate, and that that large number will amount to a still larger sum. But in addition to this, the operation of the Land Act, out of the Land Court altogether, must be taken into view. Upon a very large scale, adjustments and reductions of rent have been made by landlords to the satisfaction of their tenants, without ever going near the Court at all, and those reductions, without doubt, may be set down to the operation of the Land Act, with hardly less justice than the reductions made in the Court itself by contentious proceedings, or the reductions which are fixed in the Court itself by voluntary agreement. But I should not be doing justice to the case, and certainly I should not express what has always been my own belief—most of all, I should not do justice to the landlords in Ireland—if I did not repeat on this
    480
    occasion, what I have often stated in the House, that happily, in my own belief, there is a large portion of the tenants of Ireland who are perfectly satisfied with the equitable conduct of their landlords and with the rents they pay, and who practically neither have been, nor are likely to be, subjects for the intervention of the Court, direct or indirect, at any period. So that when we put together all these facts, I am not prepared to be content with asserting less than this—that, in the main, the scope of the Land Act, as it is now at work, is effecting the great purpose for which it was passed, and promises to deal with the vast majority of those cases of the tenantry and people of Ireland, for the sake of whom Parliament placed it on the Statute Book. The House will see that this is a very important consideration, with regard to the duty that may now be incumbent upon us, and which we have now to fulfil, in conjunction with our other duties, and with the means we possess of redeeming our engagements. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork has stated the provisions of his Bill with perfect clearness, and, I believe, with perfect fairness, and he has referred to certain declarations made, perhaps, by others, but certainly by mo, at the time of the debates upon the Land Act, with regard to which declarations, I can only say that the words which he has quoted are a fair representation of the opinions that I expressed at the time, and of the opinions that I now entertain. I have no complaint to make in that respect. But I have now to consider very shortly what I must say upon the provisions of the Bill, and what I must say upon the speech with which the Bill was introduced. I am bound to say that we differ organically from the Bill as it stands. The Bill itself, as I look at it, amounts to a virtual re-construction of the Irish Land Act in its most important provisions. I will not say that any portion of an Act of that kind either is or can be abstractedly excluded from review. The complications of the subject, and the imperfection of human knowledge in such matters, must always leave it open to those who are so disposed to contend, and perhaps to prove, to some extent, that in this or that respect such a measure may be open to amendment. But I take the provisions of the hon. Member's Bill as they stand, and I am bound to say

    481
    that they amount, as I have said, to a virtual reconstruction of the most important clauses of the Act of 1881. Nor does the hon. Gentleman, in his speech, at all attempt to disguise that fact, for he tells us plainly that the Land Question in Ireland is not settled. He invites us, by reading his Bill a second time, under cover of the speech, and with the illustration of the speech which has introduced it—he invites us to agree with him in the assertion that the Land Question of Ireland is not settled. But I said I must notice some words of his speech, apart from the provisions of his Bill, which I have described as a virtual reconstruction of the Land Act. In those provisions and in that virtual reconstruction it is impossible for us to concur. We have at no time since the passing of the Land Act used any word, or done any acts, which would justify, in any way, anyone in supposing that we were prepared to concur, or, so far as we are concerned, to allow any disturbance of its fundamental provisions. But the hon. Member had added words which, I confess, I heard with some degree of surprise from him, and with a great degree of pain; for he did not scruple to say that the Irish tenantry were unable to pay the rack rents which the Courts were imposing upon them. The hon. Gentleman is not in the habit of using words in this House which he has not well weighed. No man, as far as I can judge, is more successful than the hon. Member in doing that which it is commonly supposed that all speakers do, but which, in my opinion, few really do—and I do not include myself among those few—namely, in saying what he means to say. If the hon. Gentleman means to say that the rents which are now being fixed by the Court in Ireland in the honest administration of the Land Act—in the administration of the Land Act which has been sometimes, I think, though unsuccessfully, impugned from the quarter of the House in which the hon. Member sits, but which with regard to other quarters of the House is admitted to be an honest administration—if he says these rents are to be qualified as rack rents which the tenantry of Ireland are unable to pay, that declaration of itself, coming from a person in the position of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and indicative probably of future policy,
    482
    is of the nature of a most serious warning to those who occupy the place of responsible Ministers of the Crown, as to the language they are to hold, and as to the expectations which they are to encourage, with respect to the Land Act in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has quoted words used by the Earl of Derby, which appear to me to be very wise and just words. He drew a just distinction between amendments going to the root of the important provisions of the Land Act, and what he termed amendments of detail. On former occasions in this House, I have admitted that there were amendments of detail which might, in favourable circumstances, fairly claim the attention of Parliament. There was one point—not of very great urgency—which, in the course of the discussion of the Land Bill, was treated as a matter open to consideration, but a matter with which we were not able to deal satisfactorily at the time, and which might, on any convenient opportunity, be taken up. That was the question of the present state of the law with regard to what are termed town parks, and the question whether any part, and, if so, what portion of the provisions of the Land Act should be made applicable to that class of holding. There was a question touched upon to-day by my hon. Friend (Mr. Dickson) which I heard with a good deal of sympathy on general grounds—with regard to the date from which the judicial rent should run. That is a matter with respect to which, under favourable circumstances, we should have been glad to make a proposal, and as to which I do not hesitate to say it might have been made in perfect conformity both with the declaration and spirit of the Act. But even that question—which would fairly come under the distinction drawn by the Earl of Derby as a point of detail in contradistinction to a point of principle—even that question, I am bound to say, is immersed in serious difficulties by the provisions with which it is combined in the Bill of the hon. Gentleman. Again, with respect to leases, Her Majesty's Government have all along in these discussions adopted with decision the principle that they would not attempt to interfere with rents stipulated in leases, unless in certain special, strictly defined,

    483
    and exceptional cases. I am inclined to admit there are certain cases with regard to which exceptions ought to be reconsidered—might be reconsidered with advantage—not in the least degree in the sense of departing from the principles and functions of the Act, but merely giving clearer and fuller effect to it. But it is quite obvious that that would not satisfy the object of the Bill now before us. The hon. Gentleman has, with perfect frankness and ingenuousness, told us that the Land Question in Ireland not only is not settled, but cannot be settled, unless the principal provisions of his Bill are passed into law. Among these unquestionably are the provisions with regard to the judicial reconsideration of rents payable under leases, just as much as the reconsideration of rents payable under yearly covenant or tenure, and the removal of the retrospective limits with respect to improvements. But neither of these propositions can Her Majesty's Government hold out an expectation of their finding themselves able to consider. They believe that the main work of the Land Act is being done. They do not deny—they cannot deny—that there may be, that there must be, cases of inequitable rents levied in certain cases under leases. But it is impossible, it is not within human power and wisdom, it is not within the scope of the work of the Legislature, to attempt to deal with all those cases individually. What we have to do is to attempt to strike an equitable balance between conflicting interests, to proceed upon principles of equity applied, as far as we can, with impartiality all round; and it would be idle, it would be charlatanage, on the part of any responsible Minister, to profess that he was able to devise a remedy, that he was able to recommend a remedy, in every case of possible unfairness or injustice that can be alleged. I think the reasons I have stated will show that we think it an essential part of our duty to make it clearly understood that we can give no encouragement, either en the ground of crime, as stated by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), or on any other ground, for entertaining hopes of the disturbance of the provisions of the Land Act contained in this Bill. And with respect to those ominous words of the hon. Gentleman, that the rents now
    484
    being fixed by the Courts are to be regarded as rack rents, and that the people of Ireland are unable to pay them, I venture respectfully to differ from the hon. Gentleman, both upon the principle and upon the fact. I think it is rather hard that when Parliament has adopted a very strong and exceptional—although, in my opinion—a perfectly legitimate and justifiable—measure of appointing a public judicial authority to reconsider private contracts, the administration of that great function, the action of that judicial authority, should be struck at in its very root and principle by the declaration of a responsible popular Leader in Ireland, and that those whose absolute and solemn duty it is to do justice between landlord and tenant should be described in one sweeping sentence by that popular Leader, not as struggling to do their duty to the best of their ability, but as reproducing in a new form the old evils, and saddling upon the tenantry of Ireland rents which do not truly represent the interest of landlords and tenants in the value of the land. I also differ from the hon. Gentleman upon the fact. I do not believe that the state of Ireland at this moment, speaking generally, bears him out in the assertion that the tenantry of Ireland are unable to pay the rents which have been, fixed, the rents which are being agreed upon, the rents which are likely to be fixed by the Court, and, in imitation of the Court, by voluntary agreement. But I go one step further, and say I not only do not believe they are unable to pay those rents, but I believe that they are not unwilling to pay them; that they are showing at this moment a laudable and general anxiety to fulfil the contracts into which they have entered, the provisions of those contracts being brought, in the peculiar circumstances of their case, within the limits of the powers they possess, and what may fairly be expected from them. I hope that the hon. Member for the City of Cork will, in one respect, not only firmly, but, perhaps, I may say indignantly, repudiate the imputation—if it were so intended—of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and that he will give to him and the House an assurance—I am bound to say I should accept it with perfect credit—that that renewed crusade, which he may possibly be understood to announce to-day, will

    485
    be conducted within the strict limits of legality and free discussion, and that no countenance will be given to those who may seek to disturb the peace of the country or to disobey the law of the land. I have already, I think, stated quite enough to warrant the conclusion of the Government, which hardly needs to be announced, that they can promise no support of the Bill of the hon. Gentleman, and cannot enter into an undertaking which would be entirely at variance with their positive declarations that they cannot assent to any proposals which would disturb the main provisions of the Land Act. But it may be said—"Do you intend to introduce any Bill with respect to matters of detail, such as those you have glanced at?" We do not intend to introduce any such Bill, and for two reasons, which, I think, will at once commend themselves sufficiently to the House. It is quite evident that, even if circumstances were otherwise favourable to such an undertaking, any proposal by the Government to alter in some unobjectionable, manner the date from which the judicial rents should run, or deal with any other matter of that class in such a Bill, would be naturally fastened upon, possibly by opponents of the principle, but at any rate by those who, without opposing the principle, would endeavour to widen the narrow opening which it made, and to introduce into it every sort of important and organic change, going to effect a disturbance of the provisions of the Act. The need for such amendments of detail is, in my view, a secondary need; and I am not prepared to undertake to burden this House with an embarrassment such as that, in addition to its other embarrassments. In truth, Sir, it is our duty to consider not only what are the subjects it is desirable to deal with in this House, but, ere we give the slightest encouragement to any important proposal, to consider also what would be our means of giving effect to that proposal. I am bound to say, Sir, that I see no means by which we can, at this date, upon any matter of importance, add to the engagements we have already undertaken. It would be a delusion, I think, if we were to entertain or to cherish a hope of being able to add to those engagements. These are, in my opinion, very adequate reasons against our introducing any Bill
    486
    ourselves with respect to those secondary questions of the Land Act; and it is quite obvious that it would be the very same thing if, instead of introducing such a Bill, we were to promise support to such a Bill of a secondary character in the hands of some other Member; because one knows what would happen. The Member would introduce his Bill. He would in vain struggle for an evening for the second reading; he would pass from one day to another without making any progress until, when the Session had made a considerable advancement, and he would have an irresistible case in the month of Juno for a demand upon our time, if we were committed to the substance of what he proposed. We should have to meet that demand exactly in the same way, whether we introduced the Bill ourselves, or whether we supported it in the hands of another Member. The House will feel that upon those secondary questions these practical and secondary reasons are quite sufficient. But with regard to the greater question, I need not do more than repeat that, although I am exceedingly sorry to have to meet such demands at this date, after such an Act as the Act of 1881, in regard to such a question as the Land Act of Ireland; though I am grieved that this amount of desire should exist on the part of a portion—perhaps a considerable portion—of the Irish Members for such a change; yet, looking at the interests of the Empire as a whole—looking especially at the interests of Ireland—looking at the sacrifices which we have demanded and exacted from certain classes in Ireland with reference to what we thought the demands of public justice required—it would be a violation of our duty were we now to give encouragement to a demand for new sacrifices, which we do not think, in the main, justice requires. While I am quite sure, as regards the people of Ireland, if it be true that, according to the judgment and the conscience of Parliament, we have done substantially that which is a just and real satisfaction to their demands, and made a fair and an equitable provision for their interests, we cannot be too clear in announcing to them that they will receive, from us at least, no encouragement to entertaining further schemes and further proposals of change, to which we are not prepared to give

    487
    effect, and which we do not believe would be either for the honour or for the advantage of that country.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the Prime Minister had been pleased to compliment the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) on the rave faculty of being able to say exactly what he meant. He (Mr. Sexton) might, upon this occasion, return the compliment. It was a compliment that could not be always paid to the right hon. Gentleman; but, on the present occasion, he had left them in no doubt of his meaning. He had nothing to give them, and nothing to promise them; and they were perfect^ satisfied with the nature of the position which he had taken up. And the right hon. Gentleman had not only said what he meant, but he had gained from a section of Members in the House, who did not usually admire him, the credit of being particularly eloquent. The Prime Minister might, perhaps, be pleased to hear that hon. Gentlemen on the Tory Benches were in raptures with his speech, and considered that he was never so eloquent in his life as he was to-day. The House would not expect him (Mr. Sexton) to pay much attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). That hon. Gentleman was the evangelist of an obsolete creed; his view was that the land of the country, which was essential to the health of the people, should be allowed to be held under such conditions as pleased the landowners; but that theory could not find acceptance with responsible politicians; and landowners would have to understand that they held property subject to the rules of equity and the dictates of public interest. The assertion of the hon. Member that proposals with reference to Irish land were simply proposals to take it from one class and give it to others was one that had been made in that House ever since the first measure of agrarian reform was proposed, and by this time it was as dreary as a thrice-told tale vexing the ear of a drowsy man. The hon. Member's speech was an example of the axiom that a little knowledge was a dangerous thing. He certainly had very little knowledge of the Irish Land Question. His speech was full of those vague generalities, pathetic appeals, and declarations, which showed how far a-little knowledge would go coupled with a
    488
    large amount of self-appreciation. He (Mr. Sexton) declined to accept the accuracy of the statement of the Prime Minister, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his hon. Friends were opponents of the Land Act of 1882. They never took up a position in respect to that Act which entitled any person to accurately describe them as its opponents. That they were unwilling, considering the gravity and urgency of the interests at stake, to make themselves responsible for that Bill in the shape in which it left the House he admitted; but when once it became the law of the land their efforts had been—and he challenged contradiction—consistently and thoroughly governed by one spirit and one object, and that spirit was a regard for the public good, and that object was to endeavour to make the Act as effective for its purpose as possible. All their efforts in that House and else-whore had been directed to the object of inducing the Government so to reform and make plenary the provisions of that Act as to make it an effective instrument for the amelioration of the condition of the people. The Prime Minister appeared to be conscious that no powerful argument on his side could be drawn from the operation of the Act. He had not only dwelt on the number of cases heard in Court, and on the number of agreements made outside, but he had also resorted to what he (Mr. Sexton) was bound to denounce as an illegitimate argument, for he had taken credit for what he called the unknown operation of the Act, which the knowledge of Members did not enable them to estimate. There were no agreements between landlords and tenants which were not registered in Court, and he declined to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the region of imagination. The right hon. Gentleman prided himself on the rate of speed attained by the Court; but the figures he cited described the experiment of the last month—the experiment of the double set of valuers—and did not furnish sufficient data for argument. If cases were being heard at the rate of 100 a day it was doubtful whether that was a matter for unqualified satisfaction, for in their eagerness to show a large tale of daily cases the Commissioners were said to be scurrying over the farms at breakneck speed, and declining to examine the improvements

    489
    made by tenants. The right hon. Gentleman was never more egregiously in error than when he said that the large proportion of the tenants of Ireland were satisfied with their present position. If he had facts to justify that statement, why did he not give them to the House? Did he expect the House to rest satisfied upon that bare assumption? He maintained that there was nothing in any part of Ireland or in the current history of the country to enable the Prime Minister to declare that a large body, or even an appreciable body, of the tenants were satisfied with their position. Where, if anywhere, should content be looked for if not in Ulster, in the Province which gave the right hon. Gentleman followers like the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), whom he complimented by contrasting them with other Irish Members. Yet the hon. Member for Tyrone would confirm him when he said that, at a meeting lately held in Belfast, attended by delegates from eight of the Ulster counties, constituting an assembly thoroughly representative of the opinions of the tenant farmers of Ulster, there was unanimous condemnation of the proceedings of the Land Commissioners, and unqualified discontent with the condition of the tenants. It was of no use speaking of the poor farmers of the South and West, who would be called disloyal and anti-English; but in the model Province, which alone sent the right hon. Gentleman any supporters, there was not even the smallest appreciable body of tenants who were satisfied with the working of the Land Act. The right hon. Gentleman referred in stern, and almost menacing tones to the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, that the rents being fixed by the Land Courts were rack rents which tenants would be unable to pay. But was it not notorious that they were high above the level of Griffith's valuation? The Government appeared to be either ashamed or afraid to let the facts be known, for the last Returns that were available were for the month of August; and these showed that all over Ireland the rents were 15 per cent over Griffith's valuation, which was made 30 years ago, and then included all the improvements made by the tenants up to that date. Was the hon. Member for the City of Cork not, therefore, justified in saying that a rent which
    490
    was 15 per cent above that was a rent which confiscated the tenants' improvements, and which was, therefore, deserving of being called a rack rent? If the Prime Minister would not believe the hon. Member for the City of Cork, perhaps he would believe one of his own Commissioners, Professor Baldwin, probably the only one of the nondescript and heterogeneous crowd of Sub-Commissioners who deserved a respectful hearing. Professor Baldwin had staked his reputation on the statement that the rents that were being fixed were such as the tenants would not be able to pay for a series of years. Let the Prime Minister, before he denounced the hon. Member for the City of Cork, show cause against Professor Baldwin. There were several reasons why this Bill should have commanded from the Government a different reception. In spite of the tone of the Prime Minister's speech, it was not a now proposal; it was a reproduction of the Bill brought forward last year by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond.) There was an instructive contrast between the reception given to the Bill of to-day and the reception given to this identical Bill last year. Why did the Prime Minister hold out hope last year, and why did he deny it now? Last year outrages were being committed all over Ireland, and last year the Prime Minister had no stringent Coercion Act in his hand. He had simply the Bill of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), which proved to be as complete a failure as a Bill as the right hon. Gentleman himself proved to be as a politician. Now, however, the case was different. Outrages had practically ceased in Ireland. The Prime Minister had an Act which practically placed in his hands all liberty of speech and action, and his speech that day pointed the sad and sinister moral that in seasons of quiet the people of Ireland were to expect nothing. In seasons when Ministers had no repressive measures in their hands they were ready enough to promise; but when a condition of tranquillity returned, and they had in their hands the engines of repression, they were ready enough to meet the Constitutional demands for reform with stern and even with menacing language. On behalf of this Bill there was such a union of Irish opinion as had not been behind any

    491
    measure in that House for many years. It was the Bill of the whole body of the tenant farmers of Ireland, and of their Representatives in the House of Commons. Hon. Gentlemen from Ulster united with those below the Gangway on the Opposition side in demanding the main proposals of this measure; and it was idle for the Prime Minister to attempt, by equivocal compliments, to separate the Home Rulers from the Representatives of Ulster on this question. The Prime Minister had described this Bill as a virtual reconstruction of the Land Act. He denied the correctness of that description. He said it was nothing more than a logical and irresistable development and completion of the Land Act of 1881; and although the Prime Minister told the House that he could hold out no hope, he (Mr. Sexton) asserted that every clause of this Bill would one day become law. The reply they had received from the Prime Minister would have a healthy influence—it would teach the Irish people once again the lesson that their reliance must be not on the convenience of Ministers, nor on a sense of justice in that House, but on that quality of self-reliance in themselves which was the sole final force in politics, and that force would alone be strong enough to beat down the prejudices of Ministers and the hostility of classes. The Prime Minister had never before made a speech dealing with an argumentative subject in which he so obstinately forbore to approach the merits of the question. It was admitted that the subject of town parks was in a state of chaos. Not even the lawyers knew what a town park was. On the 6th of March last year the Prime Minister thought some legislation might be desirable on the question of town parks; but he did not seem to think so now. They were endeavouring by this Bill to obtain the admission of leaseholders within the pale of the Land Act, and it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of this point. The leaseholders of Ireland were considerably over 100,000 in number, and they held nearly half of the most valuable of the arable land of the country. Up to a few years ago they were the most solvent and best protected of the Irish tenantry; but now while the tenant-at-will, who a few years ago was the slave of the landlord, had the protection of the Land Act, the
    492
    leaseholder found himself bound hand and foot in the ties of an oppressive covenant. There never was a more egregious fallacy than the idea that a leaseholder in Ireland had freedom of contract. Mr. Justice O'Hagan had made the significant statement that the Land Court had not broken a single lease which could not have been broken in a-Court of Equity—in other words, that the Land Act had added nothing in the case of leaseholders to the previous state of the law. That being so, after the Act had been in operation a year and a half, they were told that the provisions which had proved so ineffectual did not require amendment, and that the leaseholders, suffering from higher rents than were imposed on tenants-at-will, were to be left outside the operation of the Act. So long as that continued, it was absurd for hon. Members to profess to believe that the Irish Land Question was settled. It was not settled, and it would not be settled until the claims of the leaseholders were satisfied. Let him remind the Prime Minister of what he had said on the subject last year. He said—
    "The question of the Lease Clauses was one of those I had in view, when I said that, at a certain time, the Government would think it right to state their intentions with respect to the various points of importance connected with the Land Act. These points are the Purchase Clauses, the Lease Clauses, and the clause with respect to labourers. I do not, however, think it would be of any advantage to make a statement on the subject until we see our way to the conclusion of the proceedings connected with, the two Bills now before the House—namely, the Prevention of Crime Bill and the Bill dealing with Arrears of Kent."—(3 Hansard, [270] 1589.)
    Those Bills were passed into law last year; and now, after the lapse of the greater part of a year, when a state of affairs had arisen that the Government had some control over the Business of the House, and the relief also by the delegation of part of the Business to Committees, the Prime Minister had practically falsified the pledge he gave by informing the House that he would not take any steps in the matter of the leaseholders. He would remind the House that the Bill brought in by the Irish Members last year contained certain clauses dealing with the question of arrears. The Government admitted that these clauses were well and carefully drawn, and they embodied these clauses in a Bill of their own. That Bill, in

    493
    spite of the debilitating Amendments introduced in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, had contributed much to the tranquillity of Ireland. The Prime Minister, in his speech to-day, carefully avoided any reference to the judgment in "Adams v. Dunseath." He (Mr. Sexton) was not a lawyer any more than his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and he did not profess to be able to state with more accuracy than the hon. Member for the City of Cork the effect of that judgment; but he could state it in a manner that the House would understand it. The effect, to his mind, was that if the tenant made improvements in the soil they were not to be regarded as his property, but only as giving a right to a certain percentage in respect to the money expended. The miserable position of the tenant was that if he borrowed £100 from the Board of Works for the purpose of improving his holding, he had to pay the Board interest at the rate of £6 10 s. per annum, whereas the landlord only paid him £5 per annum. The skill, labour, and time of the tenant went all for nothing. The second disastrous result of that judgment was that in regard to improvements executed before the year 1870 usage would be held to compensate the tenant for improving the soil. That theory was obviously immoral, as was any theory which would take away from the tenant the capital he put into the soil in the shape of his time, his labour, and his skill; and no lapse of time, even until the crack of doom, could make the property of the tenant become the property of the landlord. They took their stand on that fundamental principle, and the provisions of the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for the City of Cork were intended to carry that principle into effect. If a tenant, by the expenditure of £100, should make the land worth £20 a-year more, that £20 should belong to him, and not to the landlord. Before he passed from the judgment in "Adams v. Dunseath," he would say of it, in the words of the Prime Minister, that it had virtually destroyed and pulverized the intentions of the framers of the Act. The present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was a Member of the Government when the Act was passed, ought to be a judge of that, and he had said so. He was Attorney General when the Bill was
    494
    passing into law, and he ought to know the intentions of the Government in regard to this matter better than the six Judges who opposed him in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath." The Lord Chancellor held that a tenant should not be rented upon his improvements. The words of the Prime Minister on the 9th of August, 1881, had been quoted in the debate already; and he would take leave to quote the words of the Prime Minister in reply to a Question of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He said it was perfectly clear, as had been correctly stated by the hon. Member, that it was not the intention of the framers of the Bill, but directly contrary to their intention, that the interest of the tenant in his improvements should ever lapse or be impaired by his enjoyment of them. What had the Prime Minister to say in his own defence? The Court of Appeal in Ireland, the six Judges of which were landlords themselves, had decided that after a tenant had enjoyed his improvements for a certain time the landlord might charge him rent upon them. They gave this decision against the vote of the Lord Chancellor, who was the only man with a knowledge of the intentions of the framers of the Act. Here there was a radical contradiction; and no reference by the Prime Minister to the state of Public Business, or the recency of the Land Act, could save him from the very serious charge of allowing the Court of Appeal to override his own declared intentions, and thus to render the Land Act useless for the purpose he himself declared it was brought in. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had spoken of pilfering and plundering from the Irish landlords; but this showed them the stealthy and subtle process by which the tenants had been pilfered of their improvements in the soil. It was not merely pilfering and plundering, it was picking and stealing, the most disgraceful and complete system of petty larceny that ever existed on the face of the earth. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) might say "Oh, oh!" He was not astonished at that, for the hon. and gallant Member, not content with doubling the rents of his poor tenants on the mountain sides, inaugurated a new régime by charging them for the turf his ancestors had allowed them to cut free of charge.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: That is not true.
    MR. SEXTON: I did not catch the observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The statement is absolutely untrue.
    MR. SEXTON: I speak from the authority of the Special Commissioner of The Freeman's Journal.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Who was absolutely contradicted by me in The Freeman's Journal at the time.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, his recollection was that the letter of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not an absolute contradiction. He endeavoured to show that the rate paid on the turf did not result in any profit to himself; but he did not deny that the rate had been imposed; and the fact was undeniable. Lord O'Hagan had admitted, in the case of the two tenants Dillon and Hanrahan in the West of Ireland, that he was obliged to lower the rents fixed by the Sub-Commission, in one case £4 a-year, and in the other £3 a-year, in consequence of the decision in the "Adams v. Dunseath" case. That was only one instance; but how many cases were there of the kind scattered all over Ireland in which the tenants would be robbed of their property? He passed from that part of the subject to say a few words on the Purchase Clauses. He should have thought the House, and all Parties in the House, would have been eager to carry out some such development of those clauses as would have been likely to render them effective; but it did not appear likely to prove so. It was certain that; the clauses of the Act of 1881 dealing with this matter had proved a complete failure. He did not know how much money had been paid out now; but he found that the total sum advanced up to June, 1882, was £10. There were, no doubt, several causes which led to this failure. He believed that the unsatisfactory reductions made in the Land Court were one cause; but he also believed that as long as the tenants were obliged to advance one-fourth of the purchase money, so long would no appreciable advance be made in the question of purchase. The Prime Minister, some time ago, when challenged on this subject, said he was unwilling to make any proposal until the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
    496
    Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) was disposed of. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster had hung fire. He had placed a very remarkable and formidable Notice on the Notice Paper of the House, setting forth the necessity of dealing with the question of purchase in Ireland. For one reason or another the right hon. Gentleman had, however, retired from the position he had taken up, and the Tory Party had done nothing on the subject, although that Party, in "another place," had lately made a very remarkable and significant declaration. He (Mr. Sexton) should have opined that now the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would have been able to deal with the subject. The people of Ireland had lately passed through a period of very great misery, the state of things in some parts of the country amounting to famine, and many of the tenants had been reduced to a condition of absolute pennilessness. The result was that those who had the most need of purchasing and escaping from the grip of their landlords were exactly the men who, by the operation of the rack rents, had been, deprived of all their money, and were absolutely unable to pay any part of the purchase money. That being the case, the proposal of Irish Members was that the whole of the purchase money should be advanced to such tenants, at the discretion of the Land Commission; and it could be trusted to exercise that discretion wisely, and with a view to provide that the security should be ample. But it was impossible to do anything in the matter so long as the law made it necessary for the tenant to advance any portion of the purchase money. However, in spite of the action of the Tory Party, in spite of the declaration of the Prime Minister last year, in spite of the unanimity with which both Parties in the State recognized that something was required to be done on this question, in spite of the agreement of Lords and Commons, Whigs and Tories, Irishmen and Englishmen, the Prime Minister on this question maintained the some obstinate and chilling silence as he had observed on other parts of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had a strong Coercion Act in his hand and a tranquil Ireland; but still he thought it consistent with his duty to turn a deaf ear to their arguments. The Irish people,

    497
    however, thrown back upon the resources of the national intelligence, would be able to advance such constant and persistent appeals as would, at no very distant date, make every clause of the Bill the law of the land. They had been told, in reply to appeals for Irish legislation, that the relative importance of the various measures before the House must be considered. He (Mr. Sexton) said that no legislation required for England—a rich and prosperous country—could possibly be as urgent as the legislation required in the interests of the fortunes and of the very lives of the people of a poor and struggling country like Ireland. As long as there remained in any part of the Queen's Dominions large bodies of men who were not sure from day to day of a home, or even of the means of maintaining life, so long would measures of primary necessity and absolute urgency occupy the attention of the House, and no other measures required by the English people could equal them in importance. The demands put forward in this Bill, extravagant as they might seem, were the least that could be made, and every day Parliament delayed to meet the requirements of the case increased the difficulty of the final settlement—a difficulty which would be felt by landlords as well as by tenants. Landlords who would be driven by the Land Courts to sell their estates would presently have to appeal, ad misericordiam, to their tenants, and ask them to buy. Unless some arrangement were made to assist purchases, the condition of these landlords would be grievous and miserable indeed. It was in the ultimate interest of the landlord, as well as of the tenant, that the present proposal was made; and he deeply regretted the unsympathetic and, as he thought, unstatesmanlike attitude assumed by the Prime Minister on the question. He foresaw that much difficulty and confusion would arise in the country in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to consider the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had made a considerate and encouraging reply, promising that this year or next year he would give adequate consideration to the question, he would have taken a course which would have been more consistent with the dignity of Parliament, and more conducive to the economy of public time.
    MR. BRYCEwished to state, on behalf of some of the independent supporters of the Government, that while their feeling was one of sympathy with the difficulties in which the Government found themselves, it was also one of regret that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had not found it possible to say something more encouraging, not only to those Members from whom the Bill proceeded, but to those Members who were bringing in an Ulster Bill. The Bill before the House was undoubtedly open to the objection that it was almost a reconstruction of the Act of 1881; but while he would not go so far as to say that those who sat on the Liberal side of the House below the Gangway were prepared to support all, or very nearly all, the proposals of the Bill, still there were in it some extremely valuable provisions, and particularly those which also found a place in the Bill of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson). There were three points of the utmost consequence dealt with in these Bills—the question of leases, the date at which the judicial rent should begin, and the question of improvements. The question of leases did not stand on the same footing in Ireland as in England or Scotland; for the same principles, the same moral, equitable, and historical considerations which led the House to pass the Act of 1881, were applicable in the cases of Irish leaseholders. The right of the tenant to his own improvements had been fully admitted by the Prime Minister when the Act of 1881 was being passed; and it was obviously right and just that the judicial rent should date from the time at which, but for difficulties not attributable to the fault of the tenant, his application ought to have been entertained. It was true that English constituencies were anxious for English legislation; but nothing was so important as that the work of 1881 should be brought to its proper completion. Parliament was in the position of persons who had built a great ship and fitted it up for a distant voyage. When the ship started it was found that she leaked, or that the machinery failed to work properly. The fact that the ship was so valuable, and the profit expected from her voyage so great, furnished an excellent reason for

    499
    stopping at the first port and repairing these defects. In addition to this circumstance, great consideration must always be due to the complaints of hon. Members from Ulster, that portion of Ireland which had always been attached to the English connection, and where law and order had not been endangered during the late crisis. He regretted the doctrine that nothing was to be done for Ireland until she had remained for some time quiet and peaceful. We were bound to look upon the three countries as one united nation, and to pay the greatest attention to that part of the nation which most needed it. From that point of view Irish questions had still the first claim on our attention. England would not suffer in the long run. She had suffered in the past from neglecting Irish questions. It was a reflection, so often repeated as to have become a truism, that concessions and benefits to Ireland invariably came too late, and that if they had come in time they would have had infinitely more good effect. He submitted that they should not give occasion again for the repetition of that reflection; and he ventured to express a hope that in spite of the difficulties which the Prime Minister had stated, and others which they must be prepared to encounter, the questions raised in the Bill would be taken up and dealt with either in the present Session, or, at latest, in the next.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had expressed regret at the manner in which Her Majesty's Government had determined to overlook the claims of that portion of the United Kingdom called Ireland. He (Mr. O'Donnell) looked at the matter in a somewhat different light, and he was glad that the Premier had cast aside the mask, and that to-day Her Majesty's Government had furnished the Irish Party with indubitable and irrefutable proof that the policy of that Party would have to be much firmer in order to obtain proper influence over the counsels of the rulers of the British Empire. He was also glad to see that the Government had treated with marked contempt and neglect Ulster and the other portions of Ireland. The English Government long played the part of patron of Ulster in order to thwart the national claims of Ireland; and he was glad to
    500
    see now that the English Government were ready even to sacrifice Ulster to British prejudice and British caprice. He ought to remind the Liberal Representatives of Ulster that he had always warned them that if they severed themselves from their brethren of the South they would be left in the lurch. He thought it was a very fortunate thing for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that he would not require to woo the suffrages of the electors of Londonderry for some time to come; and he thought that even the placard of "Vote for Porter and fair rents" would fail to induce these canny Northerners to renew their confidence in the Attorney General and a Liberal Ministry. For a long time past, while approving the spirit in which Irish agitation had been carried on, he (Mr. O'Donnell) had not failed to lay stress on the necessity of widening and strengthening the national agitation; and he was quite sure what had taken place that day would brace up the nerves and sinews, and rouse up the energies of the Irish people throughout the world to a much more resolute, systematic, and effective maintenance of Irish national rights. He congratulated the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that he would be able to present himself before the representatives of the Irish race in America with such a report of that day's deliberations that would be most dear and welcome to the representatives of their race in all parts of the United States. The Government had taken a new departure. He conjured his countrymen to take a new departure also. What the Prime Minister had said on the occasion of the Bill brought in last year by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) was now given to the winds. It was now a case of the Irish nation against all who might choose to challenge its right; and if that nation was only true to itself, to-day would be the beginning of the decisive victory of their demands.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he wished to correct one or two misrepresentations which had been made by the hon. Member who had just sat down, and also by hon. Gentlemen sitting near him. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) represented that the opposition to this Bill by the Prime Minister

    501
    was a new departure. Anyone would suppose from language of that description that the Prime Minister, when a Bill similar to this was introduced last year, had welcomed its introduction, and expressed his approval of its provisions. The contrary was the fact. When a Bill similar to this was introduced last year, the Prime Minister said he could not support it, and that he felt bound to oppose it. That Bill contained two matters independent of the Tenure Clauses, which the Prime Minister thought were matters that might be separately dealt with—the question of arrears and the Purchase Clauses; but the right hon. Gentleman expressly excepted these two matters from the general provisions of the Bill, saying that while they might properly be dealt with without disturbing the Act of 1881 he could not support the other clauses. He had said—
    "While considering that the Tenure Clauses of the Bill ought not to be disturbed at the present time, there were matters outside them in respect of which the objection does not hold."
    The hon. Member opposite had said that the Bill was opposed because Ireland was not in a disturbed state. Why, at that time last year when his right hon. Friend opposed the Bill, and pointed only to two matters having reference to arrears and purchase which he made exceptional, crime in Ireland was at its maximum. As to the Bill before the House, what were its main principles? It was, in effect a complete revolution of the provisions of the Act of 1881. He might claim to know something of that Act, as he was present during the whole of the discussion that took place upon it; and he said that the Bill was deliberately brought forward for the purpose of reopening matters which were settled by the Land Act, and to completely revolutionize the character of that settlement. Why was it that that House was induced to pass the Land Act? It was because they believed that as between landlord and tenant, under the existing law, injustice was being done to the tenant. He was not going into the question as to whether they were right or wrong in that; but he would say that they would do an absolute injustice and wrong to the landlord by giving to the tenant that which he could never properly claim as his. It was said that the tenant improved the land, and that the landlord
    502
    raised the rent upon those improvements and confiscated them. But the question was, What were the improvements which belonged to the tenant? In that Bill they were seeking to declare that that was the property of the tenant which could not in any sense be called his. The proposition that a law, however unjust in itself, should be passed in order to satisfy the tenantry of Ireland or the Representatives of Ireland, was one that he hoped would never be admitted for a moment in that House. What were the main substantial provisions of this Bill? There were four sections of it that must be read together in order to see what the real drift of the Bill was. Those were the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th sections. The 4th proposed to define as an improvement every act of agriculture which improved the letting value of the land. Every increase of letting value resulting from an improvement so defined was all to be the property of the tenant. That was the next provision. In Clause 6 they were to presume that, from a time indefinitely back, every improvement made had been done by the tenant or his predecessors in title. And, in the last place, they were to include as a man's predecessors in title any man who, with title or not, had before him occupied the land. They had heard about the prairie value. Hon. Members opposite had contended that all the landlord was entitled to was the prairie value, and this was a Bill for depriving him of anything but the prairie value. It proposed that prairie value should be the test of fair rent, and that anything beyond that should be the property of the tenant in occupation of the land. Would any hon. Member say that was a provision to be accepted as a necessary, just, and righteous provision? It was said, sap-posing money was spent upon a tenancy which increased the letting value, then that increase was necessarily the property of the tenant, which they should compensate him for as his improvement. He denied that proposition. The Court of Appeal in Ireland had, not by a majority, but unanimously, held that that was not the true view. The Court of Appeal had not held that which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had represented. They had not held that if

    503
    a tenant borrowed £100 to improve his holding, he should be allowed only 5 per cent interest upon his improvements. They had never said anything of the kind; it would be ridiculous if they had. But suppose a tenant spent £100 upon his land, and by reason of its improvable character—which was part of the value of the land—made it worth £20 a-year more, that was not all to be regarded as the property of the tenant, because it was not all produced either by his money, his industry, or his skill; it resulted from that which was the property of the landlord—the improvable character of the land itself. Suppose two tenants spent each £100 upon his tenancy, and applied equal skill and energy to the work. In the case of the one the £100 so invested made the land worth £20 more; but in the case of the other it enhanced the value only by £5. What made the difference? Simply the inherent qualities in the land. That gave the extra value, and these no more belonged to the tenant than the land itself. Therefore, the judgment in "Adams v. Dunseath" on that point was perfectly correct. He maintained that the provision in Clause 5 was not only opposed to the decision in that case, but was manifestly unjust. They must take this scheme as a whole, and, taking it in that way, it came to nothing but this—thateverythingbeyond prairie value would be deemed, unless the contrary was proved, to be the property of the tenant, and on the basis of that alone ought fair rent to be fixed. It was said that the decision in "Adams v. Dunseath" had seriously affected the interest of the tenant. He believed, on the contrary, that, as regards this point, the effect had been but small. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) said—"Why not go on and complete the Land Act?" If this were only a Bill for amending imperfect details in that measure, there would be something to say for it; but there was something a great deal vaster in it than amending the details of the Act of 1881—it would be making a vital, substantial, and enormous change. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had urged that the landlords ought to hold their property according to the judgments of equity. Yes; but so ought the tenants; and they must hold the balance fair and
    504
    straight between them. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) declared that the Land Court even now was fixing rack rents. He would remind the hon. Member that someone or other must, between different parties, be left to judge. It was quite impossible to leave the tenants to fix their own rents. No doubt, the probability—nay, the certainty—was that the rents which had been fixed had not all been exactly what they should be; but that was inevitable in any tribunal. But how was this matter over to be dealt with if the hon. Member for the City of Cork was thus to seek to discredit every tribunal that was striving fairly to act between all parties? Suppose this Bill were passed to-morrow, the hon. Member might say exactly the same thing still. He (the Solicitor General) supposed he proposed to go on saying it until rents were reduced to nothing at all, and then, probably, he would admit they were not too high. In spite of anything that hon. Members below the Gangway might say, he believed that the present Government had given sufficient proof, during the last two or three Sessions, of their earnestness of purpose to give to the Irish agricultural tenant everything that might in fairness be deemed his due; and he protested against the notion that on every occasion on which the Government did not see its way to adopt views put before them by hon. Members opposite, they were to be told that the House was hostile to Irish interests and Irish ideas, and was determined to give no satisfaction to the Irish people. But beyond granting the just demands of the Irish tenants it was impossible for the Government to go; and, indeed, no Government with any respect for themselves could yield to the demands which had been put forward on behalf of the Irish agriculturists. The Prime Minister had resisted this Bill also on the ground that it involved details raising points of enormous difficulty, which could not be considered at the present moment without interfering with much-needed and long-deferred legislation for England and Scotland; and, for his own part, he saw no reason why the attention of Parliament should be entirely occupied in legislating for one portion of the United Kingdom, to the exclusion of the other and larger portion.
    MR. SHAWsaid, he thought that those who had opposed this Bill had greatly exaggerated its scope—to talk about its depriving the owners of any but the prairie value of their land was absurd. For his own part, he would not support the Bill if he thought it revolutionized the measure of 1881; but the fact was that it dealt with two or three points which all men of practical knowledge in Ireland agreed ought to be dealt with. To his mind, there could be no more suitable time than the present for dealing with the question raised by the Bill, for if there were defects in the Land Act they ought to be remedied at once. The one class in Ireland which should endeavour more than any other to hasten a final settlement of this question was the landlord class. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill made a menace, somewhat unwisely, of renewed agitation in Ireland, and thus marred a moderate and useful speech. But who provoked agitation? Decidedly the parties who set themselves resolutely to oppose anything like reform. Nevertheless, the hon. Member had made out a very good case for the amendment of the Act, and had put forward a very moderate proposal with the view of remedying its defects. Many things which hon. Gentlemen had said in the course of this discussion they would never have thought of saying if they were merely sitting round a Committee table. But it was astonishing what an amount of folly a man would talk when he was on his legs. In the opinion of the Prime Minister, the present Bill merely proposed to amend the Act on points of detail; but the fact was that those points of detail involved considerations of great importance. He (Mr. Shaw) confessed that, although he should vote for the second reading, he was not in love with the Bill as it was drawn up; and if it went into Committee, he should propose several Amendments, and probably one on the question of tenants' improvements, fie fully admitted the difficulties that existed in the way of measuring the respective interests of the landlords and the tenants where there was a joint ownership of the land; but he believed that this measure would carry out the spirit of the declarations of the Prime Minister, that tenants' improvements were in no case to be made the subject of rent. In reference to the decision in
    506
    the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," there could be no doubt that it had considerably disturbed the tenants of Ireland, and shaken their confidence in the Act. So far as he could learn, the interpretation which, in that case, had been put upon the Act was against the opinions of many Members of the House who had supported the Act. The tenant farmers of Ireland had no desire whatever to appropriate the property of their landlords; indeed, he had been struck by the fairness of the view which had been taken of this subject by the former. He suggested that the present Bill should be divided into two parts, and that that portion of it which related to tenure should be submitted to a strong Committee, on which both the landlords and the tenants should be represented. If this were done, and legislation were to be based upon the Report of such a Committee, the tenant farmers of Ireland would learn that no further agitation on their part would be successful. He hoped that the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had by this time matured his proposals with regard to the Purchase Clauses of the Act. There was nothing that the Treasury liked so little as paying money out. Yet he was sure that no money could be more wisely advanced than that which wag advanced to Ireland. There was no money which, had been spent in Ireland that had not come back again. ["Oh!"] He repeated that all the money lent to Ireland had come back to this country. There ought to be an independent body to whom the working out of that clause should be intrusted. He hoped that the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) would have an opportunity for bringing on his Motion, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster would soon be able to enunciate his scheme. Upon the purchase question there was a practical unanimity of opinion in all Parties, which even extended to the noble Lords in "another place." Although he did not think that peasant proprietorship would solve the Irish Land Question, still it would do great good, especially in the West of Ireland, and would be of immense service to the small and heavily-encumbered landowners. He certainly did not accept the doctrine of wholesale emigration. If money were laid out properly, and the resources of the country the-

    507
    roughly developed, Ireland could maintain a much larger population than she did at present.
    MR. S. SMITHsaid, that to his mind some of the defects of the Land Act which had been clearly pointed out deserved the serious consideration of the House. A point which struck those who had not a minute acquaintance with the Irish Land Law was the very hard case in which the leaseholders were placed. He admitted that it was a very difficult thing to interfere with leases; but, considering that these leases had been entered into in Ireland before the Land Act had been passed, he thought it was a hard case that those 100,000 leaseholders should be deprived of all advantage from the recent land legislation, passed for the benefit of the whole country. It seemed to him a great pity that this cause of soreness should remain to fester in that country, and be the means of fostering agitation. He also considered that a case had been made out for stating the judicial rent from the date of the application to the Court. It did seem hard, to him that these tenants, who were simply suffering from the law's delay, should be deprived, perhaps for three or four years, of the benefit of the Act.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 250: Majority 187.

    AYES.

    Arnold, A.

    Lalor, R.

    Barclay, J. W.

    Lea, T.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Leahy, J.

    Blake, J. A.

    Leamy, E.

    Bright, J. (Manchester)

    Macfarlane, D. H.

    Broadhurst, H.

    M'Carthy, J.

    Byrne, G. M.

    M'Coan, J. C.

    Callan, P.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    Martin, P.

    Carbutt, E. H.

    Marum, E. M.

    Collins, E.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Commins, A.

    Morley, A.

    Corbet, W. J.

    Morley, J.

    Cowen, J.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Daly, J.

    O'Brien, W.

    Dawson, C.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Dickson, T. A.

    O'Donnell, F. H.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    O'Donoghue, The

    Edwards, P.

    O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

    Gabbett, D. F.

    Gray, E. D.

    O'Shea, W. H.

    Henry, M.

    O'Sullivan, W. H.

    Holden, I.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Illingworth, A.

    Peddie, J. D.

    Kenny, M. J.

    Power, J. O'C.

    Kinnear, J.

    Richardson, J. N.

    Labouchere, H.

    Russell, C.

    508

    Sexton, T.

    Thomasson, J. P.

    Shaw, W.

    Thompson, T. C.

    Smithwick, J. F.

    Williams, S. C. E.

    Storey, S.

    Sullivan, T. D.

    TELLERS.

    Synan, E. J.

    O'Connor, A.

    Taylor, P. A.

    Power, R.

    NOES.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Cubitt, rt. hon. G.

    Agnew, W.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Ainsworth, D.

    Davies, W.

    Alexander, Colonel C.

    Dawnay, hon. G. C.

    Allen, H. G.

    Dickson, Major A. G.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Digby, Col. hon. E.

    Armitstead, G.

    Dodds, J.

    Ashley, hon. E. M.

    Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

    Aylmer, J. E. F.

    Donaldson-Hudson, C.

    Bailey, Sir J. R.

    Duff, R. W.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

    Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

    Eaton, H. W.

    Balfour, J. S.

    Ecroyd, W. F.

    Baring, Viscount

    Egerton, hon. A. F.

    Barnes, A.

    Egerton, Admiral hon. F.

    Barran, J.

    Bateson, Sir T.

    Emlyn, Viscount

    Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

    Evans, T. W.

    Beach, rt. hon. Sir M. H.

    Ewart, W.

    Beaumont, W. B.

    Ewing, A. O.

    Biddulph, M.

    Fairbairn, Sir A.

    Blackburne, Col. J. I.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Blennerhassett, Sir R.

    Feilden, Major-General R.J.

    Boord, T. W.

    Brand, H. R.

    Fellowes, W. H.

    Brassey, H. A.

    Fenwick-Bisset, M.

    Brassey, Sir T.

    Ferguson, R.

    Brinton, J.

    Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

    Broadley, W. H. H.

    Filmer, Sir E.

    Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

    Finch, G. H.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Brown, A. H.

    Flower, C.

    Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

    Foljambe, F. J. S.

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    Forester, C. T. W.

    Buchanan. T. R.

    Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

    Burrell, Sir W. W.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Buszard, M. C.

    Fowler, W.

    Butt, C. P.

    Fry, L.

    Buxton, F. W.

    Fry, T.

    Cameron, C.

    Gibson, rt. hon. E.

    Cameron, D.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Gladstone, W. H.

    Campbell, Lord C.

    Goldney, Sir G.

    Campbell, R. F. F.

    Gordon, Sir A.

    Cartwright, W. C.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    Causton, R. K.

    Gower, hon. E. F. L.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Grafton, F. W.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Grant, A.

    Chectham, J. F.

    Grant, Sir G. M.

    Christie, W. L.

    Greene, E.

    Churchill, Lord R.

    Greer, T.

    Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

    Gregory, G. B.

    Coddington, W.

    Grey, A. H. G.

    Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

    Grosvenor, Lord R.

    Corry, J. P.

    Guest, M. J.

    Cotes, C. C.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Cowper, hon. H. F.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    Creyke, R.

    Hamilton, I. T.

    Crichton, Viscount

    Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

    Cropper, J.

    Cross, J. K.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

    Hastings, G. W.

    509

    Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

    Patrick, R. W. Cochran-

    Pease, A.

    Hayter, Sir A. D.

    Pease, Sir J. W.

    Heneage, E.

    Peel, A. W.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Pemberton, E. L.

    Herschell, Sir F.

    Pender, J.

    Hicks, E.

    Percy, Lord A.

    Hildyard, T. B. T.

    Philips, R. N.

    Hill, Lord A. W.

    Playfair, rt. hon. L.

    Hill, T. R.

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Holland, Sir H. T.

    Porter, rt. hon. A. M.

    Hollond, J. R.

    Pulley, J.

    Holms, J.

    Ramsay, J.

    Holms, W.

    Rankin, J.

    Hope, rt. hn. A.J.B.B.

    Repton, G. W.

    Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G.

    Richardson, T.

    Inderwick, F. A.

    Ridley, Sir M. W.

    James, C.

    Ritchie, C. T.

    James, Sir H.

    Rogers, J. E. T.

    Jenkins, D. J.

    Ross, C. C.

    Jerningham, H. E. H.

    Russell, G. W. E.

    Kensington, Lord

    St. Aubyn, W. M.

    Kingscote, Col. R.N. F.

    Salt, T.

    Knight, F. W.

    Sclater-Booth, rt.hn.G.

    Lambton, hon. F. W.

    Scott, M. D.

    Leake, R.

    Seely, C. (Lincoln)

    Leatham, W. H.

    Seely, C. (Nottingham)

    Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

    Sellar, A. C.

    Leigh, hon. G. H. C.

    Severne, J. E.

    Leighton, S.

    Shaw, T.

    Levett, T. J.

    Shield, H.

    Lindsay, Sir R. L.

    Simon, Serjeant J.

    Long, W. H.

    Smith, Lt,-Col. G.

    Lowther, rt. hon. J.

    Smith, S.

    Lusk, Sir A.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Stanhope, hon. E.

    Macartney, J. W. E.

    Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

    M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Mackie, R. B.

    Stanton, W. J.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Stewart, J.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Talbot, C. R. M.

    Maitland, W. F.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Makins, Colonel W.T.

    Tavistock, Marquess of

    Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

    Tennant, C.

    Mappin, F. T.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Marjoribanks, E.

    Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

    Martin, R. B.

    Vivian, Sir H. H.

    Maskelyne, M.H. Story-

    Walter, J.

    Matheson, Sir A.

    Warton, C. N.

    Mellor, J. W.

    Waugh, E.

    Mills, Sir C. H.

    Welby-Gregory, Sir W.

    Monckton, F.

    Whitbread, S.

    Monk, C. J.

    Whitley, E.

    Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

    Wiggin, H.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Williamson, S.

    Willis, W.

    Mulholland, J.

    Wills, W. H.

    Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

    Wilson, C. H.

    Muntz, P. H.

    Wilson, I.

    Murray, C. J.

    Winn, R.

    Nicholson, W. N.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Noel, E.

    Wolff, Sir H. D.

    Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

    Woodall, W.

    Paget, T. T.

    TELLERS.

    Palmer, G.

    Chaplin, H.

    Palmer, J. H.

    King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

    Parker, C. S.

    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 24.]
  (Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Callan, Mr. Dawson, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Gray.)
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 24.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. W. J. CORBET, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the measure was substantially the same as a Bill which was passed by the House of Commons two or three Sessions ago, and afterwards thrown out in the House of Lords. Its provisions were so well known that it was not necessary for him to explain them; and he would simply content himself by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANasked if it was in Order to proceed with the second reading of a Bill which had not yet been printed?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has obtained leave to introduce the Bill. It has been brought in and laid on the Table of the House. He is in Order, therefore, in proceeding to move the second reading, although it is an unusual course to adopt when the Bill has not been printed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. J. Corbet.)
    MR. ION HAMILTONsaid, the course taken by the hon. Member was most unusual; and as he did not know what the measure contained, notwithstanding that the hon. Member said it had already passed the House, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Ion Hamilton.)
    MR. CALLANsaid, the Bill was printed and circulated two years ago, and was adopted by the House of Commons. Its provisions were perfectly well known to both the Members for the County of Dublin, who had strong local Party interests in defeating it if they were able to do so. No doubt, the Bill, if passed, would render the voting in the County of Dublin very different from what it was.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped they would have some expression of the views of the Government with

    511
    regard to the Bill. It might be a very proper thing to alter the system of voting in Ireland. He understood that there were some defects in the system, and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself had some intention of proposing legislation on the matter. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if that was the case; and, in any case, whether bethought it fair to the House, on the part of the Government, that a Bill which had not been printed should be read a second time? As far as he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) remembered, such a course was without precedent, and he thought it was one which would be repudiated by the House.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Bill had been printed and circulated amongst Members every Session during the past nine years, since 1874. It had been regularly introduced by Irish Members; and in 1880 it went through all its stages with very little opposition from any Party in the House. He did not think there was even a division taken on it by the Conservative Party. No division was taken against it either on the second reading, on the Motion for going into Committee, or on the third reading stage. Finally, it went to "another place," and was there thrown out, to the very great regret of the Government, who pledged themselves to introduce a similar Bill in the following year, which they failed to do. The Government stated now they were going to introduce a Bill on the subject. He would suggest that the pro-sent measure should be allowed to pass the second reading, and that they should avail themselves of the time that would be left to them before 6 o'clock to forward a stage of a measure that the Irish Government admitted to be desirable.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the Government, like everybody else, were certainly placed in a very embarrassing position. There were, he understood, two Registration Bills before the House, one of which had been printed, and its contents were extremely familiar to the Government. The Bill which had been printed, and which was entitled the Registration of Voters (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill, was in substance the same Bill as that which went up to the House of Lords two years ago. The Government not only supported that Bill, but they had every intention, as had been previously intimated to the House, of
    512
    bringing in themselves a measure very much of that nature, the Bill being, as they believed, a very well-considered one. [Colonel KING-HARMAN: That was the No. 2 Bill] Yes; but with regard to the Bill which the hon. Member had just moved, he was not aware what it was; but it was extremely unlikely the Government would entertain another Bill so different from this Bill that hon. Members had thought it worth while to bring it forward as a separate measure. He could not but think that if the Government now pressed the House to read the present Bill a second time without having seen it, that course would not tend to mature the question of the registration of Irish voters. A Bill of this importance ought not to be discussed when it had not been properly submitted to the House. The Government had before them one Bill which they would substantially support; but without seeing the contents of the present Bill they were certainly not disposed to consent to support its second reading.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he thought the House ought not to be called upon to express its opinion on a Bill that had not yet been printed. If that principle were once established there would be no end to the Bills which would be so introduced, and with long discussions as to whether they should be read or not.
    MR. R. POWERsaid, that this Bill was exactly the same as the No. 2 Bill. One, in fact, was copied from the other, and if the Chief Secretary was so anxious to pass that measure he could not understand why he opposed the one now before the House.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he thought the House ought not to be called upon to give a second reading to a Bill of which they know nothing. He was under the impression on the previous day that the No. 2 Bill was the one which was on the Paper; and, if this kind of thing were to be allowed, there was nothing to stop the introduction of any number of Bills of a similar nature in precisely the same way.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought it desirable that the House should consider whether it was justifiable that the second reading of a Bill should be moved before copies of it had been placed in their hands. He did not remember any occasion on which the mere fact that a particular Bill was the same as one in-

    513
    troduced in a former Session was held to be a ground for dispensing with its being printed. He hoped it would be understood that, in voting for the adjournment of the debate, they did so without going into the merits of the question.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would remind the House that the Speaker had ruled a few minutes previously that his hon. Friend was in Order in moving the second reading. There was no person who was more severe on the Irish Members than the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) for doing what he was himself now doing—questioning the ruling of the Speaker. It was a fact that a Bill which was substantially the same as the present had been introduced, printed, and read for several successive Sessions, and every hon. Member must, therefore, have been acquainted with its contents. There was no material difference between the two measures. He did not blame the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) for not knowing the contents of the Bill, as he was not lately in a position to study the records of Parliament, although in the last Parliament, indeed, he voted for the measure. He was, however, very much surprised to hear the speech of the Chief Secretary and his plea of ignorance as to the contents of the Bill, when there was no material difference between it and the Bill he promised to support. He thought they had little more to thank him for than they had to thank the Prime Minister for in his speech that day. He thought the Chief Secretary had not taken a very straightforward course. He found a Bill before the House possessing a chance of success; he declined to support that Bill, and compounded with his conscience by offering to support another Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)contended that the Chief Secretary had been perfectly right in the course he had taken. He had pointed out the grave responsibility the House might incur in this matter. If a Bill were allowed to pass the second reading without having been printed, what would prevent any Member introducing a Bill containing an important clause, such as one abolishing all registration, unknown to the House, and then, when objection was afterwards taken to it, saying that
    514
    the objection was too late, for the House had voted for the second reading? His right hon. Friend had taken up a perfectly consistent position; not having seen the Bill, he could not assent to the second reading on the mere assurance of an hon. Member that it would contain the same provisions as another Bill.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that, after the statement of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. W. J. Corbet) that this Bill was identical with the Bill which had already passed that House, the Attorney General was not justified in suggesting that his hon. Friend might introduce into it clauses not contained in the former Bill. His hon. Friend was incapable of such a trick.
    MR. PLUNKETasked, as a question of Order, whether the House ought to be required to take a Bill upon trust; and whether it was in accordance with the practice of the House to proceed with a Bill which had not been printed, merely on the ground that it was the same as a Bill which had already been printed and submitted to the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: I am unable to give a satisfactory answer to that question, not being in possession of the Bill itself.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought it absurd on the face of it to ask a Legislative Assembly to consent to the second reading of a Bill which had not been printed. The Bill with which the present Bill was said to be identical was a two-year-old Bill and was now forgotten by the House. But the hon. Member for Sligo had said this Bill was the same as another Bill of this Session.
    MR. SEXTON: No; I said there w as no material difference between them.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he understood they were asked to read this Bill a second time because it was the same as No. 2 Bill. The hon. Member said it was "materially" the same, while the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) said it was "identical." Now it was said it was the same as the Bill of 1880. The House ought to know what the hon. Member for Sligo thought material and what immaterial. A Registration Bill was a Bill bristling with technicalities. The hon. Member might consider a particular point immaterial, while other Members might think it very material. He made these observations entirely in a friendly spirit; and he hoped the hon.

    515
    Member for Wicklow (Mr. W. J. Corbet) would postpone his Motion until the House was put in full possession of the subject.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 219; Noes 39: Majority 180.—(Div. List, No. 35.)
    Debate adjourned till Tuesday next.

  FREE LIBRARIES BILL.— [BILL 85.]
  (Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Birley, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Slagg, Mr. Summers.)
  FREE LIBRARIES BILL.— [BILL 85.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
    MR. WARTON,in rising to move the rejection of the Bill, said, that the rates for education purposes were already too high. Those who had literary tastes could in these days gratify them at a very small expense, and there was no need to multiply free libraries.
    And it being a quarter of the hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

QUESTION.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In answer to Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that on Monday the Government would proceed with the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Bankruptcy Bill.

MOTION.

  GROUND GAME ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Bill to amend "The Ground Game Act, 1880," ordered to be brought in by Sir ALEXANDER GORDON and Mr. BORLASE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 121.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.

Preamble
Their Lordships met this day for the despatch of Judicial Business only.
The Lord O'HAGAN—Chosen Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners.
House adjourned at a quarter past Two o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.